2000 Years of Latin Prose | History and Literature

Chapter 6 – Julius Caesar: The Rivalry Between Pullo And Vorenus

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 sixth chap­ter, we will learn more about one of his­to­ry’s most famous men: Gaius Julius Cae­sar. We will also read a pas­sage from his Com­men­tarii de Bel­lo Gal­li­co(5.44) where Cae­sar speaks of two brave men – Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo.

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 6. Julius Caesar.

Life & Works of Julius Caesar

(100–44 B.C)

White marble statue of Julius Caesar by Nicolas Coustou, 1696.
Julius Cae­sar by Nico­las Cous­tou. Com­mis­sioned in 1696 for the gar­dens of Ver­sailles, now with the Lou­vre Muse­um, Paris.

Just like Cicero in the pre­vi­ous chap­ter of 2000 years of Latin Prose, Julius Cae­sar, needs very lit­tle, or no, intro­duc­tion, as he is one of history’s most famous men. Here is a brief one anyway. 

Life of Julius Caesar

Gaius Julius Cae­sar was born in 100 B.C. in Rome dur­ing the month of Quin­tilis which lat­er became July, named after his fam­i­ly the Julii. Dur­ing his life, he became a promi­nent mil­i­tary gen­er­al, a politi­cian, and in the end, a dic­ta­tor. He was also a skilled ora­tor and author.

We know a lot about Caesar’s life from his own accounts as well as from oth­er con­tem­po­rary sources, such as the let­ters and speech­es of Cicero and the works of Sal­lust (86–35 B.C.). How­ev­er, the biogra­phies of Cae­sar writ­ten lat­er by Sue­to­nius (69–122 A.D.) and Plutar­chos (46–120 A.D.) are also rel­e­vant sources.

Cae­sar was born in the city of Rome into a patri­cian fam­i­ly, i.e., the rul­ing class, the gens Julia. The Julii, accord­ing to Sue­to­nius, descend­ed from kings and the god­dess Venus her­self. (Div. Jul. 6). 

About Caesar Being Called Caesar

Woodcut illustration from 1506 of the birth of Julius Caesar by Caesarian section.
Illus­tra­tion of the sto­ry of the birth of Julius Cae­sar by Cae­sar­i­an sec­tion. Wood­cut from Vitae Cae­sarum by Caius Sue­to­nius Tran­quil­lus. Pub­lished: 1506.

The ancients had sev­er­al ideas as to the ori­gin of Gaius Julius’ cog­nomen, Cae­sar. Plin­ius Maior, or Pliny the Elder (23–79 A.D.), wrote that the name came from an ances­tor who had been born by a sur­gi­cal birth, an ancient Cae­sare­an sec­tion. The name would, there­fore, stem from the Latin word for “cut” (i.e. cut­ting out the child from the womb) which is cae­do, ceci­di, caedere, cae­sum (Nat. Hist. 7.5). 

In His­to­ria Augus­ta (prob­a­bly from the end of 4th cent. A.D.) we find not just Plin­ius’ expla­na­tion of the ori­gin of the name Cae­sar, but three more: 

“Cae­sarem vel ab ele­phan­to, qui lin­gua Mau­ro­rum ‘cae­sai’ dic­i­tur, in proe­lio cae­so, eum qui primus sic appel­la­tus est doc­tis­si­mi viri et eru­di­tis­si­mi putant dic­tum, vel quia mor­tua matre et ven­tre cae­so sit natus, vel quod cum mag­nis crinibus sit utero par­en­tis effusus, vel quod oculis cae­si­is et ultra humanum morem viguerit”

His­to­ria Augus­ta, Aelius 2

“Men of the great­est learn­ing and schol­ar­ship aver that he who first received the name of Cae­sar was called by this name, either because he slew in bat­tle an ele­phant, which in the Moor­ish tongue is called cae­sai, or because he was brought into the world after his mother’s death and by an inci­sion in her abdomen, or because he had a thick head of hair when he came forth from his mother’s womb, or, final­ly, because he had bright grey eyes and was vig­or­ous beyond the wont of human beings.” (transl. David Magie)

Roman coin, a denarius, showing an elephant above the name Caesar.
Julius Cae­sar, 49–48 B.C. AR Denar­ius (17Mm, 4.01 G, 2H). Mil­i­tary mint trav­el­ing with Cae­sar. Ele­phant advanc­ing right, tram­pling on horned ser­pent / Sim­pu­lum, aspergillum, securis, and apex.

