Sequani turnaround (Was: Re: Haplogroup I)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- 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.

Here is the major difference between our interpretations. You assume
that since A. is bad person he will always do bad things, because that
is what bad people do. I don't have that Manichaean outlook. Whatever
one might think of the character of A. he, like any other person,
would not tell a lie he knew the other person knew was a lie. A stunt
like that would make you look stupid and you would lose respect among
all those who were present and were better informed. Therefore, when
he claims has has been attacked by "omnes Galliae civitates", then
that is from his point of view what had happened. We therefore have to
construe a scenario for 'was eigentlich gewesen' which will satisfy
the demand that neither of the main testimonies were made with the
intention to contradict such facts as would be known to or easily
verifiable by their opponent. This presupposes of course that we could
expect the participants to keep their cool enough to not blurt out
some improbable lie, but they are all seasoned politicians, so I think
we can assume that condition fulfílled.

> > 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.****

I see you have accepted my argument and try to use it against me.
All the Sequani had to do was to send a message to the Aedui 'we've
had it with A. and his crowd, we're kicking them out; wanna join?'

> > 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.****

Premise-less conclusion.

If A. had attacked his employers the Sequani, demanding land for no
reason, he would not tell C. that they had attacked him, since he knew
Caesar would know better. And C. does not counter that claim in DBG.

> > 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.****

In general, people get a lot of enjoyment out of kicking the loser.
Historians are definitely no exception. That standard version is at
odds with elementary psychology.

> > 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.****

>

DBG says nothing about such a decision on the part of the Sequani.



Torsten