Giulio Cesare e i Germani

Giulio Cesare e i Germani: Questo articolo propone una discussione di quanto scritto nel De Bello Gallico sulla campagna militare di Cesare contro i Germani, in particolare contro Usipeti e Tencteri. Si analizzerà anche quanto detto da Plutarco a proposito dell'accusa, fatta a Cesare da Catone il Minore, di aver violato la tregua con questi Germani. Infine, si confronteranno i testi di Cesare e Plutarco con quanto scritto nei libri di Luciano Canfora e Jérôme Carcopino.

Orione ed il principe celtico di Hochdorf

Orione ed il principe celtico di Hochdorf: Discussione archeoastronomica del tumulo del principe celtico di Hochdorf, e di un possibile legame del principe con la costellazione di Orione.

"A Hochdorf, nel circondario di Ludwigsburg, si trovava un tumulo di circa 60 metri di diametro.  Scavando il tumulo, che è stato poi ricostruito, nel 1977 gli archeologi trovarono la tomba principesca di un guerriero celtico [1-4]. La tomba risale alla prima metà del VI secolo a.C. (530 BC secondo [4]). La camera in cui si trovava il guerriero ed il suo ricco corredo funebre era costituita da cassoni di legno riempiti di pietre [1]. Il cassone esterno misurava 7,4 × 7,5 m, mentre quello interno 4,7 × 4,7 m. Il soffitto della tomba, che era crollato, la aveva protetta dai saccheggi e quindi nel tumulo sono stati ritrovati i resti del principe e il corredo funebre intatto. "

Julius Caesar from the Trajan’s forum - lifelike rendering

My lifelike rendering of the 

Head of Julius Caesar from the Trajan’s forum.

Marble. 117—138 CE.

Naples, National Archaeological Museum

(Napoli, Museo archeologico nazionale di Napoli)

Elaborazione di una fotografia di Sergey Sosnovskiy, 2008.

Dal sito

http://www.miti3000.it/mito/musei/napoli/pt_col_farn_s29.htm

 Sala XXIX, La galleria degli imperatori.

"Come ogni collezione rinascimentale di sculture antiche anche quella Farnese annoverava un ciclo di ritratti che doveva rappresentare la storia di Roma attraverso le immagini dei suoi protagonisti. In gran parte essi erano esposti nella Sala degli Imperatori appositamente allestita a Palazzo, altri erano invece sistemati nella Sala dei Filosofi. La serie di ritratti antichi andò arricchendosi seguendo gli interessi che andavano affermandosi nel Cinquecento fra gli esperti di antiquaria finalizzati in primo luogo a raccogliere i ritratti dei dodici Cesari svetoniani che illustravano la prima età imperiale, nonché quelli di alcune grandi personalità della storia repubblicana quali Bruto instauratore della repubblica e Bruto il cesaricida, Giulio Cesare e Pompeo Magno per citare solo i soggetti più richiesti."

"Like all Renaissance collections of ancient sculpture, the Farnese collection included a cycle of portraits designed to represent the history of Rome through the images of its main characters. Most of these were displayed in a specially decorated Hall of the Emperors in the Palazzo; others were arranged in the Hall of the Philosophers. 

The series of ancient portraits was developed according to interests current in the 16th century among antiquarian experts. Particular emphasis was placed on collecting the portraits of the twelve Suetonian Caesars who reflected the early imperial period, as well as those of the great characters of republican history such as Brutus, the founder of the republic, and Brutus, Caesar’s assassin, along with Julius Caesar and Pompey the Great, to give only the most sought after."

Un Olandese in Italia: Caspar van Wittel

Caspar van Wittel or Gaspar van Wittel (born Jasper Adriaensz van Wittel, Italian name variations: Gaspare Vanvitelli, Gasparo degli Occhiali was a Dutch painter and draughtsman who had a long career in Rome. He played a pivotal role in the development of the genre of topographical painting known as veduta. He is credited with turning topography into a painterly specialism in Italian art.

 

1736 - Veduta del Colosseo - Galleria Sabauda - Torino

Grotta del RIO MARTINO

Questa foto di Grotta di Rio Martino è offerta da TripAdvisor.

Raccolta Pomodoro da Industria - Az. Agr. Morini Paolo - POMAC + JD 7530

Ecco la macchina che raccoglie pomodori per l'industria.

Una volta si raccoglieva il grano a mano. Oggi ci sono le moderne mietitrebbia, che hanno sollevato i braccianti agricoli da un lavoro bestiale. Lo stesso sia per i pomodori.

La storia si scrive sempre usando il tempo presente?

Ho ritrovato ora un articolo, pubblicato nel 2013 dal Corriere, di Luciano Canfora, dal titolo "La storia si scrive sempre usando il tempo presente". http://cesim-marineo.blogspot.com/2013/11/perche-canfora-rivaluta-stalin.html

L'articolo trae spunto da una recensione di un libro di Paolo Mieli. Il filo conduttore dell'articolo di Canfora, e non solo del libro di Mieli, è quello in origine formulato "esplicitamente e teoreticamente da Benedetto Croce, ed è che 'Ogni vera storia è storia contemporanea'. Con ciò intendendosi che lo sforzo — sempre in fieri — di comprensione del passato parte dalle nostre categorie e risponde a nostre esigenze attuali e, non da ultimo, per ciò che un fatto storico diviene contemporaneo nell’atto mio medesimo di pensarlo. Chi abbia esperienza della storiografia sa che non vi è storico, di cui sia rimasta significativa memoria, che non abbia preso le mosse da un impulso o bisogno intellettuale radicato nel presente, nel suo presente etico-politico: da Erodoto a Giuseppe Flavio, da Livio a Eginardo, etc. ... Di questa fondamentale intuizione si possono dare diversi inveramenti. Lo stesso Croce ne intuisce un possibile uso strumentale in quella che chiama «storiografia di partito» ... e addita uno iato tra «gli scrittori di storia, disadattati o alieni alla politica» e gli uomini politici, i quali «ancorché ignorantissimi delle cose della storia, pur menano le cose del mondo». Al contrario, chi dell’agire politico ebbe un’idea più alta e meno riduttiva poté ribaltare questa visione, pur partendo dalle stesse premesse. Mi riferisco alle considerazioni di metodo che Palmiro Togliatti premise alla sua lezione torinese ... , dove indicò appunto nel politico, distinto in ciò dallo storico professionale (e in ciò sbagliava), colui che invera il principio della ineluttabile contemporaneità della storia. E concludeva, forse intimidito dall’apparente neutralità degli storici di professione: «Soltanto per il politico ogni storia è sempre storia contemporanea» ... "

Canfora continua con varie osservazioni, spaziando da Filippo il Macedone a Stalin - anche da Annibale a Stalin -,  menzionando il Principe di Machiavelli. E ricorda come in effetti sia proprio Bobbio, in una lettera, a richiamarsi al Principe, per considerare "la grandezza «del vostro, e potrei dire anche nostro, Stalin», «venerando e terribile» al pari di Annibale, in quanto è lecito al Principe violare le regole della morale comune se fa «gran cose». E soggiungeva Bobbio: «La costruzione di una società socialista è gran cosa».

Il titolo dell'articolo di Canfora è sicuramente ad effetto: "La storia si scrive sempre usando il tempo presente". Dato che è un titolo, esso è anche il manifesto del suo pensiero. Così intende la storia Canfora e lo ribadisce quando, riferendosi a Togliatti, dice che il Migliore si sbagliava nel distinguere storico da politico.

Allora, seguendo il titolo dato, se noi parliamo di Giulio Cesare, quanto è successo duemila anni fa diventa un tema attuale, per il fatto stesso che noi ne parliamo. E noi così cominciamo a parlare di Giulio Cesare, coniugando al presente.  Ma, la storia si scrive sempre usando il tempo presente?

Vediamo che cosa scrive Canfora nel suo libro, Giulio Cesare: Il dittatore democratico, proprio di Cesare. Mi riferisco in particolare alla spedizione militare contro le tribù germaniche di Usipeti e Tencteri, che avevano passato il Reno, per stabilirsi, allontanandoli con la violenza, nel territorio dei Menapi.Se volete avere tutti i dettagli, potete servirvi di questo LINK.