Now, Cae­sar issued coins with images of ele­phants, sug­gest­ing per­haps that he favoured the inter­pre­ta­tion of his ele­phant-killing ancestor.

Or, per­haps he just liked elephants. 

Caesar’s Career

As a young man, Cae­sar became the high priest of Jupiter, Fla­men Dialis. He lost this title togeth­er with his inher­i­tance when Sul­la (138–78 B.C.) won the war against Caesar’s uncle by mar­riage, Gaius Mar­ius (157–86 B.C.). Thanks to the influ­ence of his mother’s fam­i­ly, things calmed down, and Cae­sar could pur­sue a mil­i­tary career. Cae­sar thus joined the army and left Rome. 

After Sul­la’s death, Cae­sar returned to Rome and became a lawyer. His career pro­gressed, and he was soon elect­ed mil­i­tary tri­bune, quaestor, and then aedile. In 63 B.C., he was elect­ed Pon­tif­ex Max­imus, i.e. high priest of the Roman state reli­gion. Lat­er, he became a prae­tor and was appoint­ed gov­er­nor of His­pania Ulterior.

Four years lat­er, in 59 B.C., Cae­sar was elect­ed con­sul along­side Mar­cus Calpurnius Bibu­lus (c.102–48 B.C.). How­ev­er, Bibu­lus’ attempts to stand up to his fel­low con­sul failed mis­er­ably. In real­i­ty, Cae­sar was act­ing as sole con­sul. Indeed, Sue­to­nius reports that some peo­ple when sign­ing doc­u­ments jok­ing­ly dat­ed them not as Bibu­lo et Cae­sare con­sulibus (“when Bibu­lus and Cae­sare were consuls”)—the names of con­suls were used rather than years—but as Julio et Cae­sare con­sulibus (“Julius and Cae­sare were con­suls”) (Suet. Caes. 20).

Around this time Cae­sar formed an infor­mal alliance with Mar­cus Licinius Cras­sus (c.115/112–53 B.C.) and Pom­peius Mag­nus, more com­mon­ly known as Pom­pey (106–48 B.C.). These men were lat­er known as the First Tri­umvi­rate. Between the three, they had enough cap­i­tal and influ­ence to con­trol pub­lic busi­ness and politics. 

After his con­sul­ship, Cae­sar was set to gov­ern Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum, with Transalpine Gaul added lat­er. He spent nine years on mil­i­tary cam­paigns in these provinces and the lands that lay uncon­quered at their bor­ders, and he did so suc­cess­ful­ly (from a Roman per­spec­tive). These cam­paigns are relat­ed in his Com­men­tarii de bel­lo Gallico.

Painting by Lionel Royer form 1899 showing how Vercingetorix throws down his weapons at the feet of Julius Caesar ather the battle of Alesia
Vercinge­torix jette ses armes aux pieds de Jules César / Vercinge­torix throws down his arms at the feet of Julius Cae­sar after the bat­tle of Ale­sia by Lionel Roy­er 1899

After some ini­tial years of suc­cess, the Tri­umvi­rate began to see some ten­sions. As Pom­pey’s wife, Cae­sar’s daugh­ter, died in child­birth, the rela­tion­ship between the two men was strained. Not long after, in 53 B.C. Cras­sus, the third man of the alliance, fell in the bat­tle of Car­rhae, bring­ing an end to the tri­umvi­rate. When Pom­pey mar­ried the daugh­ter of a polit­i­cal oppo­nent of Cae­sar, he put the last nail in the cof­fin of their alliance.

Caesar’s Civil War

In 50 B.C., the Sen­ate, led by Pom­pey, ordered Cae­sar – still wag­ing war in Gaul – to dis­band his army and return to Rome as his term as gov­er­nor had come to an end and he was being replaced. 

Did Cae­sar fol­low this order?

Yes and no. 

