From: george knysh
Message: 60492
Date: 2008-09-29
--- On Mon, 9/29/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
A. does not leave Sequani
> territory. The Aedui and Sequani reach an agreement that this can't
> be tolerated, so they together attack A., but are routed.
>
> GK: Nonsense. You've completely misunderstood Caesar's text.
> Julius uses expressions like "Gallia omnis" or "tota Gallia" in at
> least three distinct senses.
> In 1.1 it includes Belgae and Aquitani (and even Helvetii as
> "Gauls"!).
Yes.
> In 1.30 and 1.31 it is restricted to the non-Belgo/Aquitania n
> "pars".
Yes.
> And in 1.43 and 1.44 it is merely that part of Gaul which is
> dominated by the Aedui.
No, he says they were the leading nation in Gaul
> You mistakenly (as I remember) considered that "omnes Galliae
> civitates" in 1.44 (Ariovistus' speech) included the Sequani.
I do.
> It did not. As is abundantly obvious from the context. Why would
> the Sequani continue to hold Aeduan hostages (cf. DBG 1.33 and
> 1.35) if they, per your fantasy, "reach an agreement" with their
> historic foes, attack Ariovistus and are then routed?
Replace "reach an agreement" with "reach an understanding" . The Aedui
could be relied upon to join in a common attack on Ariovistus even
without a release of hostages.
****GK: No. And the reason the Sequani still had Aeduan hostages in DBG 1.33 and 35 is that they were only now contemplating joining the Aedui and Caesar against Ariovistus, but were afraid that a premature hostage release would result in instant lethal punishment for them.****
> And nowhere are we told that Ariovistus had Sequanian
> hostages...That' s because he only defeated the Aedui alliance in
> battle.
Read 1.31 and 1.32 again.-
'But a worse thing had befallen the victorious Sequani than the
vanquished Aedui, for Ariovistus the king of the Germans, had settled
in their territories, and had seized upon a third of their land, which
was the best in the whole of Gaul, and was now ordering them to depart
from another third part, because a few months previously 24,000 men of
the Harudes had come to him, for whom room and settlements must be
provided. The consequence would be, that in a few years they would all
be driven from the territories of Gaul, and all the Germans would
cross the Rhine; for neither must the land of Gaul be compared with
the land of the Germans, nor must the habit of living of the latter be
put on a level with that of the former. Moreover, [as for] Ariovistus,
no sooner did he defeat the forces of the Gauls in a battle which took
place at Magetobria, than [he began] to lord it haughtily and cruelly,
to demand as hostages the children of all the principal nobles, and
wreak on them every kind of cruelty, if every thing was not done at
his nod or pleasure; that he was a savage, passionate, and reckless
man, and that his commands could no longer be borne.'
****GK: Exactly. After Magetobriga, not only the defeated Aedui but also the victorious Sequani suffered from Ariovistus. The former had to give hostages, the latter were pressured for territory. So the Sequani decided to join the Aedui and Caesar against Ariovistus. This is the standard interpretation, and it is correct.****
> A., who suspects Caesar has had a role to play in this betrayal,
> now has to find someone trustworthy to provide provisions, so he
> demands another third of the Sequani land
>
> GK: He does that. But he had no battle with his employers. He
> simply tore up their previous agreement. The Aeduan leader notes
> that it is only the Aedui who had been defeated (at Magetobriga)
> (DBG 1.31)
That's simply not true. He says 'Gauls'.
****GK: Meaning the Aedui and their allies. Who were Gauls. Your interpretation is at odds with that of all historians who have written about this conflict.****
> The Sequani were "victorious" and still held Aeduan hostages at the
> time Ariovistus turned on them.
Yes, relative to the Aedui they were. Apparently this is a wholly new
development, since the Sequani aren't happy to owe up to it (1.32)
****GK: There was indeed a new development: Ariovistus made new territorial demands on the Sequani. Consequently they decided to join their erstwhile foes and Caesar.****