Caesar

by Adrian Goldsworthy

  Caesar chose his own senior officers, but the army he was to command was already in existence. Altogether, Illyricum, Transalpine and Cisalpine Gaul contained a garrison of four legions-the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth. It is not known when and by whom these had been raised, but it is quite likely that they had been formed several years before and had already seen active service. On paper a legion in this period consisted of a little under 5,000 men, but as in all armies in all periods of history, units on campaign were often seriously under strength. We hear of one of Caesar’s legions during the Civil War that was only able to muster just under 1,000 effectives. A legion had no permanent commander, but its most senior officers were the six tribunes, who were usually equestrians. Some were young aristocrats who had not yet been enrolled in the Senate, while others were semi-professional officers, who sought continued appointments in successive legions. Twenty-four tribunes were elected by the Roman people each year, this traditional number being intended to supply the army of two legions, which was allocated to each consul in earlier centuries. Caesar had himself been elected in this way, but there were now usually too many legions in service at any one time to rely on this method. Most, if not all, of Caesar’s tribunes were appointed by him, although some may already have been with the four legions. The Commentaries never mention a tribune actually commanding a legion, and Caesar normally gave this task to his legates and his quaestor. However, the tribunes clearly had important staff and administrative roles, and could command sizeable detachments.14

  Beneath a tribune was a centurion, which is better thought of as a grade rather than a specific rank. There were sixty centurions in a legion. Each commanded a century of eighty men-the title had probably never meant anything more specific than around one hundred men – and six centuries combined to form a cohort of 480, which was the basic tactical unit of the army Our sources are silent on the matter, but it is highly probable that the most senior of the six centurions commanded the cohort in battle. There were ten cohorts in a legion, and the first cohort had greater prestige than the rest for it protected the silver or gilded eagle that was the standard of the entire legion. The centurions of the first cohort had immense prestige and they, probably along with centurions who commanded the other cohorts, formed the ‘centurions of the first grade’ (primi ordines), who were often included in the commander’s briefings. Centurions have sometimes been portrayed as ‘sergeant-major’ types, grizzled veterans promoted only after long service in the ranks, but there is actually very little evidence to support this view. Never in the entire Commentaries does Caesar mention promoting an ordinary legionary into the centurionate, but then he says nothing at all about their origins, presumably because he assumed that his audience would know this. Many men may have been directly commissioned as centurions, something that we know was common under Rome’s emperors, when we even hear of equestrians serving in this way. The administrative role that was an important part of the job evidently required a good standard of literacy and numeracy, neither of which may have been common amongst the ordinary soldiers. Once in the rank it is certain that centurions were socially and economically very distant from the ordinary legionaries, for their pay was several-perhaps as much as ten-times greater. Probably most centurions already came from the more prosperous classes and not the very poor who formed the bulk of the rank and file. If so, then the prominence they receive in the Commentaries becomes all the more interesting. It may well be that they were drawn from amongst the First Class, which played such a decisive part in the voting in the Comitia Centuriata. Appointments to this grade, and subsequent promotions, would then have taken on an importance beyond the purely military for a commander like Caesar, fitting in with the wider networks of patronage that underlay so much of Roman society Yet unlike the more senior officers, centurions do seem to have stayed with the army for long periods, and it would not be a mistake to see them as essentially professional officers.15

  The legions of earlier centuries, which had been drawn from a cross-section of society and had excluded all those with insufficient property to afford their own equipment, were now a distant memory Marius had openly recruited from the capite censi, those so poor that they were counted simply as numbers in the census, but he had probably just acknowledged a trend that was already well established. There was now little to attract the better off and well educated to the legions. Discipline could be brutal, with floggings common, and execution the penalty for more serious dereliction of duty. A legionary received an annual salary of 125 denarii (500 sestertii) – a figure that helps to put Caesar’s staggering debts into perspective-which compared unfavourably with the money that could be earned as a farm labourer, although it did have the advantage of being regular. Poorer citizens saw the army as either a viable career, or as a pathway to a better life. A general who was generous with the rewards or promised to secure grants of land for his veteran soldiers could win an intense loyalty from his legionaries, as Marius, Sulla and Pompey had already demonstrated. Centurions often transferred from one legion to another, but there is no mention of ordinary soldiers doing the same. Legionaries were long service professional soldiers, although it is unclear just how long men normally spent in the army Augustus would later set the term of service at sixteen years, later extending it to twenty with another five as a veteran, which meant being exempted from some duties and fatigues. The legion was their home, and the better units developed a fierce pride in their corporate identity. Each legion also contained many men with technical skills, who would in turn train others. There were no special units or cohorts of engineers or artillerymen, specialists simply being detached from their cohorts whenever they were required to build a bridge or besiege a town. The engineering skill of the Roman army in this period was extremely high.

