Malevus

Category: History

Witness the transformation across time and interpret the past of human societies while shedding light on the most prominent events.

  • Rome and the Mediterranean: Mare Nostrum

    Rome and the Mediterranean: Mare Nostrum

    The Mediterranean has been at the heart of Roman history since the founding of Rome, and even more so as its imperialism developed. This allowed it to control the entire Mediterranean region within a few centuries, leading to what is commonly called “Mare Nostrum,” although the term is not widely used in Latin sources and has more of a political rather than geographical meaning.

    However, as early as the 2nd century AD, under the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the Roman Empire’s center of gravity seemed to shift more towards the north. Did this change the relationship between Rome and the Mediterranean, and how did it evolve until the reign of Constantine?

    Later Use of “Mare Nostrum”

    The term was revived by Benito Mussolini in the early 20th century as part of his vision of restoring Italy’s ancient imperial glory. Mussolini sought to re-establish Italian dominance in the Mediterranean, using the phrase to invoke the memory of the Roman Empire. His regime pursued expansionist policies in the Mediterranean, including the occupation of Libya, Ethiopia, and Albania, though these ambitions ultimately failed during World War II.

    A Mediterranean Still Vital to Rome?

    Sea is called Mare Internum, "Inner Sea," on this map.
    The Roman Empire at its farthest extent in AD 117. Note, however, that the Sea is called Mare Internum, “Inner Sea,” on this map. Credit: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

    Rome was less and less occupied by power, but the Mediterranean itself seemed to be less central to Roman concerns, with a few exceptions (such as the East). This was mainly due to the barbarian threats along the borders of Gaul, the Rhine, and the Danube. However, it would be wrong to say that the Mediterranean lost its importance in Rome’s functioning and life; it remained vital!

    At the beginning of the 3rd century, it still concentrated the majority of Roman trade, and especially the supply of essential goods to the heart (despite the emperors’ increasing distance) of the Empire. Rome depended entirely on the transport of essential foodstuffs (such as wheat) via the Mediterranean. Did this situation evolve later, particularly during the crisis of the 3rd century and under Constantine’s reign?

    Let us first describe the geographical situation of the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean is not a sea, but a succession of liquid plains communicating with each other through more or less wide gates. The Mediterranean space is thus, above all, varied, in terms of terrain but also climate depending on the regions. The presence of numerous peninsulas also explains the complexity and irregularity of winds and currents.

    This variety partly explains why the Romans, far from feeling a sense of “unity” that one might find in the concept of Mare Nostrum, referred to the Mediterranean with local criteria, speaking of the Mare inferum (Tyrrhenian), superum (Adriatic), Africum, etc.

    In terms of geography, the seasons are more or less favorable for navigation: according to sailors of antiquity, the Mediterranean only had two seasons, one good and one bad, but this distinction depended on the regions. Winter was thus the bad season when the Romans used the term mare clausum (closed sea), at best engaging in coastal navigation and certainly not in deep-sea voyages or large commercial expeditions.

    The good season began in March with the festival of Navigium Isidis and lasted until November 11, for the most optimistic, though this period was not without risks. Since voyages were intra-Mediterranean, sailors had to face the variety of winds and currents, and the alternation between calm and rough seas, depending on the regions, as mentioned earlier.

    Roman Navigation in the Mediterranean

    We are particularly interested in the ships (commercial, with military ships discussed later) and the maritime routes, distances traveled, etc. According to M. Reddé, there were “symmetric” and “asymmetric” hulls, but most appeared to be round (thus rather symmetric), and ships with shallow drafts often had to be ballasted in case of strong winds. The sails were usually square or rectangular, with ships featuring up to three masts by the 3rd century.

    Steering was mainly done with two large oars fixed to either side of the stern. The most important aspect of commercial ships was, of course, their tonnage, or carrying capacity: under the Empire, most ships carried around 450 metric tons, but it became increasingly common to see ships reaching 1,000 tons or more.

    Regarding navigation itself, sailors primarily relied on the wind, which determined their routes in the Mediterranean. Moreover, they navigated mostly by “dead reckoning” (despite knowledge of the stars or currents) in deep waters, which could lead to voyages of varying lengths. On the other hand, when close to the coast, sailors relied on “Peripli” (ancient travel itineraries) that listed water sources, reefs, dangers, or possible shelters. In any case, shorter routes often allowed for avoiding piracy (which will be addressed in the third part).

    All maritime routes (like the land routes) led to Rome, specifically its ports: Puteoli, followed by Ostia and Portus (independent from Ostia in 313). Starting from the East, the most frequented routes went from Egypt to Italy, passing either through Crete or Africa; also in the East, there was a route from the northern Aegean Sea to Corinth and the port of Lechaeum via the isthmus, as well as one from Syria to Italy via Cyprus or Crete.

    In the western Mediterranean, routes passed through major ports like Carthage, Cartagena, Arles, Marseille, to reach Ostia, from which routes also connected to the islands of Sardinia, Sicily, and Corsica. M. Reddé uses specific examples to study these routes, such as records like the “Stadiasmus of the Great Sea,” of uncertain origin, and especially the “Antonine Itinerary” from the 3rd century AD, which provides information on the maritime routes between Rome and Arles, illustrating coastal navigation, the most common practice.

    The duration of voyages, as we have seen, depended greatly on navigation conditions. It appears, for example, that it took between 15 and 20 days to travel from Alexandria to Puteoli, 20 days from Narbonne to Alexandria, and 2 days from Africa to Ostia. These are relatively short journeys, likely one of the factors in the intensity of exchanges in the Mediterranean.

    Ports were, of course, the nerve centers of maritime trade. They were generally of two types: the older ones were often located outside cities (Ostia for Rome, for example), while the newer ones were within the cities themselves (such as Alexandria). All were developed, with enclosed harbors and buildings for commerce; thus, what was called a macellum in Ostia or Puteoli, or an agora in the East, were sorts of local markets intended to distribute goods brought by maritime trade, which then spread throughout the rest of the Empire.

    While we won’t discuss all the ports, we can mention Ostia, Rome’s major port, still vital during the period we are studying, up until 313 when it specialized in the annona (grain supply), which we will return to. It was primarily developed under Claudius (41-54 AD) and expanded under Trajan (98-117 AD); its basin could accommodate 200 ships and was connected to the Tiber River. It gradually replaced Puteoli, particularly from the 2nd century AD onwards. Besides Ostia, the other major ports were mainly Alexandria and Carthage, due to their roles in shipping wheat to Rome, and later to Constantinople from the 4th century onwards.

    The concept of Mare Nostrum is a general one that does not exactly reflect the reality of the time, especially in terms of geography, but it provides a fairly accurate idea of Roman mastery of the Mediterranean. The Romans knew how to control it, thanks to a substantial fleet (though this varied over time) and a network of important ports, all supported by knowledge of routes that dated back to before the Empire. But this control had a purpose: commerce and, above all, the supply of Rome. It was not absolute, however, and was subjected to various pressures, particularly as barbarian threats became more pressing, leading to the involvement of the Roman war fleet.

    Products and Trade in the Mediterranean

    Piece of the edict in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin
    Piece of the edict in the Pergamon Museum, Berlin. Credit: Public Domain

    What is the nature of the exchanges and goods circulating in Roman Mediterranean trade, how is commerce regulated, and what is the importance of the annona for the life of the Empire?

    The products that move along the trade routes we have described include wine, for example, which mainly comes from Catalonia, Gaul, but also Rhodes and even Asia Minor. It is also obviously present in Italy (mainly in Campania). Spain exports garum (fish sauces), olive oil comes from Baetica or Africa, wheat from Egypt (or also from Africa), and textiles from Syria. Precious goods often transit through Alexandria or even Carthage; these are silk, ivory, pearls, etc., and in the 3rd century, they could come from India via the Red Sea. Similarly, there were exchanges with the Persians and the Chinese through the ports of Syria. Finally, from distant Africa came wild animals for venationes (public spectacles of wild animal hunts), slaves, and ivory.

    Let’s focus, however, on key products of commerce during this period, knowing that their quantity and quality often account for the wealth and importance of the provinces from which they originate. First, wine: present in Italy, the finest wines are produced primarily in Campania; vineyards can also be found in the western provinces up to southern Gaul, and even in Africa.

    In the wine trade, while the Italians were able to export and benefit during the early days of the Empire, they gradually lost their advantage to the wines of Hispania and Gaul, with provincial wines soon representing the bulk of trade, even though Italian wine continued to be exported along the Danube, and the finest wines still came from the peninsula.

    Olive oil, on the other hand, mainly concerns Baetica and Africa and is linked to the services of the annona (which we will address later); it is exported not only to Rome where it is stored but throughout the West, reaching as far as Britain and Germany. There is also olive oil production in Syria, but it is less well-known, and it is unclear whether it was exported like the oil from Baetica and Africa. Olive oil is a product regularly distributed starting with the reign of Aurelian, on a daily basis.

    Finally, wheat is the most important commodity, and through it, we can discuss the annona: wheat is brought to Italy from Egypt and Africa, but also from southern Gaul, Sicily, and Spain. Egypt had to prevent famine in Rome by providing enough to last four months, equivalent to 20 million modii (172 million liters). The transport arrived at Portus starting in 313, between March 1st and November 15th, through the navicularii, who deserve further attention: they were private traders responsible for the annona, as it should be noted that Rome did not have a “state” merchant fleet.

    The navicularii were often families (such as the Fadii of Narbonne), owning their own ships, and they were organized into collegia or corpora; Jean Rougé referred to them as “capitalist societies.” They transported annona provisions at the emperor’s request in exchange for privileges (such as using the ships for their private activities), benefiting all parties involved.

    Commerce itself, relatively free before the 3rd century, became increasingly controlled and regulated as the 4th century approached: the Edict of Maximum Prices in 301 provided the price for transporting goods: 16 denarii per military bushel between Alexandria and Rome, 4 from Africa to Nicomedia, 20 from Syria to Spain. According to the “Expositio Totius Mundi” (an anonymous 4th-century source), trade was flourishing in the Empire, especially in the eastern Mediterranean, while in the West it seemed to be slowing down, despite the growth of the port of Arles.

    The Annona

    This service was created by Augustus but was more relevant than ever to Rome during our period, even though it underwent modifications. Its mission was to supply Rome with wheat, to prevent famines that had regularly affected the city in the past. A prefect of the annona, of equestrian rank, was in charge. In a career path, one could be a prefect of the annona before becoming a prefect of Egypt or the Praetorian Prefecture, highlighting the importance of this role. According to Pavis d’Escurac, the prefect of the annona was responsible for “gathering, transporting, and storing the wheat quotas essential for the needs of the entire capital.” Under Aurelian, he had at his disposal the arca frumentaria and arca olearia, funds to help manage these supplies.

