History of Julius Caesar Vol. 2 of 2

382

Titus Livius, XLIV. 37.

383

We must now go back to the fourteenth day before the full moon, that is, to the 17th of August, 699, to find a day on which high tide took place at Dover towards midday.

384

Mr. Lewin has stated that the country between Deal and Sandwich produces no wheat. This assertion is tolerably true for the tongue of marshy land which separates those two localities; but what does it signify, since wheat grows in great quantities in all the part of the county of Kent situated to the west of the coast which extends from the South Foreland to Deal and Sandwich?

385

It is almost impossible to fix with certainty the day when Cæsar quitted Britain; we know only that it was a short time before the equinox (propinqua die æquinoxii), which, according to the calculations of M. Le Verrier, fell on the 26th of September, and that the fleet started a little after midnight. If we admit a passage of nine hours, with a favorable wind (ipse idoneam tempestatem nactus), as on the return of the second expedition, Cæsar would have arrived at Boulogne towards nine o’clock in the morning. As the fleet could not enter the port until the tide was in, it is sufficient, to know approximatively the date of Cæsar’s return, to seek what day in the month of September, 699, there was high tide at that hour at Bolougne. Now, in this port, the tide is always at its height towards nine o’clock in the morning two or three days before full moon and before new moon; therefore, since the full moon of the month of September, 699, took place on the 14th, it must have been about the 11th or 12th of September that Cæsar returned to Gaul. As to the two ships which were driven farther down, Mr. Lewin (Invasion of Britain by J. Cæsar) explains this accident in a very judicious manner. He states that we read in the tide-tables of the English Admiralty the following recommendation: “In approaching Boulogne when the tide is flowing in, great attention must be paid, because the current, which, on the English side, drags a ship towards the east, on the Boulogne side drags them, on the contrary, towards the Somme.” Nothing, then, is more natural than that the two Roman transport ships should be driven ashore to the south of Boulogne.

386

“It was there (the mouth of the Seine) that Cæsar established his naval arsenal, when he passed over to that island (Britain.)” (Strabo, II. 160.)

387

De Bello Gallico, V. 3, 4.

388

The Meldæ dwelt on the Marne, in the country around Meaux; and as we have seen, according to Strabo, that Cæsar had established his naval arsenal at the mouth of the Seine, there is nothing extraordinary in the circumstance that some of the ships were built near Meaux. But it is not reasonable to suppose, with some writers, that the Meldæ dwelt at the mouth of the Scheldt, and believe that Cæsar had left important shipyards in an enemy’s country, and out of reach of protection.

389

The five legions which Cæsar led into Britain made, at about 5,000 men each, 25,000 men. There were, in addition to these, 2,000 cavalry. If we suppose, as in the first expedition, twenty-five horses per ship, it would require eighty to contain the cavalry. In the preceding year, eighty transport ships had been sufficient for two legions, without baggage – 200 ought to have been enough for five legions; but as the “Commentaries” give us to understand that those vessels were narrower, and that the troops had their baggage, it may be believed that they required double the number of ships, that is, 400, for the transport of the five legions, which would make about sixty-two men in a ship. There would remain 160 transport ships for the Gaulish and Roman chiefs, the valets, and the provisions. The twenty-eight galleys were, no doubt, the true ships of war, destined to protect the fleet and the landing.

390

According to a passage in the “Commentaries” (Book V. 26), there was in the Roman army a body of Spanish cavalry.

391

Dio Casstas, XL. 1.

392

De Bella Galtico, V. 8.

393

This appears to us to be evident, since we shall see subsequently Cæsar inclosed his fleet within the retrenchments contiguous to his camp.

394

As in the first expedition the disaster which happened to his fleet must have proved to Cæsar the danger to which the vessels were exposed on the coast, the above reflection indicates that, in his second expedition, he chose a better anchorage, at a few kilomètres farther to the north.

395

Ten cohorts formed a legion; but Cæsar does not employ this last expression, because, no doubt, he drew from each of his legions two cohorts, which he left for the guard of the camp. In this manner he preserved the tactical number of five legions, which was more advantageous, and caused each legion to participate in the honour of combating.

396

If from the sea-shore, near Deal, where we suppose that the Romans established their camp, we describe, with a radius of twelve miles, an arc of a circle, we cut towards the west, the villages of Kingston and Barham, and more to the north, the village of Littlebourne, a stream called the Little Stour, which rises near Lyminge, flows from south to north across a rather irregular country, and falls into the Great Stour. This stream is incontestably the flumen of the “Commentaries.” There is the less room for error, as we find no other stream in the part of the county of Kent comprised between the coast of Deal and the Great Stour, and as this latter runs too far from Deal to answer to the text. Although the Little Stour is not, between Barham and Kingston, more than from three to four mètres broad, we need not be astonished at the denomination of flumen given to it by Cæsar, for he employs the same expression to designate simple rivulets, such as the Ose and the Oserain. (De Bello Gallico, VII. 69, Alesia.)

