PART TWО

PROCONSUL

58-50 BC

IX

GAUL

Caesar ‘also fought fifty pitched battles, the only commander to surpass Marcus Marcellus, who fought thirty-nine.’ - Pliny the Elder, mid first century AD.¹

‘Caesar possessed the highest skill and elegance of style, but also the most perfect knack of explaining his plans.’ - Aulus Hirtius, 44 BC²

Caesar was forty-one when he set out from Rome for his province. He would not return to the city for nine years. The remainder of his life was dominated by warfare to a degree that it is difficult to exaggerate. From this moment on, there were only two years in which he was not involved in major military operations. In 50 BC this was because Gaul was conquered and he was busily engaged in settling the region. In 44 BC he was murdered just days before setting out for grand new campaigns against first Dacia and then Parthia. In most years he fought at least one, and often several, major battles or sieges. Pliny claimed that altogether Caesar led his army in fifty battles, while Appian says that thirty of these engagements occurred during the campaigns in Gaul. It is impossible to confirm or deny the precision of these numbers, since in any period of history there is rarely agreement as to just what constitutes a battle and what is merely an engagement or skirmish. The fact remains that these authors reflected the widespread belief that Caesar had fought more often and with more consistent success than any other Roman general. Alexander, with whom he was frequently compared, took part in only five pitched battles and three major sieges, although he was in many smaller encounters. Hannibal, who was up against a very different opponent, fought more big battles, but probably did not surpass, or perhaps even equal, Caesar’s total of major engagements. It was not until the era of Napoleon, with the increased intensity of warfare, that a few army leaders began to see more days of serious combat than Caesar and the other great commanders of the ancient world.³

The contrast between Caesar’s life before and after 58 BC could not be more marked. Up until then, he had spent at the very most some nine years outside Italy, and perhaps half that time in some sort of military service. This was fairly typical for a Roman senator, if anything perhaps slightly below the average, although not in comparison with men like Cicero who relied on constant appearances in the courts to keep themselves in the public eye. Once again, it is worth emphasising that for all his flamboyance, association with dubious characters and the controversial nature of some of his actions during the consulship, the overall pattern of Caesar’s career had been broadly conventional. Having reached the consulship two years before the normal age, he was just marginally younger than the average proconsul. Compared to Alexander the Great, Hannibal or Pompey his opportunity came very late in life. Alexander was dead by the age of thirty-three, and Hannibal fought his last battle at forty-five. Napoleon and Wellington were just a year older than Hannibal when they clashed at Waterloo, though Blucher was seventy- three. In contrast Robert E. Lee was in his fifties when the American Civil War broke out, as was Patton when America entered the Second World War. Neither by Roman nor modern standards could Caesar have been considered elderly in 58 BC, but neither would it have been obvious to any of his contemporaries that he was about to prove himself as one of the greatest commanders of all time. In the past he had shown talent, courage, and selfconfidence during his spells of military service, but plenty of other ambitious men had displayed similar ability. As always in Caesar’s story, we need to be very careful not to allow hindsight to impose a sense of inevitability on events. The scale of Caesar’s successes in Gaul was startling, even in a Rome so recently dazzled by Pompey’s achievements. Yet the balance between success and failure was often narrow, and he might easily have been killed, or have died from accident or disease before he could return. That he would eventually come back as a rebel to fight against his former ally and son-inlaw Pompey was unlikely to have occurred to anyone. When Caesar went to Gaul he had plans and ambitions, and doubtless considered many possible outcomes, but in the end he was trusting to fortune for his future.

THE WAR COMMENTARIES

Caesar had worked hard to win the opportunity for such a great command, running up huge debts, taking great political risks and making many enemies. He needed colossal victories if all this was to become worthwhile, but he also had to make sure that people knew about his achievements if he was to gain real advantage from them. Pompey’s campaigns against the pirates and Mithridates had been recorded by Theophanes of Mytilene, a Greek scholar who had accompanied his staff. Caesar had no need of the literary services of other men and would record his victories in his own words. He had already published a number of his speeches as well as several now lost works, some of which he had written as a youth. The Emperor Augustus later suppressed these immature works, including a tragedy entitled Oedipus, and also his Praises of Hercules and A Collection of Maxims, and none of the speeches have survived other than in fragments. There was a tradition for Roman generals to celebrate their achievements by writing commentaries - a genre that was seen as distinct from history, and was often viewed as the material for subsequent historians to use. Caesar eventually produced ten books of War Commentaries, with seven covering the operations in Gaul from 58-52 BC, and three more dealing with the Civil War against Pompey from 49-48 BC. After his death, several of his own officers added four more books covering the operations in Gaul in 51 BC, the campaigns in Egypt and the East in 48-47 BC, Africa in 46 BC, and Spain in 45 BC. No other commentaries have survived in anything other than the tiniest fragments, making it difficult to know whether or not Caesar’s books conformed to the established style.⁴

Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic War was from the beginning acknowledged as one of the greatest works of Latin literature. Cicero had great respect for Caesar’s oratory and was similarly generous in his praise of the Commentaries:

They are admirable indeed . . . like naked forms, upright and beautiful, pared of all ornamentation as if they had removed a robe. Yet while he wished to provide other authors with the means for writing history, he may only have succeeded in pleasing the incompetent, who might like to apply their ‘gifts’ to his material, for he has deterred all sane men from writing; for there is nothing better in the writing of history than clear and distinguished brevity.⁵

