Map of the Roman Empire - Gallia

Gallia
D-2 on the Map

Ancient Gallia Roman name for the province of Gaul (Latin: Gallia). The boundaries of Roman Gallia included the Atlantic Ocean on the west, the Rhine River and the Insula Batavorum on the north, the Rhenus and the Alps on the east, and the Pyrenees mountains on the south.

Gaul (Latin: Gallia) is a historical name used in the context of Ancient Rome in references to the region of Western Europe approximating present day France, Luxembourg and Belgium, most of Switzerland, the western part of Northern Italy, as well as the parts of the Netherlands and Germany on the left bank of the Rhine. - Wikipedia

Gallia or Gaul. The southern part was made a Roman province, Narbonensis, 2d cent. B. C. ; the rest was divided by Augustus, after the conquest by Caesar, into three provinces, Aquitania, Lugdunensis, Belgica.
Lugdunum, Lyons. Massilia, Marseilles. Narbo, Narbonne. Aquae Sextiae, Aix. Tolosa, Toulouse. Lutetia, Paris. Colonia Agrippina, Cologne. Nemausus, Nismes.
Mountains: Jura. Vosegus, Vosges. Cebenna, Cevennes.
Rivers: Mosella, Moselle. Mosa, Meuse. Scaldis, Scheldt. Sequana, Seine. Matrona, Marne. Liger, Loire. Garumna, Garonne. Rhodanus, Rhone. Arar, Saone.
Lakes: Lemanus, Geneva.
Armonca, Brittany and Normandy. — Allobroges, Viennois. Arverni, Auvergne. Aedui, Burgundy. Helvetii, Switzerland. Sequani, Franche Comte. Remi, Champagne. Nervii, Flanders. - Ancient Geography

Map of the Roman Empire (Click to Enlarge)

Large Map of the Roman Empire (Clickable Locations)

The Roman Empire During the First Century AD

Maps are essential for any serious study, they help students of Roman history understand the geographical locations and historical backgrounds of the places mentioned in historical sources.

Map of New Testament Israel  |  Map of Old Testament Israel

Map of the Roman Empire  |  Bible History Online

Gallia
An extensive and populous country of Europe, bounded on the west by the Atlantic, on the north by the Insula Batavorum and part of the Rhenus (Rhine), on the east by the Rhenus and the Alps, and on the south by the Pyrenees. The greatest breadth was 600 English miles, but much diminished towards each extremity. Its length was from 480 to 620 miles. It was therefore more extensive than modern France before the Revolution, though inferior to the Empire under Napoleon I. Gaul was originally divided among the three great peoples—the Belgae, the Celtae, and the Aquitani. The Romans called the inhabitants of this country by one general name, Galli, while the Greeks styled them Κελταί. (See Celtae.) The Greeks called the country itself Galatia (Γαλατία) and Celtica (Κελτική). Of the three great nations of Gaul, the Celtae were the most extensive and the Belgae the bravest. The Belgae and Celtae were of like blood, though differing in temperament, the Belgae being more staid and less impulsive and vivacious, while the Celtae showed the mercurial disposition of the modern French. The Aquitani, on the south, were of a different (Iberian) stock, unlike the rest of the Gauls both physically and temperamentally, being dark of complexion, less sociable, and somewhat less intelligent, but more tenacious of purpose and enduring— traits which still mark the inhabitants of the Basque provinces to-day. The Celtae extended from the Sequana (Seine) in the north to the Garumna (Garonne) in the south. Above the Celtae lay the Belgae, between the Seine and the Lower Rhine. They were intermixed with Germanic tribes. The Aquitani lay between the Garonne and the Pyrenees, and were intermingled with Spanish tribes. These three great divisions, however, were subsequently altered by Augustus (B.C. 27), who extended Aquitania into Celtica as far as the Liger or Loire; the remainder of Gallia Celtica above the Liger was called Gallia Lugdunensis, from the colony of Lugdunum (Lyons); while the territory towards the Rhine was added to the Belgae under the title of Gallia Belgĭca. Lastly, the south of Gaul, which, from having been the first provinces possessed by the Romans, had been styled Gallia Provincia, was distinguished by the name of Narbonensis, from the city of Narbo (Narbonne). This province was also anciently called Gallia Bracata, from the bracae or trousers worn by the inhabitants; while Gallia Celtica was styled Comata, from the long hair (coma) worn by the natives. These four great provinces, in later ages, were called the four Gauls, and subdivided into seventeen others.

As far back as one can penetrate into the history of the West, we find the race of the Gauls occupying that part of the continent comprehended between the Rhine, the Alps, the Mediterranean, the Pyrenees, and the Ocean, as well as the two great islands situated to the northwest, opposite the mouths of the Rhine and Seine. Of these two islands, the one nearer the continent was called Alb-in, “White Island” (cf. the remark of Pliny , Pliny H. N. xiv. 16, Albion insula, sic dicta ab albis rupibus quas mare alluit”). The other island bore the name of Er-in, “Isle of the West” (from Eir or Iar, “the west”). The continental territory received the special appellation of Galltachd, “Land of the Gauls.” From this word the Greeks formed Γαλατία, and from this latter the generic name of Γαλάται. The Romans proceeded by an inverse method, and from the generic term Galli deduced the geographical denomination Gallia.

The population of Gaul was divided into families or tribes, forming among themselves many distinct communities or nations. Oftentimes they united together, in their turn, and formed confederations or leagues. Such were the confederations of the Celtae, Aedui, Armorici, Arverni, etc.

The Gaul was robust and of tall stature. His complexion was fair, his eyes blue, his hair of a blond or chestnut colour, to which he endeavoured to give a red or flaming hue by certain applications (Pliny , Pliny H. N. xxviii. 12; Mart.viii. 33). The hair itself was worn long (Diod. Sic.v. 28). The beard was allowed to grow by the people at large; the nobles, on the other hand, removed it from the face, excepting the upper lip, where they wore thick moustaches. The attire common to all the tribes consisted of trousers or bracae (Armoric). These were of striped materials. They wore also a short cloak, having sleeves, likewise formed of striped materials, and descending to the middle of the thigh. Over this was thrown a short cloak or sagum (sae, Armoric; cf. Isidor. Orig. xix. 24), striped like the shirt, or else adorned with flowers and other ornamental work, and, among the rich, superbly embroidered with silver and gold (Verg. Aen. viii. 660; Sil. Ital. iv. 152; Diod. Sic.v. 28). It covered the back and shoulders, and was secured under the chin by a clasp of metal. The lower classes, however, wore in place of it the skin of some animal, or else a thick and coarse woolen covering. The offensive arms of the nation were, at first, hatchets and knives of stone; arrows pointed with flint or shells; clubs; spears hardened in the fire, and named gaïs (in Latin gaesum, in Greek γαισόν and γαισός); and others called cateïa, which they hurled while on fire against the enemy. Foreign traffic, however, made them acquainted, in process of time, with arms of iron, as well as with the art of manufacturing them for themselves from the copper and iron of their own mines. Among the arms of metal which thenceforward came into use may be mentioned the long sabre of iron or copper and a pike resembling the halberd, the wound inflicted by which was considered mortal. For a long time the Transalpine as well as the Cisalpine warriors of the Gallic race had rejected the use of defensive armour as inconsistent with true courage, and a point of honour had induced them even to strip off their vestments and engage naked with the foe. This prejudice, however, was almost entirely effaced in the second century when the military costume of Rome and Greece formed a singular combination with the ancient array of the Gaul. To a helmet of metal, of greater or less value according to the fortune of the warrior, were attached the horns of an elk, buffalo, or stag; while for the rich there was a headpiece representing some bird or savage beast, the whole being surmounted by a bunch of feathers, which gave to the warrior a gigantic appearance (Diod. Sic.v. 28). Similar figures were attached to their bucklers, which were long, quadrangular, and painted with the brightest colours. A buckler and casque after this model, a cuirass of wrought metal, after the Greek and Roman fashion, or a coat of mail formed of iron rings, after the manner of Gaul (Varr. L. L. iv. 20); an enormous sabre hanging on the right thigh, and suspended by chains of iron or brass from a belt glittering with gold and silver, and adorned with coral; a collar, bracelets, rings of gold around the arm and on the middle finger (Pliny, xxxiii. 1); trousers; a sagum hanging from the shoulder; and long red moustaches—such was the Gallic warrior.

Hardy, daring, impetuous, born, as it were, for martial achievements, the Gallic race possessed, at the same time, an ingenious and active turn of mind. They were not slow in equalling their Phœnician and Grecian instructors in the art of mining. The same superiority to which the Spaniards had attained in tempering steel, the Gauls acquired in the preparation of brass. Antiquity assigns to them the honour of various useful inventions, which had hitherto escaped the earlier civilization of the East and of Italy. The process of tinning was discovered by the Bituriges; that of veneering by the Aedui (Pliny , Pliny H. N. xxxiv. 17). The dyes, too, of Gaul were not without reputation (Pliny, viii. 48). In agriculture, the wheelplough and boulter were Gallic discoveries (Pliny , Pliny H. N. xviii. 18; xviii. 11). With the Gauls, too, originated the employment of marl for enriching the soil (Pliny xviii. 6 foll.). The cheeses of Mount Lozère, among the Gabali; those of Nemausus; and two kinds made among the Alps, became, in time, much sought after by the inhabitants of Italy (Pliny, xi. 49). The Gauls also prepared various kinds of fermented drinks, such as barley-beer, called cervisia (Pliny, xxii. 15); and likewise another kind of beer, made from corn, and in which honey, cumin, and other ingredients were mingled. (See Cervisia.) The froth of beer was employed as a means for leavening bread: it was used also as a cosmetic, and the Gallic women frequently applied it to the face, under the belief that it imparted a freshness to the complexion (Pliny, xxii. 25). It was from the Greeks of Massilia that they learned the process of making wine, as well as the culture of the grape.

The dwellings of the Gauls, spacious and of a round form, were constructed of posts and hurdles, and covered with clay both within and without; a large roof, composed of oak-shingles and stubble, or of straw cut and kneaded with clay, covered the whole (Vitruv. i. 1). Gaul contained both open villages and cities: the latter, surrounded by walls, were defended by a system of fortification, of which we find no example elsewhere. Caesar gives a description of these ramparts (B. G. vii. 23). To the north and east, among the more savage tribes, there were no cities properly so called; the inhabitants resided for the most part in large enclosures, formed of trunks of trees.

It was, as has been already remarked, in war, and in the arts applicable to war, that the genius of the Gauls displayed itself to most advantage. This people made war a regular profession, while the management of arms became their favourite employment. To have a fine martial mien, to retain for a long period strength and agility of body, was not only a point of honour for individuals, but a duty to the State. At regular intervals, the young men went to measure their size by a girdle deposited with the chief of the village, and those whose corpulence exceeded the official standard were severely reprimanded as idle and intemperate persons, and were, besides, punished with a heavy fine. In preparing for foreign expeditions, a chieftain of acknowledged valour generally formed a small army around him, consisting, for the most part, of adventurers and volunteers who had flocked to his standard; these were to share with him whatever booty might be obtained. In internal wars, however, or defensive ones of any importance, levies of men were forcibly made; and severe punishments were inflicted on the refractory, such as the loss of noses, ears, an eye, or some one of the limbs (B. G. vi. 4). If any dangerous crisis arrived, the supreme chief convened an armed council (B. G. v. 66). All persons able to bear arms were compelled to assemble at the place and day indicated, for the purpose of deliberating on the situation of the country, of electing a chief, and of discussing the plan of campaign. It was expressly provided by law that the individual who came last to the place of rendezvous should be cruelly tortured in the presence of the assembled multitude (B. G. v. 66). This form of assembly was, however, of rare occurrence, and was only resorted to in the last extremity. Neither infirmities nor age freed the Gallic noble from the necessity of accepting or seeking military commands. Oftentimes were seen, at the head of the forces, chieftains hoary and almost enfeebled by age, who could even scarcely retain their seats on the horse which supported them (B. G. viii. 12). This people would have believed that they dishonoured their aged warriors by making them die elsewhere than on the field of battle.

To the ferocity of the attack and to the violence of the first shock were reduced nearly all the military tactics of the Gauls on level ground and in pitched battle. In the mountainous regions, on the other hand, and especially in the vast and thick forests of the North, war had a close resemblance to the chase: it was prosecuted in small parties, by ambuscades and all sorts of stratagems; and dogs, trained up to pursue men, tracked out and aided in conquering the foe (Silius Ital. x. 77; Ovid, Met. i. 533; Mart.iii. 47). A Gallic army generally carried along with it a multitude of chariots for the baggage, which embarrassed its march (B. G. viii. 14; B. G. i. 51). Each warrior bore a bundle of straw, put up like a sack, on which he was accustomed to sit in the encampment, or even in the line of battle while waiting the signal to engage (B. G. viii. 15).

