The Battle Of Alesia - The Effect The Battle Of Alesia had on the Gaul

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Ave Asclepiades

Pompey had one saving grace IMO. He did not have prominent enemy captives ritually strangled at the end of a triumph.

 

 

"The year was 63 B.C. when General Pompey...broke throhgh. His three centuriones, Faustus, Furius And Fabius, scaled the walls and set the great city on fire. To make even further insult to the jews, they did this on the sabbath, while the Jews rested, and over 12,000 Jews killed" (on one single day) . (The Jerusalem Conspiracy By Bill Selkirk and many more) .

 

Such grace !

Edited December 3, 2008 by Caesar CXXXVII

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Salve GH

Ave Asclepiades

Pompey had one saving grace IMO. He did not have prominent enemy captives ritually strangled at the end of a triumph. Other than that I completely agree with what you stated.

Ought to agreee with CC on this one; the execution of defeated leaders after a triumph seems to have been regular practice, and Pompeius was certainly bloodthirsty when required.

In fact, Imperial historians tended to consider both CJ Caesar and Cn Pompeius Magnus too soft for their taste.

It certainly was regular practice. It just wasn't something Pompey indulged in. I can't remember if I read that in Goldsworthy, Heather, or Holland though. He was horrible in other ways, just like the rest of them, but this was his one saving grace. In fact, here is part of Appian's description of a Pompeian triumph:

 

"His chariot was followed by the officers who had shared the campaigns with him, some on horseback and others on foot. When he arrived at the Capitol he did not put any of the prisoners to death as had been the custom at other triumphs, but sent them all home at the public expense, except the kings. Of these Aristobulus alone was shortly put to death and Tigranes somewhat later. Such was the character of Pompey's triumph."

Edited December 4, 2008 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[Kosmo]

Well, there is no denying Caesar's gratuitous overkill ...

 

Actually it is...

Even wiki says at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetii :

"According to the victor, tablets with lists in Greek characters were found at the Helvetian camp, listing in detail all men able to bear arms with their names and giving a total number for the women, children and elderly who accompanied them.[18] The numbers added up to a total of 263,000 Helvetii, 36,000 Tulingi, 14,000 Latobrigi, 23,000 Rauraci, and 32,000 Boii, all in all 368,000 heads, 92,000 of whom were warriors. A census of those who had returned to their homes listed 110,000 survivors, which meant that only about 30 percent of the emigrants had survived the war.

 

Caesars report has been partly confirmed by excavations near Geneva and Bibracte. However, much of his account has not yet been corrobated by archaeology, whilst his narrative must in wide parts be considered as biased and, in some points, unlikely. For a start, only one out of the fifteen Celtic oppida in the Helvetii territory so far has yielded evidence for destruction by fire. Many other sites, for example the sanctuary at Mormont, do not exhibit any signs of damage for the period in question, and Celtic life continued seemingly undisturbed for the rest of the 1st century BC up to the beginning of the Roman era, with an accent rather on an increase in prosperity than on a

[caldrail]

For a start, only one out of the fifteen Celtic oppida in the Helvetii territory so far has yielded evidence for destruction by fire. Many other sites, for example the sanctuary at Mormont, do not exhibit any signs of damage for the period in question, and Celtic life continued seemingly undisturbed for the rest of the 1st century BC up to the beginning of the Roman era, with an accent rather on an increase in prosperity than on a "Helvetic twilight"

 

Caesar claims to have destroyed several hundred oppidae during his gaulish campaign. That worked out at something like one a week, clearly difficult to accept. I said once before that Caesar claimed victory over gaulish defences that simply surrendered rather than fight.

[Viking]

Thanks for the additional info.

 

Could anyone please tell me the finer points of the word Gaul itself.

I mean the correct form of the word when using it in a sentence.

 

Gallic vs. Gaulish

 

Gaulish is the language right? So a noun?

Gallic is the adjective I would use to describe anything like the Gallic Empire, Gallic troops?

 

That's the part where I always get confused,

 

Gallic troops vs. Gaulish troops.

