2001:

   -TOP-

How I Choose My Roman Name
As told to Tiberius Galerius Paulinus Curator Differum 2756

Marcus Minucius -Tiberius Audens
My name Marcus Minucius Audens was chosen from a funeral altar discovered by the main roadway.  The man who is named was Marcus Minucius Audens, and he was a Plebian Legionary of the XXth Legio in the Provincia of Britannica.  He was also a Miles Immunes Gromaciti.  That is all we know about his directly except that he must have been a well -known and well-liked man when he died, as his funeral altar was very nicely done.

We know that it is likely that he served in he ranks of his century for at least seven years, before he was given the privilege of "miles immunes". This literally means miles (soldier) immunes (Immune the fatigue duties of his century).  He served as a military surveyor whose primary instrument was the "groma," a surveying instrument used to lay out primarily 90 degree angles for fort and road, construction as well as lying down line of sight bearings.  We know that he went no higher in rank than gromaciti and was paid no more than a legionary drew.

He must have completed his honorable service in the Legions, or there would have otherwise been a reference to such.  His funeral altar indicated that he was fairly wealthy, and he may well have used his experience in the army to establish a surveying business in civilian life.

The gens Mnucia was raised to Patrician Rank due to an opening in the limited number of Gens allowed, and by service to Nova Roma.  The name Tiberius was added to Minucia by the merging of the Gens under the auspicious of the Nova Roma Censors.  This took place at he request of the Paterfamilius of the Gens Tiberius who is presently serving in foreign wars.  Thus my name is taken from one who served in the Legions as I served my country and as he rose through the ranks so, did I.  His obvious establishment of a solid career in civilian life is mirrored in my own.  The most famous man that I have found with the name Minucius was a Legate in the Legions, I believe before Julius Caesar

Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius
I chose Ambrosius from a piece of fiction I read many years ago. In a trilogy by Mary Stewart: The Crystal Cave, The Hollow Hills and the Last Enchantment based upon the famous Arthurian legend by Sir Francis Mallory, a Celtic/Roman King name Ambrosius (his brother named Uther Pendragon - father to Arthur) sired a child on a Welsh princess named Niniane who was name Merlinus Ambrosius in latin and Myrddin Emrys in Welsh, better know to everyone as Merlin. Arthur was named Artorii Ambrosius though called Emrys for secrecy  and later Arthur. I chose the rest of my name as it is closest to my real name Marco Antonio Balletta (it amused my grandmother's sense of humor to see the historical notoriety considering her noble lineage) - hence Marcus Ambrosius Belisarius just to keep the initials M.A.B.- no need to propagate the Marc Antony I grew up hearing my whole life not to  mention the water games of Marco Polo, lol.

Gallio Velius Marsallas
In 1957, when I was in a 10th grade drama class, we were putting on a Roman era drama and we had to make our own costumes and come-up with a stage name. "The Robe" had been released  into theaters, and of course, I went to see it. Richard Burton, as the main character in the movie, had the name "Marsallas Gallio". I chose this as my stage name and using a skirt and blouse of my  sister's, along with cardboard armor, helmet and wood sword, I was a lead actor in the play. I did several stage plays with this name. Later, I reversed the names to match my real name and initials, Gallio (George) Marsallas ( Metz ). My nomen "Velius" came from the Roman Names list on the Nova Roma site when I became a NR Citizen. It was chosen because my middle initial "W" would be "V" in ancient Latin.

L. Suetonius Nerva
Good question: how did I come by my Nova Roma name? Actually, I never gave it much thought. I had always admired Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus. Confined to a Roman Catholic boys' school for four years, I discovered Suetonius in the library one day and devoured his history on the spot. I was fairly precocious as a child and Suetonius' stories and fables became my Mother Goose. My interest in ancient Rome - its incredible history and its astounding variety - an interest which pre-dated my acquaintance with Gibbon and Hodgkin, I owe to Suetonius.

As for Nerva, what can I say? Weaned as I was on Suetonius, the figure of Marcus Coccius Nerva was immensely attractive: a flawed man raised to the pinnacle of power who, ignoring his own relations, had the good sense and the courage to reinstate a policy which had led Galba to his death: the policy of adoption by merit. Nerva's decision, whatever its origin, would grant the Roman Empire the greatest period of peace and prosperity it had ever known. My cognomen pays tribute to an emperor whose own reign was brief, but his legacy deserves commendation.

