Caesar's bridge over the Rhine

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Ave

I was wondering if anyone knew the approximate spot where Caesar built his famous bridge over the Rhine in order to cross over and defeat Ariovistus. Are there any remnants or traces of this bridge? Thanks in advance.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, GH

Ave

I was wondering if anyone knew the approximate spot where Caesar built his famous bridge over the Rhine in order to cross over and defeat Ariovistus. Are there any remnants or traces of this bridge? Thanks in advance.

Actually, CJ Caesar built at least two bridges over the Rhine in 55 & 53 BC (DCXCIX & DCCI AUC) according to (Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Liber IV cp. XVII-XVIII & Liber VI cp. IX) on almost the same spot.

 

The spot, according to en.wikipedia.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Salve, GH

Ave

I was wondering if anyone knew the approximate spot where Caesar built his famous bridge over the Rhine in order to cross over and defeat Ariovistus. Are there any remnants or traces of this bridge? Thanks in advance.

Actually, CJ Caesar built at least two bridges over the Rhine in 55 & 53 BC (DCXCIX & DCCI AUC) according to (Commentarii de Bello Gallico, Liber IV cp. XVII-XVIII & Liber VI cp. IX) on almost the same spot.

 

The spot, according to en.wikipedia.

Thanks Asclepiades. Any traces left of the original?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Thanks Asclepiades. Any traces left of the original?

Quite unlikely, as CJ Caesar himself destroyed the bridges, no doubt preventing any German retaliation (ibid Liber IV cp. XIX):

 

...diebus omnino XVIII trans Rhenum consumptis, satis et ad laudem et ad utilitatem profectum arbitratus se in Galliam recepit pontemque rescidit.

 

"...having spent altogether eighteen days beyond the Rhine, and thinking he had advanced far enough to serve both honor and interest, he returned into Gaul, and cut down the bridge".

[Nephele]

You can see some nice model reconstructions of what the bridges may have looked like at Livius.org:

 

http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t27.html

 

Northern Neil, if you're reading this, have you ever done any Roman bridge models of your own?

 

-- Nephele

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Thanks for that link Nephele. Livius.org is excellent. I spend quite some time reading the articles therein. I was rather startled to read that Caesar's massacre of the Germans during a truce caused so much odium in the Curia. I read the Commentaries when I was 12 years old and I have forgotten a lot of material. I think I'll read it again when I have time.

Edited September 2, 2008 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[Nephele]

Thanks for that link Nephele. Livius.org is excellent. I spend quite some time reading the articles therein. I was rather startled to read that Caesar's massacre of the Germans during a truce caused so much odium in the Curia. I read the Commentaries when I was 12 years old and I have forgotten a lot of material. I think I'll read it again when I have time.

 

You're welcome, GH. Yes, I frequently visit Livius.org for the same reason. Last year I had a lovely e-mail conversation with Livius.org website owner and historian Jona Lendering, and invited him to join us here at UNRV. He declined at the time, but I haven't given up hope yet!

 

-- Nephele

[P.Clodius]

Notice how the text refers to Caesar in the first person and not the third person as it was written.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Notice how the text refers to Caesar in the first person and not the third person as it was written.

Good point. I'm sure Jona has an answer for that one.

[longshotgene]

Thanks for Livius.org. What an awesome website. I wonder if professors would allow students to use it?

[Antiochus III]

My high school teacher didn't even allow me to use this site or livius.org. i was pretty disappointed, because tehy tell us to use "databases" some of whcih are very poor sources to use, and some of which have blatantly false info. they say, dont use google, use dot edu sites even thoough some edu sites areTERRIBLE and say things like pilums (instead of pila) and say things like caesar was an emperor (and much much worse, i just cant htink of examples). it is my opinion that ou should be able to use any site that looks like its got good info, even if you found it through google. heck, they said i could not use a dot com source that actually had scanned copies of original sources from the ussr during operation barbarossa just because it had some ads and was a dot com. obviously if you are an idiot and use crappy dot com sources found using google, then that's a problem. if teachers really care, why don't they just check and make sure it was a good source? instead of being ridiculous and saaying only .org and .edu, and automatically grading down without even CHECKING THE SOURCE!!! btw, my school is fairly wealthy has nearly 4000 students, and is ranked very high in the state, has a newspaper and magazine ranekd super high in the nation, yet it only has an ap eurpean history class, ap us history class, while not having any class about any anicents(no, the euro class is only renaissance to present), and no military or ancient rome class. its terrible. and they place absolutely NO emphasis on the military at all. now i know that the battles and wars of peoples isn't all that mattters in history; but not learning ANYHING about it ever (except a couple dates of battles) is just overlooking an important part of history. how can you learn abouth e hundred years war and only learn about agincourt, and at that only learn the DATE???? they think theyre teaching history, i htink they about a select few ideas, purposely not giving us the big picture. this is only a small bit of a rant that could have gone on for pages and pages, so be thankful, and if you have any ideas about this, let me know. i definitely want to have a converstaion about this to explain some of my points.

 

A3TG

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, AIII

My high school teacher didn't even allow me to use this site or livius.org. i was pretty disappointed, because tehy tell us to use "databases" some of whcih are very poor sources to use, and some of which have blatantly false info. they say, dont use google, use dot edu sites even thoough some edu sites areTERRIBLE and say things like pilums (instead of pila) and say things like caesar was an emperor (and much much worse, i just cant htink of examples). it is my opinion that ou should be able to use any site that looks like its got good info, even if you found it through google. heck, they said i could not use a dot com source that actually had scanned copies of original sources from the ussr during operation barbarossa just because it had some ads and was a dot com. obviously if you are an idiot and use crappy dot com sources found using google, then that's a problem. if teachers really care, why don't they just check and make sure it was a good source? instead of being ridiculous and saaying only .org and .edu, and automatically grading down without even CHECKING THE SOURCE!!! btw, my school is fairly wealthy has nearly 4000 students, and is ranked very high in the state, has a newspaper and magazine ranekd super high in the nation, yet it only has an ap eurpean history class, ap us history class, while not having any class about any anicents(no, the euro class is only renaissance to present), and no military or ancient rome class. its terrible. and they place absolutely NO emphasis on the military at all. now i know that the battles and wars of peoples isn't all that mattters in history; but not learning ANYHING about it ever (except a couple dates of battles) is just overlooking an important part of history. how can you learn abouth e hundred years war and only learn about agincourt, and at that only learn the DATE???? they think theyre teaching history, i htink they about a select few ideas, purposely not giving us the big picture. this is only a small bit of a rant that could have gone on for pages and pages, so be thankful, and if you have any ideas about this, let me know. i definitely want to have a converstaion about this to explain some of my points.

 

A3TG

The vast majority of what you may read here, at Livius.org and at similar sites is based on primary, secondary and tertiary sources actually written in physical books (paperware, if you like).

 

Most of the sources given to you for your Roman games paper by Ingsoc, Ludovicus and Lady N are a good example (BTW, I'm still expecting to read your post here at UNRV on such paper; I also hope you were able to read my related commentary now in Tartarus).

 

Another example: all what has been commented in this thread on Caesar's bridge came from the Commentarii de Bello Gallico.

 

I think the easiest solution for you most of the time would be quoting the physical books themselves.