    From the 3rd century onwards, the annona also included olive oil, and it was managed by a procurator of the annona and a freedman procurator. At the same time, the ports responsible for the annona, mainly Portus and Ostia, were placed under the control of a procurator of both ports. The system was later simplified in the second half of the 3rd century. In the provinces, provincial procurators managed the annona, stationed in specialized granaries like those in Neapolis and Ad Mercurium in Alexandria. With the tetrarchy, a prefect of the African annona also appeared, reporting to the praetorian prefects, while the vicars of dioceses also became responsible for supplying Rome with wheat.

    The Organization of the War Fleet

    Roman military ships were galleys, partly inspired by the Greeks. They were not round but long and slender, designed to be fast and maneuverable. Unlike merchant ships, they were primarily oar-powered, requiring a large crew and not depending on the wind. However, a drawback of these galleys was their fragility in rough seas, though they were still willing to venture out.

    Their main difference from transport ships was, of course, their armament: galleys were equipped with various rams meant to smash the enemy’s hull, sometimes with towers at the front and/or back, and an “artillery” of ballistae that launched either stones or bolts (sometimes flaming). Finally, there were different types of galleys, varying in shape, size, the number of decks, or rowers, such as triremes or polyremes.

    These main warships, supported by auxiliary vessels, were stationed in military ports, the principal bases of the Roman fleet, though other “civilian” ports could host them during movements in the Mediterranean. The main military ports were those of Ravenna and Misenum, tasked with protecting the Italian peninsula with the fleets known as classis praetoriae.

    They were founded by Augustus, with Misenum in particular noted by Tacitus and Suetonius, while Ravenna may have been used as a military port before Augustus’ reign. According to Dio Cassius, Ravenna could accommodate 250 ships, though it was unclear if they were all warships, as the port might not have been solely for military use. As for Misenum, its installation may date to 12 BCE, but its fleets were transferred to Constantinople in 330.

    The Roman fleet had numerous and varied missions, although for a long time, escorting merchant fleets did not seem to be a priority, for example. The Pax Romana led the fleet, for several centuries, to mainly carry out “police” missions rather than strictly military ones, as Rome completely controlled its maritime domain and had no enemy capable of raising a significant fleet. It thus served as support to the land army, primarily handling its supply.

    So, what could its other missions have been? Concerning commerce and its control, can it be said that the military navy played a role, particularly with the annona? There were military personnel at the service of the annona, though they were rare, such as the cornicularius procuratoris annonae in Ostia; however, they were probably only assigned to the role, not sailors.

    Coastline defense might have involved the Roman navy; under the principate, the post of praefectus orae maritimae was created, reserved for knights, but the magistrate apparently did not have a fleet under his command. Therefore, these were not missions that can be attributed to the Roman navy. However, the navy was useful in times of peace for transporting officials and acting as an escort during troubled and less secure periods, such as the one under discussion.

    As we see, it is quite difficult to define the missions and therefore the usefulness of the Roman navy, especially in peacetime. This seems to have weakened it, while threats became more pressing in the Mediterranean itself by the 3rd century. Did the Roman navy then react, and if so, how? During this period, the fleet continued to be administered and “centralized” in the ports of Ravenna and Misenum (each with a prefect) despite the difficulties. For instance, M. Cornelius Octavianus, according to epigraphic sources, commanded the fleet of Misenum in 258–260. Therefore, the Roman navy did not disappear during the 3rd-century crisis, and it had to respond to the threats.

    The Navy in the Face of Threats

    Until the reign of Valerian, the military navy was active, primarily in supporting ground troops and providing supplies. However, the death of Trajan Decius in 251, on the Danube, marked a turning point as this river became the route through which barbarians threatened the Mediterranean, leading to the navy’s involvement in this region, where it was weakest. In 267, the Pontic fleet had to retreat before the Goths, who then poured into the Aegean Sea and the eastern Mediterranean, even threatening Egypt! The prefect of the province faced them off the coast of Cyprus in 270.

    Under the reign of Probus, another episode demonstrated that the navy no longer controlled Mare Nostrum: the Franks, departing from the Pontus, stole ships and managed to cross the straits to pillage Sicily and Italy! They pushed as far as Gibraltar without ever confronting a Roman fleet. Piracy, in turn, resurged, as confirmed by a text from Ammianus Marcellinus (4th century); the Cilicians were specialists in this, but this mainly reflected Rome’s loss of control over certain populations.

    However, the situation was not entirely grim for the Roman navy: aside from the Frankish raid, most of its difficulties occurred in the eastern Mediterranean, with the West, and therefore Rome, being relatively spared. It was thus more a breakdown of the naval defense system rather than the entire navy. Later, with Diocletian’s reforms (which affected, among others, the military and the navy), an evolution took place.

    According to a source from Justinian’s time, the Roman navy had a personnel count of 45,562 men during the Tetrarchy. However, the Constantinian period witnessed a real transformation of the Roman navy in the Mediterranean: Constantine used the navy for his reconquest of Italy in 312, while his rival Maxentius had used it for Africa in 310-311. The Roman navy was therefore divided along the same lines as the Empire. Constantine’s victory caused the fleets of Ravenna and Misenum to lose their title of praetoria, as they were purged for supporting Maxentius.

    Constantine reorganized the fleet and transferred its key bases to Greece, and later to Constantinople, his new capital. This period thus saw a shift in the fleet’s operations after the barbarian threats and the civil wars that followed the Tetrarchy. New squadrons were created, a balance was struck in favor of the East and Constantinople, leading to a more scattered and less massive navy, focused on defense and possibly better equipped to face new barbarian threats like those of the late 3rd century.

    The Mediterranean, therefore, remained central to the Empire’s life, despite the shift of its center of gravity northwards due to invasions and the emperor’s distance from Rome. The Mediterranean continued to serve as Rome’s main commercial zone during this period, with the annona (grain supply) remaining just as important. The changes mainly affected certain sectors like the management of the annona, increased control over commerce following the Edict of 301 (despite the preservation of the navicularii), and especially the Roman navy, which, after failing to respond to barbarian invasions, proving it was no longer capable of ensuring full “Romanness” of the Mare Nostrum, had to reform under the Tetrarchy and Constantine.

    This period, therefore, was primarily one of transition and adaptation for Rome concerning its maritime space, possibly signaling the beginning of the end of Mare Nostrum.

  • Hussars, Cuirassiers and Dragons Under Napoleon

    Hussars, Cuirassiers and Dragons Under Napoleon

  • Battle of Camarón: The French Foreign Legion’s Last Stand and Legacy

    Battle of Camarón: The French Foreign Legion’s Last Stand and Legacy

    The Battle of Camarón (Mexico, 1863) is a foundational episode for the French Foreign Legion, which celebrates this “French version of the Alamo” every year. In 1862, France came to the aid of Emperor Maximilian, whom they had installed on the Mexican throne. On April 30, 1863, a detachment of about sixty legionnaires distinguished themselves at Camarón by standing their ground against 2,000 Mexicans. This minor historical event, within the context of the Mexican expedition launched by Napoleon III, has been elevated by the Legion to become a cornerstone of its tradition.

    Context of the Battle of Camarón

    Since its independence, Mexico had been a weakened country both territorially (having ceded California, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and part of Wyoming to the United States), politically (with strong divisions between conservatives and liberals), and especially economically. In 1858, under the presidency of the anticlerical Benito Juarez, a rebellion led by conservative generals shook the country.

    By 1861, President Juarez had finally pushed back the rebels, but the conflict delivered a fatal blow to Mexico’s economy. Despite the nationalization of church assets, the country found itself unable to repay its European creditors. Juarez decided to suspend debt payments for two years to Spain (9 million pesos), France (3 million), and especially the United Kingdom (70 million).

    For Napoleon III, the French emperor, this was an opportunity. A military intervention could replace the weak republic, which was embroiled in civil war and defaulting on its debts, with a Catholic empire allied with France. This was a good way for France to extend its informal empire and its “soft power” over the New World. The opportunity was even more favorable since the United States, embroiled in its own civil war, was in no position to intervene with its Mexican neighbor.

    However, the Mexican expedition was not to appear as a purely French imperialist initiative. Everything was decided in collaboration with other powers affected by Mexico’s debt: Spain and the United Kingdom. Thus, on October 31, 1861, the London Convention took place, providing the framework for a military expedition in the name of debt repayment and the protection of European nationals. The official and shared goal of the intervention was to pressure the Mexican government by seizing ports on the east coast.

    But for Napoleon III, the idea was to offer the Mexican crown to Archduke Maximilian, brother of the Austrian emperor, which would also strengthen ties between France and Austria in Europe. Mexican émigrés had convinced him that the people were tired of civil wars and awaited a monarchical restoration, promising to rise as one to fight alongside the French.

    International Operation Against Mexico

    Thus, a coalition intervened against the Mexican republic: the Spanish, who were already in Cuba, sent General Joan Prim with 6,300 men against their former colony. The British contributed their key asset, the navy, under Admiral Dunlop. France deployed the largest contingent. On December 17, 1861, the Spanish landed, followed by the French under Admiral Jurien de La Gravière on January 8, 1862. The French expected a jubilant crowd in Veracruz, eager for the return of the monarchy, which would provide many local recruits. However, that was not the case. They only rallied the modest, ragtag group of General Galvez (about 200 men).

    Worse, the sanitary conditions quickly deteriorated in this region, known as the “Hot Lands,” where yellow fever and black vomit (vomito negro) were rampant. Facing this precarious situation and the Mexican republic’s desire to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, a convention was signed at La Soledad. This agreement allowed the allies to advance further inland, where the fever was less severe, while they negotiated a debt settlement. The allies signed the convention, although Jurien de La Gravière disliked this implicit recognition of the Mexican government.

    Anxious to leave this inhospitable region, the Spanish and British quickly concluded a new financial agreement (which would be no more respected than the previous ones) and withdrew their troops.

    buy abilify online https://langleyrx.com/buy-abilify.html no prescription pharmacy

    However, the French side saw a different outcome. Jurien de La Gravière was dismissed, General Latrille de Lorencez took command of the troops, and France embarked alone on a phase of conquest. Citing the mistreatment of French residents in Mexico, the French Empire declared war on a “wicked government that had committed unprecedented outrages.”

