Nic Fields - Alesia 52 BC: The final struggle for Gaul

CAMPAIGN 269

ALESIA 52 BC

The final struggle for Gaul

The desire by political and military leaders to be known to the generations to come and, naturally, to cast him or herself in a good light, is no recent phenomenon. Such memoirs are by nature subjective and complete adherence to the truth should not be expected, especially if the author had written memoranda with at least one eye on the future record.

Caius Iulius Caesar himself took unusual though by no means entirely unprecedented steps to ensure that his own approved version of events was the one that was most widely and authoritatively disseminated. An adroit and conscious user of propaganda, both at home and abroad, his commentarii on his campaigns in Gaul, what was properly known as the Commentarii de Bello Gallico, are not the work of a man of letters but of a man of action who narrates events in which he has himself played the leading part. In a society where personal glory mattered so much and military proficiency was the sine qua non of the ruling elite, this was an appropriate thing to do. Yet the manipulation of a narrative to show oneself in the best possible light may appear to a modern reader to be duplicitous.

For those who wish to be more charitable to Caesar, his work is what it is; it does not pretend to be another thing. On the other hand, the learned and accomplished Asinius Pollio believed that Caesar did not always check the truth of the reports that came in, and was either disingenuous or forgetful in describing his own actions (DI 56.4). Asinius Pollio, who survived the civil wars of 4931 BC to write a history of Rome under Augustus, may indeed have had a point. For it is possible to convict Caesar of both suppressio veri, suppression of the truth, and suggestio falsi, suggestion of what was untrue. There is much to be said, indeed, for looking at Caesar in the cultural context of the period. According to a credible report in Suetonius, upon the termination of his command in Gaul, Caesar dwelt on his position as princeps civitatis, leading citizen: It is harder to push me down from first place to second than from second to last (DI 29.1). It mattered, who was first and who was second.

Liber Septimus (MusoParc Alsia), from the library of the Guicciardini family of Florence the seventh commentarius written by Caesar (BG 7.68.1). Caesar was not just one of the most prominent men at Alesia, he was also the author of the only eyewitness account we have of the siege. The elements of power at Rome, as taught by Sulla and confirmed by Pompey, were three: wealth, patronage and not least the loyalty of veteran legions (through which soldiers hoped to secure provision of land grants for them on demobilization). Caesar can be said to have added a fourth, namely be the author of your own events. As a good, clear writer, he was skilled in public relations. Still, there are two methods by which a writer can deceive a reader. One is by relating false facts; the other is by manipulating true ones. ( Esther Carr)

Certainly the most successful Roman commander of any period, Caesar was also a gifted writer. Avoid an unfamiliar word, he used to say, as a sailor avoids the rocks (Aulus Gellius Noctes Atticae 1.10.4). Of all his surviving work, which was apparently voluminous (DI 56), Caesars commentarii on his Gallic campaigns remain the best known and the most frequently referred to, and it is the work that has gripped most readers (and infuriated some). The writing style in the commentarii is that of a detailed factual report, prepared year by year, of the events as they unfold. They are elegantly written. Caesar wrote seven of the eight, the last being added, shortly after Caesars death, by his friend Aulus Hirtius, who had served with him. As the French statesman and essayist Michel de Montaigne (153392) complained, the only thing to be said against him is that he speaks too sparingly of himself (Essais 2.10, Des livres). Caesar certainly chooses to ignore the triumvirate and its renewal at the Luca conference in the spring of 56 BC , and he does not give us his own account of the final deterioration of relations between himself and Pompey. On the other hand, Caesar would have his readers believe that his purpose was to bring stability to Gaul. However, he fails to explain why the Gauls repeatedly rebelled against his rule, even being willing to invite aid from the far side of the Rhine, and why his Aedui and Remi allies continued to intercede with him on the behalf of defeated rebels. Worse, he masks the wars horrendous cost in human life and suffering. This is not to say that Caesar blatantly falsifies events. In his adopted role of the omniscient auditor ab extra (viz. seeing everything), his techniques were omission, shift of emphasis (conscious or unconscious), and additions of his own observations.

To the Gauls in their homeland, Rome, in the guise of Caesar, was probably the worst enemy they ever had. Still, the conquest was no walkover. Hindsight is easy, and to us wise after the event, Caesars selective presentation of the situation suggests that Gaul appeared to have been temporarily subdued rather than permanently mastered. This is nowhere more clear than in the case of the greatest revolt of all, which began as the year 53 BC drew to a close. After almost six years in Gaul, the Roman occupation was in a perilous condition. Caesars continued strategy of annihilation had engendered a spirit of desperation, which detonated into an armed rebellion of Gaulish tribes under the leadership of a charismatic young noble of the Arverni, the powerful tribe who inhabited the region west of Mons Cevenna (Cvennes). He was called Vercingetorix.

Vercingetorix was adamant in his conviction that Gauls only safety lay in a pan-Gaulish coalition, and in the year that lay ahead the Gauls were to make common cause against Caesar, in the course of which he was to learn that Gaulish fighting could be a very serious business and threaten not only his conquests but the reputation on which his political survival depended. Roman destructive brutalities were a convincing recruiting sergeant, and literally dozens of tribes swore allegiance to the young Vercingetorix, including many Caesar had thought were securely loyal. Though the Gaulish peoples shared a common language and culture, forging a fighting coalition amongst a mosaic of fiercely independent tribes all demonstrating an innate genius for creating chaos was a virtually impossible feat, and it was a tribute to Vercingetorixs personality and skill.

The civilizing influence of classical culture has pretty much coloured our view of peoples beyond the frontiers of the Graeco-Roman world, the usual stereotype of them as different from us. Greek commentators tended to perpetuate the idea of a coherent nation identity, as can be witnessed in passing references to the Celts in the works of Herodotos, Xenophon, Plato and Aristotle. These earlier writers give a somewhat romantic picture of the Celts with a greater stress on such aspects as single combat and the wearing of torques, the latter adornment being the attribute