And my praenomen? Believe it or not, I took Lucius from Pope Lucius III (1181-1185), one of the few medieval popes considered incorruptible, even by that notorious figure, Thomas Becket. I may be a liberal, Tiberius, but it's not of the knee-jerk variety. I do appreciate tradition. Go figure.

Cornelius  Ahenobarbus
Well, let's see. Some years back when this whole Roman bug bit me, I bought a copy of Suetonius' Twelve Caesars. In it, Suetonius gave the birth name of Nero as Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. I had the hardest time saying that name.

Later, when I read McCullough’s First Man in Rome , the many appendices of that novel explained a series of Roman cognomen. Understanding that each described characteristics of the person it was given to (at least in the earliest usage of cognomen) I was torn between Flavius (golden headed) and Ahenobarbus, which means red bearded. I get my red beard from my grandfather, so it seemed very Roman to bear the name of a trait passed down the family. I liked the name way before I had heard of an actual group that would want me to take a Roman name, but when I applied to NR, there was no doubt as to what my name would be. 

I chose the gens Cornelia due to its longevity and nobility. There are Cornelii extend from the Tarquin era of kings, down to earth's distant future when our hominid descendents are ashamed of their human lineage. And throughout there are many notable Cornelii, and quite a few infamous ones too. I don't think the praenomen or cognomen I've chosen historically fit with the Cornelii, the men seem to have been either Publius or Lucius, and now I'm thinking Ahenobarbus might be confined to Domitii, but with my growing interest in Roman military history and equipment I have found that the Altar of Domitius Ahenobarbus, dating to the late second century BCE, is another reason to keep the cognomen.

 -TOP- 

Latin for the Illiterati
by G. Lanius Falco

Terra est Gloria dei pleni

(“the earth is full of God’s glory”)

Magna est veritas et praevalebit

(“truth is mighty and will prevail”)

Doce ut discas

(“teach that you may learn”)

Aude sapere
(“dare to be wise”)

 -TOP-

The Batavian Revolt: Part I
by Jona Lendering
http://www.livius.org/ba-bd/batavians/revolt01.html

The Year of the Four Emperors

A century had passed since the emperor Augustus (27 BCE-14 CE) had changed the Roman republic into a monarchy, and the inhabitants of the empire had grown accustomed to one-man rule. As long as the emperor was a capable man, like Augustus, Tiberius, or Claudius, the new system of government worked reasonably well. However, problems would arise when a less talented man would be in charge of the empire.

During the reign of Nero (54-68), the provinces were peaceful and prosperous, but when the emperor started to behave like a despot, the senators, who were as governors responsible for the provinces, suffered heavily. One of them was Caius Julius Vindex, an Aquitanian prince who had entered the Senate and was now governor of Gallia Lugdunensis. In the winter of 67/68, he decided to put an end to the oppression. Being a senator, he tried to do this constitutionally, so he first searched for a worthy successor to the throne. In April 68 he found his man: the governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, Servius Sulpicius Galba. Now, he started an insurrection.

Vindex' revolt was a disaster. The commander of the Roman legions in the province Germania Superior, Lucius Verginius Rufus, fearing a native rising in Gaul, ordered his men to march from the Rhine to Besan‡on, where the rebels had their headquarters. Vindex was unable to explain his motives, and having lost the propaganda battle, he lost the real battle and his life.

Meanwhile, Nero had panicked and made himself impossible. In June, the Senate had recognized Galba as the new ruler of the empire, and Nero had committed suicide. Among those who did not share the almost universal rejoicing, were the soldiers of the armies of the Rhine in Germania Inferior and Superior . They thought they had done a good job by suppressing the revolt of Vindex, but now discovered that their courageous deeds were explained as an attempt to obstruct the accession of Galba. The fact that Verginius Rufus was imediately replaced (by Marcus Hordeonius Flaccus) did little to ease the discontent.

The native population made more or less the same discovery. They had prudently sided with the legions of the Rhine , but were now suspected by the emperor. For example, Galba dismissed the Batavian cavalry that guarded the emperor's life. This dishonorable discharge did little to improve the situation in the Rhineland .