    Beginning of the Mexican Expedition: The Siege of Puebla

    The French expeditionary corps, numbering fewer than 7,000 men, with 10 cannons (small 4-pounder pieces), few supplies, and no reserves, was about to embark on a hazardous conquest of Mexico. On April 27, Lorencez marched on Puebla de Los Angeles, a city portrayed to him as loyal to monarchists and ready to open its gates. However, on May 4, he found himself facing a fortified city defended by 12,000 Mexicans. Outnumbered and receiving little support from the hoped-for popular uprising, Lorencez attempted an assault, which ended in failure.

    Fully aware of his lack of military resources to carry out any conquest, Lorencez retreated (in what is called the Retreat of the Six Thousand) to Orizaba, where he dug in, awaiting reinforcements from France. Lorencez’s reports detailed the absence of any monarchist faction supporting France. As if this defection wasn’t enough, Maximilian himself seemed hardly invested in the future of his hypothetical kingdom. However, for Napoleon III, withdrawal so soon after a failure was not an option, so he sent reinforcements: around 23,000 men landed during the summer under General Élie-Frédéric Forey, who reestablished contact with Lorencez, now dismissed from his duties.

    buy periactin online https://langleyrx.com/buy-periactin.html no prescription pharmacy

    For Napoleon III, the situation had become increasingly complex. His plan now seemed to be to overthrow Juarez’s republic and establish a stable government while awaiting a popular consultation to determine the country’s future political direction (which was barely feasible in a country without an administrative structure). Whether this ended with an Austrian or a Mexican in power mattered little to France as long as they remained a loyal ally in the future.

    For the moment, it was necessary to conquer the territory, and for that, Forey took the time to equip his forces, purchase mules and horses (from Cuba and the United States), and familiarize himself with the new theater of operations: a hostile country both geographically (lack of roads) and in terms of its inhabitants (the development of guerrilla warfare). Between him and Mexico stood General Ortega and the Mexican army, as well as the city of Puebla. Forey decided to organize a formal siege around Puebla, where he arrived on March 12, 1863. After heavy artillery preparation, Fort San-Javier was taken on March 28, marking the start of a long street battle that would only end in mid-May with a French victory.

    Battle of Camarón

    During the siege of Puebla, the communication line with Veracruz was crucial. Supplies and ammunition arrived through this route, making it a vital axis for the French army. Naturally, it became a prime target for Mexican guerrillas, who constantly harassed French troops in the area. To secure the zone, the French deployed 400 men from the Egyptian Negro Battalion (provided by the Viceroy of Egypt), counter-guerrilla troops under General Dupin, and four battalions of the Foreign Regiment.

    It was in this context that the 3rd Company of the 1st Battalion of this regiment was annihilated in the village of Camarón (later known as Camerone) after a heroic resistance. The details of the combat at the hacienda are only known through reports from survivors. From these testimonies, the official and epic account of the battle was written and read to legionnaires every April 30th:

    “The French army was besieging Puebla. The Legion’s mission was to ensure the movement and safety of convoys over 120 kilometers. Colonel Jeanningros, the commander, learned on April 29, 1863, that a large convoy carrying three million in cash, siege equipment, and ammunition was en route to Puebla. Captain Danjou, his adjutant-major, decided to send a company to meet the convoy.

    buy xenical online in the best USA pharmacy https://draconatural.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/png/xenical.html no prescription with fast delivery drugstore

    The 3rd Company of the Foreign Regiment was selected, but no officers were available. Captain Danjou took command himself, and Sub-lieutenants Maudet, the standard-bearer, and Vilain, the paymaster, volunteered to join him.
    buy bimatoprost online in the best USA pharmacy https://draconatural.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/png/bimatoprost.html no prescription with fast delivery drugstore

    At 1 a.m. on April 30, the 3rd Company, consisting of three officers and 62 men, set out. They had traveled about 20 kilometers when, at 7 a.m., they stopped at Palo Verde to make coffee. At that moment, the enemy revealed itself, and the battle immediately began. Captain Danjou formed a square formation, and while retreating, successfully repelled several cavalry charges, inflicting significant losses on the enemy.

    Upon reaching the inn at Camarón, a large building with a courtyard surrounded by a three-meter-high wall, he decided to fortify there to hold off the enemy and delay their ability to attack the convoy for as long as possible.

    While the men hastily organized the defense of the inn, a Mexican officer, highlighting their overwhelming numbers, demanded Captain Danjou’s surrender. He responded, ‘We have ammunition, and we will not surrender.’ Then, raising his hand, he swore to defend to the death and made his men take the same oath. It was 10 a.m. For eight hours, these 60 men, without food or water since the previous day, resisted 2,000 Mexicans: 800 cavalry and 1,200 infantry, in extreme heat, hunger, and thirst.

    At noon, Captain Danjou was shot in the chest and killed. At 2 p.m., Sub-lieutenant Vilain was struck in the forehead and fell. At that point, the Mexican colonel succeeded in setting the inn on fire.

    Despite the heat and smoke that increased their suffering, the legionnaires held their ground, though many were wounded. By 5 p.m., only 12 men capable of fighting remained around Sub-lieutenant Maudet. At that moment, the Mexican colonel gathered his troops and told them how shameful it would be if they failed to defeat this small group of brave men (a legionnaire who understood Spanish translated his words as they were spoken). The Mexicans were preparing for a general assault through the breaches they had opened, but before attacking, Colonel Milan once again summoned Maudet to surrender; Maudet scornfully refused.

    The final assault began. Soon, only five men remained with Maudet: Corporal Maine, and legionnaires Catteau, Wensel, Constantin, and Leonhard. Each still had one cartridge left; they fixed bayonets and, taking refuge in a corner of the courtyard with their backs to the wall, prepared for a final stand. At a signal, they fired point-blank at the enemy and charged with bayonets. Maudet and two legionnaires fell, mortally wounded. Maine and his two comrades were about to be massacred when a Mexican officer intervened and saved them. He shouted, ‘Surrender!’

    ‘We will surrender if you promise to care for our wounded and allow us to keep our weapons,’ they replied, with their bayonets still threatening.

    ‘We refuse nothing to men like you!’ responded the officer.

    Captain Danjou’s 60 men had kept their oath to the end. For 11 hours, they resisted 2,000 enemies, killing 300 and wounding as many. Through their sacrifice, they saved the convoy and completed their mission.

    Emperor Napoleon III decided that the name “Camarón” would be inscribed on the Foreign Regiment’s flag, and that the names Danjou, Vilain, and Maudet would be engraved in gold letters on the walls of the Invalides in Paris.

    Additionally, a monument was erected in 1892 at the site of the battle. It bears the inscription:

    ‘Here, fewer than sixty men
    Faced an entire army.
    Its mass crushed them.
    Life rather than courage
    Abandoned these French soldiers
    On April 30, 1863.
    To their memory, the nation erected this monument.’

    Since then, when Mexican troops pass by the monument, they present arms.”

    However, the official account says nothing of the events that allowed the survivors to tell their story. In fact, Captain Saussier’s company, which arrived at the scene the next day, found only the drummer Laï, who had been left for dead with nine bullet and lance wounds. General Dupin’s counter-guerrilla troops attacked the village of Cueva Pentada on June 13 and liberated one of Camarón’s survivors, Legionnaire de Vries.

    On June 28, they took the village of Huatusco, defended by guerrillas who had participated in Camarón, and discovered Sub-lieutenant Maudet’s grave, which two Mexican officers had entrusted to their sister’s care in vain. Finally, on July 14, 1863, twelve surviving prisoners were exchanged for Mexican Colonel Alba. Thus, 14 legionnaires survived the battle. Most of them were promoted and decorated.”

    Camarón: the Founding Myth of the Foreign Legion

    In the broader context of French history, and even within the scope of the Mexican expedition, the Battle of Camarón is just a small event—essentially a skirmish involving only about sixty French soldiers. Nevertheless, this “French Thermopylae” has been completely mythologized and glorified, to the point that it overshadows the collective memory of the expedition’s ultimate failure in Mexico. So why this fascination with Camarón? Every military corps needs its traditions, its “founding myths” of sorts, with memorable events where past heroes are held up as examples. The Foreign Legion, which was still quite new at the time (founded in 1831), needed its own.

    A few months after the event, Colonel Jeanningros obtained permission from the emperor to have the name “Camarón” embroidered on his regiment’s flag (a practice now extended to all Legion flags). Napoleon III also had the names “Camarón, Danjou, Maudet, Vilain” inscribed on the walls of Les Invalides. On May 3, 1863, Colonel Jeanningros erected a wooden cross at the battle site, inscribed with “Here lies the 3rd Company of the 1st Battalion of the Foreign Legion.” This cross was later replaced with a stone column. In 1892, the French consul Edouard Sempé raised a monument through public subscription, which was rebuilt and inaugurated in 1965.

    Camarón is, therefore, a real historical event in which a small group of legionnaires distinguished themselves. However, through commemoration, the event has been essentialized to embody a certain spirit. What is called the “spirit of Camarón,” which is meant to inspire every legionnaire, is the ability to obey and fight to the death (since almost the entire force was wiped out) for the success of the mission (the Mexicans were delayed, and the convoy was saved). In other words, it symbolizes true self-sacrifice and a sacred sense of duty.

    The sacred aspect is not an exaggeration, especially considering that Camarón includes what could be seen as a relic: Captain Danjou’s wooden hand. This prosthesis was searched for in vain by the relief column and was allegedly taken by a Mexican guerrilla before ending up in the hands of a French ranch owner near Tesuitlan, where Austrian lieutenant Karl Grübert reportedly purchased it.

    According to other sources, it was found during the arrest of General Ramirez. Colonel Guilhem deposited it at Sidi Bel Abbes (the Legion’s headquarters) in 1865. Today, it is housed in the crypt of the Legion’s Museum of Remembrance in Aubagne and is only brought out for commemorations of the battle. Danjou’s hand has all the characteristics of a religious relic: a debated origin, sanctification in a significant place, and regular exhibition for an important celebration.

