"Life of Caesar" Podcast: Episode 14
My friend continues to be awesome!
Episode 14:
• 06:57 – Ray: "I don't know if you ran across this. I tried to do some research and I couldn't find it. Were the Helvetii as a tribe, as a coherent cultural force, were they pretty much wiped out after what Caesar had done to them? I couldn't find anything as far as any future that they had. [...]"
Cam: "Yeah, I actually researched that for the episode last week. Little mention of them in the histories. They apparently went back to Switzerland and invented helvetica the font. We don't really know what happened to them."
They weren't wiped out. The Helvetii are the ancestors of modern-day Swiss, so that's what happened to them. As for what they did while still being called the Helvetii... In 52 BC, they will join Vercingetorix's rebellion; Caesar mentions them in book 7. During the reign of Augustus, they will become part of the Roman province called Gallia Belgica. In AD 69, they would support Servius Sulpicius Galba (the first emperor in "The Year of Four Emperors") in the civil war that followed Nero's death.
• 08:41 – Ray: "And this I found hard to believe, but when they were talking to Caesar about all the different things that the Germans were doing to them, there was a lot of tearful demonstrations, there was a lot of tearful pleas to Caesar for help. And I'm just trying to picture these half-naked, whatever, savages, barbarians, just crying in front of the Roman senator. That had to be a very surreal, weird experience."
Cam: "He wrote about similar sort of incident when he was talking about the Helvetii. He is portraying the Gauls in his "Commentaries" as this sort of, I don't know, weepy people, who are like begging him for mercy and throwing themselves at his feet."
a) Nothing about tearful pleas (or falling at someone's feet/hugging someone's knees) was weird or unusual. In ancient sources (any sources, not just Roman ones), people do that all the damn time.
b) So many ancient customs and norms of behavior seem downright theatrical to a modern reader. Cam and Ray are being ignorant here.
My friend continues to be awesome!Episode 14:
• 06:57 – Ray: "I don't know if you ran across this. I tried to do some research and I couldn't find it. Were the Helvetii as a tribe, as a coherent cultural force, were they pretty much wiped out after what Caesar had done to them? I couldn't find anything as far as any future that they had. [...]"
Cam: "Yeah, I actually researched that for the episode last week. Little mention of them in the histories. They apparently went back to Switzerland and invented helvetica the font. We don't really know what happened to them."
They weren't wiped out. The Helvetii are the ancestors of modern-day Swiss, so that's what happened to them. As for what they did while still being called the Helvetii... In 52 BC, they will join Vercingetorix's rebellion; Caesar mentions them in book 7. During the reign of Augustus, they will become part of the Roman province called Gallia Belgica. In AD 69, they would support Servius Sulpicius Galba (the first emperor in "The Year of Four Emperors") in the civil war that followed Nero's death.
• 08:41 – Ray: "And this I found hard to believe, but when they were talking to Caesar about all the different things that the Germans were doing to them, there was a lot of tearful demonstrations, there was a lot of tearful pleas to Caesar for help. And I'm just trying to picture these half-naked, whatever, savages, barbarians, just crying in front of the Roman senator. That had to be a very surreal, weird experience."
Cam: "He wrote about similar sort of incident when he was talking about the Helvetii. He is portraying the Gauls in his "Commentaries" as this sort of, I don't know, weepy people, who are like begging him for mercy and throwing themselves at his feet."
a) Nothing about tearful pleas (or falling at someone's feet/hugging someone's knees) was weird or unusual. In ancient sources (any sources, not just Roman ones), people do that all the damn time.
b) So many ancient customs and norms of behavior seem downright theatrical to a modern reader. Cam and Ray are being ignorant here.
с) First it was "crazy, drunken guys," now it's "half-naked savages." Caesar does not describe them like that, in case anyone thinks that Ray takes it from him.
• 09:57 – Cam: "He [Ariovistus] was one of the first problems that Caesar was actually planning on dealing with when he took on his governorship. Because they had received word that he was causing problems in Gaul. But then the Helvetii thing happened and Caesar needed to take care of that. Now he's coming back to Ariovistus, even though he sort of saying, 'Well, these people are coming and pleading with me.' It was sort of one of the things he intended to do. But going back even further than that, Ariovistus is a friend to Rome. Like, even– some time, I think, about 58 BC, just before Caesar's governorship of Gaul, the Sequani and the Arverni, two Gaulish tribes, asked Ariovistus to come and help them in their war against the Aedui. . . But Ariovistus was a friend to Rome, he'd been declared a friend and, I think, king, sort of received recognition several years earlier by the Senate, and Caesar was a big part of that. Caesar was a big part of declaring him king and friend to Rome. And one of the things, one of the reasons that's interesting is because apparently from the Roman Senate perspective, if they acknowledged someone like Ariovistus, German tribesmen, as a friend to Rome, he kind of, in their eyes, it made him their vassal."
a) 58 BC is what they're covering right now. Ariovistus came to Gaul around 71 BC.
b) He was declared a friend during Caesar's consulship last year, not several years earlier.
c) Caesar was planning to campaign in the Balkans. The most likely reason he helped to declare Ariovistus a friend is because the last thing he needed was to have an enemy in his rear while he was busy in the Balkans. Declaring Ariovistus a friend would ensure that his rear is safe.
The Romans thought that the Helvetii had abandoned their plans to move out. Cicero mentions it in his letters in 60 BC, a year before Caesar's consulship. That's why Caesar was caught off-guard by their approach. So, the campaign against the Helvetii and especially against Ariovistus was not something that Caesar had pre-planned.
• 13:44 – Ray on the campaign against Ariovistus: "But just like every other facet in his life, you know he's probably thought this way out to the n-th decree. So he knows what he's doing, but it has to be portrayed in a certain light and he's doing a very good job of that, because he probably has spent a lot of time thinking exactly what he wanted to do."
He'd been sitting outside of Rome for three months when the news of the Helvetian migration reached him. And he had to force march his legions all the way from the border of Illyricum. With no grain supplies. Nothing about this screams "pre-planned."
b) He was declared a friend during Caesar's consulship last year, not several years earlier.
c) Caesar was planning to campaign in the Balkans. The most likely reason he helped to declare Ariovistus a friend is because the last thing he needed was to have an enemy in his rear while he was busy in the Balkans. Declaring Ariovistus a friend would ensure that his rear is safe.
The Romans thought that the Helvetii had abandoned their plans to move out. Cicero mentions it in his letters in 60 BC, a year before Caesar's consulship. That's why Caesar was caught off-guard by their approach. So, the campaign against the Helvetii and especially against Ariovistus was not something that Caesar had pre-planned.
• 13:44 – Ray on the campaign against Ariovistus: "But just like every other facet in his life, you know he's probably thought this way out to the n-th decree. So he knows what he's doing, but it has to be portrayed in a certain light and he's doing a very good job of that, because he probably has spent a lot of time thinking exactly what he wanted to do."
He'd been sitting outside of Rome for three months when the news of the Helvetian migration reached him. And he had to force march his legions all the way from the border of Illyricum. With no grain supplies. Nothing about this screams "pre-planned."
Of course, Caesar had plans and ambitions, but so many things were outside of his control that continually forced him to adapt to a new situation.
• 14:09 – Cam: "And we also have to remember that, you know, Rome has a recent history with the Germans, within living memory. Timbri? And who were the others?"
Ray: "Teutones."
The Cimbri and Teutones.
