If Caesar wished to finish off the business and to make away with a brood of malefactors, he must needs send several bands in different directions and move his troops at wide intervals; if he wished to keep the companies with the standards, as the established rule and custom of the Roman army required, the locality itself gave protection to the natives
Hello, the question I have here is about the conditionals. They both appear to be future conditionals (thrown back in to past time), with the protases in the imperfect subjunctive, which fits. However the apparent apodoses dimittendae…milites, and locus…barbaris, are in the imperfect indicative, which doesn’t fit. Is it possible this is a past general conditional?
When the verb of the apodosis (the main clause) denotes possibility (e.g. poterat) or necessity (as here with dimittendae … diducendique erant), it’s quite normal for it to be indicative rather than subjunctive.
The second sentence is not quite the same, but close enough for the prior construction to be repeated; and locus ipse erat praesidio is a simple statement of fact, independent of the condition, so it’s slightly elliptical.
More fully (less elliptically) he’d have written something like “si continere ad signa manipulos vellet, <non poterat, nam> locus ipse erat praesidio barbaris.
Magnam haec res Caesari difficultatem ad consilium capiendum adferebat, si reliquam partem hiemis uno loco legiones contineret, [veritus] ne stipendiariis Aeduorum expugnatis cuncta Gallia deficeret, quod nullum amicis in eo praesidium videretur positum esse; -Dbg 7,10,1
This action of Vercingetorix caused Caesar great difficulty in forming his plan of campaign. If he were to keep the legions in one place for the rest of the winter, he was afraid that the reduction of the tributaries of the Aedui would be followed by a revolt of all Gaul, on the ground that Caesar was found to be no safeguard to his friends.
Here is another question from Ceasar: I’m wondering if it would be acceptable to imply [veritus], and whether deficeret is in the imperfect subjunctive because it is in the apodosis of a future conditional in past tense, or for another reason. Also, videretur appears to be the verb of a quod causal clause, but it seems to relate to the future, so I’m a bit puzzled as to why it would be in the imperfect subjunctive.
I’m not sure there’s need to add veritus (which in any case should really precede the si clause, not follow it). The ne clause seems sufficiently intelligible in itself after magnam difficultatem, much as it would after e.g. periculum. But I’m not much of a reader of Caesar.
And yes, deficeret is imperfect because we’re in a past narrative (adferebat). Similarly with videretur in the quod clause (the subjunctive also representing the presumable standpoint of the Gauls). There are only so many tenses available.
Magnam haec res Caesari difficultatem ad consilium capiendum adferebat ne stipendiariis Aeduorum expugnatis cuncta Gallia deficeret.
Thank you. I was hoping that you could help me to understand how the ne clause is intelligible as you say after magnam difficultatem with the si clause omitted.
The si clause, while grammatically subordinate, is essential to the sense. And I note that you copy only half of the relevant text, for I see the original consists of a pair of opposing alternatives (si reliquam partem hiemis uno loco legiones contineret, …; si maturius ex hibernis educeret, …), each with its ne clause describing the undesirable outcome in either case.
As for all the imperfect subjunctives, we must bear in mind how very limited Latin is in its linguistic resources, especially in comparison to Greek. Greek has not only the optative mood but also the invaluable particle ἄν, whereas poor Latin has little more than the subjunctive, and the imperfect subjunctive is often formally ambiguous or has to do double duty.