    Since 1906, the official account presented above has been read to legionnaires every April 30th, so that the example of these sixty men from the Second Empire becomes a model. The phrase “faire Camarón” has spread beyond Legion ranks and into society, becoming synonymous with “fighting to the ultimate sacrifice.

    buy zithromax online https://langleyrx.com/buy-zithromax.html no prescription pharmacy

    “

  • Battle of Fontenoy (1745)

    Battle of Fontenoy (1745)

  • Battle of the Pyramids: Napoleon’s Victory and the Fall of the Mamluks in Egypt

    Battle of the Pyramids: Napoleon’s Victory and the Fall of the Mamluks in Egypt

    Won by General Napoleon Bonaparte over the Mamelukes of Egypt on July 21, 1798, the Battle of the Pyramids is the most prestigious (and rare) French victory of the Egyptian campaign. It left to posterity one of the most famous quotes from the future emperor: “From the top of these pyramids, forty centuries of history are watching you!”… Following in the footsteps of Caesar and Alexander, the young general led the armies of the Republic into a mad military and scientific adventure on the land of the Pharaohs, occupied by the legendary Mamelukes… At the gates of Cairo, their mythical cavalry, reputed to be the best in the world, was crushed by the infantry of the French expeditionary force. This is the story of an “Egyptian Azincourt” at the foot of the millennia-old pyramids.

    The Egyptian Campaign

    In 1798, the Directory entrusted General Bonaparte with an expedition to the eastern Mediterranean aimed at disrupting British interests in the East. On May 19, 1798, the French fleet departed from Toulon with 32,000 men aboard.

    buy femara online http://forest-therapy.net/scripts/css/femara.html no prescription pharmacy

    Evading the vigilance of the English navy, the French expeditionary corps of the Egyptian campaign seized Alexandria on July 2, 1798. Posing as a liberator of Egypt by driving out the tyrannical Mamelukes with the blessing of the Sublime Porte, General Napoleon Bonaparte was, in reality, seeking to establish the first colony of the French Republic. A colony where scholars were tasked with creating the first social, agricultural, and industrial structures for long-term exploitation.

    Additionally, it was intended to sever a major commercial route from the English and serve as a base for a grand expedition towards the Far East, towards India, where they would fight the hereditary enemy alongside Maharajah Tipu Sultan. Hoping for the passivity of the Ottoman Empire in the face of this fait accompli, Bonaparte aimed to catch the 10,000 Mamelukes, who controlled the country under the command of twenty Beys, by surprise.

    Bonaparte had 40,000 men, but morale was low among the French soldiers, who, instead of finding an Eden, encountered a poor, starving country where the majority of the population consisted of wretched souls tormented by vermin. Bonaparte, therefore, aimed to move swiftly, to surprise his enemy and uplift his army with the euphoria of victory. The temperature reached 50°C in the shade, and the thick Western uniforms were not suited to this stifling climate.

    The most sensible, reasonable path was the sacred river of Egypt, the Nile, a miraculous serpent of life in the midst of this arid land. But it was also the most predictable path, where they would be expected, and Bonaparte decided to bypass any potential defense by cutting directly through the desert, leaving only a flotilla to sail down the river from Rosetta to join the army at Ramanieh.

    The Desert Crossing

    Desaix’s division led the vanguard, followed by Reynier, Dugua, Bon, and Vial’s divisions. A week of desert crossing, a week of unimaginable suffering under a blazing sun. Water was scarce, the wells were filled with stones or clogged with salty earth, the cisterns found along the way were empty or poisoned, and they had to dig to find a source. Soldiers rushed and crushed each other for a sip of water; in the rear guard led by Bon, they were ordered to use teaspoons!

    Food was also scarce, and the miserable huts encountered along the way did not provide the necessary supplies. Without mills or ovens, the army could not make use of the few wheat fields. The most prudent soldiers carefully preserved some melons picked before departure, and especially beans.

    buy voltaren online http://forest-therapy.net/scripts/css/voltaren.html no prescription pharmacy

    Foragers were sent to buy provisions in the few villages encountered, but the hostile and impoverished population had mostly fled. In Damanhour, the foragers of Reynier’s division were greeted with gunfire, and the battle ensued, with the resisters executed. The desert expanses thinned the ranks, disillusioned, exhausted, disoriented by mirages, suffering from ophthalmia, overwhelmed by the heat and deprivation, men resorted to suicide or fell behind… Around them lurked the Bedouins, predators circling a flock, who, unable to attack head-on, waited for a weakened individual to fall behind…

    Those unlucky enough to fall into their hands were brutalized, slashed, and raped, and often only bloodied bodies were found. The atmosphere was ripe for revolt, as the veterans of the Army of the Rhine did not hold the same respect for the general-in-chief as those of the Army of Italy. Even the generals doubted, lost their tempers, and trampled on their hats. Desaix bluntly told Bonaparte: “If the army does not cross the desert with the speed of lightning, it will perish.” On the map, the route was only about a hundred kilometers, but the conditions were extreme, and they quickly decided to march at night.

    Chebreiss: The Prelude to the Battle of the Pyramids

    At the end of the journey, the soldiers’ joy at the sight of the Nile was equal to that of the Hebrews discovering manna from heaven. The half-brigades scattered, and everyone threw themselves into the river. A watermelon field marked this long-awaited moment. But already some Mamelukes were approaching, and they were chased away by gunfire. On July 10, Murad Bey sent a flotilla and 4,000 cavalry to meet the French. The clash occurred at Chebreiss, where the division formation in squares was inaugurated: these squares were actually rectangles, formed by six rows of infantry on the long sides, three rows on the short sides, with cannons loaded with grapeshot at the corners, and the cavalry, civilians, and baggage protected in the center.

    The Mamelukes had blind faith in their cavalry, reputed to be the best in the world. Overconfident, they looked down on the invaders, thinking they would crush them at the first charge. Circassian slaves trained from a young age for war, the Mameluke cavalrymen were overarmed warriors who, carrying all their wealth in their saddlebags, fought fiercely to defend their possessions.

    Adorned on all sides and emitting wild howls, their frenzied charge was enough to impress any ordinary mortal. But the French infantrymen were no longer easily impressed; most of them were veterans of the Rhine or Italy and waited calmly for the order to fire the deadly volley. At the Battle of Chebreiss, the Mamelukes’ counterattack was stopped dead by the discipline of the French soldiers. They retreated, leaving behind 300 cavalrymen, 400 to 500 infantrymen, and nine iron cannons on the burning sand.

    On the river, the fight was fierce as the French fleet was boarded by Egyptian ships. The sailors, dismounted cavalrymen who were aboard, as well as the civilians (including Monge, Berthollet…), showed bravery and repelled the attackers. The Egyptian fleet withdrew as the current carried away the remains of a gunboat.

    “From the top of these pyramids, forty centuries are watching you!”

    The Beys were not as subdued by this defeat; they continued to haggle, no real recognition was made, and they still ignored where the enemy was coming from. Although they were certain of Bonaparte’s presence on the left bank of the Nile, they did not take the necessary measures to defend Cairo: their army could have entrenched itself on the right bank and patiently waited for a landing that it could have repelled at any point thanks to its cavalry’s mobility. Instead, Mourad Bey settled on the left bank, while Ibrahim Bey remained on the right in case a French army had landed on the other side.

    After allowing his troops a bit of rest, Bonaparte resumed his relentless march toward Cairo. The army trudged through the burning sand dunes, constantly harassed by the Bedouins. On July 19, the village of Abou-Nichoubi put up fierce resistance against the French vanguard. The repression was ruthless, with civilians executed and houses burned. This brutal example rallied some of the local sheikhs. The divisions kept each other within sight, and on July 20, the pyramids appeared on the horizon.

    Informed by spies of the isolation of Mourad’s army on the left bank, the attack was decided. At two in the morning, the army set off and marched 24 km to engage the enemy in the early afternoon of July 21, 1798. There, Bonaparte launched his famous proclamation (perhaps edited later):

    “Bonaparte, member of the Institute, commander-in-chief.

    Soldiers!

    You have come to these lands to tear them from barbarism, to bring civilization to the East, and to free these beautiful regions from the yoke of England. Remember that from the top of these Pyramids, forty centuries are watching you!”

    The Bey, along with his women, wealth, and slaves, had entrenched himself with 6,000 men—peasants, Nubians, and Janissaries—in the village of Embabeh, on the banks of the Nile, where Ibrahim’s boats and galleys sailed. Along the river, the Mamluk cavalry and about 20,000 irregulars were positioned. These latter forces, being mere peasants armed with sticks and clubs, had little military value, but the goal was to form a mass. Without tents to sleep in or organized supplies, they were often forced to return home in the evening.

    Bonaparte had his divisions form squares and advanced them toward the heights of Waraq-el-Hader (2 km from the enemy camp), while Mamluk horsemen retreated as the army advanced. The right wing, commanded by Desaix, anchored itself at the village of Biktil and moved beyond it. The village, offering some resources and formidable defensive positions, became a strategic point where Reynier and Desaix positioned grenadiers, dismounted dragoons, line infantry, light infantry, and an artillery company.

    Forming a curved line, the French divisions (Desaix, Reynier, Dugua, Vial, and Bon) stretched from the pyramids to the Nile, where Bon’s division anchored itself. Once in position, the order to rest was given, and the men dispersed to eat and drink. Suddenly, multicolored dots began to stir on the horizon.

    The Battle Preparations

    The Mamluks, feeling threatened with encirclement by the right wing’s advance, took up positions. Hastily, the French rejoined the ranks, reformed their squares, and prepared to face the best cavalry in the world. The first rank aimed bayonets at mid-height, the second and third ranks stood at the ready, weapons at shoulder, prepared to fire, and the last three ranks were kept in reserve. After an artillery salvo, the Mamluks charged, their hooves pounding the ground, a cloud of dust rising as golden harnesses flashed through the air.

    The French soldiers remained impassive, shoulder to shoulder.

    buy cialis soft tabs online http://forest-therapy.net/scripts/css/cialis-soft-tabs.html no prescription pharmacy

    Despite a fierce headwind, this half-human, half-animal torrent hurled itself furiously at Reynier’s and Desaix’s divisions, emitting savage cries. At half-range, the French officers gave the order to fire, and a deadly volley brought down the first rank, which collapsed amid the neighing of horses and the cries of the wounded, trampled by their comrades. A second volley felled the riders in a cloud of smoke. The charge, shot down at point-blank range, faltered just steps from the French squares; the cavalry turned back, while the most fanatical impaled themselves on the wall of bayonets.

    Some wounded Mamluks found the strength to crawl toward the French ranks, attempting to cut the infantry’s legs with their scimitars, but they were slashed to pieces. The cavalry circled in frustration. Trying to bypass the position, they charged between Desaix and Reynier but were caught in a crossfire. Unfortunately, the squares weren’t staggered enough, and friendly fire caused around twenty casualties. Within five minutes, 300 cavalrymen had been killed, about twice as many were wounded, and a panicked part of the Mamluks fled the battle. The others charged the village of Biktil, where they were repelled by the French, who were entrenched on rooftops and in gardens.

