From: george knysh
Message: 59347
Date: 2008-06-21
--- On Sat, 6/21/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
--- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 6/19/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
>
>
> The Senate called the Aedui 'brothers' of the Roman people
> http://classics. mit.edu/Caesar/ gallic.1. 1.html 33
> no later than 60 BCE
> http://en.wikisourc e.org/wiki/ Letters_to_ Atticus/1. 19
>
> GK: What's your date for the battle of Magetobriga?
Later than that, obviously, I would have said 58 BCE.
But going back to the sources, something bothers me.
****GK: The letter from Cicero to Atticus which you refer to was written in March, 60 BCE. Cicero says that "Haedui fratres nostri pugnam nuper malam pugnaverunt." "Nuper" would take us back to the previous year for Magetobriga (the "pugna mala"). Fall of 61 BCE at the latest.****
http://classics. mit.edu/Caesar/ gallic.1. 1.html 31
'And that broken by such engagements and calamities, although they had
formerly been very powerful in Gaul, both from their own valor and
from the Roman people's hospitality and friendship, they were now
compelled to give the chief nobles of their state, as hostages to the
Sequani, and to bind their state by an oath, that they would neither
demand hostages in return, nor supplicate aid from the Roman people,
nor refuse to be forever under their sway and empire. That he was the
only one out of all the state of the Aedui, who could not be prevailed
upon to take the oath or to give his children as hostages. On that
account he had fled from his state and had gone to the senate at Rome
to beseech aid, as he alone was bound neither by oath nor hostages.'
This seems to fix his visit to Rome after Magetobriga.
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Ariovistus , see Magetobriga
****GK: I quite agree. And it is then, during the winter of 61-60 BCE that Cicero would have met Divitiacus, as he says in De divinatione.****
Looking at how Ariovistus explains it (1.44), this is what happened
(and I think C. had a secretary write down the things A. said and
later copied it into his book; they are not flattering for C. and
accordingly become Dio Cassius' best evidence against Caesar's
proclaimed peaceful intentions):
The 15.000 had been given space to settle by the Arverni and Sequani.
After the victory over the Aedui, those two tribes tried to drive out
Ariovistus' people, cf. 'that he had not made war upon the Gauls, but
the Gauls upon him; that all the states of Gaul came to attack him,
and had encamped against him; that all their forces had been routed
and beaten by him in a single battle;'.
All the states of Gaul?
****GK: Polemic overemphasis. He meant the Aedui and their many confederates. And they did attack him,since Magetobriga was in Sequani territory. It was a massive Aeduan-led invasion, which ended badly for the invaders. Ariovistus only got his land grant from the Sequani after this big victory. I too am troubled by some aspects of the account. I'm no longer certain that Ariovistus' claim of "rooflessness" for 14 years needs to be interpreted as anything more than an assertion that he and his troops were on a constant military footing.****
All the states of Gaul had recently been assembled.
'(1.30) They requested that they might be allowed to proclaim an
assembly of the whole of Gaul for a particular day, and to do that
with Caesar's permission, [stating] that they had some things which,
with the general consent, they wished to ask of him. This request
having been granted, they appointed a day for the assembly, and
ordained by an oath with each other, that no one should disclose
[their deliberations] except those to whom this [office] should be
assigned by the general assembly. (1.31) When that assembly was
dismissed, the same chiefs of states, who had before been to Caesar,
returned, and asked that they might be allowed to treat with him
privately (in secret) concerning the safety of themselves and of all.
That request having been obtained, they all threw themselves in tears
at Caesar's feet,...'.
You can't blame A. for turning on his old employer. I think it was
only then he imported the 120.000 settlers.
****GK: These 120,000 may or may not have included the recently arrived Harudes. It's hard to say. Divitiacus implies at any rate that the original 15,000 are counted in. So that makes either 81,000 or 105,000 imports (with huge additional numbers on the way).I don't see how Caesar's text remotely justifies your interpretation. First Magetobriga, then the assembly, then the import? The only import known for 58 BCE were the Harudes, before the assembly. The others came earlier. In the course of the "repeated" conflicts between the Aedui and the Arverni/Sequani, which lasted for years.****
There is something fishy about the whole scene of the assembly of the
highest representatives of all of Gaul throwing themselves bawling at
Caesar's feet, in a secret meeting, no witnesses, except the assembly,
and most of them were probably gone one way or another by the time DBG
was published. I think the trek of the Helvetii was a flight, that
they were all refugees from a war with Ariovist in S. Germania, who
discovered their situation was untenable and fled, after using
scorched-earth tactics on their land. Caesar drove them back, because
he wanted them to stay as a buffer against Ariovist etc. Caesar could
not write that he had attacked a column of refugees.
****GK: The Helvetii had planned their move before Magetobriga, when Ariovistus was just a hired mercenary with varying military successes on behalf of the Sequani.****
Why does he arrange the story so we get the impression that he only
discovered how dangerous A. was when the Gauls in tears told him? He
had had dealings with him before, enough to appoint him 'friend of the
Roman people'.
****GK: After Magetobriga, Ariovistus did not invade the lands of the Aedui or their confederates. The Sequani got the hostages initially, plus the "glory" of being top dogs in Gaul. And then Ariovistus turned on them.****
The whole story of the Gaulish representations filling
him in on the details of the situation in Gaul around Ariovistus does
not hold water. Caesar never lost sight of his opposition. Dio Cassius
suspects Caesar of ulterior motives in the Ariovistus incident, I
think he had ulterior motives already in the Helvetii incident.
Orgetorix was actually tried for high treason '(1.4) they, according
to their custom, compelled Orgetorix to plead his cause in chains'),
he had, in the middle of a war against Ariovist in their former
territories, on his own initiative travelled to Gaul to negotiate safe
passage and settlements for the Helvetii as the fled.
****GK: Orgetorix concocted his scheme in 61BCE when Messala amnd Piso were consuls. He was killed that same year, certainly before Magetobriga. Ariovistus was still but a Sequani mercenary. Not a major factor, so the Gauls thought,in spite of growing numbers of imports.These numbers didn't stop the Aedui from attempting their massive invasion.Only Magetobriga showed them how wrong they were.****
For that he was
executed. Later it became clear he was right and they had to flee.
'(1.5) They [the Helvetii] persuade the Rauraci, and the Tulingi, and
the Latobrigi, their neighbors, to adopt the same plan, and after
burning down their towns and villages, to set out with them: and they
admit to their party and unite to themselves as confederates the Boii,
who had dwelt on the other side of the Rhine, and had crossed over
into the Norican territory, and assaulted Noreia.' So the Boii, who
lived in Bohemia had attacked A.'s brother-in-law. That means they
were at war with A., by that time at the latest. They now also had to
flee.
The goal of the Helvetii, from where according to Caesar they wanted
to dominate all of France, was the Santones
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Helvetii
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Santoni
who lived in what is now Saintonge
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Saintonge
with the main city of Saintes
http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Saintes
How could they threaten all of Gaul from there?
By the look of it, they wanted to get to the sea.
That would befit a trading people.
So, yes, 58 BCE, I'd say
****GK: 61 BCE fits the evidence.****
Torsten