These words were written in 46 BC, when Cicero was becoming increasingly uncomfortable with Caesar’s dictatorship, so it may be that there was just a hint of double meaning when he said that ‘men of sound judgement’ had been put off from writing their own narratives of his achievements. Nevertheless, it is clear that his praise for the literary quality of the books was entirely genuine, perhaps especially because the stark simplicity of their narrative contrasted so much with his own style of rhetoric. On one occasion Caesar declared that an orator should ‘avoid an unusual word as the helmsman of a ship avoided a reef’. Apart from necessary technical or foreign terms, he adhered staunchly to this principle and produced a narrative that was clear and fast-paced. Rarely, if ever, is it emotional or melodramatic, for he allowed the drama and importance of the events to speak for themselves. Referring to himself always in the third person, while his soldiers are nostri or ‘our men’, he tells the story of the army of the Roman people under their properly appointed commander, as they struggle against ferocious enemies and even nature itself. At every stage Caesar presents his actions as entirely in the interest of the Republic. Although the modern reader may sometimes balk at the catalogue of unabashed imperialism, massacre, mass execution and enslavement contained in the Commentaries, a contemporary Roman would not have found these things shocking. Indeed, it must have been hard, even for one of Caesar’s political opponents, not to get carried along with the excitement of the narrative.⁶

Many political and military leaders have written their own versions of the events in which they were involved, but few have matched the literary standard of Caesar’s Commentaries. In recent times Churchill probably comes closest, in the sheer power of his words and the speed with which he produced his account so soon after the Second World War. Yet there is one major difference, both from Churchill and the vast majority of other famous generals, for all of them wrote for posterity, knowing that their own careers were substantially over and wishing to imprint their chosen version of events on future opinion. In contrast Caesar was far more concerned with the contemporary audience, and wrote to help further his career and gain even more opportunities for glory (which had also been true of Churchill with his earlier writings). It is not absolutely clear when the seven books of Commentaries on the Gallic War were written and released, but it is often asserted that they came out altogether in 51-50 BC. The conjecture - and it is no more than this in spite of the certainty with which it is often asserted - is that in the months of tension that would eventually culminate in the Civil War, Caesar was hoping to win as much support as possible in Rome. Yet this had been true from the moment he left for Gaul in 58 BC, for neither he, nor any other man pursuing a public career, could afford to be forgotten by the electorate and the influential groups in the city. It would have been strange for him to wait so long. Moreover, differences in the treatment of some individuals and apparent contradictions of detail between the various books make it more than likely that each was published separately.

A better case can actually be made for each book having been produced after the year of campaigning it describes, in the winter months before operations could resume. Even the advocates of the later collective release assume that Caesar sent an annual report to the Senate and that this was widely circulated, and sometimes suggest that this was similar to the form of the Commentaries as we have them. There is no reason to believe that in most cases Caesar lacked the time during the winters in Gaul to produce a book. Hirtius, one of his own senior subordinates who later added the eighth book of Gallic Commentaries, reflected Cicero’s praise for Caesar as a stylist, but also noted the great speed with which he wrote these books. Another officer, Asinius Pollio, believed Caesar intended eventually to rewrite them, which could also be an indication that they were rapidly produced to fulfil an immediate political need. Neither comment proves that each book was published individually - it would obviously have been a considerable task to compose all seven books in the months at the end of the Gallic campaigns - but on the whole it does seem extremely probable.⁷

Another widespread assumption is that the Commentaries were aimed first and foremost at the senatorial and equestrian classes, but once again this may be questioned. In his consulship he had ordered the publication of all senatorial proceedings, which was evidently not for the benefit of senators. Levels of literacy in the Roman world are very difficult to judge, so that we do not know how many readers there were outside the wealthy elite. However, more practically we can judge that any system where each copy of a book had to be written out by hand did mean that books were a rare and expensive luxury Yet Cicero noted the enthusiasm with which men of humble station, such as artisans, devoured history books. There are hints in our sources that the public reading of books was common and could be very well attended. It does seem probable that Caesar, the man who had always been a popularis and reliant on the support of a wide section of the community, was keen to engage this audience. It is striking that senatorial and equestrian officers do not figure very prominently in the Commentaries, and at times are shown in an unflattering light. In contrast, the ordinary soldiers of the legions consistently show courage and prowess. In most cases even when they are criticised, it is usually for excessive enthusiasm that leads the legionaries to forget their proper discipline. Even more than the ordinary rank and file soldiers, the centurions who lead them are most often painted in heroic colours. Only a few of these officers are named, but generally it is the centurions as a group who keep calm at times of crisis and fight and die for the approval of their commander. This favourable portrayal of centurions and soldiers may well have pleased patriotic aristocrats and equestrians, but it was surely even more appealing to the wider population. Caesar cultivated these Romans and did not simply speak to the elite. It is probable that some groups mattered to him more than others, for instance those citizens enrolled to vote in the First Class in the Comitia Centuriata, but we know so little of life outside the circles of the elite that it is hard to be sure.⁸

From the start of the campaigns in Gaul, until the very end of the Civil War, we know far more about Caesar’s activities, but the overwhelming majority of this information comes from his own account in the Commentaries. For the campaigns in Gaul in particular, there is scarcely any information in other sources that does not seem to have been derived from Caesar’s version. If we have reason to doubt the basic truthfulness of the Commentaries then we have nothing with which to replace them.