    Some soldiers sent to fetch water from a nearby village hurried back to join the squares. A dragoon was caught by a Mamluk rider, and an epic duel ensued, as the entire army held its breath. Captain François recounted:

    “At the moment when the Mamluks charged toward the village of Belbeis, several soldiers escaped and rejoined their divisions. A dragoon from the 15th regiment was attacked by a dismounted Mamluk; a fight broke out between them in the middle of Desaix’s and Reynier’s divisions. These two generals ordered a ceasefire on the side where the two adversaries were locked in combat. Finally, the dragoon killed the Mamluk and returned to the square; he had taken his enemy’s saber, a saber with a solid silver scabbard, as well as his dagger and pistol.”

    The Battle of the Pyramids

    In twenty minutes of battle, the cavalry disbands; a few riders take refuge in a park of palm trees to the west, from where they are driven out by skirmishers. The others return to the camp, spreading panic in Embabeh, where the Cairenes rush to the boats to save their lives. Meanwhile, Desaix and Reynier’s soldiers, who bore the brunt of the attack, seize the spoils, recovering equipment and treasures left in saddlebags and belts.

    Bonaparte, galloping from one square to another, orders Dugua’s division to advance and position themselves between the Mamluks and Embabeh, and instructs Bon and Vial to capture the village. Two detachments form into columns and launch the assault, using a ditch as cover from enemy artillery. Vial maneuvers around the village from the west, while Bon sends Marmont and Rampon to attack. The forward flankers are charged in turn; forming squares, they fire point-blank at the Mamluks, so close that the gunpowder ignites their tunics, which continue to burn on the corpses.

    The defenders fire their poorly maintained artillery but do not have time to reload before the French fall upon them. The Cairenes scatter, and only about 1,500 Mamluks remain, who are either killed or thrown into the Nile. The attackers capture the village, chasing the fleeing Egyptians along the Nile until they are forced by a wall to plunge into the river en masse.

    Before Ibrahim’s reinforcements could land, the rout was complete. Many of the fugitives drown in the sacred river, including Ibrahim’s son-in-law, who is repeatedly struck by an enraged oarsman, killing him. Some sailors sink their ships to prevent them from falling into French hands, while Mourad’s vessel, filled with gunpowder, runs aground and is set on fire. Meanwhile, Desaix’s division resumes its march towards the Giza Plateau, pushing Mourad Bey’s last warriors before them.

    A Victory That Forges Bonaparte’s Glory

    In this memorable battle, which would become a significant episode in the Napoleonic epic, the French suffered 300 killed and wounded. On the other side, the Mamluks lost between 1,500 and 2,000 men, 20 cannons, 400 camels, and all the baggage from Mourad’s camp. Mourad himself, wounded, fled to Upper Egypt, while Ibrahim Bey hastened towards Syria. Bonaparte declared that he had crushed the bulk of the Mamluk forces, though this needs to be tempered by the fact that, as was their custom, the Mamluks fled once they realized victory was impossible.

    Nevertheless, the general-in-chief could now return to Cairo, deserted by its elites, and proclaim Egypt liberated. Indeed, he had just conquered all of Lower Egypt and regained the confidence of his army. Enriched by the spoils and finally camping on the fertile banks of the Nile, the French reveled in their victory over an exotic enemy of incomparable bravery. A clash of cultures, infantry maneuvers had prevailed over the most violent charges. Disconcerted, the Egyptians remained convinced that the French soldiers must have been tied together in their squares to maintain such formation.

    The Cairenes, who had fled and been looted by Bedouins, gradually began to return to the Egyptian capital, somewhat reassured by the behavior of the victor.

    Although the battle took place at Embabeh, Bonaparte rightly believed it would have a greater impact on public opinion, and enhance his personal glory, by associating it with the pyramids, symbols of Pharaonic Egypt.

  • Napoleon’s Mamelukes

    Napoleon’s Mamelukes

  • Aedui: The First Gallo-Romans

    Aedui: The First Gallo-Romans

    During the Gallic era, the Aedui were a Celtic people who occupied the region of present-day Burgundy, with Bibracte, located on Mount Beuvray, as their capital. The mention of “our ancestors, the Gauls” often sparks controversy today, and the teaching of their history (and, through them, ours) is frequently caricatured. However, we now know that the Gauls were diverse, both in their structures and their relations with Rome, as well as with one another. This plurality is perhaps one of the rich elements of our “roots.” The Aedui were one such people, unique in many ways, particularly in their interactions with Rome.

    Geography and Territory

    • The Aedui’s territory was in central Gaul, and they controlled important trade routes, particularly along the Saône River and overland routes that connected the Rhone Valley to northern Gaul.
    • Their proximity to other major tribes, such as the Arverni to the west and the Sequani to the east, meant that they often had to compete for influence and dominance in the region.

    Aedui: Celts, “Brothers” of Rome

    The Gauls were part of the Celtic people who originated from Central and Eastern Europe and settled in what would become Gaul around the 6th century BCE. Little is known about them until the 2nd century BCE, when the “civilization of oppida” (singular: oppidum) developed. The Aedui were a good example of this, establishing themselves in what Caesar referred to in “The Gallic Wars” as cities, and primarily becoming an economic and commercial power.

    While oppida were fortified places, they were above all major economic and cultural centers, well-connected by transport routes and always located near raw material deposits. The oppida of Bibracte (135 hectares) and Alesia (97 hectares) demonstrate the importance of these places, far from the disorganized barbarian image typically associated with the Gauls.

    The history between the Aedui and Rome begins around 120 BCE when the Romans defeated the Arvernian king Bituitus, ending Arvernian dominance over the peoples of future Gaul. The Aedui benefited most from this and quickly aligned with Rome through trade and military agreements.

    buy aurogra online https://bccrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/png/aurogra.html no prescription pharmacy

    While the exact details of this alliance remain unclear, Latin authors such as Tacitus tell us it was very strong; indeed, the Aedui were referred to as “fratres consanguineique populi romani” (brothers and kinsmen of the Roman people), a title previously only granted to the Trojans (the people of Aeneas, founder of Rome).

    The relationship between the Aedui and Rome was therefore very strong, particularly on the economic front, which was advantageous for the Roman Republic to have allies in such a strategic location. It’s no surprise then that when the Aedui called on Rome for help in 58 BCE against the Helvetian threat, a certain Julius Caesar came to their aid.

    Bibracte and the Gallic Wars

    At that time, Caesar was the governor of Cisalpine Gaul and used this opportunity to assist the Aedui as a means to establish his presence. Though not called a conquest, it had begun. The Aedui were divided on how to respond to Caesar’s actions. He met with the three main leaders based in Bibracte, their capital. Liscos, the supreme Aedui magistrate, opposed Dumnorix, accusing him of betraying Rome. Dumnorix was a wealthy nobleman with his own cavalry and harbored ambitions for a more independent Aedui nation.

    Diviciacus, Dumnorix’s brother, was “the most respected of the Aedui,” a member of the druidic college, and had personally traveled to Rome to request Senate assistance against the Sequani and Arverni (unsuccessfully). He repeated his plea directly to Caesar to drive out the Germanic forces of Ariovistus. This time, it worked, but the Aedui became even more dependent on Caesar’s legions, whom they had to support and supply. Dissent grew, and Dumnorix took advantage by refusing to accompany Caesar to Britain in 54 BCE. Caesar, less patient this time, had the Gallic leader caught and executed. Legend says that Dumnorix cried out for his freedom and that of his people before his death. Around the same time, Diviciacus “disappeared.”

    The revolt against Roman occupation was brewing across Gaul, leading to the uprising led by Vercingetorix, the Arvernian. But the Aedui were caught between a relative “Gallic solidarity” among peoples who had long been at war and their logical interests aligned with Rome. They chose not to engage while avoiding helping the Romans. Caesar, however, pressured the Aedui, exploiting their internal divisions by backing Convictolitavis, who placed Litaviccos in charge of the Aedui army tasked with supporting the Roman legions.

    On the way to Gergovia, Litaviccos turned against the Romans, pillaging the supply convoy and fleeing. Caesar managed to recapture his troops, while the Gallic leader reached Gergovia alone. But after being repelled from Gergovia, Caesar had to deal with a rebellion from the Aedui as he planned to retreat to Bibracte. The rebellion was led by Eporédorix. At this point, the Aedui had finally chosen the Gallic side. An assembly was convened in Bibracte, and Vercingetorix was elected leader of the Gauls near the Wivre Stone.

    Little is known about the Aedui’s participation in the remainder of the Gallic Wars. Caesar did not attack Bibracte, the center of the rebellion, and eventually defeated Vercingetorix at Alesia. However, Caesar, now aware of the Aedui’s fickleness, decided to station his troops in Bibracte, where he wrote his “Commentaries” during the winter of 52 BCE.

    From Bibracte to Autun: The Romanization of the Aedui

    As seen, Bibracte was an oppidum, the “capital” of the Aedui and a significant economic and cultural hub. Its fortifications, especially the “murus gallicus” reconstructed at the Rebout Gate, highlight its importance. Excavations have shown that the city was organized by districts over an area of 135 hectares. Metalworking seemed to be a specialty of Bibracte, as evidenced by numerous workshops and nearby mines. One of Bibracte’s mysteries is the famous basin, made from Mediterranean materials. Its function is unknown, constructed according to Pythagorean geometry. It may have been religious or marked the city’s center.

    Despite Bibracte’s importance, it began to lose influence by the end of the Republic, gradually becoming deserted. This decline wasn’t due to Roman repression, as Caesar quickly forgave them, needing Aedui support. Perhaps the peace that followed the civil wars led Rome to move the Aedui capital to a more accessible location in the plains: the founding of Augustodunum (Autun) occurred around 16-13 BCE.

    Unlike Bibracte, Autun was a true “Roman city,” both in its construction and institutions. It quickly became an important economic and cultural center, and the Aedui regained their privileged status with Rome. Thus, the city served as a showcase and starting point for the Romanization of the vast region under its control. However, Autun’s history was not always smooth. Under Tiberius (14-37 CE), some of its privileges were revoked, sparking a quickly quashed revolt.

    buy amoxicillin online https://bccrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/png/amoxicillin.html no prescription pharmacy

    Later, Emperor Claudius (41-54 CE) proposed to the Roman Senate that Gauls, including the Aedui, be admitted. They were the first among the Gauls to do so.