• 15:12 – Cam: "He sends envoys out to Ariovistus to say, 'Look, let's sit down, let's . . . work it out like friends. You're a friend of Rome, we declared you a king and friend. Let's sit down.' And Ariovistus being a reasonable German says *fart noise*. He chomps off one of the envoys middle fingers and sends it back to him. No, yeah. Ariovistus goes, 'Yeah, I don't think so.' Now, let's stop a second and think about that. So, I mean... At this stage, Caesar, as we said before, just starting out. Ariovistus probably knows who he is, he knows he is one of the senators, ex-senators, ex-consul, proconsul. He probably knows he's not a man to be taken lightly, but at the same time he's not the Caesar that we know and love. The next 10 years hadn't happened, so... But this is Rome. So forget Caesar, this is Rome and Ariovistus is like, 'No, you wanna talk, you come to me.' There is certain level of self-confidence in this guy I like. I like Ariovistus. 'You wanna talk? Fine. Why am I getting on a horse and riding for 10 days or two weeks, whatever it is. You wanna talk? Fine, you come to me.'"
Ray: "So Caesar is not a fool, he's not gonna go up there by himself and try to talk to this guy. So he says, 'Look, this is the way it is. You were made a friend during my consulship or before that, we acknowledged you, so leave the Aedui alone, return their hostages, no more Germans coming across the Rhine, and if you don't adhere to all of this I will have to take steps. And you don't want Caesar to take steps.'"
Cam: "Caesar also makes some other demands. Caesar says, 'Look, I will come to you, but if I'm gonna come to you, here's the deal. You can't bring any more Germans across the Rhine into Gaul, you're gotta restore the hostages to the Aedui, stop raiding and threatening them. You do all of these things, then we're still gonna be friends.' And Ariovistus sent him a reply, saying, 'Dude, like, who do you think you're talking to?' Basically, was his response. He's like, 'Look, you're a conqueror, I'm a conqueror. I don't see where you get the balls to tell me what to do. You go run your province, Transalpine Gaul. I'm running my province. By the way, I was invited here, they gave me land'. . . . So, yeah, Ariovistus, he's got a point, I think."
I'll probably skip over parts like this in the future. They're very loosely paraphrasing it (and making up some stuff, too), but if the general idea is more or less correct, it's probably no use to nit-pick too much.
"The campaigning season was at an end and Caesar had completed – in his own words – 'two very great wars in a single summer'. Neither had probably been anticipated by him before his arrival in the province, but he had seized the opportunities offered to him. For the moment at least his attention had switched to Gaul and would remain there in the immediate future." – Adrian Goldsworthy
• 14:09 – Cam: "And we also have to remember that, you know, Rome has a recent history with the Germans, within living memory. Timbri? And who were the others?"
Ray: "Teutones."
The Cimbri and Teutones.
• 15:12 – Cam: "He sends envoys out to Ariovistus to say, 'Look, let's sit down, let's . . . work it out like friends. You're a friend of Rome, we declared you a king and friend. Let's sit down.' And Ariovistus being a reasonable German says *fart noise*. He chomps off one of the envoys middle fingers and sends it back to him. No, yeah. Ariovistus goes, 'Yeah, I don't think so.' Now, let's stop a second and think about that. So, I mean... At this stage, Caesar, as we said before, just starting out. Ariovistus probably knows who he is, he knows he is one of the senators, ex-senators, ex-consul, proconsul. He probably knows he's not a man to be taken lightly, but at the same time he's not the Caesar that we know and love. The next 10 years hadn't happened, so... But this is Rome. So forget Caesar, this is Rome and Ariovistus is like, 'No, you wanna talk, you come to me.' There is certain level of self-confidence in this guy I like. I like Ariovistus. 'You wanna talk? Fine. Why am I getting on a horse and riding for 10 days or two weeks, whatever it is. You wanna talk? Fine, you come to me.'"
Ray: "So Caesar is not a fool, he's not gonna go up there by himself and try to talk to this guy. So he says, 'Look, this is the way it is. You were made a friend during my consulship or before that, we acknowledged you, so leave the Aedui alone, return their hostages, no more Germans coming across the Rhine, and if you don't adhere to all of this I will have to take steps. And you don't want Caesar to take steps.'"
Cam: "Caesar also makes some other demands. Caesar says, 'Look, I will come to you, but if I'm gonna come to you, here's the deal. You can't bring any more Germans across the Rhine into Gaul, you're gotta restore the hostages to the Aedui, stop raiding and threatening them. You do all of these things, then we're still gonna be friends.' And Ariovistus sent him a reply, saying, 'Dude, like, who do you think you're talking to?' Basically, was his response. He's like, 'Look, you're a conqueror, I'm a conqueror. I don't see where you get the balls to tell me what to do. You go run your province, Transalpine Gaul. I'm running my province. By the way, I was invited here, they gave me land'. . . . So, yeah, Ariovistus, he's got a point, I think."
I'll probably skip over parts like this in the future. They're very loosely paraphrasing it (and making up some stuff, too), but if the general idea is more or less correct, it's probably no use to nit-pick too much.
a) In case it's not clear that Cam was joking, Ariovistus was not chopping off envoys' fingers!
b) Caesar is not an ex-senator. Your place in the Senate had no time limit, unless you were expelled by the censors.
c) Ariovistus definitely knows who Caesar is. He was declared a friend during Caesar's consulship. And he keeps in touch with other powerful men of the Republic, so he knows the major players.
d) "I will have to take steps. And you don't want Caesar to take steps."
I just had to point this one out: Ray made it up. This line is cheesy as hell.
• 24:38 – Cam: "Another quote from Ariovistus, which I thought was kind of cool, that Caesar records."
The quote that Cam reads out was spoken during the parley several days later, not during this exchange of messages.
• 26:01 – Ray: "As you said, he planned on dealing with that [Ariovistus] before the Helvetii."
b) Caesar is not an ex-senator. Your place in the Senate had no time limit, unless you were expelled by the censors.
c) Ariovistus definitely knows who Caesar is. He was declared a friend during Caesar's consulship. And he keeps in touch with other powerful men of the Republic, so he knows the major players.
d) "I will have to take steps. And you don't want Caesar to take steps."
I just had to point this one out: Ray made it up. This line is cheesy as hell.
• 24:38 – Cam: "Another quote from Ariovistus, which I thought was kind of cool, that Caesar records."
The quote that Cam reads out was spoken during the parley several days later, not during this exchange of messages.
• 26:01 – Ray: "As you said, he planned on dealing with that [Ariovistus] before the Helvetii."
The campaigns against the Helvetii and Ariovistus were not pre-planned. He was planning to campaign in the Balkans, but events in Gaul diverted his attention.
• 30:50 – Ray: "Now, I couldn't find much on this and maybe, I don't know if you read over this or whatever, or any of our listeners could shed any light on this. I found this very, very interesting, because it doesn't fit in the story of Caesar at all. Because they have been doing so many forced marches, by the time they get there, the men are wiped out. They're safe in the fort, but they're wiped out. So while they're setting up negotiations between Caesar and Ariovistus, the men are resting obviously. But word spreads throughout the camp. It's almost like rumors. And it's like, 'Ok, I heard Germans are really tall, they're really big men. And they value courage above everything else. And they're really good fighters. And they're not afraid of anything.' So this fear, this pessimism spreads throughout Caesar's army. But not only that. It's not the common soldiers at first, it's his officers, it's his centurions. And, it's like, Caesar just has to emanate confidence all the time, how could he not? But I just don't get how this kind of sprang up. Unless it was really good counter-intelligence work by the Germans, who knows."
