Re: [tied Ariovistus again

--- On Sat, 6/21/08, 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: As mentioned, this is the letter indicating that
> Magetobriga was fought in 61 BCE. Here, BTW, is a description of it
> in Caesar's own words:

> "If the unsuccessful battle and flight of the Gauls disquieted any,
> these, if they made inquiries, might discover that, when the Gauls
> had been tired out by the long duration of the war, Ariovistus,
> after he had many months kept himself in his camp and in the
> marshes, and had given no opportunity for an engagement, fell
> suddenly upon them, by this time despairing of a battle and
> scattered in all directions, and was victorious more through
> stratagem and cunning than valor." (DBG, 1:40)

This is the opposite of what Ariovistus says.

****GK: Did Ariovistus write his own "De Bello Gallico"?(:=))****

If Caesar knows this to
be so, why doesn't he say so straight out, instead of reasoning about
what might possibly be discovered, if one made inquiries? And why 'the
Gauls'? He was already at war with the Aedui; attacking his employer,
the Arverni or the Sequani, would have been scandalous. Why then say
he fought 'the Gauls' (and that's what Ariovistus and Diviaticus said
too)?

****GK: A general term does not always include everybody. It's just a speech mode to be interpreted in context. This is elementary. There are millions of possible examples. E.g. Mark 1:5: "egrediebatur ad illum omnis Iudaeae regio et Hierosolymitae universi et baptizabantur ab illo in Iordane flumine" Does this mean that all Judaeans and all Jerusalemites were being baptized by John? Of course not. Ditto Caesar's "the Gauls" vs. Ariovistus.****

>
> Caesar in his consulship 59 BCE
> http://www.livius. org/caa-can/ caesar/caesar03. html
> called Ariovistus 'king and friend'.
> http://classics. mit.edu/Caesar/ gallic.1. 1.html 35
> That means Ariovistus can not have been at war with the Aedui in 59
>
> GK: Correct.
>
> BCE. He must have been elsewhere before that in the 14 years he had
> been without a roof (ie in 72 - 59 BCE).
>
> GK: Before the invasion which led to Magetobriga in 61 BCE,
> there had been other conflicts, with Ariovistus fighting on the
> side of the Sequani. Cf. DBG, 1:31: "Divitiacus the Aeduan spoke...
> ...'there were two parties in the whole of Gaul: that the Aedui
> stood at the head of one of these, the Arverni of the other. After
> these had been violently struggling with one another for the
> superiority for many years, it came to pass that the Germans were
> called in for hire by the Arverni and the Sequani. That about
> 15,000 of them [i.e. of the Germans] had at first crossed the Rhine
> [This "first crossing" is the arrival of Ariovistus GK]. but after
> that these wild and savage men had become enamored of the lands and
> the refinement and the abundance of the Gauls, more were brought
> over [It would have taken some time for this development. Meanwhile
> Ariovistus and his 15,000 took part in the never ending skirmishes
> of the never ending struggle GK]... ... with these the Aedui and
> their dependents had repeatedly struggled in arms [at first with
> Ariovistus' 15,000, and then with him and the imports, as they
> trickled in. Group after group, like the Harudes. It took years.
> "Repeatedly" . GK]

I think Diviaticus' estimate of 120.000 of the total number of Germani
in Gaul is the same as the original 15.000 plus the 24.000 Harudes.
This because these 24.000 are the reason A. offers for his claim of
1/3 of the land of the Aedui. If 1/3 of the Aedui land is enough to
support 24.000 people, the other 1/3 they already had would be for the
15.000 original settlers.

****GK: Have fun rewriting DBG in your alternative universe.****

> On the other hand, Caesar states
> http://classics. mit.edu/Caesar/ gallic.1. 1.html 1
> that the Helvetii were constantly at war with the Germani (ie. in
> the time up to the Gallic War, before 58 BCE),
> ('when they either repel them from their own territories, or
> themselves wage war on their frontiers', Latin 'in eorum finibus')

'Qua de causa Helvetii quoque reliquos Gallos virtute praecedunt, quod
fere cotidianis proeliis cum Germanis contendunt, cum aut suis finibus
eos prohibent aut ipsi in eorum finibus bellum gerunt.'
"for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in
valor, as they contend with the Germans in almost daily battles, when
they either repel them from their own territories, or themselves wage
war on their frontiers"
or, better (the translator of the above has made an interpretation of
the word 'fines' "territory; frontier" based on the present borders,
'territories' for the Helvetii/Swiss,
'frontiers' for the Germanii/Germans)
"for which reason the Helvetii also surpass the rest of the Gauls in
valor, as they contend with the Germans in almost daily battles, when
they either deny them access to their own territories, or themselves
wage war in their territories"

> from whom they were separated by the Rhine
> http://classics. mit.edu/Caesar/ gallic.1. 1.html 2
> In other words the Helvetii were at war with someone, and losing, in
> Southern Germany, an area where they had earlier prevailed.
> http://www.fordham. edu/halsall/ basis/tacitus- germanygord. html
> Part II, section 3
>
> GK: What Caesar said is this: "these [i.e. the Germani of
> Ariovistus GK] were the same men whom the Helvetii, in frequent
> encounters, not only in their own territories, but also in theirs
> [the German], have generally vanquished, and yet can not have been
> a match for our army." (DBG 1:40) Caesar was attempting to boost
> his troups' morale before the battle with Ariovistus and his
> Germanic auxiliaries. Had the Helvetii been fleeing refugees, this
> would hardly have done the trick.

Caesar is of course sticking to his story.
'When Caesar observed these things, having called a council, and
summoned to it the centurions of all the companies, he severely
reprimanded them, "particularly, for supposing that it belonged to
them to inquire or conjecture, either in what direction they were
marching, or with what object...."'
Why is convening the officers instead of the addressing the common
soldier, and why is he admonishing them that they have no business
questioning his orders and in general his version of the situation?
Because the common soldier knows what's going on.

****GK: And Torsten knows even better. No foolin' Torsten, no sirreee...(:=))****

> But of course, the Helvetii were not fleeing refugees.

Are too.

> Cf. also the point made in Cicero's latter to
> Atticus of 15 March 60: "Atque in re publica nunc quidem maxime
> Gallici belli versatur metus. Nam Haedui fratres nostri pugnam
> nuper malam pugnarunt, et Helvetii sine dubio sunt in armis
> excursionesque in provinciam faciunt."
> http://www.thelatin library.com/ cicero/att1. shtml

Yup. Helvetii trying to flee being stopped. Romans didn't want roaming
and ravaging refugees in their province.

****GK: Refugees in their own country. Insuperable Torsten logic. (:=)))****

> I suggest that Ariovistus was active in Southern Germany at the
> time, colonizing it(?).
>
>
> GK: The known facts have him colonizing Sequaniland.

Hm. Now George has become the known facts.

****GK: We don't all live in alternative universes.****