  The legionary was a heavy infantryman who fought in close order, but in Caesar’s day he looked rather different to the classic image perpetuated by Hollywood and the rather loose use of images by re-enactors in television documentaries. The famous banded or segmented armour had probably not yet been invented, for the earliest known fragment of such a cuirass dates to AD9. (However, since until this was discovered it was generally assumed that this armour was not introduced till the middle of the first century AD it is just possible that it was known in Caesar’s day.) Instead the legionary wore mail armour and a bronze or sometimes iron helmet. Roman helmets left the wearer’s eyes and ears uncovered, although some protection was provided for the rest of the face by the wide cheek pieces. Enclosed helmets of the type sometimes used in earlier centuries by Greek armies offered better protection, but a legionary needed to be able to hear and see so that he could respond to orders. Further protection was provided by the large semi-cylindrical shield or scutum. This was some 4 feet in height and from 2 – 2 feet 6 inches in width and probably oval in shape, although the rectangular tile shape of the classic ‘Hollywood’ legionary may already have been adopted. It is highly likely, although unproven, that legions already carried distinctive insignia on their shields, either painted or in raised decoration. The shields themselves were made from three layers of plywood glued together, covered in calfskin, and with the edges protected by bronze binding. The shield was flexible and offered good protection, but was heavy at some 22 lb. It was held in battle by a single horizontal hand – grip behind the central boss, and could be used offensively, the soldier punching the boss forward to overbalance his enemy.

  The legionary’s main weapons were the pilum (javelin), and the gladius sword. The pilum had a 4 – foot wooden shaft, topped by a narrow 2 – 3 – foot iron shank, which ended in a small pyramidal point. When thrown all the weight of the weapon concentrated behind the small head, allowing this to punch through an opponent’s shield, while the long slim shank gave it the reach to keep going and wound or kill the man himself. Contrary to deeply entrenched myth, the metal was not intended to bend. By the first century AD the gladius sword used by the Roman legionary was short, with a blade usually u
nder 2 feet in length. However, in Caesar’s day a longer blade – at least 2 feet 6 inches in length and sometimes longer – was in use. Made of high quality steel, the heavy blade was well adapted to both cutting and thrusting, its long point being well suited to penetrating armour and flesh. The legionary was well equipped and trained as an individual fighter, but the greatest strength of the Roman army lay in the discipline and command structure that made them so effective collectively.16

  For support troops, the legions relied on foreign soldiers, who were known collectively as the auxilia. Many of these were locally recruited allies – Caesar would draw heavily on the tribes of Gaul, especially for contingents of cavalry. In most cases these men were led by their own chieftains, but at least some Gauls do seem to have served in units led by Roman officers, and may have been drilled and equipped by the army. In his account of the Civil War Caesar mentions that in 49 BC he had ‘3,000 cavalry, which he had had with him in all his past campaigns’. He also tells us that he had 5,000 auxiliary infantry, although it is unclear if these had also served with him from 58 BC onwards. Neither group is specifically mentioned in his account of the campaigns in Gaul, and they may have been allies, mercenaries or regular soldiers foreshadowing the organised and permanent regiments of auxiliaries of the Imperial period. He does make a few references to units of specialists, including Cretan and Numidian archers, and slingers from the Balearic Islands. The Cretans and Balearics were famous for their skill with their respective weapons and had appeared as mercenaries in many armies for several centuries. The Numidians were more famous for their light cavalry and it is quite possible that Caesar also had some of these with him. It is only through a single comment that we know that there were some Spanish cavalry with the army. The number of allied soldiers varied from year to year, while the total force of professional mercenaries and auxiliaries is likely to have been more static. Allied contingents were on occasions substantially larger, but even so it was always the legions that remained the heart of Caesar’s army.17

  THE WHOLE OF GAUL IS DIVIDED’

  In 58 BC it was not obvious where Caesar’s campaigns would lead him. He had first been granted Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum as his province, and Transalpine Gaul was only added after the sudden death of its governor. Caesar’s original intention may well have been a Balkan campaign, probably to curb the growing power of the Dacian King Burebista, who was carving out a powerful empire around his heartland in what is now Transylvania. The region was wealthy, and scarcely explored by Roman armies, offering the glory attached to defeating a people never before encountered. He may well have been planning to advance in that direction, both in 58 BC and in later years, but events continued to provide him with ready opportunities for military adventures in Gaul, and the Balkan expedition never took place. Even so, it never left Caesar’s mind, for he was planning to move against Dacia in 44 BC when he was assassinated.18

