Napoleon III - History of Julius Caesar Vol. 2 of 2

None of the ports situated to the north of Boulogne could serve as the basis of Cæsar’s expedition, for none could receive so great a number of vessels, and we cannot suppose that Cæsar would have left them on the open coast, during more than a month, exposed to the tempests of the ocean, which were so fatal to him on the coasts of Britain.

Boulogne was the only point of the coast where Cæsar could place in safety his depôts, his supplies, and his spare stores. The heights which command the port offered advantageous positions for establishing his camps, 378and the little river Liane allowed him to bring with ease the timber and provisions he required. At Calais he would have found nothing but flats and marshes, at Wissant nothing but sands, as indicated by etymology of the word ( white sand ).

It is worthy of remark, that the reasons which determined Cæsar to start from Boulogne were the same which decided the choice of Napoleon I. in 1804. In spite of the difference in the times and in the armies, the nautical and practical conditions had undergone no change. “The Emperor chose Boulogne,” says M. Thiers, “because that port had long been pointed out as the best point of departure of an expedition directed against England; he chose Boulogne, because its port is formed by the little river Liane, which allowed him, with some labour, to place in safety from 1,200 to 1,300 vessels.”

We may point out, as another similarity, that certain flat boats, constructed by order of the Emperor, had nearly the same dimensions as those employed by Cæsar. “There required,” says the historian of the ‘Consulate and the Empire,’ “boats which would not need more, when they were laden, than seven or eight feet of water to float, and which would go with oars, so as to pass, either in calm or fog, and strand without breaking on the flat English shores. The great gun-boats carried four pieces of large bore, and were rigged like brigs, that is, with two masts, manœuvred by twenty-four sailors, and capable of carrying a company of a hundred men, with its staff, and its arms and munitions… These boats offered a vexatious inconvenience, that of falling to the leeward, that is, yielding to the currents. This was the result of their clumsy build, which presented more hold to the water than their masts to the wind.” 379

Cæsar’s ships experienced the same inconvenience, and, drawn away by the currents in his second expedition, they went to the leeward rather far in the north.

We have seen that Cæsar’s transport boats were flat-bottomed, that they could go either with sails or oars; carry if necessary 150 men, and be loaded and drawn on dry ground with promptness ( ad celeritatem onerandi subductionesque ). They had thus a great analogy with the flat-bottomed boats of 1804. But there is more, for the Emperor Napoleon had found it expedient to imitate the Roman galleys. “He had seen the necessity,” says M. Thiers, “of constructing boats still lighter and more movable than the preceding, drawing only two or three feet of water, and calculated for landing anywhere. They were large boats, narrow, sixty feet long, having a movable deck which could be laid or withdrawn at will, and were distinguished from the others by the name of pinnaces. These large boats were provided with sixty oars, carried at need a light sail, and moved with extreme swiftness. When sixty soldiers, practised in handling the oar as well as the sailors, set them in motion, they glided over the sea like the light boats dropped from the sides of our great vessels, and surprised the eye by the rapidity of their course.”

The point of landing has been equally the subject of a host of contrary suppositions. St. Leonards, near Hastings, Richborough ( Rutupiœ ), near Sandwich, Lymne, near Hythe, and Deal, have all been proposed.

The first of these localities, we think, must be rejected, for it answers none of the conditions of the relation given in the “Commentaries,” which inform us that, in the second expedition, the fleet sailed with a gentle wind from the south-west. Now, this is the least favourable of all winds for taking the direction of Hastings, when starting from the coasts of the department of the Pas-de-Calais. In this same passage, Cæsar, after having been drawn away from his course during four hours of the night, perceived, at daybreak, that he had left Britain to his left. This fact cannot possibly be explained if he had intended to land at St. Leonards. As to Richborough, this locality is much too far to the north. Why should Cæsar have gone so far as Sandwich, since he could have landed at Walmer and Deal? Lymne, or rather Romney Marsh, will suit no better. This shore is altogether unfit for a landing-place, and none of the details furnished by the “Commentaries” can be made to suit it. 380

There remains Deal; but before describing this place, we must examine if, on his first passage, when Cæsar sailed, after remaining five days opposite the cliffs of Dover, the current of which he took advantage carried him towards the north or towards the south. ( See Page 177.) Two celebrated English astronomers, Halley and Mr. Airy, have studied this question; but they agree neither on the place where Cæsar embarked, nor on that where he landed. We may, nevertheless, arrive at a solution of this problem by seeking the day on which Cæsar landed. The year of the expedition is known by the consulate of Pompey and Crassus – it was the year 699. The month in which the departure took place is known by the following data, derived from the “Commentaries;” the fine season was near its end, exuigua parte œstatis reliqua (IV. 20); the wheat had been reaped everywhere, except in one single spot, omni ex reliquis partibus demesso frumento, una pars erat reliqua (IV. 32); the equinox was near at hand, propinqua die œquinoctii (IV. 36). These data point sufficiently clearly to the month of August. Lastly, we have, relative to the day of landing, the following indications: – After four days past since his arrival in Britain… there arose suddenly so violent a tempest… That same night it was full moon, which is the period of the highest tides of the ocean, Post diem quartam, quam est in Britanniam ventum ( 381)… tanta tempestas subita coorta est… Eadem nocte accidit, ut esset luna plena, qui dies maritimos æstus maximos in Oceano efficere consuevit .

According to this, we consider that the tempest took place after four days, counted from the day of landing; that the full moon fell on the following night; and lastly, that this period coincided not with the highest tide , but with the highest tides of the ocean. Thus we believe that it would be sufficient for ascertaining the exact day of landing, to take the sixth day which preceded the full moon of the month of August, 699; now this phenomenon, according to astronomical tables, happened on the 31st, towards three o’clock in the morning. On the eve, that is, on the 30th, the tempest had occurred; four full days had passed since the landing; this takes us back to the 25th. Cæsar then landed on the 25th of August. Mr. Airy, it is true, has interpreted the text altogether differently from our explanation: he believes that the expression post diem quartum may be taken in Latin for the third day; on another hand, he doubts if Cæsar had in his army almanacks by which he could know the exact day of the full moon; lastly, as the highest tide takes place a day and a half after the full moon, he affirms that Cæsar, placing these two phenomena at the same moment, must have been mistaken, either in the day of the full moon, or in that of the highest tide; and he concludes from this that the landing may have taken place on the second, third, or fourth day before the full moon.