Doesn't fit into the story of Caesar? Why not? I don't get it.
a) They weren't setting up negotiations. Ariovistus hadn't sent the envoys yet.
b) The loyalty of Caesar's army will be exceptional. But this is his first year in command of them. It takes time to build camaraderie. He is still learning his craft, and it doesn't seem like he gave them work to do, so they're just sitting and letting their imagination run wild.
In 46 BC, he will give them work to do to keep them occupied and not dwell on the opponent's superior numbers.
c) "But I just don't get how this kind of sprang up."
Read the "Commentaries," maybe?
• 32:14 – Ray: "So he gathers all his centurions and all the other important officers. . . . Caesar just doesn’t go in there and just start yelling at them about being a bunch of nancy-boys. He is very methodical. He turns from the warrior to the lawyer. And he treats it like it's a case that he has to win, he has to put this case before his men. And he says to them, 'Ok, point one, I am the appropriately legal appointed . . . governor of this province and this is my responsibility, so don't ever question my right to do whatever I have to do. Two, there might not be a war. The Germans may have been, you know, we're talking, we're being nasty to each other. But at the end of the day they might adhere to what I have told them to do. We don't know that yet. Three, if fighting does break out, it's not like . . . the Romans haven't kicked German butt before. Gaius Marius did it with the Cimbri and the Teutones, so we can kick German ass if we have to. Ok, four, Ariovistus– hello, he outsmarted Aedui, we're not Aedui, we're f—king Romans, no one's gonna outsmart us. I got this. And five, I am not worried at all about the men not obey me. You shouldn't be worried. But if you gonna walk around nervous and questioning everything, then the men are gonna sense that and this whole thing is gonna fall apart and we're gonna die. Don't question me."
Meh. Caesar's speeches in Ray's retelling always sound so lame.
a) Ray missed the point about the grain supply:
b) Point 5 is made up. This is what Caesar actually said at the end of his speech:
• 34:52 – Ray: "He listened to some of their complains, 'cause they were about to march through some hills to get to the Germans and they were bitching about, they didn't wanna walk through any more hills, they have been doing force marches and they were exhausted. So Caesar takes a slightly longer route, but it's more flat land, open area."
Forests, not hills. Because it's easier to be ambushed in the forests.
He did change the route. But not because they continued to bitch about it. They returned to discipline after his speech. But he considered their earlier complaints and changed the route slightly.
• 38:16 – Ray: "It takes them five days to negotiate exactly how these two men are gonna meet up. And they finally figure out. They're gonna bring up a bunch of guys, but when it comes to the actual entourage, only horsemen. No infantry, only horsemen. Of course, the Germans are much better horsemen than the Romans are, but Caesar doesn't trust his German allies this much. So he literally takes men from the 10th legion, puts them on a horse, even though they probably don't know which end of the horse is which. And they ride with him. And I think they get something like 200 paces, Caesar and Ariovistus get 200 paces away from each other. And then only those two men, with ten horsemen with them, are actually keep going forward, and that’s when they start talking. But it just took them five days to work out the details, 'cause there is simply no amount of real trust between these two men."
a) It did not take them five days to come to an agreement. The day of the parley was appointed right away: they agreed to meet on the fifth day. In the meantime, they continued to hash out the details, but they knew from the get-go when the meeting would take place.
b) "They're gonna bring up a bunch of guys, but when it comes to the actual entourage, only horsemen."
This gives the impression that they could bring the infantry but would have to leave it in the back.
b) The loyalty of Caesar's army will be exceptional. But this is his first year in command of them. It takes time to build camaraderie. He is still learning his craft, and it doesn't seem like he gave them work to do, so they're just sitting and letting their imagination run wild.
"This and other similar facts not only show that Roman human nature was pretty much the same as human nature has been all over the world and in all ages, but they show that the most essential quality of an army is discipline. These troops, not yet hardened to service, were acting as militia or unseasoned volunteers will sometimes act. It is probable that Caesar, himself yet inexperienced in the duties of commanding officer, had not kept his troops sufficiently occupied with drill and camp-duties to prevent their wasting their idle time in foolish gossip." – Theodore Dodge
In 46 BC, he will give them work to do to keep them occupied and not dwell on the opponent's superior numbers.
c) "But I just don't get how this kind of sprang up."
Read the "Commentaries," maybe?
"While he was halting for a few days close to Vesontio to collect corn and other supplies, a violent panic suddenly seized the whole army, completely paralysing every one's judgement and nerve. It arose from the inquisitiveness of our men and the chatter of the Gauls and the traders, who affirmed that the Germans were men of huge stature, incredible valour, and practised skill in war: many a time they had themselves come across them, and had not been able even to look them in the face or meet the glare of their piercing eyes. The panic began with the tribunes, the auxiliary officers, and others who had left the capital to follow Caesar in the hope of winning his favour, and had little experience in war. Some of them applied for leave of absence, alleging various urgent reasons for their departure, though a good many, anxious to avoid the imputation of cowardice, stayed behind for very shame. They were unable, however, to assume an air of unconcern, and sometimes even to restrain their tears; shutting themselves up in their tents, they bemoaned their own fate or talked dolefully with their intimates of the peril that threatened the army. All over the camp men were making their wills. Gradually even legionaries, centurions, and cavalry officers, who had long experience of campaigning, were unnerved by these alarmists. Those who did not want to be thought cowards said that it was not the enemy they were afraid of, but the narrow roads and the huge forests which separated them from Ariovistus, or the difficulty of bringing up grain. Some actually told Caesar that when he gave the order to strike the camp and advance, the men would not obey, and would be too terrified to move." – Caesar
• 32:14 – Ray: "So he gathers all his centurions and all the other important officers. . . . Caesar just doesn’t go in there and just start yelling at them about being a bunch of nancy-boys. He is very methodical. He turns from the warrior to the lawyer. And he treats it like it's a case that he has to win, he has to put this case before his men. And he says to them, 'Ok, point one, I am the appropriately legal appointed . . . governor of this province and this is my responsibility, so don't ever question my right to do whatever I have to do. Two, there might not be a war. The Germans may have been, you know, we're talking, we're being nasty to each other. But at the end of the day they might adhere to what I have told them to do. We don't know that yet. Three, if fighting does break out, it's not like . . . the Romans haven't kicked German butt before. Gaius Marius did it with the Cimbri and the Teutones, so we can kick German ass if we have to. Ok, four, Ariovistus– hello, he outsmarted Aedui, we're not Aedui, we're f—king Romans, no one's gonna outsmart us. I got this. And five, I am not worried at all about the men not obey me. You shouldn't be worried. But if you gonna walk around nervous and questioning everything, then the men are gonna sense that and this whole thing is gonna fall apart and we're gonna die. Don't question me."
Meh. Caesar's speeches in Ray's retelling always sound so lame.
a) Ray missed the point about the grain supply:
"Those who pretended that their cowardice was only anxiety about supplies and the narrow roads were guilty of presumption; for it was evident that they either had no confidence in their general's sense of duty or meant to lecture him. These things were his business. The Sequani, the Leuci, and the Lingones were providing grain, and the corn in the fields was already ripe : about the road they would shortly judge for themselves." – Caesar
b) Point 5 is made up. This is what Caesar actually said at the end of his speech:
"As to the report that they did not intend to obey orders and advance, that did not trouble him at all; for he knew that generals whose armies mutinied were either bunglers whose luck had deserted them, or had been detected in some scandalous crime, and thereby convicted of avarice. The whole tenor of his life proved his integrity, and the war with the Helvetii his good fortune. Accordingly he intended to do at once what he would otherwise have postponed: on the following night, in the fourth watch, he should strike his camp, so as to find out as soon as possible whether honour and duty or cowardice were the stronger motive with them. If no one else would follow him, he would go on alone with the 10th legion, in which he had full confidence; and it should be his bodyguard." – Caesar
• 34:52 – Ray: "He listened to some of their complains, 'cause they were about to march through some hills to get to the Germans and they were bitching about, they didn't wanna walk through any more hills, they have been doing force marches and they were exhausted. So Caesar takes a slightly longer route, but it's more flat land, open area."