Dice Canfora "I Germani continuavano a premere per un accordo; Cesare cercava solo un pretesto per massacrarli. Ma fu con l’inganno che ebbe ragione di loro. Il pretesto fu offerto da una sortita di cavalieri degli Usipeti contro la cavalleria gallica alleata di Cesare. Nello scontro morirono alcuni dei collaborazionisti galli più cari a Cesare.Nonostante l’incidente i capi germanici si recarono al previsto incontro con Cesare. Il quale li ricevette a colloquio, ma li fece trucidare a tradimento; quindi assaltò gli avversari sbandati e senza guida, ed estese indiscriminatamente il genocidio a tutti, donne e bambini inclusi. Come crimine disumano questa ecatombe fu percepita anche a Roma, dove Catone, per ragioni beninteso di lotta politica interna, si spinse a chiedere la consegna del proconsole al nemico. La presumibile assenza di autentiche motivazioni umanitarie nella proposta di Catone non deve indurre a sottovalutare l’iniziativa del tenace oppositore. Era significativa comunque che l’enormità del crimine compiuto era percepita. Nondimeno il Senato, in preda ad una“ubriacatura imperialistica” (secondo l’espressione di Carcopino), concesse in onore della carneficina cesariana una colossale supplicatio."

Vedete bene come Canfora scriva al presente, non nel senso che usa i verbi al presente, ma nel senso che usa concetti della storia recente. Questo potrebbe anche essere lecito. Però ci sono dei vincoli che non dovrebbero essere superati, come per esempio inventarsi degli episodi FALSI.

Cesare, nel De Bello Gallico, dice che lascia liberi gli ambasciatori, ma che essi restano con lui per timore dei Galli a cui avevano devastato le terre. Nel libro di Canfora, l’episodio diventa l’assassinio degli ambasciatori (Il quale li ricevette a colloquio, ma li fece trucidare a tradimento). Al LINK trovate anche passi di  Plutarco e Svetonio: questi autori antichi non dicono - ripeto, non dicono - che gli ambasciatori dei Germani siano stati uccisi. Essa è pura invenzione di Canfora. 

Canfora dice che vennero uccisi donne e bambini, leggetevi quello che dice Cesare allora. Cesare non dice che cosa era successo a donne e bambini. Saranno finiti schiavi di Galli o Romani, come era costume dell'epoca. Ma Canfora, sicuramente pensando al presente, vede i cavalieri Galli farli a fettine...

Passiamo a quello che accadde a Roma.

Frequentando il greco Plutarco, ossia leggendo le sue Vite Parallele, troviamo detto in modo molto chiaro che a Roma, l’"ecatombe", come la chiama Canfora, viene vista come una buona novella. Non viene percepita come un crimine, perché era una vittoria sui Germani. L'unica persona che viene agitata dalla notizia, ma soprattutto dalla richiesta della supplicatio, una serie di grandi celebrazioni in onore della vittoria, è Catone il Minore, acerrimo nemico di Cesare. E così inizia a risuonare la sua corda retorica. In Senato, che doveva deliberare la supplicatio, Catone si alza in piedi e comincia il suo discorso retorico. Cesare ha violato la tregua! Anche se i Germani hanno violato prima la tregua lui doveva rispettarla. Ha vinto solo perché, violando la tregua, era diventato superiore ai nemici. Consegniamolo ai nemici, per aver violato la parola data! Il Senato chiede chiarimenti a Cesare che risponde con una missiva piena di insulti, dice Plutarco. Dopo che il Senato ha respinto la mozione di Catone, egli, molto pacatamente, dice quello che effettivamente ha in testa. Ovvero che il Senato non deve aver paura dei barbari, ma di Cesare che vuol prendere il potere.

Il testo di Plutarco è chiaro in proposito. Ma in Plutarco troviamo una svista, il numero che per Cesare era quello stimato dei nemici, diventa il numero dei Germani uccisi, anzi tagliati a fette. E così ha origine il filo conduttore che porta Canfora a parlare di genocidio e dire "ed estese indiscriminatamente il genocidio a tutti, donne e bambini inclusi. Come crimine   disumano   questa   ecatombe   fu   percepita   anche   a   Roma." Ripeto, Cesare non  dice di aver ucciso donne e bambini. A Roma, la notizia della vittoria di Cesare sui Germani - ed è questa la notizia che è arrivata a Roma - era una buona notizia. Non erano passati infatti molti anni da quando i Cimbri avevano dilagato nella valle Padana, e solo il nuovo esercito del console Caio Mario li aveva fermati, e neppure  Caio Mario aveva ucciso donne e bambini. 

Concludo la discussione del passo dal libro di Canfora facendo notare che i Galli alleati di Cesare vengono da lui definiti collaborazionisti. Nel vocabolario Treccani leggiamo che un collaborazionista è chi collabora con le  autorità  nemiche d’occupazione, in particolare chi, durante la seconda guerra mondiale, collaborò con le forze tedesche d’occupazione, come ad esempio i governi di Salò e di Vichy. Insomma, nel libro di Canfora, i Romani di Cesare sembrano i soldati del Terzo Reich e Cesare un Hitler che commetteva genocidi.
Allora, avete visto come si coniuga la storia al presente, magari con l'aggiunta di fake news. 

Termino quindi con la domanda, titolo del post. La storia si scrive sempre usando il tempo presente?

De Bello Gallico 4.14-15, Giulio Cesare (Italiano, Français, English)

Ci sono due frasi, nel De Bello Gallico di Giulio Cesare, che richiedono, secondo me, una traduzione il più letterale possibile. Sono nel Libro IV, capitolo 14 e 15, e riguardano la campagna militare contro Usipeti e Tencteri. La ragione è spiegata dall'articolo Giulio Cesare e i Germani. / Il y a deux phrases, dans De Bello Gallico, qui exigent, à mon avis, une traduction aussi littérale que possible. Ils figurent dans le livre IV et concernent la campagne militaire contre Usipetes et Tencteri. / There are two sentences in De Bello Gallico, which require, in my opinion, a translation as literal as possible. They appear in Book IV and concern the military campaign against Usipetes and Tencteri. The reason is explained by the article Julius Caesar and the Germans.

LATINO Ecco di seguito il testo Latino.

[14] Acie triplici instituta et celeriter VIII milium itinere confecto, prius ad hostium castrapervenit quam quid ageretur Germani sentire possent. Qui omnibus rebus subito perterriti et celeritate adventus nostri et discessu suorum, neque consilii habendi neque arma capiendi spatio dato perturbantur, copiasne adversus hostem ducere an castra defendere an fuga salutem petere praestaret. Quorum timor cum fremitu et concursu significaretur, milites nostri pristini diei perfidia incitati in castra inruperunt. Quo loco qui celeriter arma capere potuerunt paulisper nostris restiterunt atque inter carros impedimentaque proelium commiserunt; at reliqua multitudo puerorum mulierumque (nam cum omnibus suis domo excesserant Rhenum transierant) passim fugere coepit, ad quos consectandos Caesar equitatum misit.

[15] Germani post tergum clamore audito, cum suos interfici viderent, armis abiectis signismilitaribus relictis se ex castris eiecerunt, et cum ad confluentem Mosae et Rheni pervenissent, reliqua fuga desperata, magno numero interfecto, reliqui se in flumen praecipitaverunt atque ibi timore, lassitudine, vi fluminis oppressi perierunt. Nostri ad unum omnes incolumes, perpaucis vulneratis, ex tanti belli timore, cum hostium numerus capitum CCCCXXX milium fuisset, se in castra receperunt. Caesar iis quos in castris retinuerat discedendi potestatem fecit. Illi supplicia cruciatusque Gallorum veriti, quorum agros vexaverant, remanere se apud eum velle dixerunt. His Caesar libertatem concessit.