He did return to Rome, but with­out dis­band­ing his army. Instead, on Jan­u­ary 10, 49 B.C., with one of his legions, he crossed the riv­er Rubi­con, the bound­ary between the province Gal­lia Cisalpina and Italy. 

Bring­ing his army into Italy was noth­ing else than a dec­la­ra­tion of war. 

You can read more about the cross­ing of the riv­er Rubi­con, why it was such a big deal and a big sur­prise to the Sen­ate and Pom­pey, as well as about the famous quote that refers to this event: Alea iac­ta est / Iac­ta alea est, in this arti­cle: Iac­ta Alea est: Cross­ing the Rubicon

As Cae­sar and his legion approached Rome, Pom­pey and many Sen­a­tors with him, fled to be able to fight anoth­er day. 

A black marble bust of Julius Caesar seemingly looking at a white warble bust of Cleopatra.
Bust of Julius Cae­sar “look­ing at” the bust of Cleopa­tra VII from the Antiken­samm­lung Altes Muse­um, Berlin.

Long sto­ry short – this war, sim­ply called The Civ­il War, between Cae­sar and Pom­pey and his allies, was won by Cae­sar. Pom­pey was killed in Egypt. 

Cae­sar arrived in Egypt after Pom­pey’s death and mourned his old friend. He also became involved with a new con­flict, the one between the Egypt­ian queen Cleopa­tra and her broth­er-hus­band, Ptole­my XIII. He famous­ly sided with Cleopatra. 

Julius Caesar – Dictator

Cae­sar was now appoint­ed dic­ta­tor – i.e. a mag­is­trate of the Roman repub­lic but entrust­ed with the full author­i­ty of the state. 

He con­tin­ued to fight in dif­fer­ent parts of the Repub­lic: He went to Asia Minor to fight King Phar­naces II of Pon­tus, to Africa to fight the remain­ders of Pompey’s sup­port­ers, and also chased Pompey’s sons to Spain.

In spite of all this, Julius Cae­sar was not all dic­ta­tor, war, fight, and blood­shed; he was also a reformer. 

Cae­sar extend­ed rights through­out the repub­lic, passed lux­u­ry restric­tions, reward­ed fam­i­lies with many chil­dren, cre­at­ed social mea­sures such as the alle­vi­a­tion of debt. And, per­haps most famous­ly, he cre­at­ed a new cal­en­dar: the Julian calendar. 

The Julian Calendar

The old Roman cal­en­dar was based on the moon. By Cae­sar’s time it was hope­less­ly con­fus­ing and about three months ahead of the solar cal­en­dar used by oth­er cul­tures. After hav­ing tak­en the advice of an astronomer from Alexan­dria, Cae­sar replaced the Roman lunar cal­en­dar with a cal­en­dar that instead was based on the sun. He then set a new length for the year: 365,25 days. Every year had 365 days, but every fourth year an extra day was added in Feb­ru­ary. How­ev­er, in order to adjust the out-of-sync Roman year, Cae­sar turned the year 46 B.C. into an extra­or­di­nary one: it con­tained 445 days. 

Does this at all sound familiar?

It should. 

The so-called Julian cal­en­dar is almost, but not quite, iden­ti­cal to the cur­rent west­ern cal­en­dar. The cur­rent cal­en­dar, the Gre­go­ri­an cal­en­dar from the 16th cen­tu­ry, has short­ened Cae­sar’s aver­age year by 0,0075 days, which means that the Gre­go­ri­an cal­en­dar skips a leap day in 3 out of every 400 years. 

Cartoon illustration of the assassination of Julius Caesar by John Leech, 1860.
The end of Julius Cae­sar, Illus­tra­tion by John Leech from The Com­ic His­to­ry of Rome, 1860.

This means that with the excep­tion of ‑0,0075 days in a year, we use the same cal­en­dar as the one Julius Cae­sar introduced. 