Forests, not hills. Because it's easier to be ambushed in the forests.
He did change the route. But not because they continued to bitch about it. They returned to discipline after his speech. But he considered their earlier complaints and changed the route slightly.
• 38:16 – Ray: "It takes them five days to negotiate exactly how these two men are gonna meet up. And they finally figure out. They're gonna bring up a bunch of guys, but when it comes to the actual entourage, only horsemen. No infantry, only horsemen. Of course, the Germans are much better horsemen than the Romans are, but Caesar doesn't trust his German allies this much. So he literally takes men from the 10th legion, puts them on a horse, even though they probably don't know which end of the horse is which. And they ride with him. And I think they get something like 200 paces, Caesar and Ariovistus get 200 paces away from each other. And then only those two men, with ten horsemen with them, are actually keep going forward, and that’s when they start talking. But it just took them five days to work out the details, 'cause there is simply no amount of real trust between these two men."
a) It did not take them five days to come to an agreement. The day of the parley was appointed right away: they agreed to meet on the fifth day. In the meantime, they continued to hash out the details, but they knew from the get-go when the meeting would take place.
b) "They're gonna bring up a bunch of guys, but when it comes to the actual entourage, only horsemen."
This gives the impression that they could bring the infantry but would have to leave it in the back.
This is how it actually went: Ariovistus said that they can't bring infantry at all, only horsemen. But Caesar didn't want to put his life entirely into the hands of the Gallic cavalry, with none of his legionaries in sight. So he took the soldiers from the 10th legion and put them on horses.
c) "Caesar doesn't trust his German allies this much. So he literally takes men from the 10th legion, puts them on a horse"
Caesar doesn't have German cavalry. He will have it towards the end of the Gallic War. Right now, he has only Gallic cavalry.
By the way, the German cavalry was the best of the day, followed by the Gallic cavalry.
d) "even though they probably don't know which end of the horse is which"
c) "Caesar doesn't trust his German allies this much. So he literally takes men from the 10th legion, puts them on a horse"
Caesar doesn't have German cavalry. He will have it towards the end of the Gallic War. Right now, he has only Gallic cavalry.
By the way, the German cavalry was the best of the day, followed by the Gallic cavalry.
d) "even though they probably don't know which end of the horse is which"
Of course, they know how to ride a horse! They're not living in modern times where horse riding is not an essential skill.
e) Cam and Ray haven't mentioned it, but this is where the 10th legion got its name, Equestris ("Mounted").
The soldier is joking that Caesar is making them "equestrians." Equestrians were the wealthiest class of Roman citizens.
Legio X Equestris by Jaromir Hrivnac
• 39:33 – Cam: "Ariovistus in this sit down, he makes an interesting comment. He talks about that if he did kill Caesar– he says something like, I don't have the actual words in front of me, but he says something like, 'Look, I've got friends in Rome. I've got friends in the Senate and they've told me that if I kill you a lot of people back in Rome will be very happy'. . . . And imagine this document being read back in Rome. I think we said a couple of episodes ago we don't exactly know when he wrote them. If he wrote them after each year as they happened or if he sat down at the end of his governorship and wrote them all in one hit, which would seem like a big exercise, 'cause he had a lot of stuff going on. . . But either way he was alive, very much alive, when these were published. Imagine people reading them going, 'Caesar knows there is a lot of people in Rome, who want him dead.' Maybe that wasn't that unusual though. I mean we already know there was a lot of rivalry, a lot of tension between the elite of Rome. So maybe that wasn't as big of a shock as it seems to us at this day and age. I'm just trying to think of, I don't know, an American politician or an Australian politician writing in the memoirs, 'Look, I know there is a lot of people, who wanted me dead.' Or on camera, 'A lot of people want me dead. I know that. But, you know, take your best shot.'"
a) It wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Ever since Tiberius Gracchus was killed, bloodshed and murder have become a part of public life.
b) Caesar didn't say "a lot of people back in Rome will be very happy." He said, "many of nobles and leading men of Rome." And that's roughly 22 men, as future events will show.
c) The prevalent opinion in academic circles is that the "Commentaries" were written one book a year. I agree with that.
• 44:37 – Cam: "He [Caesar] sends a couple of envoys, Valerius Procillus and Gaius Mettius. He sends them, and Caius Mettius is a merchant, who had actually visited Ariovistus."
This is Goldsworthy. He mistakenly calls him Caius Mettius, but he was actually Marcus Mettius.
The merchant thing is not mentioned anywhere in the sources. The only thing Caesar says is "M. Mettius, who had shared the hospitality of Ariovistus." It's Goldsworthy's assumption, but for some reason he states it as a fact. It's probably correct, though.
There is a popular suggestion that this Mettius is identical to the moneyer M. Mettius, who minted coins with Caesar's portrait in the 40s. For example, he is identified as such in Pauly–Wissowa.
• 45:17 – Ray: "And then not only that, but the same day that he [Ariovistus] does that [arrest Roman envoys] Caesar gets word that there are more German raids around them and that they're getting closer. And that Ariovistus had set up a camp on a high hill, a high land, excuse me."
a) Caesar doesn't mention any raids here.
b) He says that Ariovistus set up a camp at the foot of a hill. Not on the hill.
• 46:29 – Ray: "There is a couple of skirmishes, it's probably mostly cavalry."
Not just cavalry, but also light infantry. It's pretty cool what the Germans were doing.
• 48:39 – Cam: "Do you remember how many people were in a Roman legion?"
Ray: "Was it just under 5,000?"
Cam: "Yeah, it's about 4 to 6,000."
• 48:52 – Cam: "He built this fort and two legions went into the fort. 10,000 men and you said they build the camp in a couple of ours?"
• 49:21 – Cam: "How do you build– I mean I don't know what a camp involved. But obviously I mean it was enough to sort of protect the legions while they defended the supply lines. So I imagine, like, a lot of walls."
Ray: "You get your walls. Towers, maybe."
Cam: "Yeah. Probably not, you know, no houses or anything like that. It's just some basic defenses."
We have only two surviving accounts of Roman camps. One is Polybius during the Second Punic War and the other is Hyginus during the reign of Emperor Trajan. But we can also add some remarks from Caesar, Livius, and Tacitus.
There were differences between summer and winter camps. For example, huts replaced tents in winter camps.
Here's a plan of the Roman camp:
• 54:23 – Cam: "We kind of suspect that, you know, the Roman attitudes toward the gods at this stage was... It was tradition, I think? More than anything else."
Ray: "[...] He's not mentioned and he will not go on to mention any pre-battle omens that he takes before, because he's a very practical soldier. And I think that says a lot about him and about his belief. Or, excuse me, the lack of thereof the gods."
Cam: "Not just him. I don't think– we haven't heard any mention in any of the other battles of Pompey or Marius or Sulla. There is no mention of any of them, looking for omens or going and consulting the oracle of Delphi or anything for the signs."
Ray: "That's a good point. The only time they do it is when the new consuls come on their first day and they slaughter the bull and all that kind of stuff."