Napoleon was a great admirer of Caesar as a commander, placing him on the list of Great Captains whose campaigns should be studied by any aspiring general, but even so he doubted the truthfulness of some aspects of his account, and spent some time during his exile criticising them. However, given the flexible attitude to the truth in his own bulletins and memoirs, he may simply have seen this as natural. Caesar wrote for a political purpose, to build up his reputation as a great servant of the Republic and show that he deserved his pre-eminence. Therefore, the Commentaries were works of propaganda and showed everything he did in the most favourable light. According to Suetonius: ‘Asinius Pollio believes that they were composed without too much diligence or absolute concern for truth, since often Caesar was too willing to believe the versions which others gave of their actions, or gave a twisted version of his own, whether on purpose or merely from genuine forgetfulness. . ..’⁹

Pollio served under Caesar in the Civil War, but was not with him in Gaul, and it is more than likely that his comments were mainly aimed at Caesar’s account of that later conflict. The claim that Caesar was too ready to accept the accounts others gave of their actions, may well have had a bitterly personal note, since Pollio was one of the few survivors from a disastrous landing in Africa led by a man given favourable treatment in the Commentaries. Yet if he was right that Caesar also distorted some of his own actions, then to what extent could this have occurred? Archaeology has confirmed some of his account of operations at Gaul, but it is a clumsy tool with which to reconstruct the details of military operations, still less the motivation and thought behind them. More importantly it is clear that throughout the conflict in Gaul, the many senators and equestrians serving with Caesar’s army regularly wrote to their family and friends. In later years Cicero’s brother Quintus became one of Caesar’s legates. The surviving correspondence includes little military detail, but it is striking that Quintus was even able to send a letter to his brother while the army was in Britain for a few months in 54 BC. There was clearly a constant flood of information going back to Rome from the army In 56 BC Cicero attacked Caesar’s father- in-law Lucius Calpurnius Piso’s record as proconsul of Macedonia in the Senate. Piso had flouted convention by not sending regular dispatches to the Senate, but nevertheless Cicero claims that he and everyone else in the House was well informed about the proconsul’s activities and failures.

Most of the critics of Caesar’s truthfulness employ details from his own narrative against him. Defeats are mentioned, as are a number of controversial actions. Ultimately, Caesar could not risk widespread invention or blatant distortion because these would readily have been spotted by his audience. He could, and clearly did, present everything in the most favourable light possible, passing the blame for defeats onto others, justifying his actions with apparently calm reason, and not highlighting operations that achieved little. Yet in the end he had to stick closely to facts - particularly those facts that were of most concern to a Roman audience - if the Commentaries were to achieve their aim of winning over public opinion. Caution must be used in dealing with Caesar’s narrative, as with any other source, but there is good reason to believe that, at the very least, his account recounts the basic events accurately.¹⁰

CAESAR'S ARMY

The army garrisoning Caesar’s province in 58 BC was twice the size of the force that he had taken over in Spain, and in due course it would double and then treble in size. He had had about five years of military service, with no prior experience of warfare in this region, but, as we have seen, neither of these things were especially unusual for a Roman commander. Caesar coped well with the challenge, but it is a mistake to assume that from the very beginning he showed the sureness of touch that has led to his universal recognition as one of the greatest commanders of all time. He had to get to know his new army and learn best how to use it, and this process was not instant. However, his most senior officers were all men whom he had selected himself and brought with him to the province.

The most important were the legates - the name legatus meant representative and was used both for ambassadors and senior officers who ‘acted on behalf of’ a governor - who were invariably senators. As far as we can tell none of these men had any more experience of soldiering than Caesar himself. He had asked Cicero to accompany him in this role, which is a good indication that useful political connections were often of greater importance than head-hunting military talent. The orator had turned Caesar down, but from the beginning of the campaigns he had at least five, and possibly six or even ten, legates on his staff. The most senior was Labienus, who was actually granted propraetorian imperium of his own and not merely delegated power. The man who as tribune in 63 BC had co-operated with Caesar and brought the prosecution against Rabirius receives more attention in the Commentaries than any other legate, and proved himself to be an exceptionally gifted soldier. However, in 58 BC he may well have had no more prior experience of warfare than Caesar, and his talent blossomed and flourished only on arrival in Gaul. Labienus had served in Asia back in the seventies under the command of Publius Servilius Vatia Isauricus. He and Caesar may have crossed paths during these years, although it is equally possible that Labienus did not arrive in the province until after Caesar had returned to Rome. Extensive service under Pompey has been conjectured, but there is no actual evidence to support this. Similarly, many scholars have assumed that Labienus had held the praetorship in 60 or 59 BC, but again this is plausible rather than actually attested.¹¹