A small note should per­haps be addressed to the months Jan­u­ary and Feb­ru­ary. It is a com­mon mis­con­cep­tion that goes back to the Mid­dle Ages, that Cae­sar added Jan­u­ary and Feb­ru­ary to the Roman year. The Roman year orig­i­nal­ly only held 10 months begin­ning in March end­ing in Decem­ber. How­ev­er, when Cae­sar reformed the cal­en­dar, Jan­u­ary and Feb­ru­ary had already been a part of the Roman year for a very long time. It was (at least accord­ing to Livy, Ab Urbe Con­di­ta, lib. 1.19) Numa Pom­pil­ius that added these months. 

But let’s head back to Roman politics: 

The End of Julius Caesar

Cae­sar’s pow­er only grew. Dis­agree­ment with his rule in com­bi­na­tion with a fear of him want­i­ng to over­throw the Repub­lic and estab­lish a monar­chy began to spread amongst the Roman aris­toc­ra­cy and many senators. 

These men thus took it upon them­selves to save the Repub­lic by assas­si­nat­ing Julius Cae­sar in the sen­ate on the infa­mous day the 15th of March 44 B.C. also known as the Ides of March. 

Julius Cae­sar was stabbed 23 times. 

Two years lat­er, he was the first Roman to be dei­fied by being grant­ed the title Divus (“Divine”): Divus Iulius. 

Works of Julius Caesar

Cae­sar is famous­ly known as the mil­i­tary gen­er­al, the politi­cian, and the dic­ta­tor we have been dis­cussing. What is per­haps less known to those who do not study Latin is that Cae­sar was regard­ed as one of the best ora­tors and prose authors of his time. Even Cicero – who rarely agreed with Cae­sar – held him in high regard on this point and put these words into the mouth of Atti­cus in his work Bru­tus:  

“illum omni­um fere ora­to­rum Latine loqui elegantissime”

— Cicero, Bru­tus, lxxii

“of all our ora­tors he is the purest user of the Latin tongue”

15th century ornate manuscript of Julius Caesar's De Bello Gallico.
Julius Cae­sar’s Com­men­tarii De Bel­lo Gal­li­co, c. 1469, Man­u­script found in the Bay­erische Staatsbibliothek.

Unfor­tu­nate­ly, Cae­sar did not, unlike Cicero, pub­lish his speeches. 

What we have left from Cae­sar’s writ­ing are his two com­men­taries of war: 

  • Com­men­tarii de Bel­lo Gal­li­co, about the years of his cam­paign­ing in Gaul and Britain.
  • Com­men­tarii de Bel­lo Civilii, about the civ­il war with Pom­pey

A few let­ters of his also remain as inser­tions in Cicero’s cor­re­spon­dence to Atticus. 

But Cae­sar also wrote a gram­mat­i­cal work on anal­o­gy, a trav­el poem, a praise of Her­cules, a col­lec­tion of apothegms, a tragedy called Oedi­pus, and a work on astron­o­my. None of these have come down to us.

In this chap­ter of 2000 years of Latin Prose, we shall turn our atten­tion to one of his com­men­taries on war: De Bel­lo Gal­li­co. 

De Bel­lo Gal­li­co con­tains eight books with each book cov­er­ing, more or less, one year of Cae­sar’s cam­paigns in Gaul (mod­ern France) and south­ern Britain. This match of one book to one year con­tributed to the long-last­ing belief that De Bel­lo Gal­li­co was writ­ten con­tin­u­ous­ly through­out the war. It was believed that the books were writ­ten and pub­lished annu­al­ly, almost like “reports from the front”. There is some evi­dence that Cae­sar did send reports to the sen­ate, though De Bel­lo Gal­li­co was not it. 

No, De Bel­lo Gal­li­co seems instead to have been writ­ten all at once, most like­ly with reports and notes at hand, dur­ing the win­ter of 52–51 B.C. 

Book eight, how­ev­er, was most like­ly not writ­ten by Cae­sar him­self but is believed to have been put togeth­er by one of his legates, Aulus Hirtius. 

De Bel­lo Gal­li­co is known to most Latin stu­dents as it is vir­tu­al­ly always part of the cur­ricu­lum. How­ev­er, many stu­dents only get to read the first part of the first book. We, on the oth­er hand, shall, in today’s Chap­ter of 2000 years of Latin prose, turn to book five and a pas­sage describ­ing two of Caesar’s cen­tu­ri­ons: Titus Pul­lo and Lucius Vorenus. These two have late­ly been made famous through the TV series Rome; how­ev­er, the char­ac­ters in the series are only loose­ly made up by the men Cae­sar is describing.