Cam: "[...] So I don't think that Romans at this stage take the superstitious stuff very seriously at all, but the Germans do."
a) It's true that Caesar doesn't mention it in his writings. And he never let religious scruples get in his way: "No regard for religion ever turned him from any undertaking, or even delayed him" (Suetonius). But other sources do say that he performed sacrifices and such. He probably didn't believe in most of the ancient religion (or at all), but he did what was expected of him.
b) The Julian clan, including Caesar himself, claimed that they were descendants of the goddess Venus. And most senatorial families claimed that they were descendants of some god or demi-god. Caesar himself will be posthumously deified as Divus Iulius (Divine Julius). And Octavian presented himself as Divi Filius (Son of the Divine).
"Legendary Genealogies in Late-Republican Rome" by T.P. Wiseman is worth a read.
c) We have explicit mention that Marius had a female soothsayer in his entourage in the Cimbrian War.
d) Sulla claimed that he had dreams in which the gods spoke to him.
e) Pompey was an augur, and one of their responsibilities was the interpretation of omens. And he performed sacrifices like any other Roman. For example, Appian says that both Caesar and Pompey performed sacrifices before the battle of Pharsalus and that Caesar vowed to build the temple to Venus if everything went well. The building of the Temple of Venus Genetrix ("foundress of the family") started in 46 BC. There are remaining ruins of it in the Forum Iulium.
• 55:51 – Cam: "They're on the hill. The Germans go, 'We have a high ground. No one in their right minds gonna march on us when we got a high ground.' And he [Caesar] just does."
They weren't on the hill. They were at the foot of the hill.
• 56:00 – Ray: "He finally gets so close that it's actually embarrassing, it's humiliating for the Germans to be hiding. . . And the Germans are like, 'Ok, woman, I know what you said about the full moon. To heck with that. My men [can't make out the word] being questioned right now.' So Ariovistus brings out his troops."
The embarrassment thing is from Goldsworthy. It's probably true to a certain extent. But probably not the only reason that Ariovistus brought out his troops:
• 59:03 – Ray: "And Caesar himself was leading the charge and he was pretty brutal as well, swinging his sword at the fleeing Germans."
Caesar pursued with his Gallic cavalry, but he says nothing about swinging his sword or anything like that.
• 01:01:02 – Cam: "When you look at the "Commentaries," Caesar spends way more pages talking about the negotiations with Ariovistus than he does the battle itself. You have to wonder why. What's he trying to convey here? . . Is he trying to portray himself at this stage as somebody who's going to go to extreme lengths to avoid this war? And if so, why? Now we mention before that a number of his troops didn't wanna go fight with the Germans. According to Caesar, they were scared. Some historians have suggested that perhaps the troops– by historians I mean some people that wrote within a century after Caesar, Dio Cassius and people like that, that it might have been because they thought Caesar was just fighting these wars for personal profit. And they were like, 'Why do we have to put ourselves in harm's way for personal profit? I mean, this guy [Ariovistus] got a legitimate reason to be where he is.' And Caesar in the "Commentaries" has gone to extreme lengths to make it look like he spent an inordinate amount of time and effort and energy to avoid war with Ariovistus through negotiations. . . . [sarcastically] Finally, like, enough's enough, Caesar had to protect his envoys for a start, who were arrested, but also protect the name of Rome, the pride of Rome, etc., etc. Do you think that's why he spends so much time covering the negotiations in the "Commentaries" or do you have another analysis?"
Ray: "No, I think you're on to something there. When most of your story is about the negotiations and very little details of the battles covered, he's trying to skew the perception. Because, again, he knew what he wanted to do. He wanted to have a series of glorious wars, so he could outshine Pompey, make a ton of cash, become the first man in Rome. But he has to perceive himself, he has to be perceived as being forced into battle, it was beyond his control, and he was just reacting to other's aggression. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. And he did it pretty well, he did it pretty well."
Cam: "So here's a lesson, boys and girls. Whenever you hear political or military leaders justifying their acts of war by saying, 'Oh, well, we had to. We were given no choice.' Just remember . . . this is been going on for a long time. This is what military, political leaders do. They normally have one reason to want to go to war. Caesar's case? Money. Usually money, is a good reason. But that's not how they portray it to the people. . . . This is a tried-and-true tactic for justifying war, goes way back to our man, big Julie. Probably goes back way further than big Julie. Goes back to the Iliad. 'Well, we didn't wanna go and fight the Trojans. But, you know, they took Helen. We had to go and rescue Helen. She was the most beautiful woman in the whole world.'"
a) "Caesar spends way more pages talking about the negotiations with Ariovistus than he does the battle itself."
He defeated him in one battle. How was he supposed to stretch the description of it? Invent more action?
It's such a weird accusation in general. The wars are all about negotiations, maneuvering, digging trenches, looking for food, occasional skirmishes, etc. before a decisive battle. That's normal.
b) "Some historians have suggested that perhaps the troops– by historians I mean some people that wrote within a century after Caesar, Dio Cassius and people like that"
Only Cassius Dio said it. And he was born 199 years after Caesar's death.
c) "According to Caesar, they were scared. . . . it might have been because they thought Caesar was just fighting these wars for personal profit."
Cassius Dio says that they didn't want to fight in a war that wasn't authorized by the Senate and was only undertaken for Caesar's personal ambition. Let's say his source is reliable. But how does that negate that they were scared? If this had been another place and another enemy, they wouldn't care about the Senate. For example, if this were the East:
Compared to that, fearsome Germans and not much booty didn't sound very appealing. When the prospect of rich plunder was on the horizon, Roman armies couldn't care less about the Senate! Caesar totally called their bluff.
e) Cam and Ray haven't mentioned it, but this is where the 10th legion got its name, Equestris ("Mounted").
"On this, one of the soldiers of the 10th remarked with a touch of humour, 'Caesar is better than his word; he promised to make the 10th his bodyguard, and now he's knighting us.'" – Caesar
The soldier is joking that Caesar is making them "equestrians." Equestrians were the wealthiest class of Roman citizens.
"Senators had to belong to the equestrian order, the wealthiest property-holding class listed in the census. Their name, equites or 'knights', derived from their traditional role as cavalrymen in the Roman army." – Adrian Goldsworthy
|
Legio X Equestris by Jaromir Hrivnac
• 39:33 – Cam: "Ariovistus in this sit down, he makes an interesting comment. He talks about that if he did kill Caesar– he says something like, I don't have the actual words in front of me, but he says something like, 'Look, I've got friends in Rome. I've got friends in the Senate and they've told me that if I kill you a lot of people back in Rome will be very happy'. . . . And imagine this document being read back in Rome. I think we said a couple of episodes ago we don't exactly know when he wrote them. If he wrote them after each year as they happened or if he sat down at the end of his governorship and wrote them all in one hit, which would seem like a big exercise, 'cause he had a lot of stuff going on. . . But either way he was alive, very much alive, when these were published. Imagine people reading them going, 'Caesar knows there is a lot of people in Rome, who want him dead.' Maybe that wasn't that unusual though. I mean we already know there was a lot of rivalry, a lot of tension between the elite of Rome. So maybe that wasn't as big of a shock as it seems to us at this day and age. I'm just trying to think of, I don't know, an American politician or an Australian politician writing in the memoirs, 'Look, I know there is a lot of people, who wanted me dead.' Or on camera, 'A lot of people want me dead. I know that. But, you know, take your best shot.'"
a) It wouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Ever since Tiberius Gracchus was killed, bloodshed and murder have become a part of public life.
b) Caesar didn't say "a lot of people back in Rome will be very happy." He said, "many of nobles and leading men of Rome." And that's roughly 22 men, as future events will show.
c) The prevalent opinion in academic circles is that the "Commentaries" were written one book a year. I agree with that.