Italiano

Disposto l’esercito su tre file e coperte rapidamente le otto miglia di distanza, arrivò sul campo nemico prima che i Germani potessero rendersi conto di cosa stava succedendo. Essi, atterriti per diverse ragioni, dall’arrivo improvviso dei nostri e dall’assenza dei loro, dal non avere il tempo di prendere alcuna decisione o di correre alle armi, erano incerti se convenisse affrontare i Romani, difendere l’accampamento o darsi alla fuga. I lori timori erano resi manifesti dai rumori e dalla confusione; i nostri, irritati dal proditorio attacco del giorno precedente, fecero irruzione nel campo avversario. Qui, chi riuscì ad armarsi in fretta, per un po’ oppose resistenza, combattendo tra i carri e le salmerie; altri invece, ossia le donne e i bambini (infatti tutti erano usciti dalle loro terre e avevano attraversato il Reno) cominciarono a fuggire. A seguirli, Cesare mandò la cavalleria.

I Germani, uditi i clamori alle spalle, e vedendo i loro cadere, gettarono le armi, abbandonarono le insegne e fuggirono dall’accampamento. Giunti alla confluenza della Mosa con il Reno, dove non v’era più speranza di fuga, molti vennero uccisi, gli altri si gettarono nel fiume e qui, vinti dalla paura, dalla stanchezza, dalla forte corrente, morirono. I nostri, incolumi, con pochissimi feriti, rientrarono al campo dopo le apprensioni nutrite per uno scontro così rischioso, considerando che il numero dei nemici era stimato a quattrocentotrenta mila unità. Ai Germani trattenuti nell’accampamento Cesare permise di allontanarsi, ma costoro, temendo atroci supplizi da parte dei Galli di cui avevano saccheggiato i campi, dissero di voler rimanere presso di lui. Cesare concesse loro la libera scelta.

A proposito di vedendo i loro cadere, cum suos interfici viderent, mi preme notare che  suos è l’accusativo plurale del sostantivo sui, che significa i suoi / i loro (non solo i famigliari, ma anche gli amici, partigiani, compagni, ecc.) (*). Dato il numero plurale ed il contesto, suos si riferisce meglio al plurale qui celeriter arma capere potuerunt,  cioè ai compagni d’arme che avevano cercato invano di opporre resistenza prendendo le armi, piuttosto che al collettivo ma singolare reliqua multitudo puerorum mulierumque, alla moltitudine di bambini e donne, che aveva preso la fuga, passim fugere coepit, e che quindi i combattenti non potevano più vedere, poiché si era già allontanata (non a caso fu mandata la cavalleria ad inseguirli: ad quos consectandos Caesar equitatum misit). Questo quos, accusativo plurale maschile, ha sostituito il singolare di multitudo, per rendere l'idea dei molti che si disperdono in tutte le direzioni nella fuga. Notiamo inoltre che il summenzionato quos non è la cosa più vicina al suos del cum suos interfici viderent, ma sono i Germani stessi, quelli che stanno combattendo contro i Romani, ad esserlo.

Si deve dunque intendere il suos riferito ai compagni d’arme dei Germani.

Più sopra, da un lato Cesare dice nam cum omnibus suis domo excesserant, significando ivi con  omnibus suis le loro famiglie, ma prima dice dei discessu suorum, intendendo l'assenza dei leader militari  (e non dei parenti). Nel terzo caso,  cum suos interfici viderent, con suos si intendono i compagni d'arme.  Ci sono quindi tre significati diversi della stessa parola nello stesso paragrafo, per via della polisemia del Latino sui.

Lasciatemi insistere su questo: pensare che il termine sui debba avere lo stesso significato in occorrenze diverse è molto fuorviante. Si deve infatti sempre considerare il contesto e la grammatica.

Per il contesto si leggano appunto Julius Caesar and the Germans oppure Giulio Cesare e i Germani.

(*) Castiglioni, L., & Mariotti, S. (1965). Vocabolario della Lingua Latina. Loescher. Torino.

In Francese

Utilizzo la traduzione proposta in "Guerre des Gaules, traduite des mémoires dits Commentaires de César", par Teophile Berlier. A Paris, chez Parmantier, libraire, rue Dauphine, n. 14, 1825.

XIV. Ayant rangé l’armée sur trois lignes, il fit avec une extrême vitesse un chemin de huit milles, et parvint au camp des ennemis avant qu’ils passent connaître ce qui venait de se passer au sien. Frappés d’une terreur subite par la promptitude de notre arrivée, manquant de chefs, et n’ayant le temps ni d’assembler un conseil, ni de prendre les armes , ils ne savaient, dans leur trouble, à quel parti s'arrêter, ou de faire sortir les troupes pour combattre, ou de se borner à la défense de leur camp, ou enfin de chercher leur salut dans la fuite. Au milieu des courses et des cris par lesquels ces Germains signalaient leur frayeur , nos soldats , irrités de leur perfidie de la veille, fondirent sur leur camp. Ceux d’entre les enne mis qui avaient usé d’assez de promptitude pour s’armer opposèrent un peu de résistance , et se battirent entre les chars et les bagages; mais tout le reste, y compris les femmes et les enfans ( car les Germains étaient sortis de leur pays et avaient passé le Rhin avec tout ce qu’ils pos sédaient) , se mirent à fuir çà et là devant la cavalerie que César envoya à leur poursuite.

XV. Ceux qui combattaient, entendant de grands cris derrière eux, et voyant le carnage qu’on faisait de leurs camarades, ne songèrent plus, jetant leurs armes et aban donnant leurs enseignes , qu'à se sauver du camp. Lorsqu'ils furent parvenus au confluent de la Meuse et du Rhin , que l’espoir de fuir plus loin leur fut ravi, et qu’un grand nombre d’entre eux eut été tué , le reste se précipita dans le fleuve , et y périt accablé par la peur, la lassitude et la violence des eaux. Les nôtres , sans qu’il en eût été tué un seul, et comptant à peine quelques blessés, rentrèrent dans leur camp , délivrés des inquiétudes d’une si grande guerre, soutenue contre des ennemis dont le nombre s’était élevé à quatre cent trente mille. César accorda aux Germains qu’il avait retenus dans son camp la faculté de s’en aller; mais , comme ils redoutaient les plus cruels traitemens de la part des Gaulois, dont ils avaient dévasté le territoire, ils exprimèrent le désir de rester auprès de César, qui voulut bien le leur permettre.

A commento di questa traduzione, potete vedere che Teophile Berlier legge nel testo di Cesare proprio quello che ho proposto nella traduzione in Italiano, ossia che il suos è riferito ai compagni d'arme.

Ecco la mia traduzione in Inglese. 

Having divided his army in three lines, and in a short time performed a march of eight miles, he arrived at the camp of the enemy before the Germans could perceive what was going on; who being suddenly alarmed by all the circumstances, both by the speediness of our arrival and the absence of their own chiefs, as time was afforded neither for concerting measures nor for seizing their arms, are perplexed as to whether it would be better to lead out their forces against the enemy, or to defend their camp, or seek their safety by flight. Their consternation being made apparent by their noise and tumult, our soldiers, excited by the treachery of the preceding day, rushed into the camp: such of them as could readily get their arms, for a short time withstood our men, and gave battle among their carts and baggage wagons; but the rest of the people, children and women (for they had left their country and crossed the Rhine with all their families) began to fly in all directions; to follow them Caesar sent the cavalry.

The Germans, hearing the shouting behind them, and seeing their comrades falling, threw away their arms, abandoned their standards, and fled out of the camp, and when they had arrived at the confluence of Meuse and Rhine rivers, the survivors despairing of further escape, many of them had been killed, threw themselves into the river and there perished, overcome by fear, fatigue, and the violence of the stream. Our soldiers, after the alarm of so great a war, for the number of the enemy amounted to 430,000, returned to their camp, all safe to a man, very few being even wounded. Caesar granted those whom he had kept in the camp liberty of departing. They however, dreading revenge and torture from the Gauls, whose lands they had harassed, said that they desired to remain with him. Caesar granted them permission to choose. 