The Gauls, like other nations, for a long period were in the habit of killing their prisoners of war, either by crucifixion, or by tying them to trees as a mark for their weapons, or by consigning them to the flames amid cruel rites. Long prior, however, to the second century of our era, these barbarous practices were laid aside, and the captives of transalpine nations had nothing to fear but servitude. Another custom, not less savage, that of cutting off the heads of their slain enemies on the field of battle, was not slower in disappearing. It was long a settled rule in all wars that the victorious army should possess itself of such trophies as these; the common soldiers fixed them on the points of their spears, the horsemen wore them suspended by the hair from their horses; and in this way the conquerors returned to their homes, making the air resound with their triumphal shouts. Each one then hastened to nail up these hideous testimonials of his valour to the gate of his dwelling; and, as the same thing was done with the trophies of the chase, a Gallic village bore a strong resemblance to a charnel-house. Carefully embalmed and saturated with oil of cedar, the heads of hostile chieftains and of famous warriors were deposited in large coffers, and arranged by their possessor according to the date of acquisition. Sometimes the skull, cleansed and set in gold or silver, served as a cup in the temples, or circulated in the festivities of the banquet, and the guests drank out of it to the glory of the victor and the triumphs of their country. These fierce and brutal manners prevailed for a long period over the whole of Gaul. Civilization, in its on ward march, abolished them by degrees, until, at the commencement of the second century, they were confined to the savage tribes of the North and West. It was there that Posidonius found them still existing in all their vigour, when the sight of so many human heads, disfigured by outrages and blackened by the air and the rain, roused in him mingled emotions of horror and disgust.

The Gauls affected, as more manly in its character, a strong and rough tone of voice (Diod. Sic.v. 31). They conversed but little, and by means of short and concise phrases, which the constant use of metaphors and hyperboles rendered obscure and almost unintelligible to strangers. But, when once animated by dispute, or incited by something that was calculated to interest or arouse, at the head of armies or in political assemblies, they expressed themselves with copiousness and fluency.

The Gauls, in general, were accused of drinking to excess—a habit which took its rise both in the grossness of their manners and in the wants of a cold and humid climate. The Massilian and Italian traders were not slow in furnishing the necessary means for the indulgence of this vice. Cargoes of wine found their way, by means of the navigable rivers, into the very heart of the country. Drink was also conveyed over land in wagons (Diod. Sic.v. 26). About the first century, however, of our era, drunkenness began gradually to disappear from among the higher classes, and to be confined to the lower orders, at least with the nations of the South and East.

Milk and the flesh of animals, especially that of swine, formed the principal food of the Gauls. A curious account of their repasts is given by Posidonius (ap. Athen. iv. p. 13). After an excessive indulgence in the pleasures of the banquet, they loved to seize their arms and defy each other to the combat. At first it was only a sportive encounter; but, if either party chanced to be wounded, passion got so far the better of them that, unless separated by their friends, they continued to engage till one or the other of them was slain. So far, indeed, did they carry their contempt of death and their ostentatious display of courage, that they might be seen agreeing, for a certain sum of money or for so many measures of wine, to let themselves be slain by others; mounted on some elevated place, they distributed the liquor or gold among their most intimate friends, and then reclining on their bucklers, presented their throats to the sword ( Posidon. l. c.). Others made it a point of honour not to retire from their dwellings when falling in upon them, nor from the flames, nor from the tides of ocean and the inundations of rivers; and it is to this foolish daring that the Gauls owed their fabulous renown of being an impious race, who lived in open war with nature.

The working of mines, and certain monopolies enjoyed by the heads of tribes, had placed in the hands of some individuals enormous capital; hence the reputation for opulence which Gaul enjoyed at the period of the Roman invasion, and even still later. It was the Peru of the ancient world. The riches of Gaul even passed into a proverb (Ioseph. ii. 28; Caes.; Caes., etc.). Posidonius makes mention of a certain Luern or Luer (Λουέρνιος, Posidon. ap. Athen. iv. p. 13; Λουέριος, Strab. 191), king of the Arverni, who caused a shower of gold and silver to descend upon the crowd as often as he appeared in public. He also gave entertainments in a rude style of barbarian magnificence; a large space of ground was enclosed for the purpose, and cisterns were dug in it, which were filled with wine, mead, and beer.

Properly speaking, there was no domestic union or family intercourse among the Gallic nations; the women were held in dependence and servitude. The husband had the power of life and death over his wife as well as over his offspring. When a person of high rank suddenly died, and the cause of his death was not clearly ascertained, his wife or wives (for polygamy was practised among the rich) were seized and put to the torture; if the least suspicion was excited of their having been privy to his death, the victims perished in the midst of the flames, after the most frightful punishments (B. G. vi. 19). One custom, however, shows that even then the condition of women had undergone some degree of melioration: this was the community of goods between husband and wife. The children remained under the care of their mother until the age of puberty (B. G. vi. 18).

Among some nations of Belgic Gaul, where the Rhine was an object of superstitious adoration, a curious custom prevailed; the river was made the means of testing the fidelity of the wives. When a husband had doubts respecting its paternity, he took the new-born infant, placed it on a board, and exposed it to the current of the stream. If the plank and its helpless burden floated safely upon the waters, the result was deemed favourable, and all the father's suspicions were dissipated. If, on the contrary, the plank began to sink, the infant perished, and the parent's suspicions were confirmed.

Government and Religion.—Two privileged orders ruled in Gaul over the rest of the population —the priests and the nobles. The people at large were divided into two classes—the inhabitants of the country and the residents of cities. The former of these constituted the tribes or clients appertaining to noble families. The client cultivated his patron's domains, followed his standard in war, and was bound to defend him with his life. To abandon his patron in the hour of peril was regarded as the blackest of crimes. The residents of cities, on the other hand, found themselves beyond the control of this system of clientship, and, consequently, enjoyed greater freedom. Below the mass of the people were the slaves, who do not appear, however, to have been at any time very numerous.

When we examine attentively the character of the facts relative to the religious belief of Gaul, we are led to recognize the existence of two classes of ideas, two systems of symbols and superstitions entirely distinct from each other; in a word, two religions—one, altogether reasonable in its character, based on the personification of natural phenomena and recalling by its forms much of the polytheism of Greece; the other, founded on a material, metaphysical, mysterious, and sacerdotal pantheism, presenting at least a superficial conformity with the religions of the East. This latter has received the name of Druidism, from the Druids, who were its first founders and priests; the other system has been called the Gallic Polytheism. (See Druidae.) Druidism was said to have been established in Gaul by Heus or Hesus, a warrior and law-giver who was subsequently deified. The polytheistic system which prevailed, more especially in Southern Gaul, was fundamentally like that of the Greeks and Romans themselves. In its list of deities were Tarann, the god of thunder, the Gallic Zeus, though in parts of Gaul Hesus held this supremacy; Pennin, the god of the mountains (Livy, xxi. 38); Bel or Belew, the sun-god, the Gallic Apollo (Auson. Carm. 2); Teutates, the Gallic Hermes, presiding over the useful arts and commerce (Fel. Minuc. 30; Lactant. Div. Inst. i. 21); Ogmius, represented as leading a train of captives by chains of gold and amber proceeding from his mouth, typifying the power of eloquence; and Arduenna, the goddess of the forests. These deities, as was natural, were identified by Caesar with the gods of the Roman system (B. G. vi. 7).

The God Tarann. (Gadoz, Relig. Gaul.
pl. i.)

This resemblance between the two systems of religion changed into identity when Gaul, subjected to the dominion of Rome, had felt for some years the influence of Roman ideas. It was then that the Gallic polytheism, honoured and favoured by the emperors, ended its career by becoming totally merged in the polytheism of Italy; while, on the other hand, Druidism, its mysteries, its doctrine, and its priesthood, were utterly proscribed. See Druidae.

General History.—The history of Gaul divides itself naturally into four periods. The first of these comprises the movements of the Gallic tribes while yet in their nomadic state. None of the races of the West ever passed through a more agitated or brilliant career. Their course embraced Europe, Asia, and Africa; their name is recorded with terror in the annals of almost every nation. They burned Rome; they wrested Macedonia from the veteran legions of Alexander; they forced Thermopylae and pillaged Delphi; they then proceeded to pitch their tents on the plains of the Troad, in the broad parks of Miletus, on the borders of the Sangarius, and those of the Nile. They besieged Carthage, menaced Memphis, and numbered among their tributaries the most powerful monarchs of the East; they founded in Upper Italy a powerful empire, and in the bosom of Phrygia they reared another—Galatia, which for a long time exercised its sway over the whole of Lower Asia. See Galatia.

During the Second Period—that of their sedentary state—we see the gradual development of social, religious, and political institutions, conformable to their peculiar character as a people; institutions original in their nature, and a civilization full of movement and of life, of which Transalpine Gaul offers the purest and most complete model. One might say, in following the animated scenes of this picture, that the theocracy of India, the feudal system of the Middle Ages, and the Athenian democracy had met on the same soil for the purpose of contending with each other and reigning by turns. Soon this civilization undergoes a change; foreign elements are introduced, brought in by commerce, by the relations of neighbourhood, by reaction from subjugated nations. Hence arose and multiplied a variety of social combinations. In Italy it is the Roman influence that exerts itself on the manners and institutions of the Gauls; in the south of Gaul it is that of the Massiliots; while in Phrygia one finds a most singular compound of Gallic, Grecian, and Phrygian civilization. To this succeeds the Third Period in the history of the Gallic race—that of national struggles and subjugation. By a singular coincidence, it is always by the Roman sword that the power of the Gallic tribes is destined to fall; in proportion as the Roman dominion extends, that of the Gauls recedes and declines. It would seem, indeed, that the victors and the vanquished, in the battle on the banks of the Allia, followed each other over the whole earth to decide the ancient quarrel of the Capitol. In Italy, the Cisalpine Gauls were reduced, but only after two centuries of obstinate resistance. When the rest of Asia had submitted to the yoke, the Galatae still defended against Rome the independence of the East. Gaul eventually fell, but through complete exhaustion, after a century of partial conflicts and nine years of general war under Caesar. Finally, the names of Caractacus and Galgacus shed a splendour on the last and ineffectual efforts of Keltic freedom. It is everywhere an unequal conflict between ardent and undisciplined valour on the one hand, and cool and steady perseverance on the other. The Fourth Period comprehends the organization of Gaul into a Roman province, and the gradual assimilation of transalpine manners to the customs and institutions of Italy—a work commenced by Augustus and completed by Claudius. See Thierry, Histoire des Gaulois (1827, last ed. 1872); the Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France, edited by Bouquet and others, 26 vols. (1738-1885); Marin de Tyr, La France avant César (Paris, 1865); De la Forte Maison, Les Francs (Paris, 1868); Godwin, Hist. of France, vol. i. (New York, 1860), the best account of ancient Gaul in the English language; Martin, Histoire de France (4th ed. 1865); Fauriel, Histoire de la Gaule Méridionale (Paris, 1836); Coulanges, Histoire des Institutiones Politiques de l'Ancienne France (Paris, 1877); and the authors cited in the articles Celtae and Druidae (q. v.). - Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. New York. Harper and Brothers.

Gaul (Latin: Gallia) is a historical name used in the context of Ancient Rome in references to the region of Western Europe approximating present day France, Luxembourg and Belgium, most of Switzerland, the western part of Northern Italy, as well as the parts of the Netherlands and Germany on the left bank of the Rhine.

The Roman proconsul and general Julius Caesar pushed his army into Gaul in 58 BC, on the pretext of assisting Rome's Gaullish allies against the migrating Helvetii. With the help of various Gallic tribes (for example, the Aedui) he managed to conquer nearly all of Gaul. But the Arverni tribe, under Chieftain Vercingetorix, still defied Roman rule. Julius Caesar was checked by Vercingetorix at a siege of Gergorvia, a fortified town in the center of Gaul. Caesar's alliances with many Gallic tribes broke. Even the Aedui, their most faithful supporters, threw in their lot with the Arverni but the ever loyal Remi (best known for its cavalry) and Lingones sent troops to support Caesar. The Germans of the Ubii also sent cavalry which Caesar equipped with Remi horses. Caesar captured Vercingetorix in the Battle of Alesia, which ended the majority of Gallic resistance to Rome.

As many as a million people (probably 1 in 5 of the Gauls) died, another million were enslaved, 300 tribes were subjugated and 800 cities were destroyed during the Gallic Wars. The entire population of the city of Avaricum (Bourges) (40,000 in all) were slaughtered.[7] During Julius Caesar's campaign against the Helvetii (present-day Switzerland) approximately 60% of the tribe was destroyed, and another 20% was taken into slavery...

The Gaulish culture then was massively submerged by Roman culture, Latin was adopted by the Gauls, Gaul, or Gallia, was absorbed into the Roman Empire, all the administration changed and Gauls eventually became Roman citizens.[8] From the 3rd to 5th centuries, Gaul was exposed to raids by the Franks. The Gallic Empire broke away from Rome from 260 to 273, consisting of the provinces of Gaul, Britannia, and Hispania, including the peaceful Baetica in the south. - Wikipedia

Gallia GA´LLIA CISALPI´NA
GA´LLIA CISALPI´NA (Caes. Gal. 6.1), also called GA´LLIA CITE´RIOR (Caes. Gal. 1.54; Cic. de Invent. 2.3. 7), and simply GA´LLIA (Cic. ad Farm. 12.5), is the name which the Romans gave to North Italy as late as the time of the dictator Caesar and Cicero, and even to B.C. 43. Caesar (Caes. Gal. 1.10, 54; 2.35) sometimes includes Gallia Cisalpina under the name Italia; but he then uses the term in a geographical, and not in a political sense. The name Cisalpina denoted Gallia south of the Alps, as opposed to Transalpina Gallia, or Gallia north of the Alps; and Citerior is the nearer Gallia, as opposed to Ulterior (Caes. Gal. 1.7, 10; B.C. 1.33) or the further, which in Caesar means the Provincia. Ulterior Gallia was also used sometimes generally, to signify all Gallia north of the Alps. The name Gallia Togata, applied to Cisalpine Gallia [1.935] which occurs in the eighth book of the Gallic War (8.24, 52), and in later writers, was given at some time after the country was settled by the Romans, and it indicated the numerical superiority of the Togati or Romans over the Gallic population. The inhabitants north of the Po were sometimes called Transpadani (Cic. Fam. 16.1. 2), a term which implies Cispadani, or the inhabitants south of the Po; but there does not appear to be any Latin authority for the word Cispadani.