Balbus was another old associate of Caesar’s and was once again his praefectus fabrum, but it seems that he did not spend too long in Gaul before returning to Rome to act as one of Caesar’s key agents. Another man who served Caesar in the same role was Mamurra, who came from Formiae and made himself notorious for the massive fortune he acquired by dubious methods during his time in Gaul. The tribune Vatinius, who had secured the five-year command for him, seems to have been in Gaul for a while, but this may have been later in the decade. Quintus Pedius seems to have been with Caesar from the start. The identity of Caesar’s other legates in 58 BC is unclear, but if they were not already with him, then several men were soon to join him. One was Aulus Hirtius, the man who would eventually add the eighth book to the Commentaries. Another was Servius Suplicius Galba, who had served under Pomptinus during the rebellion of the Allobroges and so had recent experience of warfare in Gaul. Quintus Titurius Sabinus and Lucius Aurunculeius Cotta were probably also both there from the start. (In spite of the cognomen Cotta, he is unlikely to have been a relation on Caesar’s mother’s side, since their nomen was Aurelius.) Cotta had written a treatise on the Roman constitution, and there was a pronounced literary feel to Caesar’s staff. From 58 to 56 BC, this also included Crassus’ younger son Publius, who was a keen student of literature and philosophy and an intimate of Cicero for that reason. This was an indication of the continuing closeness between Caesar and Crassus, which had not needed cementing with a marriage alliance. In his mid twenties, Publius Crassus was to prove a bold and gifted commander, but began the campaign as the commander of the army’s cavalry (praefectus equitum), before being promoted to legate in the following year. Another young man of talent who served with Caesar probably from the start of the campaign was Decimus Junius Brutus, son of Sempronia who had notoriously been closely involved in Catiline’s conspiracy. Finally Caesar also had the assistance of a quaestor, but his identity is unknown.¹²

The most striking thing about Caesar’s legates is their comparative obscurity. Crassus, and to a slightly lesser extent Brutus, belonged to distinguished families, and both their fathers had become consul. Labienus was a ‘new man’ and had not yet held a magistracy more senior than the tribunate, as had Vatinius. Cotta’s family seem not to have been prominent for many generations, while even less is known of the background of Sabinus and several other officers. On the whole the great noble families, especially those who had done well under Sulla and afterwards, chose not to accept employment with Caesar. This is in marked contrast to the very distinguished list of legates who had served under Pompey in the command against the pirates. Most of the legates in Gaul seem to have been looking to restore or improve their family’s situation, and not a few were to do so. This was probably also true of many of the less senior officers. In his account of 58 BC Caesar talked of ‘the military tribunes, prefects, and others who had accompanied Caesar from the city to earn his friendship, but had no great military experience’. Men who were already well established did not need to tie themselves to Caesar in 58 BC. No one knew that he would prove to be such a great commander and that he would not march to defeat or his own death on some Gaulish hillside. They might guess that he would prove generous with whatever success he did have, for his reputation was already established in this respect. Seeking a closer link with Caesar was a gamble more likely to appeal to those unable to succeed any other way As far as we can tell Caesar seems to have welcomed almost anyone, eager as he always was to do as many favours as possible and so place more men under obligation to him.¹³

Caesar chose his own senior officers, but the army he was to command was already in existence. Altogether, Illyricum, Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul contained a garrison of four legions - the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth. It is not known when and by whom these had been raised, but it is quite likely that they had been formed several years before and had already seen active service. 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. A legion had no permanent commander, but its most senior officers were the six tribunes, who were usually equestrians. Some were young aristocrats who had not yet been enrolled in the Senate, while others were semi-professional officers, who sought continued appointments in successive legions. Twenty-four tribunes were elected by the Roman people each year, this traditional number being intended to supply the army of two legions, which was allocated to each consul in earlier centuries. Caesar had himself been elected in this way, but there were now usually too many legions in service at any one time to rely on this method. Most, if not all, of Caesar’s tribunes were appointed by him, although some may already have been with the four legions. The Commentaries never mention a tribune actually commanding a legion, and Caesar normally gave this task to his legates and his quaestor. However, the tribunes clearly had important staff and administrative roles, and could command sizeable detachments.¹⁴

Beneath a tribune was a centurion, which is better thought of as a grade rather than a specific rank. There were sixty centurions in a legion. Each commanded a century of eighty men - the title had probably never meant anything more specific than around one hundred men - and six centuries combined to form a cohort of 480, which was the basic tactical unit of the army. Our sources are silent on the matter, but it is highly probable that the most senior of the six centurions commanded the cohort in battle. There were ten cohorts in a legion, and the first cohort had greater prestige than the rest for it protected the silver or gilded eagle that was the standard of the entire legion. The centurions of the first cohort had immense prestige and they, probably along with centurions who commanded the other cohorts, formed the ‘centurions of the first grade’ (primi ordines), who were often included in the commander’s briefings. Centurions have sometimes been portrayed as ‘sergeant-major’ types, grizzled veterans promoted only after long service in the ranks, but there is actually very little evidence to support this view. Never in the entire Commentaries does Caesar mention promoting an ordinary legionary into the centurionate, but then he says nothing at all about their origins, presumably because he assumed that his audience would know this. Many men may have been directly commissioned as centurions, something that we know was common under Rome’s emperors, when we even hear of equestrians serving in this way The administrative role that was an important part of the job evidently required a good standard of literacy and numeracy, neither of which may have been common amongst the ordinary soldiers. Once in the rank it is certain that centurions were socially and economically very distant from the ordinary legionaries, for their pay was several - perhaps as much as ten - times greater. Probably most centurions already came from the more prosperous classes and not the very poor who formed the bulk of the rank and file. If so, then the prominence they receive in the Commentaries becomes all the more interesting. It may well be that they were drawn from amongst the First Class, which played such a decisive part in the voting in the Comitia Centuriata. Appointments to this grade, and subsequent promotions, would then have taken on an importance beyond the purely military for a commander like Caesar, fitting in with the wider networks of patronage that underlay so much of Roman society. Yet unlike the more senior officers, centurions do seem to have stayed with the army for long periods, and it would not be a mistake to see them as essentially professional officers.¹⁵