    After the death of Nero in 68 CE, the Aedui supported Galba and then Vitellius.

    buy semaglutide online https://bccrf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/png/semaglutide.html no prescription pharmacy

    For nearly two centuries, Autun and the Aedui vanish from historical sources until they reappear during the events leading to the creation of the Gallic Empire. Rome was in crisis, besieged by barbarian invasions, and Autun was sacked by the Alemanni in 259 CE.

  • Romanization of Gaul and Integration of Gaulish Elites

    Romanization of Gaul and Integration of Gaulish Elites

    Julius Caesar‘s conquest of Gaul in 51 BC led to its provincialization and integration into the Roman Empire, particularly under Augustus, who created the provinces of Lugdunensis, Aquitania, and Belgica, while the Transalpine region became Narbonensis. But what about the Gallic elites? Did they also succeed in integrating into the imperial elites? What was their relationship with Rome and the emperor?

    Sources

    Discussing the Gallo-Roman elites presents a source issue, as they are limited. Regarding texts, besides Caesar’s Commentaries, we can cite Livy (who died in 17 AD and was close to Augustus), Strabo (who died around 25 AD), but especially Tacitus and Suetonius, both living in the 2nd century AD.

    Epigraphy is a major source, as inscriptions were often made by the elites. Lastly, funerary monuments also inform us about the Romanization of these elites.

    Here, we will address the Gallo-Roman elites broadly, meaning the Gallic notables following the Romanization of Gaul.


    These individuals were socially recognized at the local level for political, administrative, or even broader activities, such as in the economic domain. They became elites by integrating into the highest spheres of power, even reaching the Senate in Rome. We will discuss the Three Gauls and Narbonensis until the Antonine period.

    A “Pro-Roman” Gallic Elite?

    Even before the Gallic Wars, there was already an elite that could be described as “pro-Roman.” This was particularly the case with the Aedui. Their relations with Rome date back to around 120 BC, when the Romans defeated the Arvernian king Bituitus, benefiting the Aedui. They became privileged partners of Rome, especially in trade, so much so that they were considered “fratres consanguineique populi romani” (brothers and kinsmen of the Roman people). It is no coincidence, then, that Caesar claimed to respond to their call for help in 58 BC, and that after the Gallic Wars, Aedui, with his help, became the first Gauls to enter the Senate.


    This Aeduan dominance persisted later under Claudius.

    However, the Aedui were not the only ones already close to Rome. From the Republican era, the elites of Narbonensis were culturally and institutionally Romanized, giving them a more positive image in Rome compared to the notables of Gallia Comata, Aedui included.

    The Dominance of the Iulii

    After his victory, Caesar rewarded his allies with Roman citizenship, a distribution considered generous and criticized, according to Suetonius (a much later source): “Caesar leads the Gauls to triumph, and also to the Curia. The Gauls have left their trousers; they have taken up the broad stripe.” However, the reward was individual, as were grants of magistracies or land. The same applied under Augustus, who founded Autun (Augustodunum), the new Aeduan capital, where universities were created to teach Gallo-Roman notables Latin.

    The Gauls elevated to Roman citizenship by Caesar and Augustus were called Iulii, after Julius. They mainly came from a military nobility and landowning aristocracy. The fate of two Aedui is noteworthy: Eporédirix, an Aeduan leader mentioned by Caesar in his Commentaries, was initially pro-Roman (he was with them at Gergovia!), but later joined Vercingetorix and was captured (or his namesake, as Caesar’s account is unclear) at Alesia.

    Inscriptions from the 1st century BC later mention a C. Iulius Eporédirix (a Roman citizen from the 40s–30s BC), and we can trace them to the 1st century AD and a figure named Iulius Calenus, who, in 69 AD, was tasked by Vitellius’ victors with negotiating with the defeated at Cremona. This tribune, an Aeduan, seems to be a distant descendant of Eporédirix, illustrating the transition from an Aeduan chief to a Roman knight, a journey of a Gallic family seemingly fully integrated into the Empire.

    However, this progression should neither be generalized nor idealized. The integration of Gallic notables into the imperial elite did not happen overnight and was not systematic. This explains the request made to Claudius and his response in 48 AD.

    Claudius’ Role in Favor of the Gallo-Roman Elites

    Born in Lyon in 10 BC, becoming emperor in 41 AD (after succeeding Caligula), Claudius had close ties with Gaul. Upon his accession, the Gauls of Gallia Comata did not yet have full citizenship, and the notables had no access to the ius honorum (the right to hold public office). Although under Caesar and early Augustus, some Gauls (Iulii from the Three Gauls, Domitii, Valerii, or Pompeii from Narbonensis) had gained equestrian rank and even Senate membership, this ceased after 18 BC. Narbonensis regained this right in 14 AD, but Gallia Comata had not. Hence the request made to Emperor Claudius.


    He responded with a famous text, which we know from Tacitus and especially from the Claudian Table, a bronze plaque discovered in the 16th century. Claudius decided to grant the ius honorum to the Aedui (and later to other Gauls). This caused outrage among Roman senators, as Claudius had anticipated, evidenced by his words: “Indeed, I see well in advance the objection that will be made to me…” Gaul, especially Gallia Comata, still had a negative image in Rome, tainted by the terror gallicus.

    The Council of the Gauls

    As in the rest of the Empire, the imperial cult served as the link between local elites and the emperor.

    In 12 BC, Drusus, the father of the future Emperor Claudius, constructed a federal sanctuary for Gaul at Condate, near Lyon. Each year, on August 1st, the elites of the Three Gauls gathered there to celebrate their loyalty to the emperor around the altar dedicated to Rome and Augustus. The Assembly of the Gauls (or concilium) was led by an elected sacerdos, the first being logically an Aeduan, Caius Julius Vercondaridubnus. Under Tiberius, the construction of an amphitheater allowed for games to accompany the assembly’s meetings.

    The purpose of creating this Council of Gauls was to integrate and Romanize the indigenous elites. The institution was above the provincial governor (also based in Lyon), answered only to the emperor (to whom it could present requests), and its members were of equestrian rank. It was a mandatory gathering of the Gallo-Roman elites, representing the sixty peoples of Gallia Comata. The Assembly thus played a real political role, and emperors, like Claudius or even Caligula, who in 39 AD organized an oratory competition, attended it.

    The Evergetism of Gallo-Roman Elites

    Another marker of the Romanization of the Gallo-Roman elites is their practice of evergetism, which refers to the benevolent acts offered to cities (and indirectly to the emperor), often in the form of monuments.

    One famous example in Gaul is the amphitheater of Lyon, mentioned earlier. Its construction was initiated in 19 AD by the sacerdos of the Santones, Caius Julius Rufus. This prominent local figure also gifted an arch to his city of Saintes, where, in an inscription, he does not hesitate to compare himself to Germanicus.

    Other examples exist, such as a portico donated by the Bituriges to the baths of Néris, a theater in Eu, or another in Jublains.

    Transformations and Integration

    The integration of Gallic notables was essential for the Empire. By maintaining good relations with the indigenous population, the imperial elites could better exercise their functions in the province. Meanwhile, the local elites could aspire to social advancement.

    However, these relations were not always straightforward, especially in Gaul, and often proved asymmetrical. This partly explains the relative integration of Gallo-Roman elites into the imperial elites, with notable differences between Narbonensis and northern Gaul (Gaule chevelue).

    Other factors are at play: we previously mentioned the military and landowning background of the Iulii. They appear to have struggled following the revolt of Vindex in 69 AD, which led to repression among their ranks. They lost influence within the Gallo-Roman elite, which began to diversify, integrating, for instance, notable merchants—a trend that intensified under the Antonines. However, these conclusions should be tempered, as sources are scarce.

    This heterogeneity of Gallo-Roman elites, combined with a level of urbanization that was less pronounced than elsewhere (and since elites are formed in cities), ultimately resulted in Gaul being less represented within the imperial elites (the equestrian order, and even more so the senatorial order) compared to provinces like Spain or North Africa.

  • Pax Romana: The 200-Year Golden Era of Roman Peace and Stability

    Pax Romana: The 200-Year Golden Era of Roman Peace and Stability

    After the conquest by Julius Caesar, the Pax Romana was established in Roman Gaul, which quickly became one of the most prosperous provinces of the Empire. Despite a few last revolts, the “Roman peace” settled under the principate of Augustus, and in two centuries, the landscape of Gaul transformed. The countryside became organized, the region adorned with new cities, and architects built roads and monuments. Romanization seemed complete. These two centuries of Pax Romana give an impression of prosperity: agriculture and crafts developed, and trade flourished. However, real difficulties slowly emerged, foreshadowing the major crises to come.

    Conquest of Gaul by Caesar

    Roman settlement in Gaul dates back to the late 2nd century BCE. At the time, Gaul was inhabited by a myriad of warlike Gallic tribes. Responding to a call for help from the Greek colony of Massalia, the Romans occupied it in 121 BCE and advanced along the coast toward their Iberian province and up the Rhône valley. They founded the colony of Narbonne, which became the center of the new and highly prosperous Roman province of the same name. To secure this province and consolidate his power in Rome, the Roman general Julius Caesar undertook the conquest of what was called “long-haired Gaul” in 58 BCE, which extended from the Pyrenees to the English Channel and the Rhine. The Gauls, united under the Arvernian leader Vercingetorix, were ultimately defeated during the siege of Alesia, following a war that lasted seven years.

    Gaul slowly recovered from the ordeal of war and Roman conquest. Caesar then directed his policy in two directions: first, he planned, especially in southern Gaul, to settle former soldiers, veterans, in military colonies to ensure control of the country and serve as centers of Romanization. This was the case with Narbonne, Fréjus, Béziers, Arles, and Orange. Second, he secured the support of Gallic elites. Some had helped him during the conquest, while others supported him during the civil war against Pompey. He granted them Roman citizenship and gave them his name, Caius Julius. Thus was formed what has been called “a nobility of the Julii,” upon which his successor, Augustus, relied.

    Pax Romana in Roman Gaul

    Extent of the Roman Empire under Augustus.
    Extent of the Roman Empire under Augustus. Credit: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

    When Augustus, after defeating Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, established the principate, he took care to promote certain ideological themes that inspired hope and confidence. The civil wars before Octavian, the future Augustus, came to power had been so long and deadly that it was essential to reassure the populations of the Roman Empire. Augustus promised peace and made this his political program. This was the Roman Peace, in other words, submission to Roman law. In Rome, the Altar of Peace was built to commemorate the final pacification of the Iberian Peninsula. In all the provinces, altars were also erected, reminding the provincials that the time of war was over and a new era, the Peace of Augustus, had begun.