In January 69, matters came to a head, when the soldiers of the army of Germania Inferior proclaimed their commander Aulus Vitellius emperor. Like Nero, Galba was unable to cope with a rival. He panicked, offended important senators, and incurred the wrath of the soldiers of the Praetorian guard, who lynched him on the Forum. He was succeeded by a rich senator named Marcus Salvius Otho, who inherited the war against Vitellius.

He did not long enjoy his position. Negotiations between the two emperors failed, and Otho's army was no match for the experienced soldiers of Vitellius, who had -moreover- received support from the legions of Germania Superior and Britannia. In April, Otho was defeated on the plains of the river Po , and committed suicide.

Vitellius was now sole ruler in the Roman world. However, he had taken a large army with him to Italy , and had left behind only a quarter of the legionaries. The Rhine was virtually unguarded. Almost immediately after he had occupied Rome , Vitellius sent back military units.

Among these were eight auxiliary units of Batavian infantry which had fought bravely on the Po plains. They had already reached Mogontiacum (modern Mainz) when they received orders to return to Italy. Again, they had to assist Vitellius, this time in his struggle against a new pretender, the commander of the Roman forces in Judaea, Titus Flavius Vespasianus, better known as Vespasian. After Galba, Vitellius, and Otho, he was the fourth emperor of the long but single year 69.

The Conspiracy

Vitellius had become emperor and needed soldiers to defend himself against general Vespasian, who was marching on Rome from Judaea . Eight Batavian auxiliary infantry units were on their way to Italy , but the emperor still needed more men. Therefore, he ordered the commander of the Rhine army, Marcus Hordeonius Flaccus, to send extra troops.

Our main source for the events in the years 69 and 70, the Histories of the Roman historian Tacitus (c.55-c.120), is extremely negative about general Flaccus. Tacitus thinks he was indolent, insecure, slow, and responsible for the Roman defeats in 69. However, in his description of the Batavian revolt, he constantly opposes the civilized but decadent Romans and the savage but noble Batavians (a trick he also employs in his Origins and customs of the Germans). His idealized portrait of the leader of the Batavians, the brave Julius Civilis, is mirrored in the portrayal of Flaccus as an incompetent defeatist. They are extreme types.

Of course it is possible that Flaccus was really incompetent, but if we ignore Tacitus' personal judgments and carefully look at what the commander of the Rhine army actually did, there is no reason to doubt that he was a capable commander who did what he could in a very difficult situation.The least one can say for Flaccus, is that he sensed that the Batavians had become restless, and understood that trouble was in the air. Therefore, he refused to support Vitellius, seeing that it was ill-advised to remove more soldiers from the border.

After Flaccus' refusal, Vitellius demanded that new soldiers would be recruited. This measure was meant as a deterrent to future rebels and might have worked well, but no Batavian was impressed by the measure, as there were no troops in the neighborhood to implement the treath. Tacitus writes:

Batavians of military age were being conscripted. The levy was by its nature a heavy burden, but it was rendered still more oppressive by the greed and profligacy of the recruiting sergeants, who called up the old and unfit in order to exact a bribe for their release, while young, good-looking lads (for children are normally quite tall among the Batavians) were dragged off to gratify their lust. This caused bitter resentment, and the ringleaders of the prearranged revolt succeeded in getting their countrymen to refuse service.

[Tacitus, Histories 4.14; tr. Kenneth Wellesley]

The Batavians lived along the great rivers in the Netherlands on a large island between the rivers Waal and Rhine . (Their name lives on in the present name of the island, Betuwe.) The Island was a relatively poor country, which could not be exploited financially by the Romans. Therefore, the Batavians contributed only men and arms to the empire: eight auxiliary units of infantry, one squadron of cavalry, and -until the Galba dismissed them- the mounted bodyguard of the emperor. Demographic research has led to the conclusion that every Batavian family had at least one son in the army. Recruiting more men was almost impossible, and it comes as not surprise to find the sergeants calling up the old, the unfit, and the young. Tacitus continues his story.