Among the various names by which the Greek writers designate this country, some are simply descriptive of its geographical position, and others represent the Roman names. Plutarch (Plut. Caes. 100.20) calls it ἡ περὶ Πάδον Γαλατία; but there is no Latin authority for the name Circumpadana. Walckenaer conjectures that the names Gallia Circumpadana, Transpadana, and Cispadana are older than the term Gallia Cisalpina; and if he could prove that all these terms were used, we might accept his hypothesis. Livy (21.35) calls the plains about the Po “Circumpadanos campos.”

Polybius names this country both Κελτική and Γαλατία (3.77, 87); but though he applies the Latin word Transalpini to the Galli north of the Alps, and explains it (3.15) as a term in use in his time, he does not use the word Cisalpini, or any equivalent Greek word. He comprehends this Celtice or Galatia in the geographical term Italia, and describes it as a part of the Italian peninsula. We may conclude that the term Gallia Cisalpina was not used by the Romans before they were acquainted with Gallia Transalpina; and that the oldest name of North Italy among the Romans was simply Gallia. The fact that the Romans gave the name of Gallia to the chief part of the basin of the Po, and the name of Galli to the people, would be some evidence of the identity of the Galli north and south of the Alps. We have no historical evidence of the emigration of the Galli into Italy before the time that Livy mentions; but there was a tradition, partially preserved, that this was not the first time that the nation appeared south of the Alps. Cornelius Bocchus proved that the Umbri were of the stock of the Galli Veteres. (Solinus, Polyhist. 100.8.) Servius (ad Virg. Aen. 12.753), using nearly the same words as Solinus, refers to Marcus Antoninus as his authority, by which name is meant M. Antonius Gnipho. It appears, then, that some of the Roman men of letters believed that the ancient nation of the Umbri were Galli Veteres; but we know nothing of the facts which led to this conclusion. Nor do we know who the Galli Veteres were; but we may suppose that these writers meant a nation of Galli who were in Italy before the Galli who crossed the Alps at a later period. There are no means of approximating to a solution of this question, except by a comparison of the old Italian languages with the existing Cumri (Welsh), or with the Gaelic, and by an examination of the names of the mountains, rivers, and other natural features of the Italian peninsula, which we may assume to be the oldest historical records that exist of the inhabitants of Italy. There is no ancient language of Italy, except the Latin, of which we have any competent knowledge; and there is no ancient language now known, with which we can compare the Latin and the names in the Italian peninsula, except the Basque, the Cumri, and the Gaelic dialects. This comparison has been made, to some extent, for the Cumri, by Archdeacon Williams, who is well acquainted with the Welsh language. (On one source of the non-Hellenic portion of the Latin language, by the Rev. Archdeacon Williams, Transact. of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. xiii.) In this essay the author limits himself, as he states, “to the subject of the original population of Central Italy,” of which he affirms, “that it was of the Cumrian or Cimbrian race, cognate with the Cumri of our island, and that their language formed some portion of the non-Hellenic elements of the Latin tongue.” The question is one that requires great nicety in dealing with, for resemblances of words are very deceptive; but it is a fair conclusion that we cannot absolutely reject as a probable hypothesis, the existence of a people in the peninsula long before all historical periods commence, whose language was nearly related to some one or all of the languages which come under the general denomination of Celtic. The great mountain-range which forms the back-bone of the peninsula has a pure Celtic name, A-penninus; for whether the A is a euphonic prefix, or whether we prefer the form Ap-penninus, and consider the Ap to be significant, we have in either case the root Pen, “a summit,” which appears in the Alpes Penninae, and in numerous mountain names in Great Britain. The names of rivers in the basin of the Po, and as far as the limits of Central Italy at least, the Duria, Stura, Tura, Turia, Athesis, Bedesis, Medoacus, Aesis, Tinia, Ausar, and many others, are either precisely the same with the names of many rivers in France and Great Britain, or may be reduced to the same forms by a perfectly fair process. (See Mr. Williams's Essay.)

The Romans, after they had got a footing in Transalpine Gallia, often recognised the Aedui, a people once the chief of all Gallia, as their “brethren and kinsmen” (Caes. Gal. 1.43); and this has been used as evidence that the Romans thought the relationship to be proved, or they would not have given such a title to barbarians, and those who were their greatest enemies. If the relationship did exist, we must of course go a long way back for its origin, to the ante-historical times when a Roman nation rose out of a mixture of races, one of which was Celtic. But this fraternising with the Aedui seems as easy to be explained, as the kinship of the Romans and the Segestani of Sicily through their common ancestor Aeneas. (Cic. Ver. 2.4 100.33.) It may be observed, that if we admit the probability of Celtic nations (Galli Veteres) having existed in Italy before the great invasion which Livy mentions. (5.34), this probability is not diminished by the fact of the Galli Veteres not having maintained themselves as a nation; unless they be the Umbri, as to which we shall never make all the learned agree. For the Galli have not been able to fix themselves permanently anywhere out of their native limits; and their second settlement in Italy, recorded by Polybius and Livy (admitting the fact of a prior settlement) was ultimately unsuccessful. The proof of some Celtic nation having been in the peninsula long before all historical times, rests on the incorruptible evidence of the geographical names of the peninsula.

The authorities which Livy followed state that the great immigration of the Galli into Italy took place in the reign of the Roman king Tarquinius Priscus, at which time the Bituriges in the basin of the Loire were the dominant people in Transalpine Gallia. The causes of the emigration were excessive population (Liv. 5.34), or, as Trogus, Justin‘s authority, says, civil commotions. The cause is not very material, [1.936] nor can we with certainty say what it was; but it may have been both these causes, and something else. The Galli have always been a military people; and the desire of active employment, the weariness of doing nothing, and the hope of plunder would at any time be sufficient to put their fighting men in motion. Two chieftains led the emigrants. Sigovesus conducted his men into Germany, into the great Hercynian forest. Livy does not mention what tribes accompanied him; nor is it certain whether he is following the same authority as Caesar (Caes. Gal. 6.24), who speaks of the Gallic settlements in the Hercynian forest. Bellovesus, the other chief, led to the conquest of North Italy, Bituriges, Arverni, Senones, Aedui, Ambarri, Carnutes, and Aulerci, all which nations belonged to that division of Gallia which Caesar calls the country of the Celtae (1.1). The invaders entered Italy by the Taurinus Saltus, or the pass of Mont Genèvre, and defeated the Tuscans or Etruscans, who then held the plain of the Po, not far from the banks of the Ticinus. Finding here a people named Insubres, which was also the name of a pagus of the Aedui, they built a city and called it Mediolanum (Milan). The Insubres of Gallia Transalpina are only known from this passage; but there was a Mediolanum near Lugdunum, and it is supposed that this place may mark the position of the pagus of the Insubres. Of the names, of all these tribes mentioned by Livy, not one appears in the geography of Italy except that of the Senones, and the country which the Senones occupied was south of the Po. Livy, or the authorities that he followed, probably attempted to explain the origin of the Cisalpine tribe of the Insubres or Isombri (Ἴσομβροι) as the Greek writers call them, by the clumsy expedient of supposing all these invading tribes to have changed their name for one that they found on the spot, which happened to be the name of a small Transalpine pagus. But Livy has not explained the origin of the Insubres; and if the Insubres were in North Italy before this invasion, and were a Celtic people, they must have come in a former immigration; and if Is-umbri is the genuine form of the word, we may assume that they were Umbri, who had long been settled in the basin of the Po. Indeed, if we look carefully at Livy's narrative, we shall see that he does not say that these Insubres whom the invaders found in Italy were Galli; nor does he say who they were. He lets all the names of the invaders disappear, and that of the Insubres remain in their place. Yet the Insubres were Galli beyond all doubt. Polybius merely fixes the position of the Insubres as one of the Gallic nations of Cisalpine Italy. The name appears in his text in various forms. Strabo has the Roman form Insubri, and in one place Σύμβροι (p. 218; and Groskurd's Note, Transl. Strab. vol. i. p. 373).

A new band according to Livy's authorities soon crossed the Alps by the same pass, the Cenomani (Liv. 5.35) under Elitovius, and occupied the places where in Livy's time Brixia (Brescia) and Verona were: the Libui were the previous occupiers of these parts. Livy may not have perceived that he has already mentioned (5.34) the Aulerci as Gallic invaders of Italy, and that the Cenomani were a division of the Aulerci. [CENOMANI] Cato found a tradition somewhere (Plin. Nat. 3.19) that the Cenomani once dwelt near Massilia (Marseille) in the country of the Volcae, which, if the tradition is true, may have been during their migration from their original country between the Loire and the Seine. The Cenomani (Livy) were followed by the Salluvii, who settled near “an ancient people, Laevi, Ligures,” as some texts have it, “who dwelt about the river Ticinus.” But here Livy has not observed, though he knew the fact, that the Salluvii or Salyes were Ligurians, and dwelt between the Lower Rhone and the Alps. In this passage (5.35) perhaps he may mean the Salassi.

Another band of invaders, Boii and Lingones, crossed the Alps by the Pennine pass (the Great St. Bernard), and finding all the country occupied between the Alps and the Po, they passed the river on rafts, and drove out of the country both Etruscans and Umbri; but they did not advance beyond the Apennines. (Liv. 5.35.) The position of the Gallic Lingones of Caesar's time is marked by the site of Langres, in the country at the head of the Saône; but the original country of the Boii [BOII] is uncertain. The Senones (Liv. 5.35) were the last invaders, and they occupied the coast of the Adriatic from the river Utis (Montone) to the Aesis (Esino), which is a little north of Ancona. Livy has already mentioned Senones among the first invaders. The Senones and Lingones were also Celtae; and the Senones were from the basin of the Seine. All the tribes which Livy here enumerates appear in Caesar's history of the Gallic War, except the Insubres, and the Salluvii, who were in Caesar's time within the limits of the Provincia.

At the time of the Gallic invasion the Tuscans, who were the masters of this country, had built many towns, cleared the forests, cut canals, and made embankments; at least, tradition assigned to them the credit of doing this. Polybius (2.17) assigns a very simple cause to the Gallic invasions of this fine country. The Galli had often crossed the Alps to trade with the inhabitants of the plains, and they soon found a pretext for seizing this land of plenty, as they have done since. Mantua, one of the old Tuscan towns north of the Po (Plin. Nat. 3.19), survived the Gallic invasion, being probably saved by its position amidst marshes; but Melpum (as it stands in Pliny's text, 3.17), one of the richest Tuscan cities, was destroyed by the Insubres, Boii, and Senones, on the day on which Camillus took Veii. The description which Polybius gives of the habits of these Transalpine nations (2.17) is just what we might expect. They lived in unwalled villages,--in houses of some kind, we must suppose, or they could not have been villages,--but they had no household stuff: their bed was straw, leaves, or grass, and flesh their food; their only business and all that they understood was agriculture and war. Their agriculture did not consist in tilling the ground, but in feeding sheep and cattle, which, with gold, formed their wealth, because these were the things that they could most easily carry about with them: the chiefs were most concerned to have a large train of followers, for a man was feared and respected in proportion to the number of folk that he had about him. Such a people would not found towns on their first invasion of Italy: indeed, the founding of towns would have been useless, for they did not live in them, and if they had chosen that mode of life they might have been content with the Tuscan cities. Livy's story of the foundation of Mediolanum, Brixia, and Verona is a fable; and yet Mediolanum at least is an undoubted Gallic name, for there are several cities in Transalpine Gallia called Mediolanum; and Brixia and Verona are probably Gallic too.

These audacious barbarians levied contributions on [1.937] all their neighbours. The most memorable event in the early history of Rome is the capture of the city by a band of these Italian Galli, who, after threatening Clusium (Liv. 5.33), turned their arms against the Romans, who had taken this Etruscan city under their protection. The Galli and the Romans first tried their strength on the Allia, a small affluent of the Tiber. The Romans were defeated, and this was for ever a black day in their calendar (B.C. 390). The capture of Rome and the siege of the Capitol by the Galli were embellished with the fiction that characterises all the early Roman history. To the Galli this was no more than one of their ordinary marauding expeditions. An invasion of the lands of the Galli by their neighbours the Veneti is assigned as the immediate cause of their retreat from Rome. Domestic quarrels kept them at home for some time; and they had also enemies around them. The Galli had become possessed of the plains only, and the mountaineers of the Alps knew the value of plunder as well as the Galli. They were probably kept fully employed in taking care of themselves for the space of thirty years that elapsed between the capture of Rome and the next expedition to the south. But, from the time of their little city being sacked, the Romans knew that they had an enemy whom they must destroy, or perish themselves. “Gallicus tumultus,” or simply “tumultus,” was the name that they gave to a hostile movement of the Gallic tribes of North Italy. This was the signal to prepare for a desperate fight (Liv. 8.20); for with the Galli, says Sallust, the Romans fought for their existence, not for glory (Bell. Jug. 100.114). They set apart a reserved treasure in the Capitol for the emergencies of a Gallic war; for the fear of the Galli seems to have been the origin of the aerarium sanctius, as it was sometimes called. (Appian, App. BC 2.41; Liv. 27.10.)