• 44:37 – Cam: "He [Caesar] sends a couple of envoys, Valerius Procillus and Gaius Mettius. He sends them, and Caius Mettius is a merchant, who had actually visited Ariovistus."
This is Goldsworthy. He mistakenly calls him Caius Mettius, but he was actually Marcus Mettius.
The merchant thing is not mentioned anywhere in the sources. The only thing Caesar says is "M. Mettius, who had shared the hospitality of Ariovistus." It's Goldsworthy's assumption, but for some reason he states it as a fact. It's probably correct, though.
There is a popular suggestion that this Mettius is identical to the moneyer M. Mettius, who minted coins with Caesar's portrait in the 40s. For example, he is identified as such in Pauly–Wissowa.
• 45:17 – Ray: "And then not only that, but the same day that he [Ariovistus] does that [arrest Roman envoys] Caesar gets word that there are more German raids around them and that they're getting closer. And that Ariovistus had set up a camp on a high hill, a high land, excuse me."
a) Caesar doesn't mention any raids here.
b) He says that Ariovistus set up a camp at the foot of a hill. Not on the hill.
• 46:29 – Ray: "There is a couple of skirmishes, it's probably mostly cavalry."
Not just cavalry, but also light infantry. It's pretty cool what the Germans were doing.
"They had six thousand cavalry, with the same number of infantry, swift runners of extraordinary courage, each one of whom had been selected by one of the cavalry out of the whole host for his own protection. The cavalry were accompanied by them in action, and regularly fell back upon their support. In case of a check, they flocked to the rescue; whenever a trooper was severely wounded and fell from his horse, they rallied round him; and they had acquired such speed by training that if it was necessary to make a forced march or retreat rapidly, they supported themselves by the horses' manes and kept pace with them." – Caesar
• 48:39 – Cam: "Do you remember how many people were in a Roman legion?"
Ray: "Was it just under 5,000?"
Cam: "Yeah, it's about 4 to 6,000."
"On paper a legion in this period consisted of a little under 5,000 men, but as in all armies in all periods of history, units on campaign were often seriously under strength. We hear of one of Caesar's legions during the Civil War that was only able to muster just under 1,000 effectives." – Adrian Goldsworthy
• 48:52 – Cam: "He built this fort and two legions went into the fort. 10,000 men and you said they build the camp in a couple of ours?"
"It took, as a rule, four or five hours to complete the intrenching of a camp. It could, under favorable conditions, be done in three." – Theodore Dodge
• 49:21 – Cam: "How do you build– I mean I don't know what a camp involved. But obviously I mean it was enough to sort of protect the legions while they defended the supply lines. So I imagine, like, a lot of walls."
Ray: "You get your walls. Towers, maybe."
Cam: "Yeah. Probably not, you know, no houses or anything like that. It's just some basic defenses."
We have only two surviving accounts of Roman camps. One is Polybius during the Second Punic War and the other is Hyginus during the reign of Emperor Trajan. But we can also add some remarks from Caesar, Livius, and Tacitus.
"It was pitched on high ground, fronting down a slope, favorably near wood and water, and away from probable opportunity for ambush. A desirable place was the slope towards a stream, particularly if the enemy lay beyond. But the Romans camped where they must, if the best site was not at hand, and the shape of the camp was modified by the ground.
A camping party always went ahead to select and stake out camp, and the legionaries pitched and intrenched it in the course of a few hours, while the cavalry served as outposts. . . The camp was then fortified, and the tents afterwards put up. If the weather was stormy the tents were put up first. . . . The camps were rectangular unless modified by the ground. . . . The corners . . . were rounded off to prevent the enemy getting a footing on them in the assault. The gates, wide enough for a maniple front (forty feet), were protected by half-moons, and materials were on hand for closing them quickly in case of threatened attack. [...]
The ditch (fossa) was nine to twelve feet wide at the top, with a depth of seven to nine feet. It was often deeper and wider, the ratio being preserved. The scarp and counterscarp had, one or both, a slope or not, according to the nature of the soil. . . . The height of the wall was supposed to be about two thirds of the surface-width of the ditch. Its thickness was about equal to the height, or a bit greater. The slopes were covered with sods, or interlaced with branches, fascines or hurdles. There was a banquette of suitable width, and palisades (vallum) were planted at the top. The word vallum is often used for the entire palisaded wall. Embrasures in the palisades were common and towers were generally built. The inside slope of the wall was cut in steps for easy access, or faced with logs in steps." – Theodore Dodge
There were differences between summer and winter camps. For example, huts replaced tents in winter camps.
Here's a plan of the Roman camp:
|
|
• 54:23 – Cam: "We kind of suspect that, you know, the Roman attitudes toward the gods at this stage was... It was tradition, I think? More than anything else."
Ray: "[...] He's not mentioned and he will not go on to mention any pre-battle omens that he takes before, because he's a very practical soldier. And I think that says a lot about him and about his belief. Or, excuse me, the lack of thereof the gods."
Cam: "Not just him. I don't think– we haven't heard any mention in any of the other battles of Pompey or Marius or Sulla. There is no mention of any of them, looking for omens or going and consulting the oracle of Delphi or anything for the signs."
Ray: "That's a good point. The only time they do it is when the new consuls come on their first day and they slaughter the bull and all that kind of stuff."
Cam: "[...] So I don't think that Romans at this stage take the superstitious stuff very seriously at all, but the Germans do."
"Ritual and religion pervaded every aspect of life in the Roman world." – Adrian Goldsworthy
"Ritual and religion surrounded every Roman, especially an aristocrat, throughout every stage of his life." – Adrian Goldsworthy
a) It's true that Caesar doesn't mention it in his writings. And he never let religious scruples get in his way: "No regard for religion ever turned him from any undertaking, or even delayed him" (Suetonius). But other sources do say that he performed sacrifices and such. He probably didn't believe in most of the ancient religion (or at all), but he did what was expected of him.
b) The Julian clan, including Caesar himself, claimed that they were descendants of the goddess Venus. And most senatorial families claimed that they were descendants of some god or demi-god. Caesar himself will be posthumously deified as Divus Iulius (Divine Julius). And Octavian presented himself as Divi Filius (Son of the Divine).
"Legendary Genealogies in Late-Republican Rome" by T.P. Wiseman is worth a read.
c) We have explicit mention that Marius had a female soothsayer in his entourage in the Cimbrian War.
"...he used to carry about ceremoniously in a litter a certain Syrian woman, named Martha, who was said to have the gift of prophecy, and he would make sacrifices at her bidding." – Plutarch
d) Sulla claimed that he had dreams in which the gods spoke to him.
"Sulla claimed that he had had prophetic dreams before many of the great events in his life, in which a god or goddess urged him to take the action he planned and promised him success. Marius had similarly been inspired by oracles foretelling his great future, most famously that he would hold seven consulships. Both men were ruthlessly ambitious, but the belief that their success was divinely ordained and therefore right, further boosted their already considerable self-confidence." – Adrian Goldsworthy
e) Pompey was an augur, and one of their responsibilities was the interpretation of omens. And he performed sacrifices like any other Roman. For example, Appian says that both Caesar and Pompey performed sacrifices before the battle of Pharsalus and that Caesar vowed to build the temple to Venus if everything went well. The building of the Temple of Venus Genetrix ("foundress of the family") started in 46 BC. There are remaining ruins of it in the Forum Iulium.