Julius Civilis invited the nobles and the most enterprising commoners to a sacred grove, ostensibly for a banquet. When he saw that darkness and merriment had inflamed their hearts, he addressed them. Starting with a reference to the glory and renown of their nation, he went on to catalogue the wrongs, the depredations and all the other woes of slavery. The alliance, he said, was no longer observed on the old terms: they were treated as chattels.

[Tacitus, Histories 4.14; tr. Kenneth Wellesley]

Julius Civilis was a Roman citizen and a member of the royal family that had once ruled the Batavians. Later, the constitution had changed and they now had a summus magistratus ('highest magistrate'), but the family of Civilis was still very important and influential. He had fought in one of the Batavian auxiliary units in the Roman army during Claudius' invasion of Britain , and was still commanding a unit. Tacitus calls him 'unusually intelligent for a barbarian', which is a commonplace that Roman authors used to describe non-Romans who had surprised them, (e.g., the Roman author Velleius Paterculus uses more or less the same words to describe Arminius, who had defeated the Romans in the Teutoburg Forest; and the Greek author says the same about the Thracian Spartacus.)

Julius Civilis and his brother Claudius Paulus--again a name that shows that the man possessed the Roman citizenship-- had been arrested in 68 on a charge of treason. According to Tacitus, the charge was trumped up. We do not know the precise nature of the accusation, but we do know the result: Paulus was executed and Civilis was pardoned when Galba became emperor. In the last weeks of 68, Civilis had returned to the area later known as Germania Inferior, where he was again arrested, and brought to the new governor, Vitellius. This time, there is no reason to doubt that Civilis was guilty of conspiracy; however, Vitellius had pardoned him as a gesture towards the Batavians. In this way, he hoped to gain the support of their eight auxiliary units. A few weeks later the soldiers indeed sided with Vitellius, and as we have already seen, they took part in the march on Rome .

The banquet in the sacred grove illustrates that the Batavians were only partially romanized - or Tacitus wants us to believe this. Otherwise, they would have gathered in a town hall. Tacitus' words remind one of what he writes in his Origins and customs of the Germans.

It is at their feasts that the Germans generally consult [...], for they think that at no time is the mind more open to simplicity of purpose or more warmed to noble aspirations. A race without either natural or acquired cunning, they disclose their hidden thoughts in the freedom of the festivity. Thus the sentiments of all having been discovered and laid bare, the discussion is renewed on the following day, and from each occasion its own peculiar advantage is derived. They deliberate when they have no power to dissemble; they resolve when error is impossible.

[Tacitus, Origins and customs of the Germans 22; tr. A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb]

This description of the Germanic way of consultation is highly suspect. Like all Greek and Roman authors, Tacitus was obsessed with the opposition between civilization and barbarism. The Romans and Greeks considered themselves to be civilized, and because they lived in the center of the earth's disk, it could reasonably be assumed that only savages dwelt on the edges of the earth. Since the Greeks and Romans lived on river plains, it was quite obvious that barbarians dwelt in the mountains and forests. (See below; Tacitus even describes the Dutch coast as rocky; Annals 2.23.3) This explains why the Romans and Greeks always mention forests, even when there were no forests at all. As a matter of fact, pollen research has shown that the Dutch river country were hardly wooded in the Roman age. This does not mean that there never was a banquet in a sacred grove, but that we must be cautious. Tacitus wants to show that the Batavians were noble savages, and is not necessarily telling the truth.

Another feature of ancient descriptions of far-away people, is that they often resemble each other - after all, they were all living on the edge of the earth. The custom of making a double judgment -one when drunk, one when sober- is also known from another source, the Histories of the Greek researcher Herodotus of Halicarnassus (1.133), who correctly says that it is a Persian custom. Again, this does not mean that the Germans did not consult each other in a state of inebriety, but it warns us that we must remain careful when we read the extremely tendentious Histories of Tacitus.   

Causes of the Rebellion

It is too easy to explain the Batavian revolt from the two motives that we discussed in the preceding part of this article: the forced recruitment (above) and the presence of a prince with a grudge. There has to be a deeper cause; after all, if the Batavians were content with Roman rule, they would have accepted the forced recruitment as an unpleasant but temporary measure, and would not have followed Julius Civilis. We must admit that we do not know this deeper cause, but we can make some educated guesses, and make a list of contributing factors.