Thirty years after the capture of Rome, as Polybius (2.18, 19) fixes the time, the Galli came again with a large force as far as Alba, and the Romans were afraid to meet them. The historian does not say how long they staid in the neighbourhood of Rome; but, as he says that they came twelve years afterwards with a great force, we may infer that they staid the first time as long as the country could maintain them. The second time that they came the Romans with their allies were ready to meet them; but the Galli fled as the Romans advanced, and, returning to their own country, remained quiet for thirteen years. Finding that the Romans were increasing in power, the Galli consented to a treaty of peace with them, which they strictly observed for thirty years. This dry narrative of Polybius is enough to show what a dangerous enemy the Gaul was to the city on the Tiber. We can easily imagine what Latium suffered from these pitiless barbarians. The Romans had many traditions or fictions about these Gallic wars; and a marvellous story of Titus Manlius fighting a duel with a Gallic giant on the banks of the Anio, in presence of both armies, and killing him. (Liv. 7.10.) Manlius took from the neck of his enemy a blood-stained chain (torques), and put it on his own neck; and the soldiers gave him the name Torquatus, which became the distinctive appellation of a noble Roman family. The narrative of Livy contains two facts worth notice. The Galli made Tibur on the Anio their strong post in some one or more of these invasions, and the people of Tibur joined them against the Romans. The Galli also carried their incursions into Campania (Liv. 7.11), and, either going or returning, plundered the country about Lavicum, Tusculum, and the Alban territory. The Roman annalists here repeat the story of Torquatus under another form. A Gallic giant challenges the Romans, and is killed in a duel by M. Valerius; but his glory was not equal to that of Manlius, for a raven came to his assistance and pecked and scratched the face and eyes of the Gaul, till, blinded and frightened out of his senses, he was pierced by the sword of the Roman. (Liv. 7.26.)

About B.C. 299 some fresh bands of Transalpine Galli crossed the mountains into the valley of the Po, without being invited. Though we do not know when the Transalpine people first found their way across the Alps, we know that they have at intervals, whenever the opportunity has offered, repeated these visits up to the present time. To get rid of these dangerous kinsmen, the Cisalpine Galli pushed them on against the Romans, and joined them in an expedition to the south. In their way through Etruria their numbers were increased by some Tuscans. They got a good booty within the Roman territory, and returned; but, as usual with the nation, they had a dispute about the division of the spoil, and came to blows. They were given to drink and all kinds of excess, and fond of quarrels. Four years later (B.C. 296) the Galli and the Samnites were leagued together. (Plb. 2.19.) Livy (10.21) mentions the Umbri and Etruscans also as joining the league against the Romans. Polybius states that the Romans were defeated with loss in the territory of the Camertii, as he calls it. (Comp. Liv. 10.26). But in another battle, fought a few days after in the neighbourhood of Sentinum, on the north side of the Apennines, the Romans defeated the Galli and their allies. Livy, in his description of this battle (10.28), for the first time mentions the war-chariots of the Galli (esseda). Caesar, in his Gallic War, never speaks of the Transalpine Galli using war-chariots; and when he invaded Britain and found them there, the strangeness of the thing led him to describe it minutely. These war-chariots of Livy are probably a rhetorical embellishment. The chariots (συνωρίδες) which Polybius (2.28) speaks of do not seem to have been war-chariots. Livy is, however, satisfied with fixing the number of the enemy that fell at 25,000, which later writers raised to 40,000 and 100,000. It was a victory won after a hard fight, and on Gallic ground. It was a sign that Rome was growing stronger, and that the latter days of the Galli were approaching.

About ten years later (B.C. 283) the Galli Senones, with a large force, besieged Arretium (Arezzo) an Etruscan town under the protection of Rome, The Romans came to its relief, under L. Caecilius Metellus. Roman ambassadors, however, were first sent to expostulate with the Senones, and to induce them to retire; but they were murdered by the Galli, contrary to the law of nations. Polybius tells the story of the massacre somewhat differently. Upon this the consul P. Cornelius Dolabella entered the country of the Senones, burnt all before him, put the men to the sword, and carried off the women and children. He treated the Galli as they had treated other nations. In the mean time Metellus was defeated by the Senones before Arretium, with great loss; but it does not appear that the town was taken by the enemy. (Comp. Polyb, 2.19 with Liv. Epit. 12, and Freinsheim's Supplement). The quarrel between the Romans and the Senones was seen decisively settled. The Romans gave them a comPlete [1.938] defeat. Most of the Senones fell in the battle, and the Romans, driving the remainder out of the country, at last got a firm footing north of the Apennines, and on the coast of the Adriatic. This was the first part of Gallia to which they sent a colony. It was named Sena Gallica (Senigaglia), to distinguish it from Sena in Etruria. The Epitome of Livy (Ep. 11) places the foundation of Sena Gallica before the complete conquest of the Senones, which must be a mistake. This occupation of the country of the Senones alarmed their neighbours the Boii, who, prevailing on the Tuscans to join them, advanced as far as Lake Vadimon in Etruria, apparently on their way to Rome. But they were met at the lake by the Romans, who slaughtered the greater part both of the Tuscans and the Boii. The next year the Etruscans and Boii mustered all the youth that could bear arms, and again were defeated by the Romans. The Galli and Etruscans were now glad to accept terms of peace. “These events,” says Polybius (2.20), “took place in the third year before Pyrrhus crossed into Italy, and in the fifth year before the destruction of the Galli at Delphi; for at these times Fortune put into all the Galli a kind of pestilential disposition for war.” This statement fixes the events at the year B.C. 282. These wars with the Galli were the Roman apprenticeship to danger, for they never met with more desperate enemies; and the interval of forty-five years' rest from all further disturbance from that quarter which followed the peace, left the Romans leisure to fight with Pyrrhus, who invaded Italy, and to carry on their first war with the Carthaginians.

The Romans had excited the fears of the Galli by founding the Roman colony of Sena; but in 268 they went further north, and founded the Latin colony of Ariminum (Rimini). Polybius (2.21), in a few words full of meaning, shows how the new war began: “When those of the Galli who had seen the terrible things departed from this life by reason of their years, and a new race came on, full of passion, without reason, and having no experience of and never having seen all kinds of evil and events, they began again to stir the state of affairs, as is natural, and to be irritated against the Romans by any thing that occurred.” The chiefs privately sent for a body of Transalpine Galli, who marched to Ariminum; but there the common sort among the Boii, distrusting the new comers, and quarrelling with their own leaders, killed their chiefs Atis and Galatus, and then came to a pitched battle with their Transalpine allies. Five years after this (B.C. 232) the tribune C. Flaminius carried a bill for the division of the land in Picenum, from which they had ejected the Senones, and the distribution of it among Roman citizens. This is the allotment of the “Gallicus ager” which is often mentioned (Cic. de Sen. 100.4); a measure which Polybius considers to have been the beginning of a change in the Roman state to the worse, but which was certainly the cause of a dangerous war; for the Galli now saw that the Romans aimed at their total destruction. The Boii, who were nearest to the new Roman territory, and the Isombri (Insubres), the most powerful of the Gallic peoples in Italy, invited some Galli from beyond the Alps to come and help them against the Romans. These Galli, who were from the Alps and the Rhone, were called Gaesati, or “mercenaries,” for that, says Polybius, is the proper meaning of the word. But though the word might have got that sense in the time of Polybius, it was apparently not the original meaning; for “gaesum” is a Gallic name for a javelin. The men from beyond the Alps came under the kings Concolitan and Aneroest; and never did a larger, more famous, or more warlike body of troops go out of these parts of Gallia. (Plb. 2.22.) The Romans made great preparations for this war, which was to decide whether they or the Galli were to be the masters of Italy. It was eight years after the division of the lands of Picenum, and in B.C. 225, when the Gaesati came to the Po. They were joined by the Isombri and Boii; but the Cenomani and the Veneti, having been visited by some Roman ambassadors, forsook the Gallic confederation for a Roman alliance, and the Galli were obliged to leave a force behind them to watch these people. They entered Tuscany with 50,000 foot and 20,000 horse and waggons, under the command of Concolitan, Aneroest, and Britomar. (Florus, 2.3.)

The alarm of the Italians was shown by their readiness to assist the Romans with men and all kinds of supplies; for they did not view the Galli simply as the enemies of Rome, but as the enemies of the whole peninsula, from whom they could expect no mercy. Polybius (2.24) has given an enumeration of the force of Italy at this critical time, for the purpose of showing what a bold undertaking Hannibal's subsequent invasion was. The whole number of men capable of bearing arms, Romans and Socii, was 700,000 foot, and 70,000 horse. The number that was called out for the defence of Rome was above 150,000 foot, and 6000 horse. The Gallic army advanced through Etruria as far as Clusium, plundering all before them; but learning that there was a Roman army in their rear, they retreated towards Faesulae, followed by the Romans. A battle was fought, in which the Romans were defeated. The consul L. Aemilius Papus, who had been sent to Ariminum to oppose the enemy's march in that quarter, hearing of the advance of the Galli upon Rome, moved from the upper sea, and came up with the Galli after their victory over the Romans. The Galli, who wished to save their booty, moved down to the coast, with the consul after them; and it happened at this time that C. Atilius Regulus, the other consul, who was returning from Sardinia, had landed with his troops at Pisae, and was marching towards Rome by the opposite road to that which the Galli had taken. They were going north, and the consul was coming south. Thus they were hemmed in between two armies: but, like brave and skilful soldiers, finding an enemy before and behind, they formed two lines of battle, and presented two fronts to their enemy's two armies. The Galli were near Telamo, as Polybius says, on the coast of Etruria, when their foragers fell in with the advanced troops of Atilius; but it is not easy to see why they had got so far south, as their object was to retreat as quickly as they could. The Galli fought with the most resolute courage, being in no respect inferior to the enemy, except in the quality of their weapons and their armour. It is said that 40,000 Galli perished, and 10,000 were made prisoners. “In this manner, then, the most formidable of the Celtic invasions was brought to nought, after threatening all the Italians, and especially the Romans, with great and terrible danger.” (Polybius.)

In the following year the Boii submitted; and in B.C. 223 the Romans for the first time crossed the Po with their armies, and invaded the country of the Insubres, under the command of the consul C. Flaminius, who defeated the enemy in a great battle. [1.939] Polybius on this occasion states a curious fact about the Gallic swords: they were made only for cutting, and were so bad that they were bent by the first heavy blow, and could not be used again till the men had straightened them on the ground by means of their feet. The Roman sword was pointed and fitted for a thrust. In the following year (B.C. 222) the consuls M. Claudius Marcellus and Cn. Cornelius Scipio continued the war against the Insubres, who sent for a fresh body of Gaesati to help them. The Romans took Acerrae on the Addua, and Mediolanum, the chief town of the Insubres, by storm. This ended the war; and the Insubres submitted without terms. Marcellus (B.C. 221) had a triumph in which he carried the Spolia Opima, having killed with his own hand a Gallic prince, Virdomarus. (Plut. Marcellus, 8.) In B.C. 218 the Romans planted two Latin colonies in their new conquests, each of 6000 men,--Placentia (Piacenza) on the south side of the Po, and Cremona near the north bank of the river a little lower down. The Italian Galli, though beaten, were not disposed to remain quiet, and it was in the hope of rousing this formidable people against the Romans that Hannibal determined to invade Italy through their country (B.C. 218). He hoped with the aid of the Galli to destroy the Roman empire. When Polybius began his history of the Second Punic War, he wrote as an introduction to it his historical sketch of the history of the Cisalpine Galli down to B.C. 218, which has often been referred to here. But as he well knew the value of a geographical description of a country which is the scene of historical events (3.36), he prefixed to his historical sketch of the Cisalpine Galli an outline of the geography of the country which they occupied (2.14, &c.). This is the first attempt that we find at a geographical description that deserves the name. Polybius (2.14) compares Italy to a triangle, the apex of which is at the south, in the promontory which he calls Cocynthus. [COCINTHUS] The base of this triangle is the hill country along the foot of the Alps (ἡ τῶν Ἄλπεων παρωρεία which, beginning from Massalia (Marseille) and the parts above the Sardinian sea, extends without interruption to the innermost recess of the Adriatic; but it does not quite reach the Adriatic, for it stops short, and leaves a small intervening space. At the base of this hill country, on the south, lie the most northern plains of Italy, which were the seat of the Gallic peoples. These plains also form a triangular figure, the apex of which is at the junction of the Alps and Apennines, not far from the Sardinian sea above Massalia. The northern side of this triangle, which is formed by the Alps, is 2200 stadia long; and the southern, which is formed by the Apennines, is 3600 stadia long. The sea-coast of the Adriatic forms the base of the triangle, which from the city Sena to the northern extremity of the Adriatic is 2500 stadia long. Consequently, the text says, the whole circuit of these plains is not far short of 10,000 stadia. The Ligustini (Ligures) inhabit the Apennines, from the place where they commence above Massalia and their junction with the Alps. They inhabit both the slope towards the Tyrrhenian sea and the slope towards the plains; along the coast as far as Pisae, the most western city of the Tyrrheni, and inland as far as Arretium (Arezzo), where the Tyrrheni begin. Next to them, the Umbri occupy both slopes of the Apennines. At the place where the Apennines are about 500 stadia from the Adriatic, they turn to the right and run through the middle of Italy. The remainder of this side of the triangle belongs to the plain country, and extends to the sea and the city Sena. The Po, famed by the poets under the name of Eridanus, has its sources in the Alps, about the apex of the triangle described above, and it descends to the plains by a southern course. Having reached the plain country, the river turns to the east, and flowing through it, enters the Adriatic by two mouths The greater part of the plain country, which is divided into two parts by the Po, lies on the side towards the Alps and the northern part of the Adriatic.

