Caesar, B.G., Book II, Chapters 32-33

Latin Learning Latin
1

Salvete!

I need your help with a passage from Book II of Caesar’s Bellum Gallicum:

Problem 1

In chapter 32 the Aduatuci, who have gathered in a single town, after the Romans more or less wiped out the Nervii in one fell stroke, feign to surrender and throw (two thirds of) their arma in a ditch:

Armorum magnâ multitudine de murô in fossam quae erat ante oppidum iactâ, sic ut prope summam muri aggerisque altitudinem acervi > armorum > adaequarent, et tamen circiter parte tertiâ, ut postea perspectum est, celatâ atque in oppidô retentâ, portis patefactis eô die pace sunt usi.

So far so good. In chapter 33 Caesar withdraws his soldiers from the town and closes its gate, in order to prevent his men from mischief (i. e. raping, plundering). The Aduatuci waited for this (or something similar) and rearm. Here it comes:

[Aduatuci] ante initô, ut intellectum est, consiliô, quod deditione factâ nostros praesidia deducturos aut denique indiligentius servaturos crediderant, partim cum eis quae retinuerant et celaverant > armis> , partim scutis ex cortice factis aut vominibus intextis, quae subito, ut temporis exiguitas postulabat, pelllibus induxerant, tertiâ vigiliâ, quâ minime arduus ad nostras munitiones ascensus videbatur, omnibus copiis repentinô ex oppidô eruptionem fecerunt.

Now, what’s the problem? I do not quite understand the use of arma in this context. When reading chapter 32 I imagined some Aduatici throwing all their military stuff, both offensive (swords, spears, etc.) and defensive (primarily shields) into the ditch. Then, however, I stumbled upon the above passage from chapter 33. Again the word arma is being used, but only defensive weapons, namely shields, are cited. Does that mean, that they only threw their shields into the ditch, but not the swords? But that wouldn’t make sense, after all the Romans were not dumb. They would have noticed a decided lack of swords raining down from the wall, wouldn’t they? Arma can mean both defensive and defensive weapons, but as far as I know has defensive ones as its primary idea. Any idea, what I am missing?

Problem 2

My second problem is concerned less with language and more with the way things worked back then. Continuing with chapter 33, we learn of the fate of the hapless Aduatuci:

Occisis ad hominum milibus quattuor reliqui in oppidum reiecti sunt. Postridie eius diei refractis portis, cum iam defenderet nemo, atque intromissis militibus nostris > sectionem eius oppidi universam Caesar vendidit. Ab eis qui emerant capitum numerus ad eum relatus est milium quinquaginta trium.

What astounds me here is not so much any ethical conundrum, but the logistical challenge: 53,000 captives or slaves. Okay, let us assume, that Caesar exaggerated the numbers in order to impress senatum populumque Romanum. That would still leave a staggering number of people: men, women, children, all these the buyer had to transport to a market where they could be sold for profit. On the way they had to be fed, and that probably all the way from north-eastern France or Belgium to the Mediterranean coast. Or were they sold to other Gallic states? Does anyone know more about how these large scale “confiscations” of populace worked?

Thank you for your help,

Carolus Raeticus

2

Arma, if you look it up in the OLD, can mean any mix of offensive and defensive weapons. I think you’ve missed the force of partim…partim. Partly they used the arms that they had hidden, and partly from from newly made shields. In other words context determines whether primarily defensive, primarily offensive, or a mixture of both. The arma here has to refer to both. Now, think for a minute: why would they need to supplement with shields? If I were part of this subterfuge, I think I would be more inclined to hold on to my sword and toss the shield, so they may have ended up with more offensive than defensive armaments in their hidden weapons.

As for your second question, I’d like to see a good answer to that one as well.

3

I agree with Barry that you haven’t quite understood partim… partim. Clearly the Aduatuci must have mostly got rid of their shields in what must have been highly theatrical performance and they had to be replaced by the hastily improvised shields which they made.

