Originally Posted by
http://www.hhhh.org/perseant/libellus/commentaries/holmes/holmesgi.html
Atuatuca was the place where Titurius Sabinus and Auruncoleius Cotta encamped in the autumn of 54 B.C., and close to which their army was destroyed by Ambiorix, one of the two kings of the Eburones (v, 24, §4; 26 - 37; vi, 32, §§3 - 4).
Atuatuca is generally identified with Tongres, 12 miles NW.by N.of Liege The reasons are, first, that Tongres was undoubtedly the site of a Gallo-Roman fortress called Atuaca, which is mentioned in the Table of Peutinger (p.12, col.1) and which Ptolemy called >Atouatoukon; secondly, that this fort was situated, as the camp of Sabinus and Cotta probably was, at the junction of great roads; thirdly, that Atuatuca was in the kingdom of Ambiorix, which formed the western part of the territory of the Eburones, and which may have been separated from the kingdom of his colleague, Catuvolcus, by the Meuse; and lastly, that nobody has succeeded in finding another site which corresponds satisfactorily with Caesar's narrative. There are, however, strong arguments against identifying Atuatuca with Tongres. When Caesar said that Atuatuca `is nearly in the centre of the territory of the Eburones' (fere est in mediis Eburonum finibus [vi, 32, §4]), he could hardly have meant what his words appear, at first sight, to convey; for neither Tongres nor any other place which could reasonably be identified with Atuatuca is near the centre of that territory: probably he meant that Atuatuca was near the common frontier of the two kingdoms of which the whole territory was composed. But it is difficult to believe that he would have used the words in mediis Ebruronum finibus to indicate a site which lay 10 miles west of the Meuse and yet belonged to a people `the greater part of whose territory is between the Meuse and the Rhine' (v, 24, §4). There are several other passages which suggest that Atuatuca was between the two rivers. Ambiorix, in his interview with Gaius Arpineius and Quintus Junius, stated that a body of Germans, who were coming to the assistance of the Gallic rebels, had crossed the Rhine, and would arrive at Atuatuca in two days (v, 27, §8). Sabinus, in the council of war which immediately followed the interview, remarked that the Rhine was close by (subesse Rhenum [29, §3]), - a phrase which, one would think, he would hardly have used if the broad flood of the Meuse had intervened between the Rhine and Atuatuca. We are told that when the Sugambri invaded the country of the Eburones they crossed the Rhine (vi, 35, §6); but we are not told that, in order to reach Atuatuca, they crossed the Meuse. When they left Atuatuca `they recrossed the Rhine' (trans Rhenum sese receperunt [41, ]); and this phrase would be misleading if they had first had to cross so important a river as the Meuse. Furthermore, readers who have seen Tongres will not easily believe that Caesar would have described it as a naturally strong position. Except on the south and south-east, where it is approached by a very gentle ascent, it is naturally defenceless; and it was against this side that the first attack of the Sugambri would have been directed. How, then, could Caesar have said that `the strength of the position entrenchments forbade any attempt to enter elsewhere' (reliquos aditus locus ipse per se munitione defendit [37, §5])'? It has been argued that Caesar was thinking of marshes which protected the camp; but where could they have been except between the south-east and the south-west, where they may have been formed by the river Geer? And even they would not have extended up to the supposed site of the camp.
Caledonian Settlement - Attuaca?
Re: Caledonian Settlement - Attuaca?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks