2000 Years of Latin Prose | History and Literature

Chapter 7 – Bellum Alexandrinum: The Battle Of The Mole

This article has been reviewed in accordance with our editorial policy.

Two thou­sand years of Latin Prose is a dig­i­tal anthol­o­gy of Latin Prose. Here you will be able to find texts from two mil­len­nia of gems in Latin. In this sev­enth chap­ter, we will learn about the pseu­do-Cae­sar­i­an work writ­ten in the style of Julius Cae­sar’s De Bel­lo Gal­li­co and De Bel­lo Civile, called Bel­lum Alexan­drinum or De Bel­lo Alexan­dri­no. We will read a pas­sage throw­ing us straight into the war between Cae­sar’s men and the Alexandrians.

If you want to learn more about the anthol­o­gy, you will find the pref­ace here.

You can down­load a pdf here Get a print-ready PDF ver­sion of this chap­ter: 2000 Years of Latin Prose: Chap­ter 7. Bel­lum Alexandrinum

Bellum Alexandrinum

(c. 47–43 B.C.)

15th century manuscript of De Bello Alexandrino.
Man­u­script of De Bel­lo Alexan­dri­no writ­ten on vel­lum in brown ink. Writ­ten in Italy dur­ing the lat­ter half of the 15th cen­tu­ry, prob­a­bly between 1470–1480.

Bel­lum Alexan­drinum, De Bel­lo Alexan­dri­no, or in Eng­lish The Alexan­drine War is a work much like Julius Caesar’s De Bel­lo Gal­li­co and De Bel­lo Civile that we spoke of in the pre­vi­ous chap­ter of 2000 years of Latin Prose

Bel­lum Alexan­drinum is named after Cae­sar’s cam­paign in Alexan­dria and Low­er Egypt and con­tains events and cam­paigns after this. The work takes the read­er through from Sep­tem­ber 48 B.C. to August 47 B.C., mean­ing we get to vis­it Alexan­dria and Illyr­ia, Spain, and mod­ern Turkey. 

The work belongs to the so-called Cor­pus Cae­sar­i­anum, i.e., a col­lec­tion of texts con­sist­ing of the two books by Julius Cae­sar men­tioned above, as well as the eighth book of De Bel­lo Gal­li­co (which was not writ­ten by Cae­sar), Bel­lum Africanum, and Bel­lum His­paniense. All of these works with­in the Cor­pus Cae­sar­i­anum are com­men­taries relat­ing Caesar’s war cam­paigns and are writ­ten in the same spir­it. How­ev­er, only De Bel­lo Gal­li­co lib. 1–7 and De Bel­lo Civili are gen­uine­ly writ­ten by Julius Cae­sar. The oth­ers are so-called pseu­do-Cae­sar­i­an works but are, since medieval times, reg­u­lar­ly bound with Caesar’s authen­tic works. 

But if Julius Cae­sar did not write the Bel­lum Alexan­drinum, who did?

The sim­ple answer is this: we do not know. 

The author­ship of Bel­lum Alexan­drinum, as well as Bel­lum Africanum and Bel­lum His­paniense, has been debat­ed for cen­turies. It is pos­si­ble that con­tem­po­raries to the works knew, but even in antiq­ui­ty, the author­ship of the works was discussed. 

Sue­to­nius wrote: 

“Nam Alexan­dri­ni Africique et His­panien­sis incer­tus auc­tor est; alii Oppi­um putant, alii Hir­tium, qui eti­am Gal­li­ci bel­li novis­si­mum imper­fec­tumque librum suppleverit.”

— Sue­to­nius, Divus Julius, I.56

“for the author of the Alexan­dri­an, African, and Span­ish Wars is unknown; some think it was Oppius, oth­ers Hir­tius, who also sup­plied the final book of the Gal­lic War, which Cae­sar left unwritten.”

Was Gaius Oppius the Author of Bellum Alexandrinum?

Sue­to­nius men­tioned a cer­tain Oppius to be a pos­si­ble author of the Alexan­drine War, but who was he?

Gaius Oppius was a close friend of Julius Cae­sar. We don’t know much about him, not when he was born, not when he died. We do know that he man­aged Caesar’s per­son­al affairs in Rome when Cae­sar was absent. He sup­pos­ed­ly wrote about the life of Cae­sar, the elder Sci­pio Africanus and Mar­ius, as well as a pam­phlet try­ing to prove that Cleopatra’s son, Cae­sar­i­on, was not fathered by Cae­sar. (ref. Cic. Ad Q. Fr. 3.1.8, Gell. 17.9.1, Plutarch Caes. 15–17, Suet. Jul. 52.3)

Sue­to­nius men­tioned him not only as the author of the Alexan­drine War but the African and Span­ish Wars too. This idea has been dis­card­ed, and most schol­ars have even shot down the claim of him hav­ing authored the Alexan­drine War. 