The junction of the Alps and Apennines is an arbitrary point. [APENNINUS.] There is no branch of the Po which answers the description of Polybius, except the Duria Major (Dora Baltea); and if he means this branch, he makes the Apennines extend as far north as the Little St. Bernard. This may seem to explain why he gives so large an extent (3600 stadia) to the Apennines, from the point of junction with the Alps to the latitude of Sena. But a place so remote from the Sardinian sea and from Massalia does not agree with the rest of his description, which would apply better to the branch of the Po which rises in Mons Vesulus (Monte Viso). But this branch runs north before it turns to the east. His choice of Massalia as a point of reference is not exact; but it was the best known place on the coast between the Var and the Rhone. The conclusion is, that his knowledge of the western part of the basin of the Po was not very exact; but, his general description of the great plain is correct, and, with such means and maps as he had, it is good. [ALPES]

This basin of the Po consists of a hill country, which lies at the base of the highest ranges, and of a plain country, a fact which Polybius had observed in his travels; for he says, “On each side of the Alps, the side to the Rhodanus, and the side to the plains, the hilly and earthy (not rocky) parts, those towards the Rhone and the north, are inhabited by the Transalpine Galatae, and those towards the plains by the Taurisci and Agones, and several other barbaric peoples.” The northern slope of the Apennines is formed by lateral branches, which run down from the axis of the mountain to the plain. The direction of these branches is shown by the numerous river valleys, from the Stura in the west, which flows into the Tanarus, which flows into the Po, to the streams which enter the sea about Ravenna, which town may be considered near the southern limit of the basin of the Po. The streams that flow from the Apennines south of Ravenna as far as the Aesis, which is a little south of Sena, run into the Adriatic, and are beyond the basin of the Po. The boundary between the plain and the hill country in the eastern part of the Po is marked pretty nearly by the road from Ariminum through Modena to Parma.

On the north side of the Po, the valleys which lie within the hill country (ἡ παρώρεια) along the base of the Alps have a general southern direction, as the course of the rivers shows by which they are drained. In several of these valleys there are deep, longitudinal depressions, into which the rivers flow at the north, and, filling them up, flow out from the southern extremity through the plain to the Po. The depressions filled with water are the lakes of the sub-Alpine region,--Verbanus (Lago Maggiore), Larius (Lake of Como), Sebinus (Lago d'Iseo), Benacus (Lago di Garda), and some smaller lakes. The southern end of these lakes marks in a general way the limit of the hill country, and south of this limit [1.940] the great plain begins. The most eastern of these affluents of the Po is the Mincius, which flows through the great lake Benacus. A ridge of hills lies between this lake and the river Athesis (Adige), which descends from the Rhaetian Alps in a long valley, which has a general southern direction. On reaching the plain, the Athesis turns SE. and E., and, running parallel to one of the branches of the Po, enters the Adriatic. The Athesis forms a natural boundary in this great plain, and is the limit of Gallia Cisalpina, considered as the country of the Galli. The territory east of it, Venetia, or the country of the Veneti, extended along the Adriatic to the head of the gulf. It is drained by numerous streams, whose upper courses are in narrow valleys in the mountain region; and the lower part of their course is through the flat country which borders the coast of the Adriatic from Ravenna northwards to the bay of Tergeste (Trieste). The Po, and the numerous streams that enter the Adriatic through the plains north of it, are described under their several names [ATHESIS, PADUS, &c.].

The length of the great plain from Augusta Taurinorum (Torino) to the delta of the Po is above 200 miles; the breadth varies in different parts. Between Bononia (Bologna) and Verona it is near 70 miles wide. From the towers of Bologna, a man can see over this wide level as far as the Euganean hills at the back of Verona.

Gallía Cisalpina, as already observed, has a narrow meaning, if we limit the term to the parts which were occupied by the Galli. There is no doubt that the Romans first used it as a general name for North Italy, without fixing its meaning exactly, though they meant by it the country of the Cisalpine Galli. Afterwards they gave the name to all the basin of the Po, and included in it at least so much of the hill country as they had subdued; but the people within the Alps (Inalpini) and on the Italian side were not subdued till the time of Augustus.

The following are the chief Alpine tribes of Gallia Cisalpina, proceeding from west to east. The Lepontii were both on the north and on the south side of the Alps, in the country that lies between the sources of the Rhodanus, Rhenus, and Ticinus. The Focunates were probably on the west side of the Lago Maggiore; the Mesiates, at the north end of the lake; and the Isarci, on the south-east side. The Genauni are placed by some writers on the northeast side of the Maggiore. About the lake Larius, or Como, in the south part, were the Orobii, in whose country Caesar established the Latin colony of Novum Comum. The Culicones [CULICONES] were on the NE. side of the lake of Como; and the Vennones are supposed to be the inhabitants of the Valteline. The Suanetes and Rugusci seem to have been in the hills north of Bergomum (Bergamo). The Camuni [CAMUNI], a tribe akin to the Euganei, were in the upper valley of the Ollius (Oglio); and the Euganei, an old Italian people, were situated, in the historical times, about the lake Benacus (Garda) and about Edrum (Idro). The Stoni, mentioned by Pliny, may, perhaps, be somewhere north of the Benacus. The warlike nation of the Rhaeti, who gave name to a part of the High Alps, were east of the Lepontii, but only a small part could be within the limits of Italy. The valley of the Adige, which forms one of the great roads into Italy from the basin of the Danube, contained the Tridentini, whose position is determined by that of Tridentum (Trento) on the Adige; and the Brixentes are the people of Brixen, higher up in the valley of the Adige. The Breuni were still further north [BREUNI]: they are incorrectly placed by some modern writers east of the Lago Maggiore.

East of the Athesis in the hill country the position of the Medoaci was probably in the upper valleys of the two rivers named Medoacus or Meduacus; and in the mountains above the head of the Adriatic were the Carni, a Celtic people,--for there were Celtae in these parts. [CARNI] The country between the Adige and the Carni was Venetia, or the country of the Veneti, which is generally excluded from the descriptions of Gallia Cisalpina in the limited sense; and this is correct enough, for the Romans had no wars with the Veneti, and their writers have not told us that they were Galli. This name, one of the oldest national names of Italy, has subsisted to the present day. If the Veneti were Celtae or Galli, they belong to some very early migration, and the supposition that they were Celtae, is at least as probable as any other. The remark of Polybius (2.17) as to their language, is not decisive against the supposition of their being of Gallic or Celtic stock. Herodotus (5.9) had heard of the Heneti or Eneti on the Adriatic, and he speaks of Eneti (1.196) as Illyrians, from which, even if it be true, we can conclude nothing, except that the Eneti, who are probably the Veneti, were on the Adriatic in the fifth century before our era. Strabo (p. 212) gives two traditions about the Veneti; one that they were from the Armoric Veneti in Gallia, and another that they were from the Paphlagonian Heneti. In another place (p. 195) he has a sensible remark on this matter: he says, “I think that these Veneti of Transalpine Gallia were the parent stock of the Veneti on the Hadriatic, for nearly all the rest of the Celtae who are in Italy, here migrated thither from the country beyond the Alps, like the Boii and the Senones; but on account of the sameness of name (some) say that they are Paphlagonians. However, I do not speak positively, for in such matters probability is sufficient.” This passage contains a good deal. First, it states that nearly all the Celtae of Italy came from the country beyond the Alps, which implies that there were some Celtae who did not come from Transalpine Gallia; secondly, he means to say, that the Veneti are Celtae, for he says, “nearly all the rest of the Celtae,” which implies that the Veneti were Celtae. Besides, if they were not Celtae, but something else, he would not have supposed that they were descendants of the Transalpine Veneti. His text clearly means that they were Celtae. His argument for their Transalpine origin is not worth much. We might just as well suppose these Italian Veneti to be the progenitors of the Transalpine Veneti; for, as Herodotus says, “in a very long time any thing may take place.”

Polybius (2.17) enumerates the principal Gallic tribes, for he does not profess to mention all, from west to east; and first, those on the north side of the Po. He places the Lai and Lebecii or Laevi and Libicii, about the sources of the Po, which is not very precise. Probably they did not extend farther east than the Ticinus. Polybius only mentions the Salassi once (Frag. 34.10), and he describes one of the passes over the Alps as lying through their country. They were north of the Laevi and Libicii, in the valley of the Duria Major, the Val d'Aosta, in which was the subsequent Roman settlement of Augusta Praetoria, and lower down at the entrance [1.941] of the valley was Eparedia, also a Roman settlement; and, according to Pliny (3.17), a Gallic name. There is no evidence that the Salassi were Celtae, though the want of evidence does not prove that they were not. They were mountaineers, not inhabitants of the plains. They took no part in the wars of the Cisalpine Galli against Rome; and they were not subdued till the time of Augustus, though Eporedia, at the southern entrance of the great valley, was settled before that time. [EPOREDIA] Next to the Laevi and the Libicii were the Isombri, or Insubres, between the hill country and the Po. Their eastern limit seems to have been the Addua (Adda); and their chief city, Mediolanum, had a Gallic name, but its origin is unknown. There is a curious confusion in the MSS. about the name of this people. In the passage already quoted from Polybius (2.16), where he describes the Apennines next to the Ligurians as occupied by Umbri, three MSS. (ed. Bekker) have Isombri instead of Umbri; and in 3.86 one MS. has Isombri. But in both passages the Umbri are meant. Another form of the name, Sumbri, has been mentioned, which occurs in Strabo. Editors generally take great pains to get rid of all these troublesome varieties, and to reduce them to uniformity. The forms Insobares, Insobri, are stated to be the forms in Polybius by Stephanus (s. v.); and the form Insobri occurs in the Fragments of Polybius, but this does not prove that it was his genuine form. In the Roman form Insubres, the n does not seem to be a radical part of the name, and subr is the real element. There is no authority for the existence of a tribe in Gallia called Insubres, except the passage of Livy already cited; and this name ought to be excluded from the maps of Transalpine Gallia. The Isombri are an Italian people, of whose origin nothing is known; but they were Galli.

The Cenomani or Gonomani, as Polybius writes the name, were due east of the Isombri along the Po, and their eastern limit was probably the Adige; but we do not know whether they occupied the country between the Lower Adige and the Po. Mantua would lie within their territory, and Cremona, the first Romanu settlement north of the Po (B.C. 218), the choice of which may have been determined in some measure by the friendly relations between the Romans and the Cenomani at that time. Verona, east of the Adige, is named by Livy as one of the towns of the Cenomani, which is certainly not true, unless the territory of the Cenomani extended some distance east of the Adige; for this river is a natural and a political boundary. Brixia was one of the towns of the Cenomani, and there may be no reason to doubt that Bergomum was one also. The northern limit of the Cenomani was the hill country of the Euganei.

The tribes on the south of the Po were also all in the plain. The most western were the Ananes (Plb. 2.17), whom Polybius, the only author who mentions them, describes as about the Apennine, by which he means the base of the hills. They are otherwise unknown. Their neighbours on the east were the Boii. Polybius (2.32) speaks of Anamares, who have been identified with the Ananes; but the name is different enough, and Polybius places the Anamares in Gallia Transalpina near Massilia. The Boii occupied the country along the south side of the Po to the foot of the Apennines, and the northern slopes of these mountains. Their limits can only be approximated to by mentioning the towns within their territory. Bononia, originally called Felsina, when it was an Etruscan city, was one of them, and Mutina and Parma were two others. Placentia, near the junction of the Trebia and the Po, may have been within their limits; if it was not, we must place it in the country of the Ananes. East of the Boii were the Lingones, “towards the Adriatic” (Polybius). This would place them in the low flat land east of Modena and Bologna, in the Ferrarese, a country that cannot be inhabited without keeping up the canals and embankments any more than many parts of the Netherlands. If the Lingones really maintained themselves in this place, they must have been an industrious people. We know nothing at all of their history in Italy, except what a modern writer says, founding his remark on Livy (5.35), that the Lingones came into Italy with the Boii, and probably shared all their undertakings and their fate, since there is no other special mention of them. A man who has the gift of reason would come to a different conclusion: that the Lingones shared neither the undertakings nor the fate of the Boii. They were in their marshes, keeping out the water and looking after their hogs and beasts, and the Romans would not touch such people till all the rest were subdued. The last tribe was the Senones, “on the sea” (Polybius). The limits of the Senones cannot be exactly defined. The river Aesis may have been their southern limit. Strabo (p. 217) says that the Aesis was originally the boundary of Gallia Cisalpina (ἐντὸς κελτική), and afterwards the river Rubico.