Ray Stevenson and Kevin McKidd as Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus from Hbo’s Rome.
Ray Steven­son and Kevin McK­idd as Titus Pul­lo and Lucius Vorenus from Hbo’s Rome.

The real Pul­lo and Vorenus belonged to the gar­ri­son of Quin­tus Tul­lius Cicero, Cicero’s broth­er, and in the pas­sage which we will read today their gar­ri­son had come under siege. Cae­sar speaks of the men’s rival­ry but also of their brav­ery. Through their sto­ry, we get a glimpse of Romans at war, a chaot­ic bat­tle­field, and what was con­sid­ered brave and applaud­able to a Roman such as Caesar. 

writ­ten by Amelie Rosen­gren, M.A.

Further reading and resources

If you want to know more about Cae­sar the per­son, but not feel like read­ing, you can lis­ten to this text: Cae­sar and the pirates from Sue­to­nius which you can find in our audio archive

There is also, as men­tioned above, an arti­cle about one of Caesar’s most famous say­ings: Alea iac­ta est that you can find here: Iac­ta Alea Est: Cross­ing the Rubi­con. The arti­cle not only dis­cuss­es the famous line but also gives you more detailed infor­ma­tion about the actu­al cross­ing of the Rubi­con and the polit­i­cal sit­u­a­tion of the time. 

If you are curi­ous about the TV-series Rome in which the fic­tion­al ver­sions of Pul­lo and Vorenus appear, you can find it here. (It is a phe­nom­e­nal series, so even if you’re not curi­ous about Pul­lo and Vorenus, I still rec­om­mend watch­ing it if you haven’t already.)

If you want to learn even more about Cae­sar and his works and lit­er­ary style, I warm­ly rec­om­mend Michael von Albrecht’s A His­to­ry of Roman Lit­er­a­ture: From Livius Andron­i­cus to Boethius or The Cam­bridge com­pan­ion to the writ­ings of Julius Cae­sar, edit­ed by Luca Gril­lo, Christo­pher B. Krebs.

Audio & Video

Click below to read and lis­ten to a pas­sage from Cae­sar’s De Bel­lo Gallico.

Video with English Subtitles

Audio of Latin text

Latin text

Below you will find the orig­i­nal text of the pas­sage from De Bel­lo Gal­li­co in Latin. 

De Bel­lo Gal­li­co, 5.44

Erant in ea legione for­tis­si­mi viri, cen­tu­ri­ones, qui prim­is ordinibus appropin­quar­ent, Titus Pul­lo et Lucius Vorenus. Hi per­pet­uas inter se con­tro­ver­sias habebant, quinam ante­fer­re­tur, omnibusque annis de locis sum­mis simul­tat­i­bus con­tende­bant. Ex his Pul­lo, cum acer­rime ad muni­tiones pugnare­tur, “Quid dubitas,” inquit, “Vorene? aut quem locum tuae proban­dae vir­tutis exspec­tas? Hic dies de nos­tris con­tro­ver­si­is iudicabit.”

Haec cum dixis­set, pro­ced­it extra muni­tiones quaque pars hostium con­fer­tiss­ma est visa irrumpit. Ne Vorenus qui­dem tum sese val­lo con­tinet, sed omni­um ver­i­tus exis­ti­ma­tionem sub­se­quitur. Tum, medioc­ri spa­tio relic­to Pul­lo pilum in hostes immit­tit atque unum ex mul­ti­tu­dine procur­rentem traic­it; quo per­cus­so et exan­i­ma­to hunc scutis pro­te­gunt, in hostem tela uni­ver­si coni­ci­unt neque dant regre­di­en­di fac­ul­tatem. Trans­fig­i­tur scu­tum Pul­loni et verutum in bal­teo defig­i­tur. Aver­tit hic casus vagi­nam et gla­d­i­um educ­ere conan­ti dex­tram moratur manum, imped­i­tumque hostes cir­cum­sis­tunt. Suc­cur­rit inim­i­cus illi Vorenus et lab­o­ran­ti subvenit.

