History of Julius Caesar Vol. 2 of 2. Napoleon III

301

The Ambivariti were established on the left bank of the Meuse, to the west of Ruremonde, and to the south of the marshes of Peel.

302

De Bello Gallico, IV. 13.

303

“Acie triplici instituta.” Some authors have translated these words by “the army was formed in three columns;” but Cæsar, operating in a country which was totally uncovered and flat, and aiming at surprising a great mass of enemies, must have marched in order of battle, which did not prevent each cohort from being in column.

304

Attacked unexpectedly in the afternoon, while they were sleeping. (Dio Cassius, XXXIX. 48.)

305

The study of the deserted beds of the Rhine leads us to believe that the confluence of the Waal and the Meuse, which is at present near Gorkum, was then much more to the east, towards Fort Saint-André. In that case, Cæsar made no mistake in reckoning eighty miles from the junction of the Waal and the Meuse to the mouth of the latter river.

306

De Bello Gallico, IV. 14, 15.

307

The following reasons have led us to adopt Bonn as the point where Cæsar crossed the Rhine: —

We learn from the “Commentaries” that in 699 he debouched in the country of the Ubii, and that two years later it was a little above (paulum supra) the first bridge that he established another, which joined the territory of the Treviri with that of the Ubii. Now everything leads to the belief that, in the first passage as in the second, the bridge was thrown across between the frontiers of the same peoples; for we cannot admit, with some authors, that the words paulum supra apply to a distance of several leagues. As to those who suppose that the passage was effected at Andernach, because, changing with Florus the Meuse (Mosa) into Moselle, they placed the scene of the defeat of the Germans at the confluence of the Moselle and the Rhine, we have given the reasons for rejecting this opinion. We have endeavoured to prove, in fact, that the battle against the Usipetes and the Tencteri had for its theatre the confluence of the Meuse and the Rhine; and since, in crossing this latter river, Cæsar passed from the country of the Treviri into that of the Ubii, we must perceive that after his victory he must necessarily have proceeded up the valley of the Rhine to go from the territory of the Menapii to the Treviri, as far up as the territory of the Ubii, established on the right bank.

This being admitted, it remains to fix, within the limits assigned to these two last peoples, the most probable point of passage. Hitherto, Cologne has been adopted; but, to answer to the data of the “Commentaries,” Cologne appears to us to be much too far to the north. In fact, in the campaign of 701, Cæsar, having started from the banks of the Rhine, traversed the forest of the Ardennes from east to west, passed near the Segni and the Condrusi, since they implored him to spare their territory, and directed his march upon Tongres. If he had started from Cologne, he would not have crossed the countries in question. Moreover, in this same year, 2,000 Sicambrian cavalry crossed the Rhine thirty miles below the bridge of the Roman army. Now, if this bridge had been constructed at Cologne, the point of passage of the Sicambri, thirty miles below, would have been at a very great distance from Tongres, where, nevertheless, they seem to have arrived very quickly.

On the contrary, everything is explained if we adopt Bonn as the point of passage. To go from Bonn to Tongres, Cæsar proceeded, as the text has it, across the forest of the Ardennes; he passed through the country of the Segni and Condrusi, or very near them; and the Sicambri, crossing the Rhine thirty miles below Bonn, took the shortest line from the Rhine to Tongres. Moreover, we cannot place Cæsar’s point of passage either lower or higher than Bonn. Lower, that is, towards the north, the different incidents related in the “Commentaries” are without possible application to the theatre of the events; higher, towards the south, the Rhine flows upon a rocky bed, where the piles could not have been driven in, and presents, between the mountains which border it, no favourable point of passage. We may add that Cæsar would have been much too far removed from the country of the Sicambri, the chastisement of whom was the avowed motive of his expedition.

Another fact deserves to be taken into consideration: that, less than fifty years after Cæsar’s campaigns, Drusus, in order to proceed against the Sicambri – that is, against the same people whom Cæsar intended to combat – crossed the Rhine at Bonn. (Florus, IV. 12.)

308

The following passage has given room for different interpretations: —

“Hæc utraque insuper bipedalibus trabibus immissis, quantum eorum tignorum junctura distabat, binis utrimque fibulis ab extrema parte distinebantur; quibus disclusis atque in contrariam partem revinctis, tanta erat operis firmitudo atque ea rerum natura, ut, quo major vis aquæ se incitavisset, hoc arctius illigata tenerentur.” (De Bello Gallico, IV. 17.)

It has not been hitherto observed that the words hæc utraque relate to the two couples of one row of piles, and not to the two piles of the same couple. Moreover, the words quibus disclusis, &c., relate to these same two couples, and not, as has been supposed, to fibulis.

309

De Bello Gallico, IV. 20.

310

De Bello Gallico, II. 4.

311

De Bello Gallico, V. 13.

312

Pliny, Hist. Nat., IV. 30, § 16.

313

Pliny, Hist. Nat., IV. 30, § 16. – Tacitus, Agricola, 10.

314

De Bello Gallico, V. 12.

315

Strabo, IV., p. 199.

316

Agricola, 12.

317

De Bello Gallico, V. 12.

318

De Bello Gallico, V. 13 and 14.

319

De Bello Gallico, V. 20.

320

Annales, XIV. 33.

321

Although the greater number of manuscripts read Cenimagni, some authors have made two names of it, the Iceni and the Cangi.

322

The Anderida Silva, 120 miles in length by 30 in breadth, extended over the counties of Sussex and Kent, in what is now called the Weald. (See Camden, Britannia, edit. Gibson, I., col. 151, 195, 258, edit. of 1753.)

323

Diodorus Siculus, V. 21. – Tacitus, Agricola, 12.

324

IV., p. 200.

325

Agricola, 11.

326

Diodorus Siculus, V. 21.

327

De Bello Gallico, V. 21.

328

De Bello Gallico, V. 14.

329

Strabo, IV., p. 200.

330

De Bello Gallico, V. 14.

331

Pliny, Hist. Nat., XXII. 1.

332

De Bello Gallico,