Mi permetto di scrivere la discussione in Inglese della mia traduzione.
Concerning and seeing their comrades falling, cum suos interfici viderent, I have to stress that suos is the plural accusative of the substantive sui, which is easily translated in the Italian i suoi / i loro (amici, partigiani, compagni, familiari, ecc.). In (**), we see that sui, suorum, means their friends, soldiers, fellow-beings, equals, adherents, followers, partisans, posterity, slaves, family, etc., of persons in any near connection with the antecedent. Since suos is plural, and because of the context, suos is better referring to the plural qui celeriter arma capere potuerunt, that is to the men which were fighting, who had tried in vain to oppose resistance, rather than to the singular reliqua multitudo puerorum, the multitude of women and children, that had previouly fled, passim fugere coepit. As a consequence of this flight, the men could no longer see them, because women and children had already abandoned the camp (it was not by chance that the cavalry was sent to follow them: ad quos consectandos Caesar equitatum misit). Actually, this quos, accusative plural masculine susbstituing the singular multitudo, is used to render the idea of the many persons dispersed in the flight.  Moreover, let us note that the abovementioned quos is not the nearest thing to suos which appears in cum suos interfici viderent:  the nearest subject are the same Germans, which are figthing against the Romans.

For the previously given reasons, it is necessary to consider suos referred to the comrades-in-arms of the Germans, here rendered as comrades.

In fact, just above, on the one side Caesar tells nam cum omnibus suis domo excesserant, meaning here with omnibus suis their families, but before he speaks of the discessu suorum, meaning the absence of their military leaders (and not of the relatives). In the third case, cum suos interfici viderent, with suos are meant the comrades. Three meanings of the same word in the same paragraph, due to the polysemy of the Latin sui. Let us stress the following. To think that sui has the same meaning in different occurrences is misleading, because it is always necessary to consider the context and the grammar.

For the background, read please  Julius Caesar and the Germans .

(**) A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879. Available at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/

Discussione

Perché considero la traduzione di questi due capitoli del De Bello Gallico importante?
La risposta è la seguente. Molte traduzioni Italiane, Francesi e Tedesche traducono il suos lasciando semplicemente "i loro" (ed equivalente in Francese e in Tedesco), senza specificare chi siano questi "loro".  L'Inglese che non ha la locuzione adatta per dire "i loro" (diciamo meglio, potrebbe essere un theirs, ma non è bella), si trova a dover usare un sostantivo, e, nella maggior parte delle traduzioni, il suos  risulta indicare i familiari. In alcuni pochi casi si trova friends o companions.
Ripetiamo, nel sui polisemico le traduzioni inglesi vedono il significato di famiglia. 
Faccio un esempio. Il testo è Commentaries on the Gallic War. Translated into English by T. Rice Holmes. Publication date 1908:  "but  the host of women and children (for they had left their country and crossed the Rhine with all their belongings) began to flee in all directions; and Caesar sent his cavalry to hunt them down. The Germans heard the shrieks behind, and, seeing that their kith and kin were being slaughtered, threw away their weapons, abandoned their standards, and rushed out of the camp." Da queste traduzioni in Inglese, si vede che Cesare è reso  come massacratore di donne e bambini. Ma non sono solo i traduttori inglesi. Ci sono traduzioni che lasciano "i loro", ma mettono delle note che dicono che "i loro" sono le donne e i bambini, come per esempio nella traduzione di Franco Manzoni per Mursia, 1989.

C'è però un autore antico, che ha riferito in dettaglio su Cesare e lo scontro con gli Usipeti e Tencteri,  e che legge il sui come i compagni d'arme, anzi, come i soldati a piedi, e questo autore è Cassio Dione. Ecco che cosa dice.
"Stando i Romani ne’ quartieri d’ inverno presso gli alleati, i Tencteri  e gli Usipeti, popoli di Germania, si perchè erano discacciati dagli Svevi, come anche perchè venivano invitati dai Galli, passato il Reno, fecero impeto sopra i confini dei Treviri. Quivi avendo essi trovato Cesare, ne rimasero spaventati, e s’indussero a spedire a lui ambasciatori, i quali facessero alleanza col medesimo, chiedendogli che assegnasse loro una qualche regione, o elle permettesse ai medesimi di occuparsela. Ma non avendo ottenuta alcuna, di queste due cose, sulle prime promisero, che di buon grado alle lor case se ne sarebbero ritornati, e addimandarono la tregua; e poscia vedendo, che Cesare si avvicinava con pochi soldati a cavallo, i quali erano sul fior dell’ età, non ne fecero essi gran conto, e pentitisi di quanto avevano fatto, sospesero la partenza , ed all impensata diedero addosso ai detti cavalieri romani  e da ciò preso coraggio determinarono di fare la guerra. Non fu tal cosa approvata da coloro, ch’erano d’età più matura. i quali portatisi da Cesare contro la volontà de' più giovani,  implorarono il perdono, gettando la colpa sopra pochi. Cesare li trattenne, fingendo, che fra non molto avrebbero ricevuta la risposta  e quindi se n’andò contro gli altri, che stavano dentro gli alloggiamenti, e diede loro l’assalto in tempo che  dopo il mezzodì se ne stavano in riposo, e non  si aspettavano veruna ostilità, sul riflesso che quei della lor parte erano a trattar con Cesare: e fatto improvviso impeto sopra i medesimi, uccise una gran quantità di soldati a piedi, i quali oltreché non aveano campo di prender le armi, venivano anche impacciati dalle mogli e dai figliuoli, che  stavano misti confusamente insieme vicino ai carri." A pagina 386 delle  Istorie romane di Dione Cassio Coccejano tradotte da Giovanni Viviani. Tomo primo. Dalla tipografia de' fratelli Sonzogno, 1823.
Notiamo che il testo greco parla proprio di soldati a piedi (τῶν πεζῶν).

Lasciate che vi mostri una parte di una traduzione moderna, dello stesso passo di Cassio Dione, fatta da Giuseppe Norcio, BUR, 1995.
"Intanto mosse contro gli altri, che meriggiavano sotto le tende e non si aspettavano un attacco, perché i loro vecchi si trovavano presso Cesare. Assalite le tende piene di soldati, che non ebbero neppure il tempo di afferrare le armi e stavano presso i carriaggi insieme alle donne e ai bambini, fece una strage."
Come potete ben notare, la traduzione moderna ha una forma molto diversa da quella del Viviani. Nella traduzione del Viviani, secondo Cassio Dione quelli che sono stati uccisi sono i soldati. Invece, nella traduzione di Norcio, l'ambiguità su chi siano gli uccisi è evidente.

Concludiamo, nel De Bello Gallico è descritto un combattimento a piedi avvenuto nel campo dei Germani. Vedendo che i loro compagni d'arme erano uccisi dai Romani, i Germani avevano cercato di fuggire e raggiungere le donne e i bambini, che erano già fuggiti, e per questo motivo Cesare aveva messo la cavalleria a seguirli.
Cesare non ci dice che cosa è successo alle persone raggiunte dalla cavalleria. In un altro passo del De Bello Gallico però, Cesare è più preciso. Parlando dello scontro coi  guerrieri dei Treviri dice "Quos Labienus equitatu consectatus, magno numero interfecto, compluribus captis, paucis post diebus civitatem recepit." Vuol dire che la cavalleria di Labieno ne ha ucciso molti e che parecchi sono stati fatti prigionieri (pochi giorni dopo lo scontro, i Treviri si sono arresi). Allora, anche nel caso degli Usipeti e dei Tencteri, avrà fatto dei prigionieri. Forse non era necessario neppure dirlo, perché donne e bambini erano automaticamente considerati come prigionieri. Nel caso dei Treviri era invece necessario dirlo perché si trattava di combattenti.
Essendo il suos l'accusativo di sui che nel dizionario Latino-Italiano o Latino-Inglese ha svariati riferimenti a gruppi di persone legati da vincoli di causa, ossia amicizia, politica, armi etc., la mia posizione è quella che le persone che i Germani hanno visto cadere siano stati i loro compagni d'arme e non i familiari.

Julius Caesar and the Germans (Usipetes and Tencteri)

Recently, some Dutch archaeologists have proposed a reconstruction of the physical appearance of Julius Caesar [1]. The reconstruction, which I discussed in [2-4], was used to launch a book by Tom Buijtendorp, Caesar in de Lage Landen, on Caesar's military campaign against the Germans, in particular against Usipetes and Tencteri tribes, a campaign that took place in the territory crossed by the Rhine and today located in the Netherlands. [5]. Some clarifications on this military campaign are, in my opinion, necessary. They are contained in the article that I am now proposing. In it, the reader will find the analysis of what Caesar wrote in his De Bello Gallico and what Plutarch told about the accusation made to Caesar by Cato the Younger, of  violating the truce with these Germans. Finally, the texts of Caesar and Plutarch will be compared with what is written in the books by Luciano Canfora and Jérôme Carcopino.