Ad hunc se con­fes­tim a Pul­lone omnis mul­ti­tu­do con­ver­tit: illum veruto arbi­tran­tur occisum. Glad­io com­mi­nus rem ger­it Vorenus atque uno inter­fec­to reliqu­os paulum pro­pel­lit; dum cupid­ius instat, in locum deiec­tus infe­ri­orem con­cid­it. Huic rur­sus cir­cum­ven­to fert sub­sid­i­um Pul­lo, atque ambo incol­umes com­pluribus inter­fec­tis sum­ma cum laude sese intra muni­tiones recipiunt.

Sic for­tu­na in con­tentione et cer­t­a­mine utrumque ver­sav­it, ut alter alteri inim­i­cus aux­ilio salu­tique esset, neque diiu­di­cari pos­set, uter utri vir­tute antef­er­en­dus videretur.

You can down­load a pdf here Get a print-ready PDF ver­sion of this chap­ter: 2000 Years of Latin Prose: Chap­ter 6. Julius Caesar.

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.

prim­is ordinibus appropin­quar­ent: Pul­lo and Vorenus, both cen­tu­ri­ons, want­ed to become cen­tu­ri­ons of the first cohort, thus the senior cen­tu­ri­ons of the legion (Gaiss­er).

per­pet­uas inter se con­tro­ver­sias: i.e. they were always in con­test over who was the best and most deserv­ing of being promoted. 

cum–pugnaretur: i.e. when there was fight­ing going on

Ne Vorenus qui­dem: Ne–quidem usu­al­ly means ”not even” but here is is clear that the mean­ing is rather the oppo­site “of course–not”.

qua: adv. where, quaque ”and where, whither”

scu­tum Pul­loni: lit. ”the shield for Pul­lo”. This is a so-called dativus incom­mo­di (”dative of dis­ad­van­tage”) where the per­son who suf­fers the dis­ad­van­tage is placed in the dative. This is espe­cial­ly com­mon with blows and hits, e.g. illi caput per­cus­sit (“He struck his (lit. for him) head”). This con­struc­tion also lays the focus on the object rather than the person.

quo per­cus­so et exan­i­ma­to, hunc scutis pro­te­gunt: Here Cae­sar ”vio­lates” the school rule of the abla­tive absolute.This occurs through­out clas­si­cal lit­er­a­ture, and shows that these rules are not unbreak­able laws, but rather strong tendencies.

gla­d­i­um ēdūcere cōnan­tī dex­tram moratur manum: anoth­er exam­ple of the dative of dis­ad­van­tage: ”delays the right hand of him (lit. for him) try­ing to pull out his sword”