If you were pursued by a tribesman wielding a sword and a shield I don’t think you would make any distinction between an offensive or defensive weapon.

As to the transportation of large numbers of captives as slaves they wouldn’t necessarily all be sent to the coast. Slavery was pretty common and so I am sure there were ready markets locally. But if it was decided to send some of them to Italy, presumably they would select the strongest and expect many(?) to die on the march. I am sure the slave traders looked on feeding them as a necessary cost which would have to be kept to a minimum. The Oxford Classical dictionary(4 ed.) article on Slavery estimates that at the close of the republic there were around 2 million slaves in Italy. Most of these would have come through conquest. This would imply that there were well established routes and markets. Once you got the slaves onto a roman road the logistics would be quite straightforward. I doubt 50,000 would be sent in one group.

"sectionem eius oppidi universam Caesar vendidit. "

While the town was sold as one lot, Kelsey in his notes to this passage says: " in such cases the buyers who joined in the bid afterwards divided up the purchase among themselves for resale in smaller lots. Such wholesale buyers accompanied Roman armies."

All very organised and brutal.

4

Hi Carole,

“partim cum eis quae retinuerant et celaverant armis, partim scutis ex cortice factis aut vominibus intextis, quae subito, ut temporis exiguitas postulabat, pelllibus induxerant, tertiâ vigiliâ, quâ minime arduus ad nostras munitiones ascensus videbatur, omnibus copiis repentinô ex oppidô eruptionem fecerunt.”

The way I read this is that of those who made the breakout, some had weapons they had retained and hid, others had shields that they woven from wicker. Literally, "partly with those weapons that they had retained and hid, partly with shields made from bark or woven with wicker , they made a breakout. The arma are still the same as the arma they threw over the walls, just not enough to go around, so the poor sods without arma had to settle for bark and wicker shields. Even with shields, though they could still make a difference. They couldn’t kill, but they push the Roman line back. As I understand it, battles were fought by making a shield wall whose function was to repel the enemy. You pushed with your shield against the man directly ahead of you, whilst stabbing at the man next to him. This is a little different from Barry’s and Seneca’s interpretation, so I’m afraid I may be muddying the waters a bit.

5

Not at all.

Its a good point about using the shields to push the enemy back. Its partly what I meant by saying that there isn’t really a clear distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. If you are attacking all your weapons are offensive if you are defending you might regard them all as defensive. Its not the weapons themselves but the use to which they are put that is key.

6

Salvete!

And thank you for your help. Thank you, Seneca, for your contribution concerning the commercial aftermath of this campaign.

As for the first problem (arma), I am still somewhat stymied, although Aetos’ suggestion concerning the use of shields as a (semi-)offensive weapon may actually solve the problem.

Still, I think that I was sufficiently aware of the partim … partim …-construction. Actually, that probably caused my consternation. Doesn’t this construction require the first part and the second part to be reasonably similar (more than offensive and defensive weapons being objects being used in war)? At least I get that impression from the entry in OLD ((partim, 1b). Since the second partim in Chapter 33 referred to shields, I thought that the first partim also ought to refer to defensive weapons. And were the Romans really that unobservant when it came to judging whether the Aduatuci (why do I keep thinking about a parrot resting on a pirate’s shoulder when reading that name?) really got rid of their military implements? I would expect that process to have been supervised or at least closely observed by some Roman officers. And if they didn’t notice that far too many offensive weapons were held back, these same officers would deserve some severe rebuke. And, again, would the Aduatuci really have been that suicidal to attack with many of their fighters only wielding shields (and wouldn’t Caesar have mentioned this type of “bravery”?). That would be brave, but also rather… stupid?

But that the first partim has to refer to both offensive and defensive weapons, seems clear now. That the second partim concentrates on shields might be explained by the excess of shields thrown away during the dumping having been used to cover the lack of swords among the “trove”.

Vale,

Carolus Raeticus