Thus we see that these Gallic nations, with whom the Romans had so long a struggle, were all inhabitants of the plains, and only of those parts of the hilly region which are contiguous to the plains; but not a hill people, nor mountaineers. Only two nations make a great figure among them, the Isombri and the Boii. There is no evidence that the Isombri came from Gallia Transalpina; and very little to connect the Boii with this Gallia. These facts are worth the consideration of a future historian of ancient Italy. Niebuhr, who rejects Livy's account of the time of these Cisalpine Galli settling in Italy, supposes them to have crossed the Alps only some ten or twenty years before they took Rome, and he affirms this on the authority of Polybius. Diodorus certainly places the passage of these Galli over the Alps (14.113) immediately before the capture of Rome; but we cannot infer from Polybius at what time he supposed these Cisalpine Galli to have crossed the Alps. He says nothing of ten or twenty years, for he knew nothing of the time, and like a prudent man he leaves the thing as obscure as he found it. The true conclusion is, that we know nothing at all of the Gallic settlements in North Italy; and yet there were Galli there, and the country which they occupied was Gallia in Italy. We cannot suppose that the Galli exterminated all the people of the plains which they got possession of. If any were left, they would be Umbri; for as to the Tuscans, they, probably, during their possession of the Po country, lived in strong towns, and made somebody else cultivate the ground for them. There is one remarkable place in the country, Spina, an Hellenic settlement near the sea, and perhaps on the southern branch of the Po. What effect it had on the civilisation of Cisalpine Gallia, we do not know; and, indeed, it may have been at an early period reduced to insignificance. It was fixed in a like position with respect to inland Galli and barbarous tribes with the Phocaean town of Massalia, on the south coast of Transalpine [1.942] Gallia; but it had a less fortunate and less brilliant history. (Strab. v. p.214.)

The other tribes in the plain of the Po, which have not yet been spoken of, are Ligurians, or else tribes of unknown origin. Polybius (2.15) has already mentioned Taurisci and Agones as inhabiting the hill country in the basin of the Po. He does not say that they were Galli, but he seems to mean that they were. There were Taurisci in the Gallic army at the great battle near the Telamo. (Plb. 2.28.) After mentioning these Taurisci, Polybius adds that the Ligustini inhabit both sides of the Apennines. As he places the junction of the Alps and Apennines considerably north, and describes the position of the Taurisci in the terms already stated, he may intend to place them a great way to the east, and they may be a people belonging to the Taurisci of Noricum. If this is true, it shows that the Cisalpine Galli in their contests with the Romans got help from other Galli besides those within the limits of Gallia Transalpina as determined by the Romans. It is at least certain, notwithstanding the similarity of name, that Polybius, when he speaks of the Taurisci does not mean the Taurini, whom he places in the west part of the basin of the Po, in the higher part of the river (3.60). We might infer from Polybius that the Taurini were not Galli; and Strabo (p. 204) and other authorities distinctly state that they were Ligures. Their chief town, afterwards Augusta Taurinorum (Torino), determines their position in a general way, which is all that is necessary here. In that angle of the Po which is drained by the Stura and other branches of the Tanarus were the Vagienni, whose limits Pliny (3.16) extends to Mons Vesulus. Their chief town was afterwards Augusta Vagiennorum (Bene). [AUGUSTA VAGIENNORUM] East of the Vagienni were the Statielli, one of whose places, Aquae Statiellae, is the modern Acqui in the valley of the Bormida. None of these Ligurian tribes in the basin of the Po belong to Gallia Cisalpina in its limited sense of the country of the Galli; but they were included in the political Gallia Cisalpina of a later period, together with Liguria south of the Apennines. As Ligurians however they are properly treated under that name. We cannot fix the limit between the Ligures and Ananes on the south side of the Po. It was probably west of the Trebia, and certainly east of the Tanarus. Nor can we fix the limit between the Ligures and Galli on the north side of the Po; but it seems likely that the Duria Major may have been the limit.

Hannibal arrived in the north of Italy B.C. 218, with his forces diminished and weakened by a long march and the passage over the Alps. Before he reached Italy the Boii and Insubres took up arms and invaded the lands of Placentia and Cremona. The Roman triumviri, who had come to mark out the allotments, fled to Mutina, where they were besieged by the Galli. (Liv. 21.25; Plb. 3.40.) L. Manlius, who was hurrying to Mutina to relieve the Romans there, lost many of his men from the attacks of the Galli in his march through the forests, but at last he made his way to Tanetum near the Po, where some Cenomani from Brixia came to him. Manlius was also joined at Tanetum by the praetor C. Atilius, who was sent to his aid.

Though Hannibal had prepared the Italian Galli for his arrival, and relied on them for the success of his invasion, he was coldly received at first. The Cenomani, Veneti, and some of the Ligures, were on the Roman side; and the Boii and Insubres were; kept in check by the presence of the consul P. Cornelius Scipio. The victory of Hannibal at the Ticinus, though it was only a fight between cavalry, determined the disposition of his wavering allies, and from this time the Galli followed him through his Italian campaigns. In the battle on the Trebia there were still Cenomani on the Roman side (Liv. 21.55), who fought against the other Galli who were with Hannibal. The Carthaginian won the battle of the Trebia, with little loss of his Iberian and Libyan soldiers. His Gallic auxiliaries lost a great number of men. When he crossed the Apennines he had a large body of Galli with him, and it required all the prudence of this great commander to keep his turbulent, discontented auxiliaries in order. The Galli, however, served him well in the great battle at the Trasymene lake (B.C. 217), and also at Cannae (B.C. 216), where 4000 of them fell--more than two-thirds of the whole loss on the Carthaginian side. (Plb. 3.117.)

Though the victory of Cannae brought many of the Southern Italians to the side of Hannibal, they were not like the desperate fighters who had followed him from the banks of the Po, and of whom he had now lost the greater part without being able to get fresh supplies. He never could recover his communication with North Italy after he had gone to the south. The Romans turned their arms against Gallia Cisalpina, both to punish the revolted Galli and to cut Hannibal off from getting recruits. L. Postumius (B.C. 216), consul designatus, was sent over the Apennines into the country of the Boii, but he and nearly all his army perished in the great forest called Litana, which was somewhere on the northern slope of the Apennines which looks to the basin of the Po. The story is told by Livy, with marvellous circumstances of exaggeration, probably founded on some small truth (23.24). The consul's head was cut off by the Boii; and the skull, being cleaned, was lined with gold, after Gallic fashion, and used as a cup in their great temple on solemn occasions. This barbaric practice of the Galli was not so inhuman as Roman superstition, for the year before at Rome they had buried alive a vestal virgin who was accused of unchastity; and among the extraordinary religious ceremonies performed after their great defeat at Cannae they buried a Gaul male and female, and a Greek male and fe. male, alive, in a stone vault in the cow-market. (Liv. 22.57.)

Hannibal was still in South Italy in B.C. 207, near eleven years after he had crossed the Alps. He attempted to open his communication with North Italy by his brother Hasdrubal, who marched from Spain through Gallia and crossed over the Alps into the basin of the Po, by the route that his brother had taken. Hasdrubal had been joined in Gallia by the Arverni,--the warlike people of the Auvergne,--and by other Gallic and Alpine tribes (Liv. 27.39); and he got recruits from the Cisalpine Gauls. One of the consuls, M. Livius Salinator, who was sent to oppose him, posted himself near the small stream Metaurum, which flows from the eastern Apennines into the Adriatic between Pisaurum and Sena. The other consul, C. Claudius Nero, who was watching Hannibal in the south, intercepted a letter from Hasdrubal to Hannibal. He saw the danger of letting the two brothers unite their forces, and he determined to prevent it. He hurried to the north with a division of his army, and joined his colleague, [1.943] Hasdrubal was compelled to fight, and he made the best disposition of his troops that he could. Against the right wing of the Romans, where Nero commanded his picked men, Hasdrubal posted the Galli on his own left,--not so much because, he trusted them, as because he supposed that the Romans feared them. On the banks of the Metaurum the Romans got full satisfaction for Trasymenus and Cannae. The enemy was slaughtered by thousands; and so complete was the victory that Livius allowed some Ligures and Cisalpine Galli, who either had not been in the battle or had escaped from the rout, to move off without being followed: “Let some remain,” he said, “to be the messengers of the enemy's defeat and of our victory.” (Liv. 27.29.) Hasdrubal perished in the battle; and when Nero returned to his camp in the south he ordered his head to be thrown before the Carthaginian outposts, that Hannibal might have no doubt about his brother's fate.

The Carthaginians made another and last effort to assail the Romans through North Italy. In the summer of B.C. 205, in the fourteenth year of the war, Mago, the son of Hamilcar, landed on the Ligurian coast and seized Genua, where the Galli flocked to him. Here also Mago received twenty-five ships from Carthage, 6000 infantry, 800 horsemen, and seven elephants, a large sum of money to hire troops with, and orders to move on towards Rome and join Hannibal. (Liv. 29.4.) Mago maintained himself in Cisalpine Gallia to the year B.C. 203, when he was defeated in the territory of the Insubres by the Romans, and dangerously wounded. He was recalled to Africa by the Carthaginians, and he set sail, but he died on the voyage. Hannibal, who was recalled about the same time, took with him some of the men who had followed him all through his Italian campaigns; and in the battle of Zama (B.C. 202), where he was defeated by P. Scipio, one-third of his men, it is said, were Ligures and Galli. The Second Punic War ended B.C. 201.

Mago left one of his officers, Hamilcar, behind him in Cisalpine Gallia (Liv. 31.10), or he was one of those who escaped from the slaughter on the Metaurum; it is not certain which. Hamilcar stirred up the Insubres, Boii, and Cenomani, and some Ligurians, and falling on Placentia took and burnt it. He then crossed the Po to plunder Cremona. L. Furius Purpureo, the governor of the provincia, as Livy (31.10) terms it, was near Ariminum with a force too small to relieve Cremona. He wrote to the senate for help, and his letter states the fact of Placentia and Cremona having maintained themselves all through the Punic War. Purpureo soon after defeated the Galli, before Cremona, and Hamilcar fell in the battle. (Liv. 31.21.) But the war still continued, and the praetor Cn. Baebius Tamphilus fell into an ambuscade in the territory of the Insubres, and was compelled to leave the country with the loss of above 6000 men. (Liv. 32.7.) Sex. Aelius, one of the consuls of B.C. 198, did no more in Gallia than settle the colonists of Placentia and Cremona, who had been dispersed in the late troubles. It was only by securing those two colonies that the Romans could subjugate this country, and they prosecuted the work with the characteristic national stubbornness. In B.C. 197 both the consuls, C. Cornelius Cethegus and Q. Minucius Rufus, went to Gallia. Cethegus went direct against the Insubres; Rufus went to Genua and began the war with the Ligures in the basin of the Po. Having reduced all the Ligurians on the south of the Po except the Ilvates, and all the Galli except the Boii, he led his troops into the country of the Boii, who had gone over the river to help the Insubres. The Boii returned to defend their lands. The treacherous Cenomani were induced by Cethegus to betray the Insubres, whom they had joined; and the story is, that in the battle which followed the Cenomani fell upon their own countrymen and contributed to their defeat. Above 30,000 Galli are said to have fallen; and according to some authorities it was in this battle that Hamilcar fell. (Liv. 31.21, 32.30.) Livy found even some authorities which affirmed that Hamilcar appeared in the triumph of Cethegus. (Liv. 33.23.) The news of this defeat discouraged the Boii, who dispersed to their villages, and left the Roman commander to plunder their lands and burn their houses, which is still the way of dealing with nations who will not consent to be beaten in a pitched battle. In B.C. 196 the consuls, L. Furius Purpureo, who as praetor had served before in Gallia,: and M. Claudius Marcellus, of a race well known in Gallic wars, were both employed at home. They had Italia for their provincia, as the Roman phrase is. (Liv. 33.25.) Marcellus defeated the Insubres in a great battle, and took the town of Comum, upon which eight-and-twenty strong places surrendered to him. Purpureo carried on the war in the country of the Boii in the usual way; burning, destroying, and killing. The story of these campaigns is confused; but if the narrative is true, we learn that the Boii, being unable to do any damage to the cautious Purpureo, crossed the Po and fell on the Laevi and the Libui, who were Galli. Returning home with their booty, they met the two consuls; and the fight was so fierce, for the passions on both sides were greatly excited, that the Romans left scarcely a Boian to return home and tell of the defeat. (Liv. 33.37.) Marcellus had a triumph at Rome; and Livy on this and on previous occasions records the fact of the great quantity of copper and silver coin which was brought into the aerarium from this Gallic war. There is no doubt that the Galli used copper and silver money, and probably had their own mint, as in Transalpine Gallia. Part of this money might be Roman or Italian, the produce of old plunder. The consul, L. Valerius Flaccus, the colleague of M. Porcius Cato, was employed in B.C. 194 in fighting with the Boii, and restoring the buildings in Placentia and Cremona which had been destroyed in the war. (Liv. 34.22.) Flaccus continued in Cisalpine Gallia the following year as proconsul, carrying on the war in the country of the Insubres. The consul, T. Sempronius Longus, led his troops against the Boii. This unconquerable people were again in arms under a king Boiorix. They attacked Sempronius in his camp; and after a desperate fight, with great loss on both sides, and a doubtful result, the consul took shelter in Placentia. (Liv. 34.46.) The numbers that fell in these battles are exaggerated, and are a mere guess: but these continued losses were destroying all the manhood of the Boii. In B.C. 192 the Ligures were in arms, and advanced as far as the walls of Placentia. (Liv. 34.56.) The history of these campaigns shows that the ultimate success of the Romans depended on their two colonies on the Po. The senate declared that there was a “Tumultus,” a Gallic war. One consul, Minucius Thermus, was sent against the Ligures. The other consul, Merula, had a battle with the Boii near Mutina; and the [1.944] narrative of the Roman historian admits the obstinate resistance of the Galli, of whom 14,000 fell, and 1092 of the foot were taken prisoners. The mention of the exact number of the captives is curious (Liv. 35.5), and Livy probably had good authority for it. The number of prisoners could be ascertained, for they would be sold. The Romans also counted their loss in this battle by thousands.

