Caesars Rogue Legion

[Ciro]

I've read that Caesars legion the Third Gallica turned once in battle is this true?

I mean he was Caesar how did this happen?

until proven otherwise im beginning to think it is a very bad hoax in order to destroy his commanding capabilities

 

could someone please shed some ligt on this please

[Furius Venator]

It's unlikely that in Caesar's time the numbered legions were referred to by anything but number, though it is possible that they had informal nicknames.

 

I'm unaware of any accounts describing any of his legions changing sides in battle, and I'm pretty certain that none changed sides during the civil wars.

 

Or do you mean by 'turned' that they retreated or routed. Caesar's troops quite often suffered reverses, though I can't offhand recall the third (did he actually command a Legio III at any stage anyway?) being mentioned in this regard.

 

In Gaul, Caesar's legions were numbered VII and up.

 

It might help if you could be a little bit clearer about where and when this is meant to have occurred.

[Neos Dionysos]

One legion I thought which was originally raised by Caesar ended up fighting for Pompey's sons in Hispania during the last phases of the civil war, IIRC. Though I could be wrong.

[Primus Pilus]

I've read that Caesars legion the Third Gallica turned once in battle is this true?

I mean he was Caesar how did this happen?

until proven otherwise im beginning to think it is a very bad hoax in order to destroy his commanding capabilities

 

It definately wasn't Legio III which later became III Gallica. It was founded about 48 BC after the Gallic Wars (made up of recruits from Gallia Cisalpina and Transalpina... hence the name) and was present at such battles as Dyrrhachium, Pharsalas and Munda. There are no accounts of it having turned on Caesar. Eventually it fought for the triumvirs and then went with Antonius to the east where it was said to have fought valiantly in an otherwise poor campaign against Parthia. I suppose the case could be made that it turned against Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus the eventual Augustus since it fought for Antonius in the civil war, but not Gaius Julius Caesar the dictator.

 

Another legion that you may be thinking of thatpossibly could have 'turned' on Caesar would be the famous and Caesar's favorite Legio X. There was a mutiny after Caesar returned to Rome from his victory in Pontus in which the long serving 10th demanded its property allotments that had been promised for some time. Caesar talked his men out of their rebellion and they continued to serve Caesar in Africa and Hispania.

 

Legio XV was recruited during the Gallic War in 53 BC and was sent to Italy as part of a political contingency with the Senate. This legion was supposed to have been sent east in a planned new invasion of Parthia, but ended up being used to defend Italy when Caesar crossed the Rubicon. Unfortunately for the Senate, when their old commander arrived they promptly went back to Caesar.

 

I can't think of any others off hand that might have been referred to in whatever you read. Some more details might help us support or debunk the statement.

[Gaius Octavius]

Ciro might be referring to the Gergovia fiasco, where some legions were overconfident and some disobeyed orders. If my faulty memory serves, there was an incident in one of the winter camps in Gaul to which Caesar sent Labianus to bring things to order.

[P.Clodius]

Nope, no legions 'turned' on Caesar. The two examples provided by PP are correct. The Legio III would have gone with Anthony by agreement between Anthony and Octavian, therefore fighting against Octavian would not have been wrong from their perspective. Legio X did 'rebel', or to give it a modern word, went on strike. Individual legions were not like military formations we think of in the modern era, they were more like mini, individual corporations. Because the civil war was dragging out (many of the soldiers had served 20+ years), and Caesar expected them to head to Africa with him. They 'rebeled' and demanded the presense of Caesar himself. After ranting and raving before Caesar, he addressed them as Quirites, (Citizens) meaning he no longer considered them soldiers, instead of comrades or fellow soldiers as was his usual fashion. This caught them off guard and they quickly folded and begged to be included in his African campaign.

Edited June 7, 2006 by P.Clodius

[Primus Pilus]

Ciro might be referring to the Gergovia fiasco, where some legions were overconfident and some disobeyed orders. If my faulty memory serves, there was an incident in one of the winter camps in Gaul to which Caesar sent Labianus to bring things to order.

 

Indeed the incident at Gergovia where they charged the defensive works rather than heed Caesar's (written) order to withdraw may be considered a lack of discipline (Caesar claims they were lured by the notion of plunder unaware of dangerous tactical conditions that were building around them). However, I don't think it would qualify as a legion turning against him.

 

This may be the issue in question here, but I can't recall if the 3rd was even present at Gergovia. As I recall Caesar mentions Legio X and XIII specifically of the 6 legions that were present. We know that Labienus had 4 legions with him against the Parisii but I don't believe than any other legion numbers were ever specified.

 

I wish Ciro would give us the full context of the quote he is referring to.

[Gaius Octavius]

Isn't there a debate over the meaning of the word 'quirites'?

[Rameses the Great]

Ciro perhaps you are talking about the Legio X Frentsis. I don't know anything on the subject but here is a link, see what you think. The History of the Legio X

[Primus Pilus]

Isn't there a debate over the meaning of the word 'quirites'?

 

I know some suggest it translates simply as spearman, but is this not just a reflection of Roman civic duty to defend the city? I think Caesar's context of chastising the men by referring to them as citizens rather than soldiers is fairly clear. I don't get the impression that it wouldn't make sense for him to call his soldiers spearmen because it would hardly be that insulting, and there weren't any of the spearmen left in Caesar's army as it applied to the original context of the early armies.

 

I'm not aware of any other recorded instances that would lead us to believe that it was considered an insult to refer to Marian reformed legions as spearmen (rather than swordsmen?).