The legions of earlier centuries, which had been drawn from a crosssection of society and had excluded all those with insufficient property to afford their own equipment, were now a distant memory. Marius had openly recruited from the capite censi, those so poor that they were counted simply as numbers in the census, but he had probably just acknowledged a trend that was already well established. There was now little to attract the better off and well educated to the legions. Discipline could be brutal, with floggings common, and execution the penalty for more serious dereliction of duty. A legionary received an annual salary of 125 denarii (500 sestertii) - a figure that helps to put Caesar’s staggering debts into perspective - which compared unfavourably with the money that could be earned as a farm labourer, although it did have the advantage of being regular. Poorer citizens saw the army as either a viable career, or as a pathway to a better life. A general who was generous with the rewards or promised to secure grants of land for his veteran soldiers could win an intense loyalty from his legionaries, as Marius, Sulla and Pompey had already demonstrated. Centurions often transferred from one legion to another, but there is no mention of ordinary soldiers doing the same. Legionaries were long service professional soldiers, although it is unclear just how long men normally spent in the army. Augustus would later set the term of service at sixteen years, later extending it to twenty with another five as a veteran, which meant being exempted from some duties and fatigues. The legion was their home, and the better units developed a fierce pride in their corporate identity. Each legion also contained many men with technical skills, who would in turn train others. There were no special units or cohorts of engineers or artillerymen, specialists simply being detached from their cohorts whenever they were required to build a bridge or besiege a town. The engineering skill of the Roman army in this period was extremely high.

The legionary was a heavy infantryman who fought in close order, but in Caesar’s day he looked rather different to the classic image perpetuated by Hollywood and the rather loose use of images by re-enactors in television documentaries. The famous banded or segmented armour had probably not yet been invented, for the earliest known fragment of such a cuirass dates to ad 9. (However, since until this was discovered it was generally assumed that this armour was not introduced till the middle of the first century ad it is just possible that it was known in Caesar’s day) Instead the legionary wore mail armour and a bronze or sometimes iron helmet. Roman helmets left the wearer’s eyes and ears uncovered, although some protection was provided for the rest of the face by the wide cheek pieces. Enclosed helmets of the type sometimes used in earlier centuries by Greek armies offered better protection, but a legionary needed to be able to hear and see so that he could respond to orders. Further protection was provided by the large semi-cylindrical shield or scutum. This was some 4 feet in height and from 2-2 feet 6 inches in width and probably oval in shape, although the rectangular tile shape of the classic ‘Hollywood’ legionary may already have been adopted. It is highly likely, although unproven, that legions already carried distinctive insignia on their shields, either painted or in raised decoration. The shields themselves were made from three layers of plywood glued together, covered in calfskin, and with the edges protected by bronze binding. The shield was flexible and offered good protection, but was heavy at some 22 lb. It was held in battle by a single horizontal hand-grip behind the central boss, and could be used offensively, the soldier punching the boss forward to overbalance his enemy.

The legionary’s main weapons were the pilum (javelin), and the gladius sword. The pilum had a 4-foot wooden shaft, topped by a narrow 2-3-foot iron shank, which ended in a small pyramidal point. When thrown all the weight of the weapon concentrated behind the small head, allowing this to punch through an opponent’s shield, while the long slim shank gave it the reach to keep going and wound or kill the man himself. Contrary to deeply entrenched myth, the metal was not intended to bend. By the first century AD the gladius sword used by the Roman legionary was short, with a blade usually under 2 feet in length. However, in Caesar’s day a longer blade - at least 2 feet 6 inches in length and sometimes longer - was in use. Made of high quality steel, the heavy blade was well adapted to both cutting and thrusting, its long point being well suited to penetrating armour and flesh. The legionary was well equipped and trained as an individual fighter, but the greatest strength of the Roman army lay in the discipline and command structure that made them so effective collectively.¹⁶

For support troops, the legions relied on foreign soldiers, who were known collectively as the auxilia. Many of these were locally recruited allies - Caesar would draw heavily on the tribes of Gaul, especially for contingents of cavalry. In most cases these men were led by their own chieftains, but at least some Gauls do seem to have served in units led by Roman officers, and may have been drilled and equipped by the army In his account of the Civil War Caesar mentions that in 49 BC he had ‘3,000 cavalry, which he had had with him in all his past campaigns’. He also tells us that he had 5,000 auxiliary infantry, although it is unclear if these had also served with him from 58 BC onwards. Neither group is specifically mentioned in his account of the campaigns in Gaul, and they may have been allies, mercenaries or regular soldiers foreshadowing the organised and permanent regiments of auxiliaries of the Imperial period. He does make a few references to units of specialists, including Cretan and Numidian archers, and slingers from the Balearic Islands. The Cretans and Balearics were famous for their skill with their respective weapons and had appeared as mercenaries in many armies for several centuries. The Numidians were more famous for their light cavalry and it is quite possible that Caesar also had some of these with him. It is only through a single comment that we know that there were some Spanish cavalry with the army The number of allied soldiers varied from year to year, while the total force of professional mercenaries and auxiliaries is likely to have been more static. Allied contingents were on occasions substantially larger, but even so it was always the legions that remained the heart of Caesar’s army.¹⁷