The complete subjugation of this brave people was accomplished by the consul P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (B.C. 191), a cruel man, who slaughtered the Boii without mercy, and made it one of the grounds for claiming a triumph that he had left only children and old men alive. (Liv. 36.40.) In the triumph of Scipio a great quantity of the precious metal appeared. Like most uncivilised people, and civilised too, as they are called, the Boii were fond of gold ornaments. They had also bronze vessels and silver vessels, which they made themselves, and not without skill, for the nation has always excelled in ingenuity, and shown an aptitude for all works of taste. They must have become a very different people in their habits from the Gallic invaders whom Polybius describes. The brutal consul led in his triumph, all together, the nobles of the Boii and the horses that he had taken from them. The nation had surrendered ( “sese dediderunt” ), according to Roman phrase; and about half the land was declared the property of the Roman people. This was the end of the nationality of the Boii in Italy. The survivors are said to have left the country. [BOII] In B.C. 189 the Romans made Bononia a Latin colony (Liv. 37.57), and six years later the Roman colonies (Liv. 39.55) of Parma and Mutina were settled. Polybius incorrectly speaks of Mutina as a colony in B.C. 218. The name of the Senones had been effaced long ago; the Boii now disappeared, and of the Lingones we know nothing, nor of the Ananes. The whole of Gallia Cispadana was Roman. In Gallia Transpadana there were no enemies except the Insubres, who, next to the Boii, had made the most vigorous resistance to Rome; but they had taken no part in the last wars, and they were now quiet. The perfidious Cenomani were long since the slaves of the Romans, and the Veneti never gave them any trouble.

It is generally supposed that Gallia Cisalpina was made a province upon the conquest of the Boii, B.C. 191. But though a great part of the basin of the Po was now brought under Roman dominion, and colonies were planted, we have no account of a regular provincial administration being established. In fact, the Romans dealt with their conquered countries in different ways, according to circumstances. Gallia Cisalpina was a Roman province, in one sense, long before B.C. 191, for every praetor or consul who was commissioned by the senate to carry on war there, had it for the time as his “provincia,” the field of his operations. However, the making of the great road, called the Via Flaminia, from Rome to Ariminum, and the Via Aemilia from Placentia to Ariminum (B.C. 187), proves that the Romans were now settling in the country, and it must have had some kind of administration. A road was also made from Bononia across the Apennines to Arretium. (Liv, 39.1, 2; Strab. p. 217.) But the limits of this provincial administration were less than those of the Cisalpine Gallia of Caesar's time. The conquest of the Ligurians, both those in the plains of the Po, and those in the mountains, was not yet completed; but these industrious, brave people were incessantly attacked by the Romans. The consul, M. Popillius, made war on the Statielli, near Carystum (B.C. 173), and sold the people and their property, though they had never attacked the Romans. The senate, however, made amends for this monstrous injustice as far as they could, by an order for restoring the people to their liberty, and giving back what could be found of their goods; an order which we may be certain could only be imperfectly executed. (Liv. 42.7, 22.) It was probably from B.C. 109, when M. Aemilius Scaurus made the road from Pisae, past Luna, over the Apennines to Dertona, that we may date the subjugation of the Ligures. The Ligurian country was certainly a separate province, in the Roman military sense, for some time after the final defeat of the Boii. (Liv. 42.1, 10.)

In B.C. 186, 12,000 Transalpine Galli crossed the Alps into Venetia. Probably they came down the valley of the Adige. They began to build a town near the site where Aquileia afterwards stood. The Roman consul Marcellus (B.C. 183) gave them notice to quit. He took from them the implements that they had seized in the country, and what they had brought with them. These poor people sent some of their number humbly to state their case to the Roman senate: poverty had compelled them to cross the Alps, and they had chosen an uninhabited spot, where they had settled without troubling anybody; and they had begun to build a town, which was a proof that they had not come to plunder. They were told that they must quit Italy, and their things would be restored to them. They quietly packed up their moveables and crossed the Alps under the inspection of three Roman commissioners, who were well received by the Transalpine Galli. So humbled was this warlike nation, that the Transalpine chiefs affected to complain of the great lenity that the Romans had shown to a body of men who, without permission of their nation, had dared to intrude on Roman ground. (Liv. 39.54.) The consul Marcellus now asked permission of the senate, which he got, to lead his legions into Istria. At the same time the Romans founded the Latin colony of Aquileia, in the same year that they sent colonists to Parma and Mutina. Thus they secured a position at the head of the gulf of Venice, which they carefully maintained, to check the inroads of barbarians on that side of Italy, and to extend their own dominion to the east of the gulf. In B.C. 179, 3000 Transalpine Galli crossed the Alps peaceably, and begged the consul, Q. Fulvius Flaccus, and the senate to allow them to settle in Italy as subjects of the Roman people; but the senate ordered them to quit the country, and the consul received instructions to punish the leaders of the emigration. We do not know from what part these men came, whether from Transalpine Gallia, as limited by Caesar in his Commentaries, or from the country north of the eastern Alps. But, if we consider the state of Gallia as it was in Caesar's time, when the poor were oppressed by the rich, and the cultivator of the soil was a serf, we can easily understand what drove these men to seek for a new home.

We know very little of the history of Gallia Cisalpina as a Roman province. It was rapidly filled with Romans, and became one of the most valuable of the Roman possessions. An instance of the wanton exercise of power by the consul C. Cassius, is recorded when he held the province (B.C. 170). The ambassadors of a Gallic prince, Cincibil, a mountaineer, complained to the senate that Cassius had invaded the country of the Alpine people, who [1.945] were Socii of the Romans, and carried off many thousands into slavery. Tile consul filled his pockets by selling his prisoners. He was no better than a barbarous African chief, who catches men, and sells them to the white man of Europe or America. A like instance of gross injustice occurred at a later time (B.C. 44), when D. Brutus, then governor of Cisalpine Gallia, led his men against the people in the Alps (Inalpini), to please his soldiers, and secure their fidelity. (Cic. Fam. 11.4) The senate declared their willingness to hear the evidence against Cassius, when he returned from Macedonia, where he then was. But in the mean time they got rid of their troublesome complainants by handsome presents, and allowing them to purchase ten horses and take them out of Italy. (Liv. 43.7.) The peace of Cisalpine Gallia was not disturbed again, except in B.C. 101, when the Cimbri came over the Eastern Alps, and crossed the Adige. They were defeated by Marius and Catulus in the great battle near Vercellae.

Gallia Cisalpina remained quiet during the Social War, and it was probably to reward the people for their fidelity that the consul Cn. Pompeius was empowered, B.C. 89, by a Lex Pompeia to give the political condition called Jus Latii or Latinitas to the towns north of the Po. Asconius, who is the authority for this, does not say that the Latinitas was given to all the towns north of the Po; but it is probable that it was. He remarks that Pompeius did not establish new colonies, but gave this Jus Latii to the towns which existed. The Latinitas placed the Transpadani in a middle position between Romani Cives and Peregrini, for those who had filled a magistratus in the towns that had the Latinitas acquired thereby the Roman civitas, This new Latinitas or Jus Latii is a different thing from the former condition of the towns of Latium and the Latinae coloniae. The Roman colonies (coloniae civium Romanorum) consisted only of Roman citizens, and they were Roman communities. Latinae colonize might be composed either of Roman citizens or of Latini; but a Roman citizen who joined a Latina colonia in order to get a house and land, lost his civitas; and these Latinae coloniae were viewed as Latin communities. The Lex Julia, B.C. 90, after the Social War had broken out, gave the Roman civitas to all the Nomen Latinum, that is, to all such towns of Latium as were not already municipia or coloniae; and to all the Latin colonies in Italy. Thus all the Latinae coloniae became municipal; and when it is said that the Latinitas or Jus Latii was given by Cn. Pompeius to the Transpadani, it means to those towns which were not Latinae coloniae. The new political condition of these Transpadani was expressed by this term Latinitas or Jus. Latii; and accordingly the word Latini now received a new signification, designating a class of people in a certain legal condition, and having no reference to a particular country and people.

It is not stated by any ancient authority what was done with the inhabitants of Gallia south of the Po, when the Transpadani received the Latinitas; but we cannot refuse to accept Savigny's conjecture, which he supports by the strongest arguments, that they received the Roman civitas; and it may be, as he supposes, by virtue of the same Lex Pompeia. It appears from Cicero (Cic. Att. 1.1, B.C. 65), that Gallia, which means all Cisalpine Gallia, had great influence over the elections at Rome by their votes; and therefore a large part of Gallia had the civitas at this time, and it must have been given either in B.C. 89, or between B.C. 89 and B.C. 65. But there occurred no occasion between these two dates for giving new political rights to Cisalpine Gallia, so far as we know; and there was a good reason for giving them after the close of the Social War. The conclusion, then, of Savigny is this: “In B.C. 89 the towns of the Cispadan regions became Roman municipia, and the Transpadani became Latinae coloniae. We must except Placentia, Cremona, and Bononia, which, being old Latinae coloniae, were changed into municipia by the Lex Julia (B.C. 90); also Mutina and Parma, which, being old Roman coloniae, underwent. no change in their condition; we must also except Eporedia in Gallia Transpadana, which must have belonged to the one or the other of these two classes, for we do not know whether it was a Roman or a Latin colonia.” This explains why Mutina is called by Cicero (Cic. Phil. 5.9) a colonia. It was in its origin a colonia., and might always be called so; but in Cicero's time it was a Roman town, and a municipium in the sense of that period. Cicero also calls Placentia a municipium, and he calls it so correctly, for such it was in his time; but it was originally a Latina colonia.

There is a passage of Suetonius (Suet. Jul. 100.8) in which he says that Caesar. when he was quaestor in Spain (B.C. 66), left it sooner than he ought to have done, in order to visit the Latinae coloniae, who were agitating about the civitas. This is explained by Savigny to refer to the Transpadani. In the following year (D. C. 37.9) the censors could not agree whether they should admit the Transpadani as cives or not; which is another proof that the people south of the Po had the civitas. It was again talked of in B.C. 51, as we infer from the letters of Cicero (Cic. Att. 5.2, ad Fam. 8.1), when they are rightly explained. Finally, in B.C. 49, Caesar, after crossing the Rubicon, gave the Transpadani the civitas. (D. C. 41.36.) Thus the towns of the Transpadani became municipia, except Cremona, Aquileia, and Eporedia, which were already municipia by virtue of the Lex Julia. When it is said that the towns of Gallia, Cisalpina became municipia, we must understand this of course only of the larger towns: the smaller places were attached to the large towns, and depended on them. During Caesar's government of Gallia Cisalpina he added a body of colonists, some of whom were Greeks, to the inhabitants of Comum, and put them on the same footing as the former inhabitants. (Strab. p. 212.) Appian (App. BC 2.26), states that Caesar established Novum Comum, and gave it the Latinitas; and he shows that he understood what he was speaking about, for he says, “Those who discharged an annual magistracy there became Roman citizens, for this is the effect of the Latinitas.” Caesar's enemies at Rome took a malicious pleasure in treating a magistrate of Comum. as if he were not a Roman citizen, intending by this to insult Caesar. Suetonius (Suet. Jul. 100.28) says that it was by virtue of a Rogatio Vatinia that Caesar gave the civitas to the people of Comum. He may be mistaken about the civitas, but Caesar no doubt acted under some lex.