But did Cæsar reach the Little Stour towards Barham and Kingston or towards Littlebourne? The doubt is allowable. We believe, nevertheless, that the country of Barham and Kingston agrees best with the idea we form from reading the “Commentaries.” The heights on the left bank of the Little Stour are not so broken as to prevent chariots and cavalry from manœuvring on them, and the Britons might have occupied, as the text requires, a commanding position, locus superior, on the banks which end at the river in gentle slopes.

This stream, considering its little depth, does not form any real obstacle. Now it appears, in fact, to result from the recital of the “Commentaries,” that the engagement as it was not of a serious character, and that Cæsar’s cavalry passed it without difficulty. This last fact forms an objection to the Great Stour, which several authors, and among others General de Gœler, take for the flumen of the text; it is sufficiently broad and sufficiently steep-banked towards Sturry, where they place the scene of the action, to render the passage difficult for cavalry. Moreover, Sturry is fifteen, and not twelve miles from the coast of Deal.

397

It is evident that this place must not be sought at more than a few kilomètres from the Little Stour; for it must be remembered that the Romans had landed the day before, that they had made a night march of twelve miles, and that they have just given battle. Unfortunately, the country situated to the west of Kingston is so much broken and wooded, that it is impossible to choose one site rather than another to make a British oppidum. Perhaps it might be placed towards Bursted or Upper Hardres.

398

De Bello Gallico, V. 9.

399

It has appeared to us interesting to explain how Cæsar could join the fleet to his camp.

The Roman camp must have been on flat ground, to allow of the possibility of drawing up the ships of the fleet. Supposing that the mean size of each ship was twenty-five mètres long by six mètres broad, and that the 800 ships composing the fleet had been placed at two mètres from each other, on five lines separated by a distance of three mètres, the fleet would have covered a rectangle of 1,280 mètres by 140, joined with the camp by other trenches. It is, of course, understood that the lightest boats would form the line farthest from the sea.

400

De Bello Gallico, V. 11.

401

This is the expression of Cæsar, but it is certain that this number does not indicate the shortest distance from the Thames to the Straits. Cæsar, no doubt, meant to tell us the length of the route he took from the sea to the Thames.

402

On the chariots of the Britons consult Strabo (IV., p. 166), and Dio Cassius (LXXVI. 12). Cæsar spoke of many thousand cavalry and war-chariots, in the third book of a Memoir addressed to Cicero, but which is lost. (Junius Philargyrus, Comm. on the Georgics of Virgil, III., p. 204.)

403

De Bello Gallico, V. 17.

404

There remains not the slightest vestige in the county of Kent which might help us in tracing the march of the Roman army. The camp of Holwood, near Keston, which the English maps call Cæsar’s Camp, does not belong to the period of which we are treating. On St. George’s Hill, near Walton-on-the-Thames, no camp ever existed.

Unfortunately, it is no more possible to ascertain the exact place where Cæsar crossed the Thames by a ford. We are convinced of this by the researches of all kinds made by the officers Stoffel and Hamelin. The boatmen of the Thames all assured them that between Shepperton and London there are now reckoned eight or nine places fordable; the most favourable is that at Sunbury. At Kingston, where General de Gœler places the passage, nothing leads us to suppose that a ford ever existed. The same thing must be said of Coway Stakes. At Halliford, in spite of the termination of the word, the inhabitants have no tradition of an ancient ford. The only thing which appears to us evident is, that the Roman army did not pass below Teddington. We know that this village, the name of which comes from Tide-end-town, marks the last point of the Thames where the tide is felt. We cannot believe that Cæsar would expose himself to be surprised during his passage by an increase of the volume of water.

405

De Bello Gallico, V. 18. – Polyænus expresses himself thus: “Cæsar, when he was in the isle of Britain, sought to pass a great river. Cassivellaunus, King of the Britons, opposed the passage with a numerous cavalry and many chariots. Cæsar had a very great elephant, an animal which the Britons had never seen; he armed it with iron flakes, and placed on its back a great tower filled with archers and slingers, all men of skill, and caused it to advance into the river. The Britons were struck with astonishment at the view of such an enormous animal, which was unknown to them. And is it necessary to say that their horses were frightened at it, since we know that, even among the Greeks, the presence of an elephant causes the horses to flee? Much more were those of the barbarians unable to support the view of an elephant armed and loaded with a tower from which flew stones and arrows. Britons, horses, and chariots, all equally took flight; and the Romans, by means of the terror caused by a single animal, passed the river without danger.” (Strateg., VIII. 23, § 5.)