'THE WHOLE OF GAUL IS DIVIDED'

In 58 BC it was not obvious where Caesar’s campaigns would lead him. He had first been granted Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum as his province, and Transalpine Gaul was only added after the sudden death of its governor. Caesar’s original intention may well have been a Balkan campaign, probably to curb the growing power of the Dacian King Burebista, who was carving out a powerful empire around his heartland in what is now Transylvania. The region was wealthy, and scarcely explored by Roman armies, offering the glory attached to defeating a people never before encountered. He may well have been planning to advance in that direction, both in 58 BC and in later years, but events continued to provide him with ready opportunities for military adventures in Gaul, and the Balkan expedition never took place. Even so, it never left Caesar’s mind, for he was planning to move against Dacia in 44 BC when he was assassinated.¹⁸

In the first century BC Gaul comprised the area of modern France, Belgium and part of Holland, running from the Rhine to the Atlantic coast. In no sense was Gaul a nation. As Caesar famously said in the opening sentence of the Commentaries on the Gallic War its population was divided into three ethnic and linguistic groups. In the south-west, bordering on the Pyrenees, were the Aquitanians, whom he believed had much in common with the Iberians of Spain. In the north, especially the north-east, were the Belgians, while central Gaul was the home of the peoples whom the Romans referred to as Gauls (Galli), but who named themselves Celts. Each of these groups was in turn subdivided into numerous individual peoples, who for all their similarity in language and culture were often mutually hostile. The basic political unit was the clan (pagus), and several of these usually made up a tribe (civitas). (Neither English word is entirely appropriate, and some scholars would prefer state to tribe, but no one has really come up with anything better.) The importance of the tribe seems to have increased markedly in the century before Caesar’s arrival in Gaul, and some scholars would like to see them as comparatively recent inventions. More probably, the changing political and economic climate in Gaul had simply given new importance to loose ties of kinship and ritual that were very long established. Even so, the degree of unity between the clans of one tribe varied considerably, and there were a number of cases during the Gallic Wars when individual pagi acted independently. Kings appear in some tribes, and perhaps also at the clan level, but not in others and the majority seem to have been governed by councils or senates, with the day-to-day running of affairs being placed in the hands of elected magistrates. Rome’s oldest ally, the Aedui, had a supreme magistrate called the Vergobret who held office for a single year. No man could be elected twice to this post, nor could any member of his family hold the office during his lifetime, thus preventing any individual or group from monopolising power. The similarity of this ideal to the Roman Republican system is striking, and in many ways the tribes of Gaul resembled the city-states of the Mediterranean world, though perhaps at an earlier stage of development.¹⁹

Gaul and its tribes

There is an on-going academic debate over the extent to which we can see the Gauls and other peoples who spoke ‘Celtic’ languages as part of one people with broadly uniform customs and culture, but this need not concern us here. Caesar notes both similarities and differences between the various tribes, but did maintain a very clear distinction between the peoples of Gaul and the German tribes. The River Rhine was presented as the dividing line between them, although he concedes that the picture was a little less clear than this and that some Germanic groups were well established in lands on the west bank. Archaeology does not support such a clear division, suggesting strong similarities in settlement patterns and material culture - pottery, metalwork, etc. - between Gaul and central Germany. There was more of a difference between the southern/central regions and the northern areas of Germany, where there were few substantial fortified settlements. Yet it would be a mistake on this basis to reject the testimony of Caesar and other ancient authors, for archaeology is often a clumsy tool for revealing ethnic or political boundaries. There were distinct Germanic and Celtic languages, and doubtless huge numbers of dialects and regional variations within each broad group. Some tribes that spoke a Germanic language may well have lived in similarly sized and laid out settlements to peoples living in Gaul, as well as using objects of a shape and style that were much alike. This does not mean that either group would have perceived the other as fundamentally like themselves and not as foreigners. They were more likely to see peoples who spoke the same or a similar language, who revered the same deities in much the same way, and who had lived around them for a long time as kindred. This would not in itself have prevented hostility and warfare between the two groups, nor ruled out peaceful relations with a more ‘foreign’ people. Neither the Gauls nor the Germans were nations in any meaningful sense, and personal identity and loyalty had far more to do with tribe and clan, and within these, family, neighbour or chieftain.²⁰