(This post is available as Zenodo pdf article Julius Caesar and the Germans)

Here the story of what happened. The only direct source is the De Bello Gallico by Julius Caesar.

Year 55 BC. After having wandered for three years under the pressure of the Suebi, the Germanic tribes of Usipetes and Tencteri had reached the regions inhabited by the Menapes at the mouth of the Rhine, in the today Netherlands. The Menapes possessed, on both banks of the river, fields, farmhouses and villages. Frightened by the arrival of such a large mass of people, they abandoned the settlements on the other bank of the river, but placed some garrisons along the Rhine to prevent the Germans to enter the Gaul. Failing to cross the river, Tencteri and Usipetes used a deception. They simulated a retreat, but a night their cavalry suddenly came back, killing the Menapes who had returned to their villages. They took the boats of Menapes and crossed the river. They occupied the villages and nourished themselves during the winter by means of the provisions of Menapes.

When aware of these facts, Caesar decided to anticipate his departure for the Gaul and to reach his legions, which were wintering in the Gallia Belgica. He was also informed that some Gallic tribes had invited the Germanic tribes to abandon the newly conquered territories of the Lower Rhine, to enter the Gaul.

Allured by this hope, the Germans were then making excursions to greater distances, and had advanced to the territories of the Eburones and the Condrusi, who are under the protection of the Treviri. After summoning the chiefs of Gaul, Caesar thought proper to pretend ignorance of the things which he had discovered; and having conciliated and confirmed their minds, and ordered some cavalry to be raised, resolved to make war against the Germans. [7].

The Germans, when aware that the Roman army was approaching, decided to send ambassadors to Caesar, to ask his permission to settle in those territories, offering their friendship in return. They reminded him why they had been forced to migrate and their strength in battle, where they considered themselves second only to the Suebi. Caesar denied them permission to occupy territories in Gaul. He also maintained that it was not right for the Germans to take possession of the lands of other populations, they, who had not been able to defend their territories from the attacks of the Suebi.

Caesar advised them to cross the Rhine and occupy the territories of Ubii, who were loyal allies of Rome. A truce was then established to be used to reach an agreement. During the truce, however, the Germans came across a squadron of Gallic cavalry, attacked it, overthrowing a great many of the men and putting the rest to flight. Caesar accused the Germans of breaking the truce. 

When, as told by Caesar, a large body of Germans, consisting of their princes and old men, went to him to justify themselves, he kept them in the Roman camp. After, with a rapid move, he fell on the Germanic camp attacking the enemies and forcing them to flee. This mass of people moved in the direction of the confluence of the Rhine with the Mosa.

How many were the Usipets and Tencteri? Let us try to estimate the order of magnitude. Let's see what De Bello Gallico is telling [7], on the Germanic knights who, during the truce assaulted the Gallo-Romans.

[12] At hostes, ubi primum nostros equites conspexerunt, quorum erat V milium numerus, cum ipsi non amplius DCCC equites haberent, quod ii qui frumentandi causa erant trans Mosam profecti nondum redierant, nihil timentibus nostris, quod legati eorum paulo ante a Caesare discesserant atque is dies indutiis erat ab his petitus, impetu facto celeriter nostros perturbaverunt; rursus his resistentibus consuetudine sua ad pedes desiluerunt subfossis equis compluribus nostris deiectis reliquos in fugam coniecerunt atque ita perterritos egerunt ut non prius fuga desisterent quam in conspectum agminis nostri venissent. In eo proelio ex equitibus nostris interficiuntur IIII et LXX, in his vir fortissimus Piso Aquitanus, amplissimo genere natus, cuius avus in civitate sua regnum obtinuerat amicus a senatu nostro appellatus.

That is [8]. But the enemy, as soon as they saw our horse, the number of which was 5000, whereas they themselves had not more than 800 horse, because those which had gone over the Meuse for the purpose of foraging had not returned, while our men had no apprehensions, because their embassadors had gone away from Caesar a little before, and that day had been requested by them as a period of truce, made an onset on our men, and soon threw them into disorder. When our men, in their turn, made a stand, they, according to their practice, leaped from their horses to their feet, and stabbing our horses in the belly and overthrowing a great many of our men, put the rest to flight, and drove them forward so much alarmed that they did not desist from their retreat till they had come in sight of our army. In that encounter seventy-four of our horse were slain; among them, Piso, an Aquitanian, a most valiant man, and descended from a very illustrious family; whose grandfather had held the sovereignty of his state, and had been styled friend by our senate. 

Therefore, they were 800 German knights who overthrow and put to flight 5000 knights recruited by the Romans. The order of magnitude of this part of the Germanic cavalry is 103. Caesar tells that most part of the Germanic cavalry was for prey and harvest beyond the Meuse. Let us estimate that between the number of knights involved in the reported episode and the total number of German knights there is the difference of an order of magnitude. We find that the number of Usipetes and Tencteri warriors could exceed the 5000 units.

About this cavalry, there is an important fact to note. The horses of the Germans were trained to remain at rest when their knight leaped from them during the battle. In this manner, the Germanic warrior had the chance to face the enemy knight, stabbing the opponent's horse in the belly, and kill the enemy falling on the ground, as described in the above mentioned passage of De Bello Gallico. After, the Germanic knight found his horse waiting for him. A formidable cavalry then, made by at least twice as many elements, counting the horses in the fight too.

Therefore, Caesar then had to face two tribes having an excellent cavalry of about 5000 units. An infantry probably existed too, besides the cavalry. Among the Romans, for each knight there were ten infantrymen. As discussed in [9], the Germanic peoples had in the army an infantry too, but it is necessary to said that, probably, the ratio between infantrymen and knights was different from that of the Romans. Assuming the same proportion, the number of warriors would have amounted to fifty thousand, and these Germans would have been less than the warriors of the Suebi, who could encamp a hundred thousand warriors, as said by Caesar himself (De Bello Gallico IV.15.3). 

As told before, many of the warriors of Usipetes and Tencteri were on the other bank of the Meuse to search for prey and harvest wheat and forage. It is probable that they had also freedmen and servants, as well as women and children, to help them to gather and arrange the harvest on wagons, and then to move it across the Meuse. Moreover, the number of warriors could have been increased, if some armed groups from other tribes had been added meanwhile.

After some considerations, that we find in De Bello Gallico, IV,13, Caesar had to decide his move, keeping in mind what could be the result, for the Romans, to face all the Germans. First, he kept in his camp the chiefs and the elders who had come to apologize for the assault on the cavalry and to demand to continue the truce. And then he did the following [7]. 

[14] Acie triplici instituta et celeriter VIII milium itinere confecto, prius ad hostium castrapervenit quam quid ageretur Germani sentire possent. Qui omnibus rebus subito perterriti et celeritate adventus nostri et discessu suorum, neque consilii habendi neque arma capiendi spatio dato perturbantur, copiasne adversus hostem ducere an castra defendere an fuga salutem petere praestaret. Quorum timor cum fremitu et concursu significaretur, milites nostri pristini diei perfidia incitati in castra inruperunt. Quo loco qui celeriter arma capere potuerunt paulisper nostris restiterunt atque inter carros impedimentaque proelium commiserunt; at reliqua multitudo puerorum mulierumque (nam cum omnibus suis domo excesserant Rhenum transierant) passim fugere coepit, ad quos consectandos Caesar equitatum misit. 

[15] Germani post tergum clamore audito, cum suos interfici viderent, armis abiectis signis militaribus relictis se ex castris eiecerunt, et cum ad confluentem Mosae et Rheni pervenissent, reliqua fuga desperata, magno numero interfecto, reliqui se in flumen praecipitaverunt atque ibi timore, lassitudine, vi fluminis oppressi perierunt. Nostri ad unum omnes incolumes, perpaucis vulneratis, ex tanti belli timore, cum hostium numerus capitum CCCCXXX milium fuisset, se in castra receperunt. Caesar iis quos in castris retinuerat discedendi potestatem fecit. Illi supplicia cruciatusque Gallorum veriti, quorum agros vexaverant, remanere se apud eum velle dixerunt. His Caesar libertatem concessit. 