 

Any help in this matter would be great!

[caldrail]

Gallic = Gaulish.

 

They were also called Galatians occaisionally (Gauls who settled in Galatia, Asia Minor, though there were greeks there too).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia just out of interest.

Edited February 13, 2009 by caldrail

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Gallic = Gaulish.

 

They were also called Galatians occaisionally (Gauls who settled in Galatia, Asia Minor, though there were greeks there too).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia just out of interest.

It would be interesting to do a study of the local vernacular in the area of modern day Turkey that was inhabited by the Galatians just to see if there are traces of the original Celtic that was spoken back then. That would be so fascinating.

[Viking]

Ok, great. So I can use Gallic and Gaulish interchangeably?

 

And on a seemingly random note, what would the Gallic equivalent of the Christian Hell be? In the Alesia region in any case. I'm not up to snuff on my Gallic pantheon!

Edited February 18, 2009 by Viking

[Tobias]

Hindsight is always the great tool of the revisionist. It never ceases to amaze me that as the years go on, so we come up with more and more slants on history. Fair enough, Caesar may have exaggerated somewhat (as is a common practice of humanity), but i see no reason to go overboard and say that Caesar kicked the bejesus out of a group of peoples he outnumbered 2 to 1. In "adding" to history, we invariably take away from it. Where Caesar says he was outnumbered, he was outnumbered. Perhaps just not quite as much as he said he was.

 

I think it can be taken as given that patience was not one of Gaius Julius Caesar's virtues. Uxellodunum was an example of this. This Gallic oppidum continued to defy Rome even after the Battle of Alesia, hoping to wait out Caesar's term as Governor. By this stage, it's pretty obvious that Caesar was a bit more than angry at the continued defiance of the Gauls, personified by Uxellodunum, even after everything that had happened during the Gallic Wars, including Alesia. He took the oppidum, and amputated the hands of many of the defenders. He allowed them to live, however, and scattered them throughout Gaul as a warning.

 

I personally believe that he genuinely believed in what he was doing in Gaul. He believed he had solid reason to be in Gaul. He believed he had the right to be waging war on the peoples of Gaul, in the name of Rome. He believed that the people of Gaul would benefit from Romanisation. He may even have initially employed his famous metaphorical "open hand", that he had used before and would use again, on the Gauls. Yet, when they continued to defy him, when they broke agreements, peace treaties and alliances, time and again, his own patience also broke. He employed the closed fist. He could pursue his goals with with the generosity, peaceful means and mercy that was Caesar. He came to pursue his goals with the cold ruthlessness and calculating genius that was also Caesar. And he made Gaul one of the most faithful provinces of Rome for several Centuries.

 

I believe that historical hindsight makes it easy for us to brand Caesar a politically motivated butcher, making him little different from the many other ambitious power-seekers of Rome at the time. I'm very quickly losing patience myself with revisionist history, itself closely related to that bane of our existence, political correctness!

 

Anyway, time to put the soapbox away...

Edited February 22, 2009 by Tobias

[caldrail]

And he made Gaul one of the most faithful provinces to Rome for several Centuries.

 

Now that I disagree with. He may have subdued the gauls, but it was the Roman administration as a whole that made it a loyal province afterward and that wasn't Caesars doing. Plus, the Gauls were something less than the fearless warrior of old and without leaders as capable as Vercongetorix, weren't willing to rebel. But then, eventually they did. The Gallic Empire for instance, and though I accept the Gauls had little choice in the matter, they didn't protest at the rebel leadership.

[Tobias]

Now that I disagree with. He may have subdued the gauls, but it was the Roman administration as a whole that made it a loyal province afterward and that wasn't Caesars doing. Plus, the Gauls were something less than the fearless warrior of old and without leaders as capable as Vercongetorix, weren't willing to rebel. But then, eventually they did. The Gallic Empire for instance, and though I accept the Gauls had little choice in the matter, they didn't protest at the rebel leadership

 

Well, perhaps you're right in that regard Caldrail. He certainly laid the foundations for a damn faithful province though lol!