There is a passage in Caesar’s account of his second combat with the Britons in 54 B.C. which has greatly exercised the minds of the commentators; and editors have put upon it an interpretation which soldiers will not accept. The passage runs as follows:—‘Throughout this peculiar combat, which was fought in full view of every one and actually in front of the camp, it was clear that our infantry, owing to the weight of their armour, were ill fitted to engage an enemy of this kind; for they could not pursue him when he retreated, and they dared not abandon their regular formation: it was clear too that the cavalry fought at great risk, because the enemy generally fell back on purpose, and, after drawing our men a little distance away from the legions, leaped down from their chariots and fought on foot with the odds in their favour. [On the other hand, the mode in which their cavalry fought exposed the Romans, alike in retreat and in pursuit, to an exactly similar danger.3461]’ (Toto hoc in qenere pugnae cum sub oculis omnium ac pro castris dimicaretur, intellectum est nostros propter gravitatem armorum, quod neque insequi cedentes possent neque ab signis discedere auderent, minus aptos esse ad huius generis hostem, equites autem magno cum periculo proelio dimicare, propterea quod illi etiam consulto plerumque cederent et, cum paulum ab legionibus nostros removissent, ex essedis desilirent et pedibus dispari proelio contenderent. [Equestris autem proelii ratio et cedentibus et insequentibus par atque idem periculum inferebat3462]). It is the last sentence which has caused all the trouble.

1. ‘After describing the difficulties of the infantry,’ says Long,3463 ‘Caesar explains the danger to which the cavalry was exposed, when they pursued the “essedarii”, for the Britanni quitted their “esseda” and fought on foot among the Roman “equites”.... This was an unequal kind of fighting (“dispar proelium”) for the Roman “equites”. Caesar adds, that on the other hand (“autem”) the British mode of fighting from the “esseda” (“equestris proelii ratio”) was equally dangerous to his cavalry and legions in the pursuit and the retreat. This is Schneider’s explanation, and I believe that it is right. The Britanni had no cavalry: they had only “essedarii”, to whom Caesar (iv, 33) applies the term “perequitant”. It follows that “equites hostium essedariique” (c. 15) are no more than the “essedarii” (iv, 24) [in other words that Caesar, who was not a prolix writer, used four words when one would have sufficed.] In iv, 34, however, Caesar says, “peditatus equitatusque.”’ Yes, he does; and the reader will please note the significance of this admission.

The assumption upon which Long’s explanation rests, namely, that ‘the Britanni had no cavalry’, is unsupported by any evidence, and is wholly inadmissible. Caesar says that in his first campaign in Britain a party of Roman foragers were surrounded by equitatu atque essedis.3464 If these words do not mean ‘cavalry and chariots’, what do they mean? Warriors on horseback are depicted on ancient British coins;3465 and the Britons certainly had cavalry as well as chariots in A.D. 613466 and in the time of Agricola.3467 Besides, as von GÖler points out,3468 the charioteers could not have fought with effect unless they had been supported by cavalry. And when Long says that, according to Caesar, ‘the British mode of fighting from the “esseda” ... was equally dangerous to his cavalry and legions in the pursuit and the retreat,’ his explanation refutes itself. Caesar himself says that the legions could not pursue the charioteers; and, on the other hand, it is evident that they were not pursued by the charioteers.

2. According to von GÖler,3469 ‘by cedentibus et insequentibus the chariot-fighters only can be meant’ (Unter den ‘cedentibus et insequentibus’ kÖnnen nur die Wagenstreiter verstanden werden); and, placing a comma after par, he translates the passage thus:—‘The mode of fighting of the [British] cavalry corresponded with that of their charioteers, whether they retreated or pursued, and brought the Roman cavalry into precisely the same danger’ (Der Gefechtsmechanismus der [britischen] Reiterei war aber der Fechtweise ihrer Wagenstreiter, ob sie wichen oder verfolgten, entsprechend [par] und brachte die rÖmische Reiterei gerade in jenes nachtheilige VerhÄltniss3470). But no Latin scholar would admit that a comma could be placed after par, which would of course make it necessary to supply the word erat.

3. According to Dittenberger-Kraner,3471 the words equestris autem proelii ratio, if they are genuine, can only mean, in opposition to ex essedis ... contenderent, the mode of fighting of the charioteers, which, while it was dangerous to the Romans when they pursued, was no less dangerous to them when they retreated. I confess that I cannot understand this comment.