  In the first century BC Gaul comprised the area of modern France, Belgium and part of Holland, running from the Rhine to the Atlantic coast. In no sense was Gaul a nation. As Caesar famously said in the opening sentence of the Commentaries on the Gallic War its population was divided into three ethnic and linguistic groups. In the south-west, bordering on the Pyrenees, were the Aquitanians, whom he believed had much in common with the Iberians of Spain. In the north, especially the north-east, were the Belgians, while central Gaul was the home of the peoples whom the Romans referred to as Gauls (Galli), but who named themselves Celts. Each of these groups was in turn subdivided into numerous individual peoples, who for all their similarity in language and culture were often mutually hostile. The basic political unit was the clan (pagus), and several of these usually made up a tribe (civitas). (Neither English word is entirely appropriate, and some scholars would prefer state to tribe, but no one has really come up with anything better.) The importance of the tribe seems to have increased markedly in the century before Caesar’s arrival in Gaul, and some scholars would like to see them as comparatively recent inventions. More probably, the changing political and economic climate in Gaul had simply given new importance to loose ties of kinship and ritual that were very long established. Even so, the degree of unity between the clans of one tribe varied considerably, and there were a number of cases during the Gallic Wars when individual pagi acted independently. Kings appear in some tribes, and perhaps also at the clan level, but not in others and the majority seem to have been governed by councils or senates, with the day-to-day running of affairs being placed in the hands of elected magistrates. Rome’s oldest ally, the Aedui, had a supreme magistrate called the Vergobret who held office for a single year. No man could be elected twice to this post, nor could any member of his family hold the office during his lifetime, thus preventing any individual or group from monopolising power. The similarity of this ideal to the Roman Republican system is striking, and in many ways the tribes of Gaul resembled the city-states of the Mediterranean world, though perhaps at an earlier stage of development.19

  Gaul and its tribes

  There is an on-going academic debate over the extent to which we can see the Gauls and other peoples who spoke ‘Celtic’ languages as part of one people with broadly uniform customs and culture, but this need not concern us here. Caesar notes both similarities and differences between the various tribes, but did maintain a very clear distinction between the peoples of Gaul and the German tribes. The River Rhine was presented as the dividing line between them, although he concedes that the picture was a little less clear than this and that some Germanic groups were well established in lands on the west bank. Archaeology does not support such a clear division, suggesting strong similarities in settlement patterns and material culture-pottery, metalwork, etc. – between Gaul and central Germany. There was more of a difference between the southern/central regions and the northern areas of Germany, where there were few substantial fortified settlements. Yet it would be a mistake on this basis to reject the testimony of Caesar and other ancient authors, for archaeology is often a clumsy tool for revealing ethnic or political boundaries. There were distinct Germanic and Celtic languages, and doubtless huge numbers of dialects and regional variations within each broad group. Some tribes that spoke a Germanic language may well have lived in similarly sized and laid out settlements to peoples living in Gaul, as well as using objects of a shape and style that were much alike. This does not mean that either group would have perceived the other as fundamentally like themselves and not as foreigners. They were more likely to see peoples who spoke the same or a similar language, who revered the same deities in much the same way, and who had lived around them for a long time as kindred. This would not in itself have prevented hostility and warfare between the two groups, nor ruled out peaceful relations with a more ‘foreign’ people. Neither the Gauls nor the Germans were nations in any meaningful sense, and personal identity and loyalty had far more to do with tribe and clan, and within these, family, neighbour or chieftain.20

  Contact between Gallic tribes and the Mediterranean world had a long history and was often marked by warfare. A band of Gauls had sacked Rome in 390 BC, while other tribes had overrun and settled in the Po Valley Later, the Romans began to colonise the same region, resulting in a series of wars that ended in the early second century BC with the subjugation and absorption of the Gallic tribes. Around 125 BC the Romans began the conquest of Transalpine Gaul to create a secure land route to their provinces in Spain. One of the proconsuls involved in these campaigns was Cnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, the great-great-great-grandfather of Emperor Nero. Described by a contemporary as having ‘a face of iron and a heart of lead’, he is said to have impressed the tribes by riding on an elephant, but his most enduring legacy was the Via Domitia, a great strategic road running to Spain. The region was the scene of much fighting during the migration of the Cimbri and Teutones, but there was no more concerted Roman expansion before Caesar’s arrival. There was considerable consolidation, with the establishment of fortified outp
osts and a colony at Narbo (modern Narbonne) in 118 BC.The latter soon became an important trade centre as goods produced by the great latifundia estates of Italy flooded over the Alps. Wine was the main product, and the trade can be traced by the discovery of sherds from the amphorae used to transport it. The sheer quantity involved is staggering, and one scholar has estimated that during the first century BC some 40 million wine amphorae were traded in Gaul. If anything this figure is probably too low. Each vessel was usually around 3 – 3 feet 6 inches high and contained 35 – 45 pints. The main trade routes followed the Rhône – Saône valleys, or went west to the Atlantic coast via the Aude and Garonne. In return for wine and other luxury goods, traders sought raw materials, including tin from south-western Britain, and most of all, slaves. One source claims that a Gaulish chieftain would exchange a slave for a single amphora of wine. This may have been a misunderstanding of the social obligation on a host to demonstrate his wealth and power by giving a guest something of far greater value than his gift, but nevertheless illustrates the importance of wine to the Gaulish nobility. Some of this trade may have been undertaken by local middlemen, but Roman merchants were evidently a familiar sight in much of Gaul. This was a time of great commercial opportunity for Romans, and enterprising businessmen penetrated deep into lands that had never yet seen a Roman army. At one site in Noricum there was a Roman trading community with its own small forum established outside a native town by the start of the first century BC.21