In the first place, Julius Civilis had at least two powerful personal motives. Tacitus mentions the -perhaps unlawful- execution of Civilis' brother Paulus, which must have been sufficient for anybody to start looking for revenge. An additional motive may have been the restoration of royal power. As we have already seen (above), Julius Civilis belonged to the leading Batavian family, and his ancestors had been kings. It is impossible that the thought about restoration did not cross Civilis' mind. This motive, however, is not mentioned by Tacitus.

He does, however, quote from a speech by the Batavian leader, in which he presented the corrupt recruitment practices as proof for the fact that the Romans did not consider the Batavians to be allies, but subjects ('the alliance is no longer observed on the old terms: we are treated as chattels'). Unfortunately, we can not establish whether Civilis really said something like this, and we have the right to be doubtful. After all, how can Tacitus possibly have known what Civilis had said? Besides, the corruption of decadent Roman magistrates is one of Tacitus' leading themes. We may reasonably assume that the speech of Civilis, in which he focuses on the rupture of the alliance, is an invention. It is too legalistic.

Nonetheless, the levy was a heavy burden. We already noticed (above) that every Batavian family had at least one son in the army, and that Vitellius was demanding too much. There is no reason to deny that this was one of the factors that contributed to the outbreak of the war.

Sometimes, Tacitus makes the Batavian leader say that he is defending the freedom of his compatriots. Unfortunately, in ancient literature, barbarians always are thirsting for freedom. The motive is highly suspect. An additional complication is that we do not know what is meant with 'freedom'. Were the Batavians looking for real independence and autonomy? Or was Julius Civilis trying to give more power to the Batavian elite?

There is some evidence that may corroborate the last hypothesis. The old aristocracy of the tribes now living in the Roman empire , had received the prestigious Roman citizenship several generations ago. Those who had been patronized by Julius Caesar and the emperor Augustus, had as family name Julius, plus an additional personal surname (e.g., Julius Civilis). But a new generation was becoming influential. They had received the citizenship from Tiberius, Claudius, or Nero, and had Claudius as their new family names, (e.g., Claudius Labeo). There may have been some tension between the first and second generation, because the 'old Romans' were probably not happy to share their power with the newcomers; as we will see below, one of Julius Civilis' personal enemies was a Claudius. It is possible that Civilis wanted to restore the rights of the old aristocracy.

There may have been a religious motive, because we know that a Bructerian prophetess called Veleda predicted the victory of the Batavians. Later, she was awarded with the Roman commander Munius Lupercus (as slave) and the flagship of the Roman navy. However, it is not known whether she incited the rebels or merely predicted victory.

It may also be noted that the Batavian revolt does not belong to the 'normal' rebellions of the first century, like that of Julius Florus and Julius Sacrovir in Gaul in 21, that of queen Boudicca in Britain in 60, and that of the Jews in 66 (discussed here): these were caused by oppressive taxes. The Batavian revolt was not caused by financial troubles. (It comes as a surprise that of all people in the world, the money crazy Dutch regard the Batavians as their ancestors.)

So we are left with several -sometimes conflicting- factors that may have played a role. Julius Civilis wanted to avenge his brother and may have wanted to become king; the old tribal elite may have wanted to regain itsÿ former power; and perhaps the tribe as a whole dreamed of an independent state - something that the Frisians and Chauci, two tribes in the north, had obtained in 28. What bound them together, was bitter resentment because of the oppressive recruitment.

Into the Vortex

Julius Civilis still commanded one of the Batavian auxiliary units in Roman service, and the commander of the Rhine army, Marcus Hordeonius Flaccus, did not know that Civilis conspired against Rome (although he sensed that something was going on; above). This offered Civilis an opportunity: he induced the Cananefates, the tribe that lived between the Batavians and the sea, to revolt, hoping that Flaccus would send him to suppress the rebellion. Tacitus tells how the war against the Romans started in August of 69.