4. Doberenz-Dinter3472 also insist upon the opposition between equestris autem proelii ratio and ex essedis ... contenderent, and maintain that the former refers to ‘a regular cavalry combat (on the part of the Romans)’,—ein regelrechtes Reitertreffen (von Seiten der RÖmer). Now in the passage which ends with the words ex essedis ... contenderent Caesar describes a combat between the Roman cavalry and the British charioteers, who were supported by cavalry. Therefore the editors (if I have succeeded in grasping their meaning) suppose that the ‘regular cavalry combat’ to which they allude was fought between the Roman cavalry and the British cavalry alone. This must, I think, be what they intend to convey; for, according to Mr. Peskett,3473 who may have followed them, ‘Caesar means that when the British and Roman cavalry were engaged, the danger was equalized [equestris autem proelii ratio et cedentibus et insequentibus par atque idem periculum inferebat], whereas when they used chariots the Britons were at an advantage.’ But if Caesar simply meant that the British cavalry and the Roman in the (hypothetical) ‘regular cavalry combat’ were each exposed to the same danger, what is the point of the words et cedentibus et insequentibus? Surely retreating cavalry are in greater danger than the cavalry which has forced them to retreat and is pursuing them! I do not see how Mr. Peskett’s explanation can be got out of the Latin. And who will believe that the Britons would have used their cavalry alone when, by associating them with chariots, they ‘were at an advantage’?

5. It might possibly be suggested that the words equestris ... inferebat refer to a cavalry combat between the Romans and the Britons, distinct from the combat between Roman cavalry and the British charioteers, in which the British cavalry, like that of the Germans,3474 were associated with light infantry. But there is no evidence that the Britons had cavalry of this kind; and, as we have seen, it is certain that their cavalry acted in support of their charioteers.

6. KÖchly and RÜstow3475 offer the following explanation:—‘As the enemy were also supported by their cavalry, our men [the Romans] were exposed to the same danger, whether they advanced or retreated’ (Da aber der Feind auch die UnterstÜtzung seiner Reiterei hatte, so war fÜr die unsrige die Gefahr immer dieselbe, mochte sie vorgehen oder zurÜckgehen).

7. Napoleon the Third3476 explains the matter thus:—‘Un dÉsavantage plus grand encore existait pour les cavaliers. Les Bretons, par une fuite simulÉe, les attiraient loin des lÉgions, et alors, sautant À bas de leurs chars, engageaient À pied une lutte inÉgale; car, toujours soutenus par leur cavalerie, ils Étaient aussi dangereux dans l’attaque que dans la dÉfense.’ These words, which appear to be virtually identical in sense with those of KÖchly and RÜstow, undoubtedly give an accurate account of what took place. Apparently KÖchly, RÜstow, and Napoleon do not take par atque idem periculum as meaning ‘an exactly similar danger’ (to that which Caesar described in the preceding sentence, Toto hoc ... contenderent), but as meaning that the danger which beset the Romans was the same whether they pursued or retreated. Now the Roman infantry, as Caesar says, did not pursue; obviously therefore et cedentibus et insequentibus can only refer to the Roman cavalry. I suppose then that what KÖchly, RÜstow, and Napoleon meant was this:—if the Roman cavalry pursued the Britons, they were attacked by the charioteers, who jumped off their cars and fought as infantry: as soon as they retreated they were pursued by the British cavalry, and if they turned to bay the charioteers had time to mount their cars again, come up, and engage them anew. If this was what Caesar meant by equestris ... inferebat, his language was not lucid.

The words equestris proelii ratio, if they were really written by Caesar, must refer either to a combat between the Roman and the British cavalry or to a combat between the Roman cavalry and the combined British charioteers and cavalry. There is, as we have seen, no reason to suppose that a purely cavalry combat took place; and if it did, the idea that the Roman cavalry was as much in danger when it pursued as when it retreated is absurd. If we accept the other alternative, the meaning of the passage must be either (as KÖchly, RÜstow, and Napoleon explain) ‘On the other hand, the mode in which the British cavalry fought (in co-operation with the charioteers) exposed the Romans, alike in retreat and in pursuit, to exactly the same danger’; or ‘In fact the nature of the combat of horse [that is to say, the combat between the Roman cavalry and the combined British charioteers and cavalry] exposed the Romans’, &c. In the former case autem would be an adversative, in the latter merely a connecting particle. The passage is not in the editio princeps of the Commentaries, and is bracketed in Meusel’s edition; and perhaps it is an interpolation.