[14] Having divided his army in three lines, and in a short time performed a march of eight miles, he arrived at the camp of the enemy before the Germans could perceive what was going on; who being suddenly alarmed by all the circumstances, both by the speediness of our arrival and the absence of their own chiefs, as time was afforded neither for concerting measures nor for seizing their arms, are perplexed as to whether it would be better to lead out their forces against the enemy, or to defend their camp, or seek their safety by flight. Their consternation being made apparent by their noise and tumult, our soldiers, excited by the treachery of the preceding day, rushed into the camp: such of them as could readily get their arms, for a short time withstood our men, and gave battle among their carts and baggage wagons; but the rest of the people, boys and women (for they had left their country and crossed the Rhine with all their families) began to fly in all directions; to follow them Caesar sent the cavalry. 

[15] The Germans, hearing the clamor behind them and seeing their comrades falling, threw away their arms, abandoned their standards, and fled out of the camp, and when they had arrived at the confluence of Meuse and Rhine rivers, the survivors despairing of further escape, many of them had been killed, threw themselves into the river and there perished, overcome by fear, fatigue, and the violence of the stream. Our soldiers, after the alarm of so great a war, for the number of the enemy amounted to 430,000, returned to their camp, all safe to a man, very few being even wounded. Caesar granted those whom he had kept in the camp liberty of departing. They however, dreading revenge and torture from the Gauls, whose lands they had harassed, said that they desired to remain with him. Caesar granted them permission to choose. 

Here I have used partially the translation as in [8] of Caes. Gal. 4.13 and 4.15. However I had to change the first sentence of chapter [15]. Here is the reason. Concerning seeing their comrades falling, cum suos interfici viderent, I have to stress that suos is the plural accusative of the substantive sui, which is easily translated in the Italian i suoi / i loro (amici, partigiani, compagni, familiari, ecc.) [9]. similarly in French (les siens / les leurs), or in German (die Seinen / die Ihren), so to be found in the translations of Caesar’s De Bello Gallico in those languages. Because this is not possible in English, the translator is obliged to specify, i.e. to give his owninterpretation of to whom sui in each case refers, which may be correct - or false.

From [10], we see that sui, suorum, means their friends, soldiers, fellow-beings, equals, adherents, followers, partisans, posterity, slaves, family, etc., “of persons in any near connection with the antecedent”. Since suos is plural, and because of the context, suos is better referring to the plural qui celeriter arma capere potuerunt, paulisper nostris restiterunt atque inter carros impedimentaque proelium commiserunt, that is to the men which were fighting, those who had tried in vain to oppose resistance, rather than to the singular reliqua multitudo puerorum mulierumque, the multitude of women and children, that had previouly fled, passim fugere coepit. As a consequence, the men could no longer see them, because women and children had already abandoned the camp (it was not by chance that the cavalry was sent to follow them: ad quos consectandos Caesar equitatum misit).

For the previously given reasons, it is necessary to consider suos referred to the comrades-in-arms of the Germns, here rendered as comrades.

In fact, just above, on the one side Caesar tells nam cum omnibus suis domo excesserant, meaning here with suis their families, but before he speaks of the discessu suorum, meaning the absence of their military leaders (and not of the relatives). In the third case, cum suos interfici viderent, with suos are meant the comrades. Three meanings of the same word in the same paragraph, due to the polysemy of the Latin sui. Let us stress that, to think that sui has the same meaning in different occurrences is misleading, because it is always necessary to consider the context and the grammar.

There is a reason why I am stressing this point.  In English, as previously told, a proper translation of sui is “theirs”. In a few cases, we find translations having “theirs” rendered by friends or companions. But many read sui their family.  Here an example: it is the Commentaries on the Gallic War. Translated into English by T. Rice Holmes. Publication date 1908:  "but  the host of women and children (for they had left their country and crossed the Rhine with all their belongings) began to flee in all directions; and Caesar sent his cavalry to hunt them down. The Germans heard the shrieks behind, and, seeing that their kith and kin were being slaughtered, threw away their weapons, abandoned their standards, and rushed out of the camp." Totally distorted.

Let us consider again Caesar’s words.

We can see that Caesar tells that, feeling a great clamor behind them and seeing their (comrades) falling, the Germans fled. What is the clamor that the Germans hear? That of the battle. Behind them? The reasonable explanation is that, since the camp had a large dimension, the Romans entered the camp, breaking through where they saw a weak defense. Once they entered the camp, they attacked the Germans,who were facing the Roman army, from the rear side too. Therefore, who are the ones that the Germans see falling? We repeat, their comrades. And once again we tell that they could not see what was happening to women and children, because they had escaped in all directions after the irruption of the Romans, so that Caesar sent the cavalry to look for them. It is worth pointing out that those Germans who adapt to the description made by Caesar, with weapons and banners, are the warriors who are facing Caesar's army (as from an observation by Francesco Carotta, via e-mail).

Caesar had kept his cavalry behind the legions, since it was still shaken by the clash of the previous day. Moreover, the cavalry had no reason to enter the German camp, where the horsemen could not move in team and, singularly, could become a prey for the Germans. Thus, the only Romans that the Germans could see behind them were the legionaries. Caesar occupies the cavalry in the search for women and children, who were able to escape from the camp through some openings in the Roman army, openings which appeared when it entered the camp. 

To understand properly what happened, and in particular the “post tergum clamore”, let us see what happens in Alesia. De bello gallico VII,84. [84] Vercingetorix ex arce Alesiae suos conspicatus ex oppido egreditur; crates, longurios, musculos, falces reliquaque quae eruptionis causa paraverat profert. Pugnatur uno tempore omnibus locis, atque omnia temptantur: quae minime visa pars firma est, huc concurritur. Romanorum manus tantis munitionibus distinetur nec facile pluribus locis occurrit. Multum ad terrendos nostros valet clamor, qui post tergum pugnantibus exstitit, quod suum periculum in aliena vident salute constare: omnia enim plerumque quae absunt vehementius hominum mentes perturbant. Vercingetorix sees his men from the fortress of Alesia and leaves the city. He brings forth long hooks, movable pent-houses, mural hooks, and other weapons, which he had prepared for the sortie. They engage on all sides at once and every expedient is adopted. They flocked to whatever part of the works seemed weakest. The Roman troops are forced to divide themselves because of the extension of the lines, and it is not easy to reject the attacks which are launched simultaneously in different sectors. The clamor that rises behind our men, while fighting, contributes to sow fear and panic, because they understood that their life was linked to the salvation of others: the dangers that do not lie before the eyes, in general, disturb with greater intensity the minds of men.

This is also what happened to the Germans, who had gathered themselves behind the defenses of the camp among wagons and supply, and who were looking at the Caesar’s army that was approaching. Caesar forces them to divide while his army was attacking at once in those places where the defense seemed weaker. Here, the Germans are shocked, like the Romans in Alesia, by the clamor of the battle behind them and they understand that their salvation is linked to the salvation of their comrades who are fighting.

Caesar tells us that many men were killed. Let me stress that were warriors. He does not tell the number of victims, but only the estimated number of enemies. In fact, when he writes cum hostium numerus capitum CCCCXXX milium fuisset, Caesar speaks of the number, 430 thousand, of esteemed enemies. This seems too large as the number of the population of these two tribes, and, in fact, some scholars have thought of a mistake made by an amanuensis in copying the text. If we assume the number of the population of an order of magnitude greater than the order of magnitude of the warriors, we reach a maximum of 50 thousand units. Probably the figure we read today in De Bello Gallico has been altered over time, perhaps exaggerating that actually written by Caesar.

To some historians, and also because of what Plutarch wrote, probably altered by amanuenses, this number turned into the number of 400 thousand enemies cut to pieces. So let's see what Plutarch says [12].

On returning to his forces in Gaul, Caesar found a considerable war in the country, since two great German nations had just crossed the Rhine to possess the land, one called the Usipes, the other the Tenteritae. Concerning the battle which was fought with them Caesar says in his "Commentaries" that the Barbarians, while treating with him under a truce, attacked on their march and there routed his five thousand cavalry with their eight hundred, since his men were taken off their guard; that they then sent other envoys to him who tried to deceive him again, but he held them fast and led his army against the Barbarians, considering that good faith towards such faithless breakers of truces was folly. But Tanusius says that when the senate voted sacrifices of rejoicing over the victory, Cato pronounced the opinion that they ought to deliver up Caesar to the Barbarians, thus purging away the violation of the truce in behalf of the city, and turning the curse therefor on the guilty man.