    The new emperor’s actions were evident in many areas. First and foremost, it was essential to pacify, which in reality meant suppressing by force the last centers of resistance that occasionally reignited. The emperor sent his son-in-law Agrippa, who in a few battles eliminated the opponents, particularly in Aquitaine. Augustus himself visited Gaul several times to quell the frequent unrest in border areas.

    Augustus’ Influence

    Map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent in 116 AD.
    Map of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent in 116 AD. Credit: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 3.0

    The territory was divided into provinces organized into two groups. On one side, the former province of Transalpine Gaul, bounded by the Pyrenees, the Cévennes, the Alps, and the Mediterranean, with the Rhône valley as its central axis, was now called Narbonese Gaul and remained under senatorial control, as it had been during the Republic. On the other side, the Three Gauls, made up of three provinces governed by legates appointed directly by the emperor: Aquitaine, with its northern border extended to the Loire; Lugdunensis, between the Seine, Loire, and Marne; and Belgica, covering the entire north of the country. Each of these provinces was divided into cities.

    This group of the Three Gauls had a federal capital carefully nurtured by Augustus, located in Lyon. This site, long occupied by the Celts, saw the foundation of a Roman military colony in 43 BCE on Fourvière Hill: Lugdunum. The rapid growth of this colony was partly due to the commercial center developing at the confluence of the Saône and Rhône rivers.

    But it was to Emperor Augustus that Lyon owed its political importance. The city was promoted to the capital of the Three Gauls. It became the meeting place for annual assemblies of delegates from all Gallic cities, where provincial matters were discussed. These assemblies, in another form, predated Romanization.

    With remarkable political acumen, Augustus co-opted the former power structures of independent Gaul to serve his and Rome’s policies. He also made the city a central hub, as evidenced by the road network designed by Agrippa. From Lyon, major roads radiated out toward the north, northeast, and the Rhine frontier, eastward to the Alpine passes, southward to the Mediterranean, and westward to the Massif Central. Finally, Lyon became the capital of the official cult dedicated to Rome and Augustus.

    The imperial cult was established early in municipal settings, as demonstrated by the Maison Carrée in Nîmes or the Temple of Augustus and Livia in Vienne. This cult strengthened the emperor’s power while also fostering the integration of the provincials.

    Augustus also focused on southern Gaul. Urbanization, already well advanced in the 1st century BCE, accelerated thanks to numerous measures: the founding and strengthening of colonies, the granting of a more favorable legal status (Latin rights), and funding for civic works. He provided city walls for Vienne and Nîmes and subsidized the construction of theaters in Arles, Orange, and Vienne.

    Resistance and Integration

    However, Gaul in the 1st century AD was shaken by revolts whose aims are difficult to understand due to a lack of sources. The first of these revolts erupted under Tiberius in 21 AD, shaking the Pax Romana. These revolts are recounted by Tacitus, who highlights a particularly serious issue: debt. It was because they were burdened by heavy taxes and forced to go into debt that the populations of the Loire Valley, the Treveri, and the Aedui took up arms. Their discontent was even greater because they had previously enjoyed tax exemptions, which the Emperor Tiberius had to remove due to a severe financial crisis. These revolts, led by Romanized Gallic nobles, mostly broke out in the North and Northeast and were harshly repressed by Roman legions from the Rhine frontier.

    Another revolt was fomented nearly fifty years later, in 69-70 AD, under very different conditions, as it was initially caused by a crisis affecting the imperial regime itself, weakened during Nero’s reign. However, within this complex movement, one can detect a clear expression of anti-Roman sentiment. It is known that Aedui peasants (eight thousand, according to the sources) followed a Celtic leader from Bohemia, Mariccus, who, speaking of Roman oppression, presented himself as the “liberator of Gaul.” The uprising had no further consequence, as Mariccus was arrested by the magistrates of Autun and executed. Nonetheless, it is significant because of the resonance it found in rural areas. Despite these sporadic resistances, the dominant sentiment was one of attachment to Rome, particularly within the ruling classes.

    It is indeed in terms of integration that relations between Gauls and Romans were increasingly established, something the Emperor Claudius had understood very well. In a speech delivered in 48 AD, partially preserved in Lyon on a bronze plaque, he advocated for the Gallic nobles of the long-haired Gaul who wished to access imperial magistracies. Before a reluctant Senate, Claudius deployed all his knowledge and historical culture to demonstrate that Rome’s strength had always resided in its ability to welcome and integrate conquered peoples. After much hesitation, the Senate was convinced: integrating the Gauls would favor the development of the subjugated provinces.

    Transformation of the Gallic Rural Landscape

    Ancient authors tend to associate the development of the Gallo-Roman countryside with the Pax Romana: it was thanks to the peace established by the Romans that Gaul, naturally fertile, could devote itself to agriculture. This view is partial. Agriculture had already reached a remarkable level of development long before the conquest. However, it continued to grow during the Roman period due to more rational land use, increased productivity, and a deeper integration of production into trade networks.

    The Romans exerted their influence over the rural population in two ways: first, they seized land to allocate it to former soldiers, Roman citizens who became full-fledged landowners within the colonies; second, they imposed a land tax, the tributum, on provincial non-citizens, an obvious mark of their subjugation. To establish colonies, count the population, and set the tax base, the Romans undertook a vast land surveying effort, the traces of which can still be observed in some areas of the present-day landscape.

    On hundreds of hectares, they marked out large squares of 710 meters per side, delineated by roads, paths, or boundary markers. Properties within these large squares—called centuries—were delimited, identified, and allocated. All the information was then recorded and archived by specialized administrative services, as evidenced by the fragments of the land registry from the colony of Orange.

    The Gallo-Roman Villa

    The pre-Roman Gallic agricultural estates were replaced by large rural estates, known as villae, which were self-sufficient but also engaged in trade, as evidenced by pottery and jewelry found during excavations. The villa was a production unit consisting of agricultural land, the residence of the landowner (the villa in the strict sense), and outbuildings and workshops: a forge, carpentry shop, mill, brewery, weaving workshop, and, in southern estates, a winemaking facility.

    The size of the estates varied significantly, influencing the modes of exploitation. It is likely that on estates of 50 to 100 hectares, direct farming with a predominantly servile labor force, a common practice in the South, was used. On very large estates, tenant farming or sharecropping was employed. The dominance of large estates should not overshadow the fact that the countryside was also inhabited by native villages and hamlets.

    Under these conditions, exploitation took on very diverse forms. Alongside subsistence farming, speculative production developed, particularly on the villae, benefiting from the technical improvements introduced by the Gauls: the plow with a metal share, the wheeled plow, the harvester, various crop rotation practices, and fertilization. There was a marked increase in productivity, allowing for the production of surplus goods for commercial sale.

    The North focused on cereals (wheat, millet, barley) and textile plants (flax, hemp), which were sold in the Rhine region. The South increasingly turned its production towards olive cultivation and, above all, viticulture. The latter expanded greatly during the 1st century and spread to Burgundy and the banks of the Moselle. With well-adapted grape varieties and efficient winemaking techniques, Gallic wines circulated within the country and the Mediterranean Basin. This rural development was closely linked to the extraordinary growth of urbanization.

    Cities, Political and Cultural Centers

    The establishment of municipal structures by the Romans was accompanied by a considerable expansion of urbanization. This effort was particularly focused on the Three Gauls, where cities were almost non-existent. The chosen sites were often located in plains near oppida: such as Clermont-Ferrand at the foot of Gergovia and Autun near Bibracte.

    Contrary to a somewhat simplistic view, Gallo-Roman cities were not built according to a rigid, imposed Roman model. It is pointless, for example, to insist on finding a regular orthogonal plan. Where circumstances allowed, a grid layout was used, but this was not the primary concern for builders. The essential aim was to equip the city so it could serve as a political, administrative, economic, and religious center. The heart of the city was occupied by the forum, a large square around which the main public buildings were situated: the curia, basilica, temples dedicated to official gods and the emperor.

    These political centers, with their porticoed forums like Ruscino, and colonnaded temples like those in Nîmes and Vienne, had a grand and theatrical character that seemed to appeal to these small provincial towns. Alongside these public life centers, which everywhere reflected the influence of Rome, the numerous leisure and relaxation buildings demonstrated the importance of collective life.

    Among these buildings, the baths, theaters, and amphitheaters still impress with their size and capacity. The theater in Autun could hold 38,000 spectators, while the amphitheater in Arles accommodated 28,000 people, and the one in Nîmes, 24,000. The density and scale of these monuments, designed to enhance urban life and foster social gatherings, prove that they attracted not only the city’s population—typically around 8,000 to 10,000 inhabitants—but also the surrounding region’s people.

    Religions and the Christianization of Roman Gaul

    The religious landscape of Roman Gaul was exceptionally rich. The imperial cult, associated with Rome, does not seem to have had a significant impact on the Gauls: many Gaulish beliefs and practices continued, with major Celtic deities still being venerated and indigenous sanctuaries remaining active. However, contact with the Romans expanded the pantheon, enriching and diversifying the iconography, and leading to the development of unique syncretisms. Furthermore, from the 1st century onwards, salvation cults from the East, such as the cults of Cybele, Mithra, and Christianity, began to spread along trade routes, in cities, and in frontier regions. The rise of these spiritually and emotionally charged religions reflected growing anxieties during difficult times.

    By the 2nd century CE, Christian presence was noted in Lyon and Vienne, among communities from Asia Minor. After the persecutions of 177 CE, Bishop Irenaeus wrote the first Christian texts in Gaul. Evangelization of Gallic cities became very active in the 3rd century, thanks to various bishops such as Denis in Lutetia, Trophimus in Arles, Martial in Limoges, and Saturninus in Toulouse. Unlike the cities, the countryside remained attached to pagan worship, and it was not until a hundred years later, with Saint Martin, bishop of Tours, that they began to fully convert. The massive conversion of Gaul only occurred under Constantine, the emperor who established Christianity as the official religion throughout the Empire in 312 CE.

    Commerce and Craftsmanship during the Pax Romana

    In cities, all trades and crafts were represented. Traditional woodworkers, such as carpenters and coopers, were well-known through their large guilds, which had a religious aspect; metal trades have left enough artifacts—arms, vases, jewelry, and coins—to attest to the skill of founders, blacksmiths, and bronze workers. Stoneworking was more recent, as the Gauls had little stone architecture, but they quickly became excellent builders, with quarrymen, stonemasons, and bricklayers active in the numerous construction sites across Gaul.