Did Aulus Hirtius Write Bellum Alexandrinum?

Sue­to­nius also men­tions a “Hir­tius”. The man he refers to was a man named Aulus Hir­tius (c. 90–43 B.C.) who was a con­sul and also a legate of Julius Cae­sar from about 58 B.C.

After Caesar’s death, Hir­tius ini­tial­ly sided with Mark Antho­ny, how­ev­er, as Cicero was a close friend of his Hir­tius was per­suad­ed to switch sides. This side-change is also what killed him as he set out with an army to attack Antho­ny only to fall in bat­tle. The cor­re­spon­dence between Cicero and Hir­tius was pub­lished (in nine books) but has not sur­vived history. 

Hir­tius is believed to have writ­ten the eighth book of the oth­er­wise Cae­sar-authen­tic De Bel­lo Gal­li­co. This is one of the main rea­sons why Hir­tius has been the front run­ner of pos­si­ble authors to Bel­lum Alexan­drinum. How­ev­er, schol­ars are still not sure due to details with­in the text, as well as for lin­guis­tic and styl­is­tic rea­sons. For instance: Parts of the Bel­lum Alexan­drinum clear­ly shows that the author was an eye­wit­ness. How­ev­er, Hir­tius him­self states that he was not present in Alexan­dria at the time. And, the style of the lan­guage changes char­ac­ter mid-work.

Nev­er­the­less, Hir­tius could have writ­ten the work rely­ing eye­wit­ness reports. 

Today, many believe that Hir­tius was the edi­tor of the text, that he forged togeth­er reports writ­ten by oth­ers dur­ing the war for sub­mis­sion to Cae­sar, per­haps even at the request of Cae­sar. He might also have edit­ed Bel­lum Africanum and Bel­lum His­paniense, though today schol­ars are sure they were not writ­ten by the same author/authors as Bel­lum Alexan­drinum

Most like­ly, we shall nev­er know who wrote the book, just as we will nev­er know exact­ly when it was written. 

If it was writ­ten or edit­ed by Hir­tius, it must have been before his death in 43 B.C. The work itself deals with events dur­ing 48–47 B.C. And, it seems to be the con­sen­sus that the work was writ­ten short­ly after the events of the cam­paigns described with­in the text. 

Julius Caesar’s War With Alexandria

Map of Alexandria at the end of Cleopatras reign.
Map of Alexan­dria at the end of Cleopa­tras reign.

In today’s chap­ter of 2000 years of Latin Prose, we shall read a pas­sage that takes place mid-Alexan­dri­an-war. We will be thrown into action as Caesar’s men fight the Alexan­dri­ans on the so-called “mole”, also known as the Hep­tas­ta­dion.

The mole was a long cause­way that led from the main­land and city of Alexan­dria over to Pharos Island. It had two chan­nels with bridges across, to con­nect the harbours. 

At the stage in the war that we will be read­ing about, Julius Cae­sar had just post­ed a gar­ri­son at the bridge clos­est to Pharos Island while the oth­er one, clos­est to the main­land was held by the Alexandrinians.

But, let us first take a step back and briefly take a look at the rea­son for the war and go through a few details from the war itself: 

First and fore­most: Egypt was an impor­tant trade part­ner to Rome, espe­cial­ly when it came to grain, and any dis­tur­bances to the trade could have dis­as­trous con­se­quences for Roman cit­i­zens. Hence Egypt­ian pol­i­tics was rather impor­tant to the Romans. 

Read on.

It all began when the Pharaoh Ptole­maios (Ptole­my) XII Auletes sought the help of the tri­umvirs Julius Cae­sar, Pom­peius Mag­nus (Pom­pey), and Mar­cus Licinius Cras­sus to be rein­stat­ed after hav­ing been expelled. They sup­port­ed him and made his case in the Sen­ate. Ptole­my even stayed in Pompey’s house dur­ing his exile from Egypt. Ptole­my was rein­stat­ed but died in 51 B.C. with­out hav­ing paid back his debts to Roman cred­i­tors (he had bor­rowed a lot of mon­ey to use for bribes).