Of those who had crossed the Rhine into Gaul four hundred thousand were cut to pieces, and the few who succeeded in making their way back were received by the Sugambri, a German nation. This action Caesar made a ground of complaint against the Sugambri, and besides, he coveted the fame of being the first man to cross the Rhine with an army.

Here the Greek text: τῶν δὲ διαβάντων αἱ μὲν κατακοπεῖσαι τεσσαράκοντα μυριάδες ἦσαν, ὀλίγους δὲ τοὺς ἀποπεράσαντας αὖθις ὑπεδέξαντο Σούγαμβροι, Γερμανικὸν ἔθνος. [13] And here, we can see how the oversight occurred on the number of the Germans. In origin, there was written, properly, four hundred thousand as the number of those who crossed the Rhine; the addition of μὲν κατακοπεῖσαι, that is then cut to pieces, turned this figure into the number of killed people. 

Plutarch cites Tanusius (in Latin Tanusius Geminus), who was a Roman historian. He lived in the first century BC and was of anti-Caesar political extraction, as we can see from Plutarch's passage. He wrote an unspecified number of annals. As reported by Plutarch, Tanusius states that when the Senate was about to vote for thanksgiving to the Gods (supplicatio) for the victory of Caesar, Cato the Younger opposed to it. Cato was a bitter enemy of Caesar. On this occasion, he accused Caesar of having not complied with this truce. For the ancient Romans, the sacredness of the given word was fundamental. After being aware that Caesar had kept the ambassadors in his camp and that he had not respected the truce, in Cato the rhetoric string of an offense against the Gods was forced to sound. An offense that could only damage Rome. Cato even proposed Caesar to be handed over to the barbarians for having failed in his word! According to Cato, Caesar should have to continue to keep the truce, despite the enemies had violated it. It was clearly a pretentious accusation, which did not pass in the Senate.

Before continuing the analysis of Plutarch’s words, let us remember what a supplicatio was. In ancient Rome, a supplicatio was a solemn ceremony of thanksgiving, or a petition, to the Gods decreed by the Senate. All the temples were opened and the statues of the Gods were placed on special supports so that people could offer them sacrifices of thanksgiving, offerings and prayers. A supplicatio could be decreed for two different reasons. One reason was on the occasion of an important victory during a war, and it was usually decreed when the Senate was receiving from a general the official report on the victorious outcome of the fight. The duration of the supplicatio was proportional to the importance of the victory. A supplicatio, in the sense of a solemn supplication and humiliation of the whole city, was sometimes decreed on the occasion of a public danger or calamity and after prodigies, omina, which were showing the wrath of Gods.

Let us see what Plutarch is telling in the Life of Cato [14] and [15]: τοῦ δὲ Καίσαρος ἐμβαλόντος εἰς ἔθνη μάχιμα καὶ παραβόλως κρατήσαντος, Γερμανοῖς δὲ καὶ σπονδῶν γενομένων δοκοῦντος ἐπιθέσθαι καὶ καταβαλεῖν τριάκοντα μυριάδας, οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι τὸν δῆμον ἠξίουν εὐαγγέλια θύειν, ὁ δὲ Κάτων ἐκέλευεν ἐκδιδόναι τὸν Καίσαρα τοῖς παρανομηθεῖσι καὶ μὴ τρέπειν εἰς αὑτοὺς μηδὲ ἀναδέχεσθαι τὸ ἄγος εἰς τὴν πόλιν. After Caesar had fallen upon warlike nations and at great hazards conquered them, and when it was believed that he had attacked the Germans even during a truce and slain three hundred thousand of them, there was a general demand at Rome that the people should offer sacrifices of good tidings, but Cato urged them to surrender Caesar to those whom he had wronged, and not to turn upon themselves, or allow to fall upon their city, the pollution of his crime. 

We note that Plutarch tells that many in Rome were happy about the Caesar's victory (good tidings, εὐαγγέλια), but that Cato imputed to him that he had won only because he had broken the truce, becoming, in this manner, superior to the enemy.

After the Plutarch’s words, some people alleged the military campaign as a genocide [16]. Some added that the number of the Germanic victims disturbed the Romans. Let us stress that, the news of the victory was received by the Romans as good news, and they wanted to thank the Gods for it. Only Cato, the fierce enemy of Caesar, opposed. Let us repeat once again: Cato opposed to the celebration of victory by means of the pretense that Caesar had won the Germans by breaking the truce. At the end of Plutarch's passage, we can find that the attempt to have Caesar handed over to the Germans failed. After that pure rhetorical request, Cato asked the Senate what he really wanted, namely that Caesar were removed as leader of the Roman army.

The source that Plutarch uses in the biography of Cato the Minor is the same Tanusius, already mentioned in Caesar's biography. In writing the biography of Cato, Plutarch used pro-Cato sources, and therefore anti-Caesar sources. He does not tell us whether the celebrations requested by the people for the good news of the defeat of the Germans were made or not. Some information comes from Suetonius [17].

Nec deinde ulla belli occasione, ne iniusti quidem ac periculosi abstinuit, tam foederatis quam infestis ac feris gentibus ultro lacessitis, adeo ut senatus quondam legatos ad explorandum statum Galliarum mittendos decreverit ac nonnulli dedendum eum hostibus censuerint. Sed prospere cedentibus rebus et saepius et plurium quam quisquam umquam dierum supplicationes impetravit.

Later [Caesar] did not neglect any opportunity to make war, even in an excessive and dangerous manner, and to arouse frictions both with allies and hostile and barbarous nations, so that once the Senate decreed to send delegates to verify the conditions of the Gaul provinces, and some came to propose to deliver him to the enemies. But since all his achievements were successful, he obtained public thanks more often and for longer days than any other general.

Let' us stress that Suetonius has, in this passage, completely distorted what Plutarch told, omitting the reference to Cato. 

In any case, let us consider that many Germans saved themselves from the Romans. We have the bulk of the army of these two tribes for sure, which was beyond the Meuse, probably with many other people, and women and children, that with horses and wagons were preparing the yearly provisions of wheat and forage. After Caesar's attack, these Germans found themselves without the chiefs and elders who had remained with Caesar (and therefore without military leaders), and with many comrades died in the fight and in the desperate attempt to cross the river. They also knew that the survivors, including women and children, would be made servants by the Romans.

On the Rhine, the Germans had the boats of the Menapes and then withdrew beyond the river from any further attack of the Romans. Usipetes and Tencteri joined the Sicambri. Their military strength raised again in 17 or 16 BC, when they destroyed a Roman legion in the Clades Lolliana [18].

I would like to stress an interesting fact said by Caesar himself. Not only the Germans, who were beyond the Meuse, were free, but also the Usipetes and Tencteri, who were in the Caesar’s camp, were left free to leave, but because of the fear of the Gauls whose lands they had ravaged, they asked and obtained to remain with Caesar, that is, they were recruited in the Caesar’s army. Therefore, not only those who later committed the Lollian Clades survived, but also those who were recruited into the Caesar's cavalry.

Caesar had not the intent to commit genocide of Usipetes and Tencteri, as alleged sometimes. Caesar wanted to push them away from Gaul, as quickly as possible and with fewer losses for the Romans. 

After the discussion of what Caesar, Plutarch and Suetonius told, I want to tell what I found in a book written by Luciano Canfora [19]. I Germani continuavano a premere per un accordo; Cesare cercava solo un pretesto per massacrarli. Ma fu con l’inganno che ebbe ragione di loro. Il pretesto fu offerto da una sortita di cavalieri degli Usipeti contro la cavalleria gallica alleata di Cesare. Nello scontro morirono alcuni dei collaborazionisti galli più cari a Cesare. Nonostante l’incidente i capi germanici si recarono al previsto incontro con Cesare. Il quale li ricevette a colloquio, ma li fece trucidare a tradimento; quindi assaltò gli avversari sbandati e senza guida, ed estese indiscriminatamente il genocidio a tutti, donne e bambini inclusi. Come crimine disumano questa ecatombe fu percepita anche a Roma, dove Catone, per ragioni beninteso di lotta politica interna, si spinse a chiedere la consegna del proconsole al nemico. La presumibile assenza di autentiche motivazioni umanitarie nella proposta di Catone non deve indurre a sottovalutare l’iniziativa del tenace oppositore. Era significativa comunque che l’enormità del crimine compiuto era percepita. Nondimeno il Senato, in preda ad una “ubriacatura imperialistica” (secondo l’espressione di Carcopino), concesse in onore della carneficina cesariana una colossale supplicatio. 