appropin­quo, ‑are: approach

con­tro­ver­sia, ‑ae f.: con­tro­ver­sy, quar­rel, dispute

simul­tas, ‑atis f.: feud, quarrel

con­tendo, ‑dere, ‑di, ‑tum: fight over, strain

irrumpo, ‑ere, ‑rupi, ‑rup­tum: burst into, dart upon

verutum, ‑i n.: javelin

bal­teus, ‑i m.: sword belt

aver­to, ‑ere, ‑ti, ‑sum: to turn aside

diiu­di­co, ‑are: decide

ante­fero, ‑ferre: prefer

muni­tio, ‑onis f.: con­struc­tion, fortification

iudi­co, ‑are: to judge

con­fer­tus, ‑a, ‑um: con­densed

exis­ti­ma­tio, ‑onis f.: opin­ion, reptutation

sub­se­quor, ‑i, ‑secu­tus: fol­low closely

medioc­ris, ‑e: mod­er­ate­ly large

immit­to, ‑mit­tere, ‑misi, ‑mis­sum: to send in

procur­ro, ‑cur­rere, ‑cucur­ri, ‑cur­sum: to rush forwards

traicio, ‑ire, ‑ieci, ‑iec­tum: to pierce

per­cu­tio, ‑ire, ‑cus­si, ‑cus­sum: to strike, thrust, or pierce through

exǎn­i­mo, ‑are: to deprive of breath; to kill

scu­tum, ‑i n.: an oblong shield 

pro­tego, ‑ere, ‑xi, ‑ctum: cover

coni­cio, ‑ire, ‑ieci, ‑iec­tum: to bring togeth­er, unite; to hurl

regre­dior, ‑i, ‑gres­sus: to come or go back; retreat

fǎcul­tas, ‑atis f.:  oppor­tu­ni­ty

trans­fi­go, ‑ere, ‑xi, ‑xum: pierce

defi­go, ‑ere, ‑xi, ‑xum: plant firm­ly, fix

impe­dio, ‑ire, ‑ivi, ‑itum: to entan­gle, hinder

cir­cum­sis­to, ‑sis­tere, ‑steti: to surround

suc­cur­ro, ‑ere, ‑cur­ri, ‑cur­sum: run to aid

sub­ve­nio, ‑ire, ‑veni, ‑ven­tum: to come to one’s assistance

con­fes­tim: imme­di­ate­ly

com­mi­nus adv.: in hand to hand combat

pro­pel­lo, pro­pellere, ‑puli, ‑pul­sum: to dri­ve, push, urge forward

cupidus, ‑a, ‑um: eager

insto, instare, ‑sti­ti, ‑stǎ­tum: to press upon, pursue

deicio, ‑ere, ‑ieci, ‑iec­tum: throw down from; drive

cir­cum­ve­nio, ‑ire, ‑veni, ‑ven­tum: to come around; encir­cle; surround

sub­sid­i­um, ‑ii n.: help, aid; troops sta­tioned in reserve

ambo: both together

inco­lu­mis, ‑e: unharmed, uninjured

com­plures, ‑ia, ‑ium: several

con­tentio, ‑onis f.: strug­gle, contest

English translation

Below you will find an Eng­lish trans­la­tion of the text. 

De Bel­lo Gal­li­co, 5.44

In that legion there were two very brave men, cen­tu­ri­ons, who were now approach­ing the first ranks, T. Pul­lo, and L. Vorenus. These used to have con­tin­u­al dis­putes between them which of them should be pre­ferred, and every year used to con­tend for pro­mo­tion with the utmost ani­mos­i­ty. When the fight was going on most vig­or­ous­ly before the for­ti­fi­ca­tions, Pul­lo, one of them, says, “Why do you hes­i­tate, Vorenus? or what [bet­ter] oppor­tu­ni­ty of show­ing your val­or do you seek? This very day shall decide our disputes.”

When he had uttered these words, he pro­ceeds beyond the for­ti­fi­ca­tions, and rush­es on that part of the ene­my which appeared the thick­est. Nor does Vorenus remain with­in the ram­part, but respect­ing the high opin­ion of all, fol­lows close after. Then, when an incon­sid­er­able space inter­vened, Pul­lo throws his javelin at the ene­my, and pierces one of the mul­ti­tude who was run­ning up, and while the lat­ter was wound­ed and slain, the ene­my cov­er him with their shields, and all throw their weapons at the oth­er and afford him no oppor­tu­ni­ty of retreat­ing. The shield of Pul­lo is pierced and a javelin is fas­tened in his belt. This cir­cum­stance turns aside his scab­bard and obstructs his right hand when attempt­ing to draw his sword: the ene­my crowd around him when [thus] embarrassed.

His rival runs up to him and helps him in this emer­gency. Imme­di­ate­ly the whole host turn from Pul­lo to him, sup­pos­ing the oth­er to be pierced through by the javelin. Vorenus rush­es on briskly with his sword and car­ries on the com­bat hand to hand, and hav­ing slain one man, for a short time drove back the rest: while he urges on too eager­ly, slip­ping into a hol­low, he fell. To him, in his turn, when sur­round­ed, Pul­lo brings relief; and both hav­ing slain a great num­ber, retreat into the for­ti­fi­ca­tions amid the high­est applause.

For­tune so dealt with both in this rival­ry and con­flict, that the one com­peti­tor was a help and a safe­guard to the oth­er, nor could it be deter­mined which of the two appeared wor­thy of being pre­ferred to the other.

Trans­lat­ed by McDe­vitte and Bohn (1869)

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 ...