Ptole­my gave his throne to his old­est son, also called Ptole­my, and his old­est daugh­ter to share – that would be the famous Cleopa­tra. He made the peo­ple of Rome execu­tor of his will in order to secure his heir’s hold on the Egypt­ian throne and to ensure that his wish about the split regency was observed after his death.

It was not. 

Cleopa­tra was dri­ven out by her broth­er. Thus, she went to Syr­ia and raised an army. 

Mean­while, back in Rome Pom­pey and Cae­sar were busy with the civ­il war. Pom­pey fled to Egypt only to be killed on sight by for­mer sol­diers from his own army at the propo­si­tion of Pharaoh Ptole­my XII­I’s advi­sors (that would be Cleopa­tra’s brother). 

This did not sit well with Cae­sar who despite wag­ing war with Pom­pey, still cared for him hav­ing been for­mer friends, allies, and relat­ed (through mar­riage). Cae­sar mourned his old friend and then decid­ed that it was time that the mon­ey Ptole­my’s father Ptole­my had bor­rowed was paid back to Rome. He also decid­ed to set­tle the dis­pute between Ptole­my and Cleopatra. 

Cae­sar famous­ly sided with Cleopatra. 

In the end, Ptole­my drowned in the Riv­er Nile, pass­ing the “pharaohship” to his younger broth­er – also named Ptole­my – and his sis­ter Cleopa­tra was rein­stat­ed as his co-ruler. 

Painting of Caesar placing Cleopatra back on the throne of Egypt from 1637.
Cae­sar plac­ing Cleopa­tra back on the Throne of Egypt, by Pietro da Cor­tona, 1637.

Further reading and resources

Why not read, if you haven’t already, the pre­vi­ous chap­ter in the Anthol­o­gy about Julius Cae­sar.

Oth­er­wise, I can high­ly rec­om­mend read­ing The cam­bridge com­pan­ion to the writ­ings of Julius Cae­sar, ed. Luca Gril­lo, Christo­pher B Krebs (2017) that not only dis­cuss Cae­sar’s texts but the pseu­do-Cae­sar­i­an writ­ings as well.

Also inter­est­ing are the fol­low­ing articles:

If you want to learn more about the lan­guage, style and nar­ra­tive tech­nique in the Alexan­drine War: 

Audio & Video in Latin

Click below to read and lis­ten to a pas­sage from Bel­lum Alexandrinum. 

Video with English subtitles

Audio of Latin text

Latin text

Below you will find the orig­i­nal text of the pas­sage in Latin. 

Bel­lum Alexan­drinum, 20

In his rebus occu­pa­to Cae­sare militesque hor­tante remigum mag­nus numerus et clas­siar­i­o­rum ex longis nav­ibus nos­tris in molem se eiecit. Pars eorum stu­dio spectan­di fere­batur, pars eti­am cupid­i­tate pug­nan­di. Hi pri­mum navi­gia hostium lapidibus ac fundis a mole repelle­bant ac mul­tum profi­cere mul­ti­tu­dine telo­rum vide­ban­tur. Sed postquam ultra eum locum ab lat­ere eorum aper­to ausi sunt egre­di ex nav­ibus Alexan­dri­ni pau­ci, ut sine sig­nis cer­tisque ordinibus, sine ratione prodier­ant, sic temere in navis refugere coepe­runt. Quo­rum fuga inci­tati Alexan­dri­ni plures ex nav­ibus egredieban­tur nos­trosque acrius per­tur­batos inse­que­ban­tur. Simul qui in nav­ibus longis remanser­ant scalas rap­ere nav­isque a ter­ra repellere prop­er­a­bant, ne hostes nav­ibus potiren­tur. Quibus omnibus rebus per­tur­bati milites nos­tri cohor­tium tri­um quae in ponte ac pri­ma mole con­stit­er­ant, cum post se clam­orem exaudirent, fugam suo­rum vider­ent, mag­nam vim telo­rum adver­si sustiner­ent, ver­i­ti ne ab ter­go cir­cum­veniren­tur et disces­su nav­i­um omni­no red­i­tu inter­clud­er­en­tur muni­tionem in ponte insti­tu­tam reli­querunt et mag­no cur­su inci­tati ad navis con­tenderunt. Quo­rum pars prox­i­mas nac­ta navis mul­ti­tu­dine hominum atque onere depres­sa est, pars resistens et dubi­tans quid esset capi­en­dum con­sili ab Alexan­dri­nis inter­fec­ta est; non nul­li feli­ciore exi­tu expe­d­i­tas ad anco­ram navis con­se­cu­ti incol­umes discesserunt, pau­ci all­e­vatis scutis et ani­mo ad conan­dum nisi ad prox­i­ma navi­gia adnatarunt.

