Caesar's Rhine bridges

[Andy_Ross]

Building a Castra, which you came prepared to do to a standardised plan, is a completely different thing to building a makeshift bridge over a span of river you have never encountered and had not planned for.

Why is everyone being so defensive? It's not like I insulted yo mama! It's a very interesting question to ponder over, especially since this is supposedly a skeptics forum. There is literally no evidence for this apart from Caesar's own word! JFC.

Building a bridge was as much planned for as building a marching camp or fort. Engineers with the legion would have plans, tools and materials for it. They practiced building standardised stuff. They didn't just arrive at a river crossing and then ad-lib.

 

[theprestige]

Building a Castra, which you came prepared to do to a standardised plan, is a completely different thing to building a makeshift bridge over a span of river you have never encountered and had not planned for.

Why is everyone being so defensive? It's not like I insulted yo mama! It's a very interesting question to ponder over, especially since this is supposedly a skeptics forum. There is literally no evidence for this apart from Caesar's own word! JFC.

Why are you being so aggressive?

We have more than Caesar's own words. We know from other sources that the Romans were skilled and thoughtful engineers, and that road-building and other construction work was a core part of the Roman legion's portfolio.

What makes you think the bridge was "makeshift", rather than being one of several possible designs the Romans already had plenty of experience with?

Also, Caesar may have been a newcomer to the Rhine, but it's not like the Legions had never encountered rivers before. It's absurd of you to assume that a military expedition into unknown territory would have no plans at all for the rivers that would inevitably cross their path from time to time.

You try to make it sound like Caesar got to the Rhine and said, "crap! I thought the Rubicon was the only river ever! Guess I was wrong! Time to start covering my ass!" And then complain about people being defensive when they suggest maybe you should slow your roll a bit.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

A quick search for the word "bridge" in his commentary indicates that both building and tearing down of bridges were not rare events in the campaign.

It's possible this event was just bluster and never happened, but he does go into some specifics of what he did across the Rhine; destroyed the villages and crops of one troublesome tribe, the Sigambri, and learned from a friendly tribe, the Ubii, that another, the Suevi, had retreated into their own lands to await battle with Caesar.

At that point he decided he'd done enough to satisfy honour; shown the Sigambri who was boss and driven off the Suevi from the Ubii's lands, so it was time to go back.

That reads like hefty spin to me (he threw his weight around a bit but then withdrew without any battle) but it's specific enough that I'm not sure it was entirely made up. If two hostile tribes had indeed withdrawn when Caesar arrived on the other side of the Rhine, then a small reconnaissance/raiding party crossing by boats could have burned the Sigambri's farms, job done. Don't know. I could be persuaded either way.

 

[qarnos]

Why are you being so aggressive?

Sorry, I did not mean to come across as being aggressive. I was just getting frustrated in the direction the thread was taking.

What makes you think the bridge was "makeshift", rather than being one of several possible designs the Romans already had plenty of experience with?

This is a reasonable question. My main objection is the fact it is done in 10 days and pulled down afterwards so no-one else could see it. On top of that, there is no archaeological evidence (such as a region of the banks with trees all "born" about the same time). I'm sure this is primarily because no one cares enough to bother checking but do you not agree this gives us good reason to be skeptical?

You try to make it sound like Caesar got to the Rhine and said, "crap! I thought the Rubicon was the only river ever! Guess I was wrong! Time to start covering my ass!" And then complain about people being defensive when they suggest maybe you should slow your roll a bit.

Again, it's not the bridge - it's the speed. 10 days? To build the pile-driver and all? really?

No-one takes Plato seriously over his Atlantis story... it's just allegory. How could this not be the same?

It's at least worth considering.

 

[Darat]

Sorry, I did not mean to come across as being aggressive. I was just getting frustrated in the direction the thread was taking.



This is a reasonable question. My main objection is the fact it is done in 10 days and pulled down afterwards so no-one else could see it. On top of that, there is no archaeological evidence (such as a region of the banks with trees all "born" about the same time). I'm sure this is primarily because no one cares enough to bother checking but do you not agree this gives us good reason to be skeptical?



Again, it's not the bridge - it's the speed. 10 days? To build the pile-driver and all? really?

No-one takes Plato seriously over his Atlantis story... it's just allegory. How could this not be the same?

It's at least worth considering.

The questions I'm curious about are:

1) did he need to have crossed the river for any other historic event that we have independent evidence for? For example was there a battle we know he was involved in on t'other side of the river around that time?
2) how long did they usually take to build such bridges?

If we have 1) and 2) is at variance to what he said wouldn't the sound assumption be that he talked up the 10 days? It may have taken 3 months preparation and then 10 days for the actual build. Or it may have taken a month he was bragging.