Among the Cananefates was a foolish desperado called Brinno. He came from a very distinguished family. His father had taken part in many marauding exploits [...]. The mere fact that his son was the heir of a rebel family secured him votes. He was placed upon a shield in the tribal fashion and carried on the swaying shoulders of his bearers to symbolize his election as leader. Immediately calling upon the Frisians, a tribe beyond the Rhine , he swooped down on two Roman auxiliary units in their nearby quarters and simultaneously overran them from the North Sea . The garrison had not expected the attack, nor indeed would it have been strong enough to hold out if it had, so the posts were captured and sacked. Then the enemy fell upon the Roman supply-contractors and merchants who were scattered over the countryside with no thought of war. The marauders were also on the point of destroying the frontier forts, but these were set on fire by the commanders because they could not be defended.

[Tacitus, Histories 4.15; tr. Kenneth Wellesley]

Among the two camps that Brinno destroyed was that of the Third Gallic cavalry unit at Praetorium Agrippinae (modern Valkenburg near Leiden ), where archaeologists have discovered the burning layer. Among the other frontier forts that were destroyed by the Romans themselves, was Traiectum (modern Utrecht ). A telling detail is the treasure of fifty gold pieces that was buried by an officer who was never able to recover his money. (They were rediscovered in 1933 in the ruin of the house of a centurio.) Tacitus continues his story:

The headquarters of the various auxiliary units and such troops as they could muster rallied to the eastern part of the Island under a senior centurion named Aquilius. But this was an army on paper only, lacking real strength. It could hardly be otherwise, for Vitellius had withdrawn the bulk of the units' effectives.

[Tacitus, Histories 4.15; tr. Kenneth Wellesley]

By lucky coincidence, this Aquilius is known to us from an archaeological discovery: a small silver disk or medal that was discovered in a cavalry base (the so-called 'Kopse Hof') east of the Oppidum Batavorum, the capital of the Batavians (modern Nijmegen ). The man's full name was Caius Aquillius Proculus, and he belonged to the Eighth legion Augusta , which was not stationed in the Germanic provinces.

This is a very important find, because it vindicates the Roman general Flaccus. If a senior centurion was present in Nijmegen , Flaccus had already sent reinforcements, which can only be explained if we assume that he expected trouble among the Batavians. Tacitus' story that Brinno's attack was a surprise, is misleading: the Romans were indeed caught off-guard because they did not expect a Cananefatian rebellion, but they were aware of the increasing tensions.

Civilis decided on a ruse. He took it upon himself to criticize the commanders for abandoning their forts, and offered to deal with the outbreak of the Cananefates in person with the help of the unit under his command. As for the Roman commanders, they could get back to their respective stations. But the Germans are a nation that loves fighting, and they did not keep the secret for long. Hints of what was afoot gradually leaked out and the truth was revealed: Civilis' advice concealed a trick. Scattered units were more liable to be wiped out, and the ringleader was not Brinno, but Civilis.

[Tacitus, Histories 4.16; tr. Kenneth Wellesley]

Here we meet Tacitus at his most malicious. He does not mention the Roman commander who saw through Civilis' stratagem and investigated what was going on, but it must have been someone higher in the military hierarchy than Civilis - in other words, Marcus Hordeonius Flaccus.ÿIn the sequel of Tacitus' story, his description of the defeat of Aquilius, we see how the Romans are reinforced by ships. Guess who was responsible for sending them.

When the plot came to nothing, Civilis resorted to force and enrolled the Cananefates, Frisians and Batavians in separate striking forces. On the Roman side, a front was formed at no great distance from the Rhine , and the naval vessels which had put in at this point were arrayed to face the enemy. Fighting had not lasted long before a Tungrian unit went over to Civilis, and the Roman troops, disarrayed by this unforeseen treachery, went down before the combined onslaught of allies and foes.

[Tacitus, Histories 4.16; tr. Kenneth Wellesley]

The Tungrians where a romanized tribe that lived in the east of what is now Belgium , where their name lives on in the town called Tongeren. To the Romans, their desertion during this battle (which must have taken place south of modern Arnhem ) was alarming, because it suggested that auxiliary units that were recruited among otherwise loyal tribes, could be unreliable. However, they and the depleted legions were the only soldiers Flaccus could use. Even worse, volunteers from the northern provinces and the Germanic tribes across the Rhine sided with Civilis.