You can down­load a pdf here Get a print-ready PDF ver­sion of this chap­ter: 2000 Years of Latin Prose: Chap­ter 7: Bel­lum Alexandrinum.

Vocabulary & Commentary

These fol­low­ing words are key to under­stand­ing the text, if you already know them — great! — if not, make a men­tal note of them.

remex, ‑igis, m.a row­er, oarsman

clas­siar­ius, ‑i, m. a marine

temere adv. rash­ly

ut…sic: (com­par­a­tive­ly) as…so

potior, ‑itus sum, ‑iri dep. (reg­u­lar­ly with abl.) to take pos­ses­sion of

mag­nam vim: a large num­ber of

quo­rum pars: Releative pro­nouns are com­mon­ly used to refer back­wards like this: “some (a part) of them (i.e.) Romans”.

prox­i­mas nac­ta navis: hav­ing reached the near­est ships. Note. nac­ta is nom­i­na­tive sin­gu­lar of the per­fect par­tici­ple of the verb nan­cis­cor (“to reach”). Since the verb is depo­nent, the per­fect par­tici­ple is active. Nāvīs is the accusative plur­al here.

nīsī: nom­i­na­tive plur­al of per­fect par­tici­ple of nitor to rely on, strive 

all­e­vatis scutis: abla­tive absolute “having/with the shields lift­ed up” 

English translations

Below you will find an Eng­lish trans­la­tion of the text. 

The Alexan­dri­an war

While Cae­sar was occu­pied with this sit­u­a­tion, and as he was encour­ag­ing the troops, a large num­ber of row­ers and sea­men left our war­ships and sud­den­ly land­ed on the mole. Some were inspired by their anx­i­ety to watch the fray, oth­ers also by the desire to take part in it. They began by dri­ving back the ene­my ves­sels from the mole with stones and slings, and it seemed that their heavy vol­leys of mis­siles were hav­ing great effect. But when a few Alexan­dri­ans ven­tured to dis­em­bark beyond that point, on the side of their unpro­tect­ed flank, then, just as they had advanced in no set order or for­ma­tion and with­out any par­tic­u­lar tac­tics, so now they began to retire hap­haz­ard­ly to the ships. Encour­aged by their retreat, more of the Alexan­dri­ans dis­em­barked and pur­sued our flus­tered men more hot­ly. At the same time those who had stayed aboard the war­ships made haste to seize the gang-planks and ease the ships away from land, to pre­vent the ene­my from gain­ing pos­ses­sion of them. All this thor­ough­ly alarmed our troops of the three cohorts which had tak­en post on the bridge and the tip of the mole; and as they heard the clam­our behind them, and saw the retreat of their com­rades, and sus­tained a heavy frontal bar­rage of mis­siles, they feared they might be sur­round­ed in rear and have their retreat entire­ly cut off by the depar­ture of their ships; and so they aban­doned the entrench­ment they had begun at the bridge, and dou­bled fran­ti­cal­ly to the ships. Some of them gained the near­est ships, only to be cap­sized by the weight of so many men; some were killed by the Alexan­dri­ans as they put up a for­lorn and bewil­dered resis­tance; some proved luck­i­er in reach­ing ships at anchor cleared for action, and so got away safe­ly; and a few, hold­ing their shields above them and steel­ing their res­o­lu­tion to the task, swam off to ships near by.

Amelie Rosengren

Amelie Rosengren

Amelie Rosengren, M.A. and co-founder of Latinitium, is a published author, illustrator and historian. She specializes in daily life, has a soft spot for historic curiosities, and works as a museum educator at the world’s oldest open air museum, Skansen.
Written by Amelie Rosengren

Written by Amelie Rosengren

Related articles

Halloween special in Latin #8 – The procession of the Dead

Halloween special in Latin #8 – The procession of the Dead

A March of Condemned Souls This story is an exceptional episode from the Ecclesiastical History, written by the ...
How Catiline was defeated according to Sallust

How Catiline was defeated according to Sallust

Roman historian and politician, Gaius Sallustius Crispus, to many known as Sallust, wrote Bellum ...
Halloween Special in Latin #7 – Frightful times at Froda

Halloween Special in Latin #7 – Frightful times at Froda

The Wonders of Fróðá In this year’s Halloween special in Latin, we will travel back in time to the Viking era ...