Don't see how it is comparable to allegories such as Atlantis?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Sorry, I did not mean to come across as being aggressive. I was just getting frustrated in the direction the thread was taking.



This is a reasonable question. My main objection is the fact it is done in 10 days and pulled down afterwards so no-one else could see it. On top of that, there is no archaeological evidence (such as a region of the banks with trees all "born" about the same time). I'm sure this is primarily because no one cares enough to bother checking but do you not agree this gives us good reason to be skeptical?



Again, it's not the bridge - it's the speed. 10 days? To build the pile-driver and all? really?

No-one takes Plato seriously over his Atlantis story... it's just allegory. How could this not be the same?

It's at least worth considering.

Well, we know that the Legions built bridges elsewhere quickly when they were on campaign, they practiced it and had standard designs and carried tools and materials for doing it.

 

[Marras]

This is a reasonable question. My main objection is the fact it is done in 10 days and pulled down afterwards so no-one else could see it.

I don't know if Caesar built the bridge or not.

However, his army did know that.

Are there any contemporary sources where Caesar's opponents accuse him of lying about the bridge? Because surely someone would have found out that it is a blatant lie if it, indeed, was a blatant lie.

In particular I'm thinking about Marcus Tullius Cicero who left behind perhaps the largest surviving body of work from Caesar's time and who absolutely hated Caesar's guts during his later life. Cicero would have been in a real good position to find out about Caesar's lies because his brother Quintus Tullius Cicero served as a legate in Caesar's army.

Does Cicero say anything about the bridge or a lack of it?

On top of that, there is no archaeological evidence (such as a region of the banks with trees all "born" about the same time).

I have a hard time seeing why you would expect to find such a region of trees from the banks. Caesar lived over 2000 years ago, the trees have regrown and been cut down again 20 times since that.

 

[arthwollipot]

No-one takes Plato seriously over his Atlantis story... it's just allegory. How could this not be the same?

The difference is that Julius Caesar didn't write Comentarii de Bello Gallico as an allegory, the way Plato did De Republica. He wrote it as an account of his achievements. While there are scholars and historians who say that some of his claims might have been exaggerated for propaganda purposes, most agree that the events it describes are basically a reliable historical record.

So, the claim that Caesar built a bridge over the Rhine is probably truthful, as is the method described. As others have stated, the Romans were renowned for remarkable feats of engineering prowess in the field. There is reason to think that the 10-day timeframe might be an exaggeration, but given the Romans' well-established reputation as military engineers and the labour force available, such a timeframe would probably not be impossible.

And yes, it is definitely well worth the time to examine claims like this, even though as a historical event it is hard to ascertain the absolute truth of the matter. Furthermore, it's interesting. I read from the Comentarii when I was studying Latin in high school - it was the first Latin text that I could read without having to painstakingly translate every word individually - so I have a passing familiarity with it, even though that was longer ago than I like to think about.

 

[zooterkin]

More plausible would be that he did nothing. His visits across the Rhine were brief, and had no significant result.

He may have also used boats, which apparently were available.

Why are you being so aggressive?

We have more than Caesar's own words. We know from other sources that the Romans were skilled and thoughtful engineers, and that road-building and other construction work was a core part of the Roman legion's portfolio.

What makes you think the bridge was "makeshift", rather than being one of several possible designs the Romans already had plenty of experience with?

Also, Caesar may have been a newcomer to the Rhine, but it's not like the Legions had never encountered rivers before. It's absurd of you to assume that a military expedition into unknown territory would have no plans at all for the rivers that would inevitably cross their path from time to time.

You try to make it sound like Caesar got to the Rhine and said, "crap! I thought the Rubicon was the only river ever! Guess I was wrong! Time to start covering my ass!" And then complain about people being defensive when they suggest maybe you should slow your roll a bit.

Ok…

 

[Oystein]

Rhine wasn't as fast flowing 'back then' though, as you say it was wider, the land around was not 'improved' or drained like it is today and forced in to a narrower channel.
It was the same with the Thames, when the first wooden bridge was put across at London the river was wider but slower. Marshy ground either side was crossed by a causeway.
Time Team did a dig on the Thames foreshore at the site of the original bridge.

That was my first idea also. The Rhine used to meander quite a bit in the olden times, which reduces slope and flow speed. Meandering involves water being quite shallow on the outside of a curve, and the river was probably nowhere as deep as it is today, where it is being actively maintained for some minimum draft of larger ships.
Even possible that the river would split into two or more arms, making each one easier to cross with a bridge than a single main river bed.

Do we know the season or month that this bridge was reportedly built? And enough about climate 2070 years ago made for more or less water drained by the Rhine during the course of the year?

 

[theprestige]

Ok…

Looks ok to me, too!

 

[jimbob]

This is a reasonable question. My main objection is the fact it is done in 10 days and pulled down afterwards so no-one else could see it.