This success earned the rebels immediate prestige, and provided a useful basis for future action. They had obtained the arms and ships they needed, and were acclaimed as liberators as the news spread like wild-fire thought the German and Gallic provinces. The former immediately sent an offer for help. As for an alliance with the provinces of Gaul , Civilis used cunning and bribery to achieve this, returning the captured commanders of the auxiliary units to their own communities and giving the men the choice between discharge and soldiering on. Those who stayed were offered service on honorable terms, those who went received spoil taken from the Romans.

[Tacitus, Histories 4.17; tr. Kenneth Wellesley]

The Romans were now expelled from the country along the rivers Maas , Waal , and Rhine . The cavalry base at the Kopse Hof is the only Roman camp that has no burning layer, which suggests that the Romans were able to keep it, and still controlled the Waal crossing near Nijmegen .

Up till now, the war had, on the Roman side, been waged by auxiliaries: lightly-armed troops that were recruited among the native population and were no match for the Batavians, who were in the majority. Flaccus' reply to their defeat was to send in the legions, heavily-armed infantry men. The Fifth legion Alaudae and the Fifteenth legion Primigenia left their base at Xanten, together with three auxiliary units: Ubians from modern Cologne, Trevirans from modern Trier, and a Batavian squadron.ÿFlaccus and the commander of the expeditionary force, a senator named Munius Lupercus, may have had their doubts about the Batavian squadron, but they knew that it was commanded by a personal enemy of Julius Civilis, a man namedÿClaudius Labeo, and they decided to rely upon his word. Late August, the legions invaded the Island of the Batavians. Somewhere north of Nijmegen , they encountered the Batavian army.

Near Civilis were massed the captured Roman standards: his men were to have their eyes fixed upon the newly-won trophies while their enemies were demoralized by the recollection of defeat. He also caused his mothers and sisters, accompanied by the wives and young children of all his men, to take up their station in the rear as a spur to victory or a reproach to the routed. Then the battle chant of the warriors and the shrill wailing of the women rang out over the host, evoking in response only a feeble cheer from the legions and auxiliary units. The Roman left front was soon exposed by the defection of the Batavian cavalry regiment, which immediately turned about to face us. But in this frightening situation the legionaries kept their arms and ranks intact. The Ubian and Treviran auxiliaries disgraced themselves by stampeding over the countryside in wild flight. Against them the Batavians directed the brunt of their attack, which gave the legions a breathing-space in which to get back to the camp called Vetera [i.e., Xanten].

[Tacitus, Histories 4.18; tr. Kenneth Wellesley]

At this stage, the base at the Kopse hof was taken over by the Batavians. It is possible that the absence of traces of violence means that this was the camp of the Batavian cavalry regiment that changed sides. Whatever the precise interpretation, the last garrison was now removed from the country of the Batavians. It was a tremendous blow to Roman prestige. An army of some 6,500 men, which included legionaries, had been defeated. Julius Civilis must have been a happy man, but he was not in the mood for generosity. He did not honor Claudius Labeo, who had played such an important role in the Batavian victory, but had him arrested. He still hated his enemy, one of the Claudii that threatened the position of the old aristocracy of the Batavians (above), and sent him to a place of exile among the Frisians in the north, far from any future theaters of operation.

Whatever the war aims of the rebels, they had been reached. The presence of hundreds of dead bodies proved beyond doubt that Julius Civilis had avenged his brother. The tribe had punished the Romans for the dishonorable discharge of the imperial bodyguard and the forced recruitment. Moreover, the Batavians were now regarded as the most powerful tribe in the area. If Julius Civilis wanted to be king of his tribe, he had it within reach: someone who had defeated two legions had sufficient prestige to be any tribe's leader.

The Batavians had gained their freedom, and they knew that the Romans would recognize their independence and would not retaliate. Civilis possessed a letter from Vespasian, the commander of the Roman forces in Judaea who had revolted against the emperor Vitellius. In this letter he asked Civilis, with whom he had fought during the British wars, to revolt. In that way, Vitellius could employ all his troops against Vespasian. Civilis had done precisely what Vespasian had requested him to do -although for other reasons- and the Batavians were justified in their hope that Vespasian would recognize their independence. After all, the emperor Tiberius had in a similar situation, in 28, allowed the Frisians and Chauci their autonomy.

Julius Civilis had reached everything he wanted, but within weeks he had made the fateful decision that was, within a year, to be his undoing.

Next month: The Siege of Xanten . . .

 -TOP-