• 55:51 – Cam: "They're on the hill. The Germans go, 'We have a high ground. No one in their right minds gonna march on us when we got a high ground.' And he [Caesar] just does."
They weren't on the hill. They were at the foot of the hill.
• 56:00 – Ray: "He finally gets so close that it's actually embarrassing, it's humiliating for the Germans to be hiding. . . And the Germans are like, 'Ok, woman, I know what you said about the full moon. To heck with that. My men [can't make out the word] being questioned right now.' So Ariovistus brings out his troops."
The embarrassment thing is from Goldsworthy. It's probably true to a certain extent. But probably not the only reason that Ariovistus brought out his troops:
"With all his legionaries, in three lines, Caesar advanced on Ariovistus' camp. A sufficient force had been left in each of the camps to defend the ramparts. At last Ariovistus saw from Caesar's pronounced action that it was imperative to fight. He had no intrenched camp, and could probably not resist a determined assault should Caesar make one." – Theodore Dodge
• 59:03 – Ray: "And Caesar himself was leading the charge and he was pretty brutal as well, swinging his sword at the fleeing Germans."
Caesar pursued with his Gallic cavalry, but he says nothing about swinging his sword or anything like that.
• 01:01:02 – Cam: "When you look at the "Commentaries," Caesar spends way more pages talking about the negotiations with Ariovistus than he does the battle itself. You have to wonder why. What's he trying to convey here? . . Is he trying to portray himself at this stage as somebody who's going to go to extreme lengths to avoid this war? And if so, why? Now we mention before that a number of his troops didn't wanna go fight with the Germans. According to Caesar, they were scared. Some historians have suggested that perhaps the troops– by historians I mean some people that wrote within a century after Caesar, Dio Cassius and people like that, that it might have been because they thought Caesar was just fighting these wars for personal profit. And they were like, 'Why do we have to put ourselves in harm's way for personal profit? I mean, this guy [Ariovistus] got a legitimate reason to be where he is.' And Caesar in the "Commentaries" has gone to extreme lengths to make it look like he spent an inordinate amount of time and effort and energy to avoid war with Ariovistus through negotiations. . . . [sarcastically] Finally, like, enough's enough, Caesar had to protect his envoys for a start, who were arrested, but also protect the name of Rome, the pride of Rome, etc., etc. Do you think that's why he spends so much time covering the negotiations in the "Commentaries" or do you have another analysis?"
Ray: "No, I think you're on to something there. When most of your story is about the negotiations and very little details of the battles covered, he's trying to skew the perception. Because, again, he knew what he wanted to do. He wanted to have a series of glorious wars, so he could outshine Pompey, make a ton of cash, become the first man in Rome. But he has to perceive himself, he has to be perceived as being forced into battle, it was beyond his control, and he was just reacting to other's aggression. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. And he did it pretty well, he did it pretty well."
Cam: "So here's a lesson, boys and girls. Whenever you hear political or military leaders justifying their acts of war by saying, 'Oh, well, we had to. We were given no choice.' Just remember . . . this is been going on for a long time. This is what military, political leaders do. They normally have one reason to want to go to war. Caesar's case? Money. Usually money, is a good reason. But that's not how they portray it to the people. . . . This is a tried-and-true tactic for justifying war, goes way back to our man, big Julie. Probably goes back way further than big Julie. Goes back to the Iliad. 'Well, we didn't wanna go and fight the Trojans. But, you know, they took Helen. We had to go and rescue Helen. She was the most beautiful woman in the whole world.'"
a) "Caesar spends way more pages talking about the negotiations with Ariovistus than he does the battle itself."
He defeated him in one battle. How was he supposed to stretch the description of it? Invent more action?
It's such a weird accusation in general. The wars are all about negotiations, maneuvering, digging trenches, looking for food, occasional skirmishes, etc. before a decisive battle. That's normal.
b) "Some historians have suggested that perhaps the troops– by historians I mean some people that wrote within a century after Caesar, Dio Cassius and people like that"
Only Cassius Dio said it. And he was born 199 years after Caesar's death.
c) "According to Caesar, they were scared. . . . it might have been because they thought Caesar was just fighting these wars for personal profit."
Cassius Dio says that they didn't want to fight in a war that wasn't authorized by the Senate and was only undertaken for Caesar's personal ambition. Let's say his source is reliable. But how does that negate that they were scared? If this had been another place and another enemy, they wouldn't care about the Senate. For example, if this were the East:
"For Sulla this command was a great opportunity to campaign amidst the famous, and extremely wealthy, cities of the east and he set about forming an army to take with him. There seems to have been little shortage of recruits, for wars in the east were renowned for the easy fighting and rich plunder." – Adrian Goldsworthy
Compared to that, fearsome Germans and not much booty didn't sound very appealing. When the prospect of rich plunder was on the horizon, Roman armies couldn't care less about the Senate! Caesar totally called their bluff.
But let's say he waited and asked for the Senate's permission...
With Pompey and Crassus in the city, and Piso and Gabinius as consuls (the former was Caesar's father-in-law and the latter was Pompey's man), he could get it no problem. But it will take months. For his request to reach Rome, to be debated in the Senate, to be voted on a specific date, to be send to Gaul. The campaigning season will be over. And it will create a whole array of problems.
First, Ariovistus will know that a war is coming. In the following winter, he will arm himself to the teeth and send for more Germans across the Rhine. When Caesar will return in the spring, waving the Senate's piece of paper, he's gonna meet so many eager Germans.
Second, Caesar won't be able to leave his legions on winter quarters in Gaul (for fear that Ariovistus will attack them while Caesar is away). Ariovistus will have plenty of time to negotiate with the Gallic tribes to combine forces. Not just in that part of Gaul that was free, but he could easily establish contact with the Allobroges from Transalpine Gaul. They rebelled in 62 BC and he could incite them to rebel again.
No, it was a smart move not to wait for a nod from the Senate. Besides, he already has legal ground to stand on: the decree of 61 BC. It gave a governor of Gaul the right to defend the Aedui and other Gallic allies according to the interests of the Republic. Why would he wait for another one and invite disaster? Sure, his soldiers complained, but one speech was enough to get them to order.
The next year, the Senate will vote him the longest public thanksgiving to date. In legal terms, this meant that the Senate officially confirmed the validity of his campaigns.
With Pompey and Crassus in the city, and Piso and Gabinius as consuls (the former was Caesar's father-in-law and the latter was Pompey's man), he could get it no problem. But it will take months. For his request to reach Rome, to be debated in the Senate, to be voted on a specific date, to be send to Gaul. The campaigning season will be over. And it will create a whole array of problems.
First, Ariovistus will know that a war is coming. In the following winter, he will arm himself to the teeth and send for more Germans across the Rhine. When Caesar will return in the spring, waving the Senate's piece of paper, he's gonna meet so many eager Germans.
Second, Caesar won't be able to leave his legions on winter quarters in Gaul (for fear that Ariovistus will attack them while Caesar is away). Ariovistus will have plenty of time to negotiate with the Gallic tribes to combine forces. Not just in that part of Gaul that was free, but he could easily establish contact with the Allobroges from Transalpine Gaul. They rebelled in 62 BC and he could incite them to rebel again.
No, it was a smart move not to wait for a nod from the Senate. Besides, he already has legal ground to stand on: the decree of 61 BC. It gave a governor of Gaul the right to defend the Aedui and other Gallic allies according to the interests of the Republic. Why would he wait for another one and invite disaster? Sure, his soldiers complained, but one speech was enough to get them to order.