The limit of Gallia Cisalpina on the south-east, during Caesar's proconsulate, was the Rubico; and it was this circumstance that made his crossing the river with his troops into Italy equivalent to treason against the state. The boundary on the west side [1.946] is fixed at the Macra (Magra), which enters the sea a little west of Luna. Some (Sigonius, de Ant. Jur. Italiae, 1.100.22) would extend the boundary to the Arnus. Polybius certainly (2.15) extends the Ligurian territory to the neighbourhood of Pisae, yet not to the Arno; for Pisae was an Etruscan city. But the boundary of Liguria, in the time of Augustus, was the Macra; and on the Gallic frontier the boundary was the Varus (Var): and this may have been so when Caesar was proconsul of Gallia. In the NE. the province extended at least to Aquileia. Caesar had Gallia Cisalpina and Illyricum as his provinces, besides Transalpina Gallia. Liguria was certainly within his province. At Aquileia he had three legions at the commencement of the Helvetic War (B.C. 58), which he carried over the Alps with him. (B. G. 1.10.) Aquileia was in the country of the Carni, but it was at this time within the province of Cisalpine Gallia; and this explains Livy (40.34), when he says that Aquileia was in the Ager Gallorum, which he might say in a certain sense. Venetia was of course in the province of Gallia Cisalpina. It seems from a passage in the eighth book of the Gallic War (B. G. 8.24), that Caesar considered Tergeste (Trieste) to be in Gallia Togata; or at least the author of this book did. Sigonius makes the Formio (Risone), a little south of Tergeste, the boundary of Gallia Cisalpina in this part; but the boundary probably was not fixed. If the province included Istria, into which the proconsuls of Cisalpine Gallia had carried their arms, we may perhaps extend the limit here as far as the river Arsia (Arsa), which was at a later time the boundary of Italia. But there is no evidence to show how far the civitas was extended when the Transpadani became Roman citizens; it must have extended to Aquileia, or further, but we know nothing about this. Caesar generally passed the winter in North Italy during his Gallic wars, and he used to hold the conventus at this season. (B. G. 1.54, 6.44.) Gallia Cisalpina, therefore, at this time had its division into conventus, like Sicily, and Hispania and Lusitania at a later time; but we do not know the names of the conventus, nor the divisions of the country for judicial and administrative purposes. The proconsul had the complete civil power in his hands.

Even after B.C. 49, when Gallia Cisalpina had the civitas, and consisted of Roman communities organised after Roman fashion, there was still one exception. The towns had no II. vir juri dicundo, or magistrates for the administration of justice. The proconsul had the general administration of justice, which he exercised either in his own person, or by praefecti, to whom he delegated his authority. “The towns were consequently here, on the whole, in a like condition with the single praefecturae elsewhere, which however were not numerous; with this exception, that they had not, like the praefecture, separate praefects, but the proconsul was the general praefectus for the whole province. Only one place, Mutina, was a real praefectura. The praetor did not exercise jurisdiction there, but a praefectus juri dicundo was sent from Rome.” (Savigny.)

After the dictator's murder, B.C. 44, D. Brutus, one of his friends and assassins, held the province of Gallia Cisalpina, as governor, by the authority of the senate. He was beseiged in Mutina by M. Antonius; and in the spring of B.C. 43 the battle took place, before Mutina, in which the consuls Hirtius and Pansa fell. Cicero, in his Philippics, still speaks of the Provincia Gallia to the end of April, B.C. 43. In the autumn of B.C. 43 the last proconsul of Gallia Cisalpina, D. Brutus, was caught and put to death by order of M. Antonius. No governor of Cisalpine Gallia was again appointed. Dio Cassius (48.12) speaks of Galatia Togata, as he calls it, in the year B.C. 41, as being already included in Italia; “so that no one, on the pretext of having the government there, could maintain troops on the south side of the Alps.” This seems to imply an arrangement made between Octavianus and M. Antonius. From this time the name Italia, which in the popular language had sometimes been extended to Gallia Cisalpina, as already observed, comprehended all the country south of the Alps.

A lex was enacted for the regulation of the jurisdiction in Gallia Cisalpina, which is termed the Lex de Gallia Cisalpina. A considerable part of it was found A.D. 1760, in the ruins of Veleia, and it is preserved in the Museum at Parma. The date of its enactment was probably soon after B.C. 43. The name of the lex is now generally admitted to be the Lex Rubria, or Lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina, though some critics do not think that the name of the proposer of the lex is known. In his first essay on this subject Savigny doubted about the propriety of calling this lex the Lex Rubria, and he also supposed the object of the lex to be to give directions, to the newly established magistrates in Gallia as to procedure. In the additions to his original essay he has expressed himself perfectly satisfied with Puchta's explanation of the purpose of the lex, and he derives from this explanation satisfactory evidence that the true name of the lex is Lex Rubria. The purpose of the lex is important for the understanding of the municipal organisation of Italy under the empire.

In the Digest we find the jurisdiction of the municipal magistrates limited in two ways: first, by the amount of the sum of money or matter in dispute; secondly, by the fact that they had the powers which belonged to the proper jurisdictio only, and not those which were comprised in the imperium. The origin of this double limitation, which appears in the Digest as a general rule for all municipal magistrates, must be sought for in the Lex Rubria. The second limitation deprived those magistrates of the power of granting a missio, bonorum possessio, and restitutio, and of compelling a praeterio stipulatio. As to the amount or value of the matter in dispute, the magistrates of Gallia were not allowed to decide in cases where it was above 15,000 sesterces. The lex, then, had. two objects: one was to limit the amount, as just stated, and to exclude the magistrates from the exercise of those powers which were contained in the imperium; the other was to provide rules for their direction, which these limitations made necessary, in order to prevent the administration of justice from being impeded. The magistrates mentioned in the lex are II. vir, IIII. vir, praefectus. The first is the ordinary name for a municipal magistrate; but probably II. viri I. D. (juri dicundo) were in Gallia, as in other places, more common than IIII. viri I. D. The third name, praefectus, occurs twice with the designation of Mutinensis. The old colony of Mutina was a praefectura. and the only one in Gallia. Accordingly, all the Gallic towns had for magistrates either II. viri I. D. or IIII. viri I. D., except Mutina, which had a praefectus I. D.

The amount of the matter in dispute in which a Gallic magistrate had jurisdiction was, as we have [1.947] seen, 15,000 sestertii. It remains to be explained what was the process, if the party who was condemned to pay did not obey the judgment. Puchta, who keeps close to the principle (which is true in the main) that execution belongs to the imperium, infers that the municipal magistrates had no power to order execution, but that the praetor at Rome must be applied to. This monstrous unpractical conclusion is a simple impossibility. According to this, as Savigny remarks, if a plaintiff at Padua obtained judgment in his favour in the matter of a few denarii, or for a bushel of wheat that he. had sold, and the defendant did not pay, the plaintiff must make a journey to Rome to get execution. We must conclude that it was one of the objects of the lex, after having limited the jurisdiction of the Gallic magistrates to a fixed sum, to provide the means of enforcing their judgments, though we have no evidence of this. But both the general principles of Roman law as to jurisdictio (Javolenus, 50.2. de Jurisdict. 2. 1), and other arguments urged by Savigny, are decisive against the absurd conclusion of Puchta.

The names by which these Gallic communities are mentioned in the lex are various. In one passage “municipium” is used as a generic name, comprehending coloniae and the praefectura; and this denomination could be correctly used, for the whole country contained only Roman communities. In another passage occur “municipium,” “colonia,” “locus;” where “locus” means any place which does not belong to the other two classes. Savigny supposes that “coloniae” may mean such places as had not consented to be changed into “municipia;” but that these could only be a few, for he thinks that the towns south of the Po, when that country obtained the civitas, and the Transpadani, when they also, at a later time, obtained the civitas, must first have become Fundus, as the Romans termed it (see Dict. Antiq., Art. FUNDUS); that is, must have given their consent to become Roman municipalities, like the Italian cities which received the civitas by virtue of the Lex Julia. This explanation of the word “coloniae” in the Lex Rubria seems doubtful; and it may be nothing more than a legal superabundance of language. It is true that, if there was not and could not be a colonia in Gallia, the name would have no meaning in the lex, and would be not only an idle, but an absurd redundancy; but there had been coloniae, and the lex may mean, whether you call the place municipium or colonia, or any other name which is applicable to it. In another passage there is a larger enumeration of places, if the abbreviations are rightly explained:--“oppidum, municipium, colonia, praefectura, forum, vicus, castellum.” Here “oppidum” is generic, not a particular class; “municipium” comprehends most of the chief towns; “colonia,” according to Savigny, only a few towns; and “praefectura,” only Mutina. The other three names denote smaller places, which had a less complete organisation. Places of this kind, it is assumed (and there can be no doubt of it), had not their separate magistrates; a village had not its own judge. This appears from the general system of town organisation in Italy, where each chief place had its district or territory, the smaller places or villages in which were attached to the chief place, and included in its jurisdiction. A “forum,” “vicus,” or “castellum,” would be a part of the territory of a “municipium.” The municipium was the centre of administration, as we see in the fact of the census being taken there. When the lex, in speaking of these smaller places, says, “qui ibi juri dicundo praeest,” this does not lead to the conclusion that these places had their separate magistrates, for this expression may apply just as well to the II. viri of the town to whose jurisdiction the “vicus” or the “forum” belonged. (Savigny, Vermischte Schriften, vol. iii., Tafel von Heraklea; Puchta, Zeitschrift für Geschicht. Rechtsw. Lex Rubria, &c. vol. x.)

The division of Italy into eleven “regiones” by Augustus had for its immediate object the taking of the census, which was conducted in a new way, and was taken in the several districts. The regiones into which Gallia was divided were: Regio XI., which was Transpadana, or Italia Transpadana; Regio X., which was Venetia et Histria, sometimes called Venetia only; Regio IX., which corresponded to the former Liguria; and Regio VIII., which was bounded on the north by the Po, on the east by the Hadriatic, on the south by the Rubicon, and on the west by the Trebia, which separated it from that part of Regio IX. which was north of the Apennines.  - Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, William Smith, LLD, Ed.  

 

Map of the Roman Empire (Click to Enlarge)

Large Map of the Roman Empire (Clickable Locations)

The Roman Empire During the First Century AD

Maps are essential for any serious study, they help students of Roman history understand the geographical locations and historical backgrounds of the places mentioned in historical sources.

Map of New Testament Israel  |  Map of Old Testament Israel

Map of the Roman Empire  |  Bible History Online



Map of the Roman Empire - Places

Places

3-Taverns

Abydos

Achaea

Actium

Adramyttium

Aegean Sea

Aegyptus

Africa

Agrigentum

Alexandria

Alla

Alps

Amasea

Amastris

Amisus

Amphipolis

Ancona

Ancyra

Antiium

Antioch

Apamea

Apollonia

Appennines

Aquitania

Arabian Desert

Ariminum

Arretium

Asia

Athens

Attalia

Baetica

Balearic Islands

Belgica

Beroea

Berytus

Bononia

Burdigala

Byzantium

Caesarea

Caesarea Philippi

Canopus

Cappadocia

Capri

Carchemish

Carthage

Cenchreae

Chios

Cilicia

Cnidus

Colossae

Comana

Corduba

Corinth

Corsica

Creta

Cyrenaica

Cyrene

Cyzicus

Dacia

Damascus

Danube River

Delphi

Derbe

Dniester River

Douro River

Dyrrhachium

Ebro River

Edessa

Emerita Augusta

Emesa

Ephesus

Epiphania

Euphrates River

Fair Havens

Florentia

Forum Appius

Gades

Galatia

Gallia

Gangra

Garonne River

Gaza

Genua

Germania

Gordium

Greater Syrtis

Guadalquivir River

Guadiana River

Halicarnassus

Halys River

Haran

Heliopolis

Heraclea Pontus

Hippo Regius

Hispalis

Hispania

Iconium

Illyricum

Istros

Italia

Jerusalem

Joppa

Jordan River

Judaea

Kure Mountains

Laodicea

Larissa

Lasea

Leptis Magna

Lesser Syritis

Luca

Loire River

Lugdunensis

Lusitania

Lycia

Lystra

Macedonia

Magnesia

Malta

Massilia

Mauritania Caesariensis

Mauritania Tingitana

Mazaca

Mediterranean Sea

Memphis

Messana

Messembria

Miletus

Moesia

Mount Sinai

Myra

Nabataean Kingdom

Narbonensis

Naucratis

Neapolis

Nemausus

Nicaea

Nicephorium

Nicomedia

Nicopolis

Nile River

Numidia

Oceanus Atlanticus

Odessus

Oea

Orontes River

Paestum

Palmyra

Pannonia

Panormus

Paphos

Patara

Patmos

Pelusium

Perga

Pergamum

Perusia

Pessinus

Petra

Philadelphia

Philippi

Philippopolis

Phoenix

Po River

Pola

Pompeii

Pontus Euxinus

Porta Veneris

Prusa

Prut River

Ptolemais

Puteoli

Pyrenees

Ravenna

Rhodes

Rome

Sabratha

Sahara Desert

Sais

Salamis

Salmone

Salonae

Samaria

Samosata

Saonne River

Sardinia

Sardis

Sarmatia

Scodra

Scythians

Sea of Adria

Seine River

Sicilia

Side

Sidon

Sinope

Sinus Arabicus

Siscia

Smyrna

Sparta

Syracuse

Syria

Tagus River

Tarraco

Tarraconensis

Tarsus

Taurus Mountains

Terracini

Thapsus

Thayatira

Thebes

Thessalonica

Thrace

Tiber River

Tiberias

Tisza River

Tomi

Trapezus

Tripolis

Troas

Tyre

Utica

Valentia

Zeugma