"That the Bellovaci were the most powerful among them in valor, influence, and the number of men; that these could muster 100,000 armed men, [and had] promised 60,000 picked men out of that number, and demanded for themselves the command of the whole war.... [another tribe] had promised 50,000 armed men; and that the Nervii, who are reckoned the most warlike among them, and are situated at a very great distance, [had promised] as many; the Atrebates 15,000; the Ambiani, 10,000; the Morini, 25,000; the Menapii, 9,000; the Caleti, 10,000; the Velocasses and the Veromandui as many; the Aduatuci 19,000; that the Condrusi, the Eburones, the Caeraesi, the Paemani, who are called by the common name of Germans [had promised],, to the number of 40,000."
a lot of could, had promised and they thought here.
This is not a passage telling us how many actually came to battle. Even so:
Can we honestly believe that Caesar's Gallic foes were able to muster and maintain an army of 308000 (by my quick calculations) in preindustrial times?
Well, why not? Military men where a minority, but industrialism has not added much to the yield of crops and the demographic potential.
And that Caesar was able to defeat them all?
How many men did Caesar have? How much better trained were they? How much better were their tactics? Did all the opponents arrive to the same battles?
(And this is just part of the groups he ran roughshod over).
Dito: especially, did all the opponents arrive to the same battles?
Hans Georg Lundahl
Well, why not? Military men where a minority, but industrialism has not added much to the yield of crops and the demographic potential.
Industrialism has not added much to the yield of crops? Jeeze where have you been? How much more food is able to be produced today using modern methods of farming, land clearing, fertilization and so forth. How about modern abilities to transport and store food?
It is possible that modern crops yield one and a half of what they used to do (Hilaire Belloc's estimate). That is not much. Storing and transport are irrelevant for the demographics of rural peoples - unless there's a bad harvest.
How many men did Caesar have? How much better trained were they? How much better were their tactics? Did all the opponents arrive to the same battles?
The size of Caesar's army depended on the campaign. Take, for example, his first campaign against the Helvetii. Caesar entered the war with a single legion, plus whatever troops he could muster from the local provinces.
A full strength legion in the Early Republic was about 6000, ten cohorts (later reduced to 1000), and Caesar typically mustered half strength legions of about 3600.
So with a well trained (legion) army of some 3600 plus some number of local troops (not well trained), Caesar was able to defeat the Helvetii plus allies, which Caesar numbers as a total of 368,000, with 92,000 in arms, and reduce them to a population of 110,000.
In a similar vein, he claims to have defeated a German tribe numbering 430,000 without losing a man.
Are these figures really accurate or believable?
Well, it depends on how well trained and organised the opponents (Helvetii, Germans, et c) were. And again: did all opponents arrive to same battles? Furthermore, I think Caesar had the Haedui as allies against Helvetii and Germans. It was some time since I read de Bello Gallico liber I, but that is what I recall. Whether these allies were reliable or not, I think you may have a point. But allies they were.
BTW - what French Province or See corresponds to the Haedui?
Sincerely
Hans Georg Lundahl
It is possible that modern crops yield one and a half of what they used to do (Hilaire Belloc's estimate). That is not much. Storing and transport are irrelevant for the demographics of rural peoples - unless there's a bad harvest.
Modern crops themselves may only yield one and a half times more than ancient ones, but remember the total amount of arable land available to modern farmers and ability to ensure more regular harvests with fertilizers and so forth.
And storing and transport of food is critical to a people at war and on the move.
Modern crops would include more arable land, fertilizers and so on, since there is no way that the crops themselves would have become more productive before genetic or similar modification. As for storing and transport being critical for a people on the move in war time, remember that this is why war only went on in summer campaigns. And mostly not in great distances but close at home.
Well, it depends on how well trained and organised the opponents (Helvetii, Germans, et c) were. And again: did all opponents arrive to same battles? Furthermore, I think Caesar had the Haedui as allies against Helvetii and Germans. It was some time since I read de Bello Gallico liber I, but that is what I recall. Whether these allies were reliable or not, I think you may have a point. But allies they were.
When Caesar writes about assaulting the 430,000 Germans, it was in a single battle.
Belloc would have said: they were really badly trained and armed. One ought not to be confused by Germanic valour AFTER they had become Roman allies and auxiliary troops - received Roman training, that is - and if it were an exaggeration, it were too great to serve an intelligible propagandistic purpose: just as a fisherman claiming to catch a trout greater than the Loch Ness monster isn't bragging, but joking.
And thank you for the information on the Aedui!
Sincerely
Hans Georg Lundahl
And if modern yields were only one and half times what they were 2000 years ago, then populations should not have been able to increase beyond one and half times while seeing improvements in nutrition and caloric intake, which there clearly were, even before recent genetic advances.
Who says populations have in fact increased so much? People who refuse to take ancient population facts from ancient authors.
Remember however, that the Helvetii, for example, were moving through the territory of the Aedui, which is what gave Caesar the excuse to start this whole campaign. They supposedly brought two years worth of grain with them and they destroyed their homeland before they left, to ensure dedication to the march. How much grain would it take to feed some 300000 people for two years, with no real opportunity to grow more? They began their move in March (our month, April in Roman reckoning).
Well, the Helvetii had not been doing so for many generations: they had got their population and their wealth in grain under better and more peaceful chieftains than the revolutionary - was his name Dumnorix? - who got them to do this. Furthermore: a usual years crop would have to last the WHOLE population, including agricultural slaves, through a year. Devastating the country would have included leaving these to starvation and begging and taking what would ordinarily have lasted much more persons with them making it last longer instead.
Belloc would have said: they were really badly trained and armed. One ought not to be confused by Germanic valour AFTER they had become Roman allies and auxiliary troops - received Roman training, that is
I'm sure they were poorly trained, but they had nowhere to go and outnumbered the Romans by vast amounts.
All right, are you saying that the greater number always wins no matter how terrified they may be by superior tactics and how great bunglers they are?
Caesar never struck me as a comic writer anyway.
Me neither - that is why I take a figure seriously if it can only be explained as deliberate farce or truth, if the author is Caesar.
Hans Georg Lundahl
1 comment:
Philologica:
Dawkins made a challenge, on knowing the past.
filolohika.blogspot.fr/2012/05/dawkins-made-challenge-on-knowing-past.html
Post a Comment