The next year, the Senate will vote him the longest public thanksgiving to date. In legal terms, this meant that the Senate officially confirmed the validity of his campaigns.
d) "Why do we have to put ourselves in harm's way for personal profit? I mean, this guy [Ariovistus] got a legitimate reason to be where he is."
Yes, I'm sure that a Roman soldier would be concerned about Ariovistus' interests! /s
e) "And Caesar in the "Commentaries" has gone to extreme lengths to make it look like he spent an inordinate amount of time and effort and energy to avoid war with Ariovistus through negotiations"
He was open to the idea of negotiation, but he was clear from the start that if Ariovistus wouldn't accept the demands, they were going to battle.
f) "[sarcastically] Finally, like, enough's enough, Caesar had to protect his envoys for a start, who were arrested, but also protect the name of Rome, the pride of Rome."
Actually, it was a big part of the Roman mentality.
g) "When most of your story is about the negotiations and very little details of the battles covered"
Most of his story is not about the negotiations. Besides the negotiations, he also describes the marches, the panic at Vesontio, maneuvering and building of camps, the skirmishes, the attack on the second camp, interrogation, Gallic allies. There is so much stuff in there besides the negotiations and the battle.
By the way, the battle against the Helvetii and the battle against Ariovistus are the same length (three chapters). But I don't remember them saying that the battle of Bibracte had "very little details."
h) "Whenever you hear political or military leaders justifying their acts of war by saying, 'Oh, but we had to. We were given no choice' . . . . This is a tried-and-true tactic for justifying war, goes way back."
Generalizing and drawing parallels to modern times is good and all, until you start erasing the context of the era. Caesar never portrayed the conquest of Gaul as "I didn't want it, I had no choice." Simply because the Roman audience saw nothing wrong with it. The expansion of Roman power was seen as an admirable thing to do.
Ancient attitudes to wars of conquest were very different. To us, it is abhorrent. To them, military glory was the greatest thing you could aspire to. Alexander the Great was the biggest celebrity in the known world. And it was a world of "conquer or be conquered."
i) "Caesar's case? Money."
Military glory and money, yes. But the interests of the empire were important as well. From the Roman perspective, the conquest of Gaul brought many benefits to the Republic. The security of the northern frontier is chief among them.
j) "This is a tried-and-true tactic for justifying war"
But apparently the same logic doesn't apply to Ariovistus. Everyone else is an ambitious asshole, except Ariovistus? If the right of conquest means that Ariovistus has "a legitimate reason to be where he is," shouldn't that apply to the Romans as well?
So, this was Caesar's first year in Gaul.
Episode 15
Yes, I'm sure that a Roman soldier would be concerned about Ariovistus' interests! /s
e) "And Caesar in the "Commentaries" has gone to extreme lengths to make it look like he spent an inordinate amount of time and effort and energy to avoid war with Ariovistus through negotiations"
He was open to the idea of negotiation, but he was clear from the start that if Ariovistus wouldn't accept the demands, they were going to battle.
f) "[sarcastically] Finally, like, enough's enough, Caesar had to protect his envoys for a start, who were arrested, but also protect the name of Rome, the pride of Rome."
Actually, it was a big part of the Roman mentality.
"...once the Aedui had appealed to Caesar, if he did not defend them, if he did not prove that Rome had the power to make its orders obeyed and show its promises of protection to be credible, he would only have been inviting further aggression by Ariovistus or someone else against the Republic's friends and ultimately against Rome itself. . . His aggressive stance towards Ariovistus sprang as much from his enormous personal ambition as from the dictates of imperial policy. The two marched in step." – Nathan Rosenstein
g) "When most of your story is about the negotiations and very little details of the battles covered"
Most of his story is not about the negotiations. Besides the negotiations, he also describes the marches, the panic at Vesontio, maneuvering and building of camps, the skirmishes, the attack on the second camp, interrogation, Gallic allies. There is so much stuff in there besides the negotiations and the battle.
By the way, the battle against the Helvetii and the battle against Ariovistus are the same length (three chapters). But I don't remember them saying that the battle of Bibracte had "very little details."
h) "Whenever you hear political or military leaders justifying their acts of war by saying, 'Oh, but we had to. We were given no choice' . . . . This is a tried-and-true tactic for justifying war, goes way back."
Generalizing and drawing parallels to modern times is good and all, until you start erasing the context of the era. Caesar never portrayed the conquest of Gaul as "I didn't want it, I had no choice." Simply because the Roman audience saw nothing wrong with it. The expansion of Roman power was seen as an admirable thing to do.
Ancient attitudes to wars of conquest were very different. To us, it is abhorrent. To them, military glory was the greatest thing you could aspire to. Alexander the Great was the biggest celebrity in the known world. And it was a world of "conquer or be conquered."
"Warfare in Caesar's time . . . was also a normal and natural part of life. If your city possessed fertile land, abundant crops, or valuable goods, there would always be an enemy who wanted to take them from you. If you sensed weakness in a neighboring town, more likely than not you would try to conquer them or at least force them to serve your state as subordinate allies. If you wanted to maintain your independence, you kept your army strong. In this the Romans were like the Greeks, Germans, Celts, and everyone else in the ancient world." – Phillip Freeman
"Frequent war-making was not unusual in the ancient world, where states rarely needed much more reason to attack their neighbours than a belief that they were vulnerable." – Adrian Goldsworthy
"...part of the reason for the importance of military victory in Roman culture was not because the Romans won so often but because they lost so often. They knew about the horrors of defeat and the varying fortunes of war." – Tom Stevenson
i) "Caesar's case? Money."
Military glory and money, yes. But the interests of the empire were important as well. From the Roman perspective, the conquest of Gaul brought many benefits to the Republic. The security of the northern frontier is chief among them.
"For many years the Germanic tribes had been spreading steadily southward out of their homeland in northern Europe. With their exploding population and unmatched skill in war, they had already pushed the Celts out of southern Germany and were now threatening Gaul. The Alps would be no real barrier to the Germans if they decided to cross into Italy. But if Caesar could stop them at the Rhine, Rome would be safe for many years to come." – Philip Freeman
"Like any other successful Roman commander he had reaped great personal benefits from his victories, but this should not obscure the gains his conquests had brought to Rome. Formally, the Republic now had a new source of revenue, although this had to be balanced against the costs of garrisoning the province. Transalpine Gaul and the important land routes to Spain were secured, while Italy itself was now much better shielded from invasion by northern tribes following in the footsteps of the Cimbri and Teutones. . . . Trade with Gaul was important before Caesar's arrival, but his campaigns helped to open up new markets – for instance in Britain – to Roman merchants and allowed them to operate in very favourable conditions in the new province of Gaul." – Adrian Goldsworthy
j) "This is a tried-and-true tactic for justifying war"
But apparently the same logic doesn't apply to Ariovistus. Everyone else is an ambitious asshole, except Ariovistus? If the right of conquest means that Ariovistus has "a legitimate reason to be where he is," shouldn't that apply to the Romans as well?
***
So, this was Caesar's first year in Gaul.
"In this initial year of his command of an army, Caesar showed plainly those qualities of rapid decision and action, courage and intelligent grasp of the situation, which always yielded such vast results. But he was at times more markedly cautious than later in his military life, as if he had not yet learned to trust to his good fortune, nor acquired wide experience in arms." – Theodore Dodge
Episode 15
Comments
Post a Comment