Contact between Gallic tribes and the Mediterranean world had a long history and was often marked by warfare. A band of Gauls had sacked Rome in 390 BC, while other tribes had overrun and settled in the Po Valle). Later, the Romans began to colonise the same region, resulting in a series of wars that ended in the early second century BC with the subjugation and absorption of the Gallic tribes. Around 125 BC the Romans began the conquest of Transalpine Gaul to create a secure land route to their provinces in Spain. One of the proconsuls involved in these campaigns was Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, the great-great-great-grandfather of Emperor Nero. Described by a contemporary as having ‘a face of iron and a heart of lead’, he is said to have impressed the tribes by riding on an elephant, but his most enduring legacy was the Via Domitia, a great strategic road running to Spain. The region was the scene of much fighting during the migration of the Cimbri and Teutones, but there was no more concerted Roman expansion before Caesar’s arrival. There was considerable consolidation, with the establishment of fortified outposts and a colony at Narbo (modern Narbonne) in 118 BC. The latter soon became an important trade centre as goods produced by the great latifundia estates of Italy flooded over the Alps. Wine was the main product, and the trade can be traced by the discovery of sherds from the amphorae used to transport it. The sheer quantity involved is staggering, and one scholar has estimated that during the first century BC some 40 million wine amphorae were traded in Gaul. If anything this figure is probably too low. Each vessel was usually around 3-3 feet 6 inches high and contained 35-45 pints. The main trade routes followed the Rhone-Saone valleys, or went west to the Atlantic coast via the Aude and Garonne. In return for wine and other luxury goods, traders sought raw materials, including tin from south-western Britain, and most of all, slaves. One source claims that a Gaulish chieftain would exchange a slave for a single amphora of wine. This may have been a misunderstanding of the social obligation on a host to demonstrate his wealth and power by giving a guest something of far greater value than his gift, but nevertheless illustrates the importance of wine to the Gaulish nobility. Some of this trade may have been undertaken by local middlemen, but Roman merchants were evidently a familiar sight in much of Gaul. This was a time of great commercial opportunity for Romans, and enterprising businessmen penetrated deep into lands that had never yet seen a Roman army. At one site in Noricum there was a Roman trading community with its own small forum established outside a native town by the start of the first century BC.²¹

Trade with the Roman world encouraged a trend towards centralisation in many of the tribes of Gaul. The late second and first centuries BC saw the growth in large walled towns, which Caesar calls by the somewhat vague term oppida. Many tribes were minting coinage of a standard size and weight based on Hellenistic models, which suggests that long-distance trade was common. Some sites show traces of large-scale manufacturing activity, and were laid out to an organised plan. Entremont, a hill town stormed by the Romans around 124 BC during the conquest of Transalpine Gaul, was built in stone in a very Greek style. The cultural influence was not overwhelming though, for a Hellenistic-style shrine also had niches built into the walls to take the severed heads of enemies. Those communities lying on the main trade routes benefited most from this and their towns were corresponding large. The Arverni lay on the western route, while the Rhone-Saone valleys were contested between the Aedui and Sequani. The principal town of the Aedui at Bibracte (modern Mont Beuvray) enclosed an area of 135 hectares within its walls, and excavations there have revealed vast quantities of wine amphorae. Towns like this tended to be the focus of tribal government, but never quite acquired the central role of Greek and Roman cities. Leaders whose power was based on rural areas were still able to dominate their tribe.²²

In the end it was the aristocracy which dominated all the tribes of Gaul to a greater or lesser extent. Caesar dismissed the ordinary people as little more than slaves, so closely were they tied to powerful chieftains. The nobility he divided into the knights (equites) and the priests, known as druids. Neither group was drawn from a set caste, and families could contain both druids and knights. The druids did not fight and their power rested on their long years of training, which made them experts in matters of religion, law and tribal custom. Caesar says that they deliberately wrote none of their beliefs down, since they felt that reliance on the written word weakened the power of memory and also might diminish their own authority. As a result, very little is known with certainty of druidic beliefs - something that has given plenty of scope over the centuries for the vacuum to be filled with romantic invention. At the time Greek philosophers liked to see the druids as primitive Stoics, and Caesar does say that they believed in the immortality of the soul, something that he claimed encouraged warriors to disdain death in battle. Once a year the druids of much of Gaul met at a shrine in the territory of the Carnutes, but their ability to act as a force to unify the tribes was extremely limited. They also presided over sacrifices and could punish a man by barring him from such rituals. The type of offering varied, but Caesar and our other ancient sources are adamant that the Gauls practised human sacrifice on certain occasions. He speaks of large wicker figures that were filled with people - usually criminals or enemies, but if there were none of these then others had to take their place - and set on fire. Some scholars dismiss such stories as Greek and Roman propaganda, but we should not forget that the Romans themselves had offered human victims to the gods at the time when the Cimbri threatened Italy, and the Senate only outlawed the practice in 97 BC. Roman society remained quite content to watch people being killed for entertainment in the arena, but balked at killing them for the sake of religion. The archaeological record does not provide incontrovertible evidence for widespread human sacrifice by the Gallic tribes, although such practices are clearly attested amongst the Germanic and British peoples. However, it is certain that many Gaulish rituals certainly made use of human body parts, and it is in most cases impossible to tell whether or not these were acquired through ritual killings. In addition head-hunting was certainly common amongst Gaulish warriors and probably amongst many north European peoples. The shrine at Entremont, and a similar one at nearby Rocquepertuse, provide graphic illustration of this.²³ Strabo tells us that:

when they [the Gauls] depart from the battle they hang the heads of their enemies from the necks of their horses, and, when they have brought them home, nail the spectacle to the entrances of their houses. Poseidonius says that he himself saw this spectacle in many places, and that, although at first he loathed it, afterwards, through his familiarity with it, he could bear it calmly. The heads of enemies of high repute, however, they used to embalm in cedar-oil and exhibit to strangers, and they would not deign to give them back even for a ransom of an equal weight in gold.²⁴