That is [20]. The Germans continued to press for an accord; Caesar, however, sought only a pretext to massacre them. Through deception he got the better of them. The pretext was a sortie of Usipetes cavalry against the cavalry of Caesar’s Gallic allies. In the encounter some of the Gallic collaborators dearest to Caesar were killed. Notwithstanding the incident, the German leaders went to the scheduled meeting with Caesar. He received them, but had them treacherously slaughtered. Then he attacked opponents who were disunited, without leadership, and indiscriminately committed an act of genocide against them all, including their women and children. This massacre was viewed as an inhuman crime even in Rome, where Cato, undoubtedly for reasons to do with the internal political political struggle, went so far as to demand that the proconsul be handed over to the enemy. The presumed lack of genuine humanitarian motivation in his proposition is no reason to dismiss the demand of this tenacious opponent of Caesar. It shows the enormity of the crime was noticed, at least. None the less, the Senate, a prey to ‘imperialist intoxication’ (in Carcopino’s words), decreed a colossal supplication in honour of the Caesarian carnage.

Caesar tells that the ambassadors, that is the Usipetes and Tencteri he held in his camp were free to move but that they decided to be enlisted in the Roman army. In Canfora’s book, this episode became the assassination of the ambassadors (He received them, but had them treacherously slaughtered) [19,20]. I have reported passages from Plutarch and Suetonius and they do not mention – I stress one more - they do not mention that the ambassadors of the Germans had been killed by the Romans. This is a fake news invented by Canfora, and spread over by the English translation.

For what concerns the Canfora’s “ecatombe” or “massacre”, as told by Plutarch, it was perceived in Rome as the good news of a victory in a military campaign against Germans, and therefore, it did not stirred any rumors in Rome concerning an inhuman crime. To Cato, in his rhetoric speech, the crime was that of breaking the truce. 

Let me end the discussion of the passage in Canfora’s book with this note. In the Italian text, the Gallic allies are defined as collaborazionisti, collaborators. In [21], we can read that the collaborazionista is a person who cooperates with an army which is occupying a country, such as, during the Second World War, who collaborated with Germans in Italy and in France (for instance, governments of Salò and Vichy). As a consequence, in Canfora’s book, the Romans look like the soldiers of the Third Reich and Caesar a Hitler committing an act of genocide. 

Let me write down also what told by Jérôme Carcopino [22] (in Italian) [23]. 

A la fin de 55, il les réunit [ses «communiqués»] en volumes qui sont devenus les livres III et IV des Commentaires, et l’effet de cette publication fut immédiat. En vain Caton, au nom de l’humanité outragée, avait-il élevé sa protestation contre le carnage des Usipètes et des Tenctères, et proposé de livrer César aux Germains pour détourner de la République l’immanquable courroux des dieux. César avait commencé de verser dans les âmes de ses compatriotes l’ivresse d’un impérialisme irrésistible ; et le Sénat, hypnotisé à son tour par tant de profits et de gloire, céda à l’enthousiasme universel en décrétant, en l’honneur du héros, une supplication aux dieux supérieure de cinq jours à celle qu’il lui avait décerné deux ans auparavant.

At the end of 55 BC, Caesar collected [his writings] in books, which later became the III and IV books of the Commentaries, and published them. The effect of this work was immediate. In vain, in the name of outraged humanity, in vain Cato protested against the massacre of Usipetes and Tencteri and proposed to hand over Caesar to the Germans in order to remove from the Republic the just punishment of the gods. Caesar had begun to instill in the soul of compatriots the intoxication of an irresistible imperialism, and even the Senate, hypnotized by so many advantages and glory, surrounded itself to the general enthusiasm, decreeing in honor of the hero a supplication five-day longer than that attributed to him two years before.

Let us comment what was told by Carcopino. It must be said clearly that it was not the publication of Caesar's book, but the news arrived in Rome of Caesar's victory and the request of a supplication in the Senate that stirred the reaction out of Cato. Only Plutarch reports of Cato's reaction exist, and Plutarch tells clearly that Cato imputed Caesar of the breaking of the truce, and not of the killing of enemies. As mentioned earlier, and as told by Plutarch himself, to Rome and its Senate the news was a good news. The memory of the terror cimbricus was still alive in Rome. In fact, not so many years had passed since the Cimbri, after having heavily defeated the Roman armies, had entered the Padan plain. The consul Gaius Mario had stopped them in the battle of the Campi Raudii, fought in 101 BC.

After all we had told, here my conclusion. Regardless of the judgment on Caesar’s wars - let me stress, regardless - the ancient texts at our disposal have not to be misrepresented. That is, it is necessary to report the texts, in original and with translation, and to comment on them. Above all, it is necessary to avoid any fake news. 

References

[1] http://www.rmo.nl/onderwijs/museumkennis/klassieke-wereld/romeinen/de-voorwerpen/ juliuscaesar

[2] Sparavigna, A. C. (2018) Stretching the Boundaries: On Maja d’Hollosy reconstruction of 

Caesar's head. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326020317_Stretching_the_Boundaries_

On_Maja_ d'Hollosy_reconstruction_of_Caesar's_head

[3] Sparavigna, A. C. (2018). Digital restoration of a marble head of Julius Caesar from Noviomagus (Nijmegen). Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1299230

[4] Sparavigna, A. C. (2018). On a possible reconstruction of the face of Julius Caesar using a 

Leiden marble head. Zenodo. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1298695

[5] Tom Buijtendorp, T. (2018). Caesar in de Lage Landen. De Gallische oorlog langs Rijn en Maas. Omniboek. ISBN 9789401913898 

[6] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquista_della_Gallia#Cesare_batte_Usipeti_e_Tencteri_e_

varca_il_Reno

[7] http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/caesar/gall4.shtml

[8] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0001%3Abook%3D4%3Achapter%3D12 D14 and D15

[9] Fraccaro, P., Ciardi-Duprè, G., & Solmi, A. (1932). Popoli Germanici. Enciclopedia Italiana. http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/popoli-germanici_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/

[10] Castiglioni, L., & Mariotti, S. (1965). Vocabolario della Lingua Latina. Loescher. Torino. Page 1443.

[11] A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews' edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised, enlarged, and in great part rewritten by. Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and. Charles Short, LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879. Available at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=suus&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059

[12] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html 

[13] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0130

%3Achapter %3D22%3Asection%3D3

[14] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0088

%3Achapter%3D51%3Asection%3D1

[15] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Cato_Minor*.html

[16] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usipeti 

[17] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/L/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html#24 

[18] Massmann, H. F. (1839). Arminius Cheruscorum dux. Pagina 34.

[19] Canfora, L. (1999). Giulio Cesare: Il dittatore democratico. Laterza, Roma-Bari. Pagine 118119. 

[20] Julius Caesar: The Life and Times of the People's Dictator. Luciano Canfora. University of California Press, 2007

[21] http://www.treccani.it/vocabolario/collaborazionista/

[22] Carcopino, J. (1935). Jules César, Paris, 1935, p. 285-6 

[23] Carcopino, J. (2013). Giulio Cesare. Giunti. 

Giulio Cesare e i Germani

Giulio Cesare e i Germani: Questo articolo propone una discussione di quanto scritto nel De Bello Gallico sulla campagna militare di Cesare contro i Germani, in particolare contro Usipeti e Tencteri. Si analizzerà anche quanto detto da Plutarco a proposito dell'accusa, fatta a Cesare da Catone il Minore, di aver violato la tregua con questi Germani. Infine, si confronteranno i testi di Cesare e Plutarco con quanto scritto nei libri di Luciano Canfora e Jérôme Carcopino.