I don't know if Caesar built the bridge or not.

However, his army did know that.

Are there any contemporary sources where Caesar's opponents accuse him of lying about the bridge? Because surely someone would have found out that it is a blatant lie if it, indeed, was a blatant lie.

In particular I'm thinking about Marcus Tullius Cicero who left behind perhaps the largest surviving body of work from Caesar's time and who absolutely hated Caesar's guts during his later life. Cicero would have been in a real good position to find out about Caesar's lies because his brother Quintus Tullius Cicero served as a legate in Caesar's army.

Does Cicero say anything about the bridge or a lack of it?

On top of that, there is no archaeological evidence (such as a region of the banks with trees all "born" about the same time).

I have a hard time seeing why you would expect to find such a region of trees from the banks. Caesar lived over 2000 years ago, the trees have regrown and been cut down again 20 times since that.

Further to your points.

The technique is plausible, and such structures would also serve to demonstrate the power of Rome to the tribes as they wouldn't have been able to bridge the river - just as the roads also were a symbol of power.

Also, taking down the bridge afterwards makes the point even better.

"We're so powerful that we can put a bridge across the Rhine and regard it as a temporary structure"

Also as it'd have been lashed together, cutting the ropes holding it together wouldn't be that time consuming.
------------------------
There will also have been storms and floods and the river will have changed its course slightly, all of which would have been likely to hide any such evidence of an event

 

[Andy_Ross]

Further to your points.

The technique is plausible, and such structures would also serve to demonstrate the power of Rome to the tribes as they wouldn't have been able to bridge the river - just as the roads also were a symbol of power.

Also, taking down the bridge afterwards makes the point even better.

"We're so powerful that we can put a bridge across the Rhine and regard it as a temporary structure"

Also as it'd have been lashed together, cutting the ropes holding it together wouldn't be that time consuming.
------------------------
There will also have been storms and floods and the river will have changed its course slightly, all of which would have been likely to hide any such evidence of an event

They would have taken it down to recover the ropes and iron work used in it's construction so they could be used again. They were part of the legions equipment.

 

[jimbob]

They would have taken it down to recover the ropes and iron work used in it's construction so they could be used again. They were part of the legions equipment.

Even better point.

Am I remembering correctly that you do Roman era re-enactments?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Even better point.

Am I remembering correctly that you do Roman era re-enactments?

I used to be involved a number of years ago.

 

[Crossbow]

Casting a skeptical eye to history, what evidence exists that Caesar actually built bridges across the Rhine? The claims are quite extraordinary: That Caesar's army built a bridge across the Rhine in just 10 days using nothing more than local timber (which had to be cut down first).

Oh, BTW, he had the bridges dismantled afterwards so the "bad guys" couldn't use it, so you just have to take Caesar's word for it that he really built them.

I seems to be taken at face value by most historians that this actually happened. Given the fact Caesar wasn't exactly immune to exaggerating his accomplishments for political advantage, how can we be sure this ever really happened? Especially in 10 days! It just seems absurd.

I am more than happy to be proven wrong, because I am genuinely interested in finding out how we know this is true, but I can never really come up with anything beyond "someone said so".

Well, in the first place, I doubt that you or anyone else will ever find any evidence of temporary wood bridge that was built over 2000 years ago.

However, I do find it plausible that some 40,000 Roman troops could have build such a bridge in ten days.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It depends how much wood was left behind.
There are the remains of pilings driven in to the bed of the Tees at Piercebridge where the old wooden Roman bridge used to be.
Time Team cut a section from one and got a dendrochronology date that put it as part of the bridge.

 

[theprestige]

Like Imhotep told the Pharaoh, when he was designing the pyramids, "never underestimate the productivity of ten thousand people with nothing better to do."

 

[Crossbow]

It depends how much wood was left behind.
There are the remains of pilings driven in to the bed of the Tees at Piercebridge where the old wooden Roman bridge used to be.
Time Team cut a section from one and got a dendrochronology date that put it as part of the bridge.

The Piercebridge was a designed to be used for a long time use whereas the Rhine bridge that is being discussed in this thread was designed to be for a temporary use.

As such, I would not be surprised to learn if the temporary Rhine bridge did not use any sorts of pilings which would remain behind after the bridge served its purpose.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The Piercebridge was a designed to be used for a long time use whereas the Rhine bridge that is being discussed in this thread was designed to be for a temporary use.

As such, I would not be surprised to learn if the temporary Rhine bridge did not use any sorts of pilings which would remain behind after the bridge served its purpose.

Piercebridge was washed away a number of times and replaced with a stone pier bridge with wooden decking a few hundred yards downstream. Since then the river has changed course at that point and the bases of the stonework are now south of the river in a field.