Poseidonius was a Greek philosopher who travelled in southern Gaul in the early years of the first century BC, gathering material for his ethnographic study He later settled in Rome and it is quite possible that Caesar met him. A Gallic coin from the middle of the century actually depicts a warrior holding a severed head in one hand. Archaeologists have also discovered a gruesome trophy at Ribemont-sur-Ancre, where the corpses of many armed warriors and some horses had been fixed to a wooden structure, so that they stood upright. The heads of all these men were missing, and it is now unclear whether they were defeated enemies or some form of sacrificial offering. Caesar mentions that mounds of spoils taken from an enemy were often dedicated to the gods and could be seen in many places, for the Gauls respected the rituals and would not dare to steal anything from them. He also states that before his arrival the tribes would go to war ‘well-nigh every year, in the sense that they would either make wanton attacks themselves or repelling such’. Strabo described the whole Gallic race as ‘war-mad’, and it is clear that the knights were a warrior aristocracy A man’s status was judged by the number of warriors he maintained at his own expense and who were personally bound to him by solemn oaths. The strength and fame of their retinues acted as deterrents against anyone inside or outside the tribe from attacking them, or the communities loyal to and protected by them.²⁵

Much of the military activity in Gaul seems to have taken the form of raiding, but at times warfare between the tribes could be on a very large scale, as in the struggle between the Aedui and Sequani for control of the trade route along the Rhone-Saone valleys. It is very unlikely that the growth in trade with the Mediterranean world caused the tribes of Gaul to become warlike, but it certainly acted as a spur to war-making. The goods that flooded into Gaul were primarily aimed at the aristocratic market. Wine played an important role in the feasting that bonded chieftain and warrior together, and luxury goods helped to increase a man’s status or could provide spectacular gifts for loyal followers. The tribes along the trade routes had best access to such goods, and could also levy tolls on trade, and the bulk of the profits went to the aristocracy, giving them the wealth to support bigger and bigger bands of warriors. Leaders needed not just riches, but a high martial reputation if they were to encourage to join and then retain famous warriors in their train. Successful raiding was one of the best ways to achieve this, and also win plunder, some of which could be given to followers to confirm their loyalty. Individual leaders and whole tribes were willing to use force to control the trade routes. In addition the slaves, which seem to have been traded so freely for wine, had to come from somewhere, encouraging raiding to take captives. An aristocrat with a strong following of warriors might often turn this against enemies of his tribe, but there was also the temptation to use force in a bid for power inside the tribe. Kings had largely disappeared amongst the tribes of central Gaul, and even elsewhere their powers were limited, but the dream of monarchic or tyrannical power still fired the imagination of many powerful leaders. The institutions of the tribe, the magistrates and senatorial council, were not always strong enough to control such men.²⁶

In contrast to the Roman legions, Gallic armies were clumsy forces, which rarely had the logistical ability to remain in the field for a long campaign and were difficult for their commanders to manoeuvre. Warriors were individually brave, but, apart from the retinues of great men, rarely drilled or trained collectively, and the emphasis was generally on individual prowess. The semi-professional warriors who followed powerful chieftains were comparatively few in numbers, sufficient for a raiding expedition, but never more than a small inner core in a tribal army, which consisted mainly of all those men able to provide themselves with weapons. The Romans may well have copied mail armour as well as their commonest helmet designs from Gallic originals, but they were able to manufacture them in far greater quantities. Every legionary had a sword, shield, cuirass and helmet, but only the wealthy and some of the semi-professional warriors were likely to have had all of these things. The vast majority of warriors fought without any protection apart from a shield. Swords do seem to have been fairly common, but tended to be longer than the Roman style - itself a copy of a Spanish design - and used more for slashing than thrusting. Most of the tribes raised horses for riding, which were of a smaller size than most modern mounts but of good quality. Gallic cavalry were famous, and the mounted arm of the professional Roman army would subsequently copy many aspects of equipment, training and terminology from them. However, while very effective in a charge, the cavalry of the tribes, which inevitably consisted of the wealthier warriors, often showed little enthusiasm or aptitude for such important roles as patrolling.²⁷

Gaul was not in the most stable of conditions when Caesar arrived. The Roman province of Transalpine Gaul was still recovering from the rebellion of the Allobroges, who had received no reward for aiding Cicero in 63 BC and had felt no alternative but to revolt. This had been suppressed by 60 BC, but the on-going struggle between the Aedui and the Sequani was a serious matter, since it affected the security of the province and the continuance of profitable trade. Both tribes were allied to Rome, but also displayed a willingness to seek outside help in winning the conflict. Around 71 BC the Sequani had summoned the Germanic King Ariovistus to bring his warriors to their aid. About ten years later he inflicted a serious defeat on the Aedui, many of whose principal noblemen were killed in the fighting. In return he was granted land on which his followers could settle. Soon afterwards the Aedui were also raided by the Helvetii from what is now Switzerland. Around the same time Diviciacus, a druid who had held the office of Vergobret, came to Rome seeking assistance. The Senate sent a delegation of envoys to the region, but took no direct action. In 59 BC, during Caesar’s own consulship, Ariovistus was recognised as both king and a ‘friend of the Roman people’. For the moment this diplomatic activity had brought a measure of stability to the frontiers around Transalpine Gaul, but it is worth emphasising that Caesar was entering a dynamic situation. The balance of power between - and often within - the tribes was frequently changing. By no stretch of the imagination were the tribes of Gaul mere victims, passively awaiting the onslaught of Roman imperialism. Yet they were certainly disunited and divided, and these weaknesses would be ruthlessly exploited by Caesar.²⁸