    However, it was perhaps in pottery and glasswork that the Gallo-Romans reached their greatest mastery. Gallic potters, already numerous and skilled during the period of independence, quickly adopted manufacturing techniques from Italy, particularly from Arezzo. They produced red-slipped pottery called sigillata, from the word sigillum, referring to the stamp with which they signed their wares. Centers of sigillata production multiplied in the Southwest at La Graufesenque, Montans, and Banassac, in the Center at Lezoux, and in the Northeast. This pottery fueled a thriving trade in Gaul, Italy, and the provinces.

    Solid glass had long been used by the Gauls for jewelry (bracelets, necklaces), but during the Roman period, the spread of glassblowing techniques enabled glassmakers to create, with incredible boldness, flasks, bottles, and goblets in a wide variety of shapes and colors.

    This artisanal production, along with agricultural products, fueled local, regional, and international trade. Lyon, Narbonne, Arles, and, to a lesser extent, Bordeaux, became major commercial centers, though all cities engaged in trade of raw materials (lead, copper, tin), agricultural products (wheat, wine, olive oil), textiles, and manufactured goods (ceramics, glassware).

    Trade routes had definitively lost their colonial character from the Republican era. Consumers exhibited diverse needs and benefited from a relatively flexible market and a general rise in living standards. The wine trade is a good example: while Gaul exported large quantities of wine, especially to Italy, it simultaneously continued importing Italian wine.

    Why? It was because the wines were of very different qualities: Gallic wine was an ordinary wine, mainly intended for the population of Rome, which was a heavy consumer, while Italian wine imported into Gaul was of a quality reserved for a wealthy clientele. Similar observations can be made for the oil trade. These lucrative activities were managed by specialists, the negotiatores, who were well-known in Lyon and Narbonne. Within their powerful guilds, linked to transporters and shipowners, they were regarded as prominent figures.

    The End of the Pax Romana in Gaul

    Life in Gaul during the first two centuries CE conveys an impression of peace and prosperity. In all sectors of economic life, activity was intense, and by the end of the 2nd century, resistance seemed definitively subdued. Gaul, protected by strong fortifications along the Rhine, appeared capable of withstanding the fearsome Germanic incursions. Yet some cracks were already appearing: city budgets were increasingly in deficit, peasants were agitating against the accelerating land concentration, and the state itself, under the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, was shaken.

    By the 3rd century, Gaul faced both the military anarchy that destabilized the Empire and the first barbarian invasions. Despite occasional periods of respite, the Roman Empire collapsed in the 5th century, and with it, the Pax Romana. Roman Gaul would survive in the new kingdoms founded, notably that of the Franks.

  • From Alexander the Great to Queen Cleopatra: How Egypt Became Greek

    From Alexander the Great to Queen Cleopatra: How Egypt Became Greek

  • When Julius Caesar Gave Cleopatra the Throne

    When Julius Caesar Gave Cleopatra the Throne

  • From the Conquest of Gaul to the Fall of the Roman Empire: Key Dates

    From the Conquest of Gaul to the Fall of the Roman Empire: Key Dates

    A Republic in Full Expansion

    125-121 BC: Rome’s legions, led by consul Fluvius Flaccus, intervene in Gaul for the first time in 125 BC, in what is now Provence. They defeat the local Gaulish peoples: the Ligurians, Salyens, and Vocontii. Four years later, consul Fabius Maximus defeats the Allobroges (settled between the Rhône and the Southern Alps). A new Roman province is born: Gallia Transalpina (Transalpine Gaul).

    118 BC: Domitius Ahenobarbus establishes the Colonia Narbo Martius (Narbonne). The general and consul turns the city into a commercial crossroads of the western Mediterranean.

    102 BC: Fortified in a camp on the Rhône, consul Caius Marius defeats two Germanic-Celtic tribes, the Teutons and Cimbri, at Aquae Sextiae (Aix-en-Provence). These tribes sought to cross the Alps to attack Rome. His triumph halts further foreign invasions on Gaulish soil.

    61 BC: Led by their chief Catugnatos, the Allobroges rise again to take control of Transalpine Gaul. The province’s governor, Caius Pomptinus, defeats them at the Battle of Solonion near Valence (Drôme).

    58 BC: Wishing to match the military exploits of his rival Pompey (106-48 BC), Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), proconsul of Transalpine Gaul, begins his conquest of “long-haired Gaul” (Gallia Comata), inhabited by powerful tribes like the Arverni (Auvergne), the Aedui (Burgundy), and the Carnutes (Central Loire Valley). Caesar exploits rivalries between these tribes to carry out his Gallic Wars.

    52 BC: Upon his return to Rome, crowned with victories, Caesar learns of unrest in Gaul: Roman merchants have been massacred in Cenabum (Orléans) and the Arverni chief Vercingetorix (80-46 BC) has raised an army of 80,000 men. In June, Caesar’s legions lay siege to the oppidum of Gergovia but are defeated by the Gauls. Caesar imposes a two-month siege, from August to September, at Alesia, starving the population. Vercingetorix is forced to surrender. The following year, all of Gaul becomes Roman.

    40 BC: After the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, Rome is divided between his grand-nephew Octavian, generals Lepidus and Mark Antony, who form a triumvirate. They conclude the Pact of Brundisium (Brindisi, Italy), which recognizes Mark Antony as master of the East and Lepidus of Africa. Octavian, the future Emperor Augustus, rules over Gaul.

    buy provigil online https://fasteruc.com/occupational-health-services/html/provigil.html no prescription pharmacy

    The Long Reign of Emperor Augustus

    27 BC: Founded in 43 BC by proconsul Munatius Plancus, Lugdunum (Lyon) is elevated to the rank of capital of Gaul. The city houses the only mint outside Rome authorized to strike gold and silver coins and becomes the empire’s second aqueduct system.

    16-13 BC: Emperor Augustus (63 BC-14 AD) gives Gaul a new administrative framework. Transalpine Gaul, governed by a proconsul, becomes Narbonensis, named after its capital Narbo Martius (Narbonne).

    buy buspar online https://fasteruc.com/occupational-health-services/html/buspar.html no prescription pharmacy

    Long-haired Gaul is divided into provinces: the Three Gauls: Belgica with its capital Durocortorum (Reims), Lugdunensis with Lugdunum (Lyon), and Aquitania governed from Mediolanum Santonum (Saintes). Gaulish peoples are grouped into civitates (cities), and their governor is the emperor himself.

    12 BC: The imperial cult establishes its first sanctuary in Lugdunum (Lyon) and a second in Narbo Martius (Narbonne). Every year on August 1st, the Council of Gaul, bringing together representatives from the sixty cities of the three provinces, elects a high priest to celebrate Rome and the emperor.

    buy zofran online https://fasteruc.com/occupational-health-services/html/zofran.html no prescription pharmacy

    9 AD: Three Roman legions led by General Publius Quinctilius Varus are massacred by the Germans in the Teutoburg Forest (modern-day Germany). The province of Germania slips out of Rome’s control. The Romans consolidate the border on the Rhine but no longer seek to control the area between the Rhine and the Danube, which from the third century will become the starting point of the “barbarian invasions.”

    The Julio-Claudians, Heirs of Augustus

    21 AD: While Julius Caesar had exempted most Gaulish peoples from taxes, Emperor Tiberius (42 BC-37 AD) demands a tribute from all. Julius Florus, leader of the Treveri (inhabitants of modern-day Belgium), and Julius Sacrovir, leader of the Aedui (in Burgundy), launch a revolt. Defeated by legions returning from Germania, the two members of the old Gaulish aristocracy commit suicide.

    48 AD: Emperor Claudius (10 BC-54 AD), born in Lugdunum (Lyon), delivers a remarkable speech in the Senate advocating for Gaulish nobles to be considered full Roman citizens. Only the elites of a few tribes allied with Rome, like the Aedui, will gain this status.

    68-69 AD
    After the death of Nero (37-68), the last emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, Rome plunges into political chaos, with four usurpers succeeding each other. The Gauls are drawn into this civil war through the governors of the Three Gauls.

    Peaceful Rule of the Flavians

    70 AD: Under Emperor Vespasian (9-79), the first emperor of the Flavian dynasty, the Pax Romana (Roman Peace) is solidified during an assembly in Durocortorum (Reims), where, “in the name of Gaul,” the Gallo-Roman elites swear loyalty to Rome.

    90 AD: During the reign of Emperor Domitian (51-96), the construction of public buildings multiplies in the major Gallo-Roman cities. Amphitheaters are built in Nîmes, Orange, and Arles. A 275-meter-long and 48-meter-high aqueduct, meant to bring water from the Uzès spring to the city of Nemausus (Nîmes), begins to be erected: this will be the future Pont du Gard.

    92 AD: Worried about the increase in Gaul’s wine exports, which threatens small Roman vineyards, Domitian orders, by decree, the uprooting of half of Gaul’s vineyards.

    Under the Antonines and Severans

    177 AD: As Christianity emerges in Gaul, Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180), alarmed by this new religion, demands public executions. Among the most notable are 66 martyrs thrown to the wild beasts in the amphitheater of Lugdunum (Lyon).

    197 AD: Emperor Septimius Severus (145-211) sacks Lugdunum (Lyon), the capital of Gaul, which had allied with the usurper Clodius Albinus. Gallo-Roman senators are executed.

    212 AD: The Constitutio Antoniniana, also known as the Edict of Caracalla, grants Roman citizenship to all free men in the empire who had not yet acquired it.

    Third Century Crisis of the Roman Empire

    253-274 AD: Abandoned by the empire, plagued by military anarchy, the Gallo-Romans secede to defend against the first “barbarian invasions” from the east. General Postumus seizes Cologne and declares himself “Emperor of the Gauls” in 260, before being assassinated. In 274, Emperor Aurelian (214-275) restores unity. He is killed by the Praetorian Guard a year later.

    284-286 AD: Driven into misery, armed bands of landless peasants, slaves, and deserting soldiers, called the “Bagaudae,” loot and plunder northwest Gaul. Emperor Diocletian (245-313) violently suppresses these outcasts of Roman conquest.

    303 AD: To weaken the power of governors, Diocletian divides Gaul into sixteen imperial provinces grouped into two districts: Diocesis Galliarum, north of the Loire and Rhône, with Augusta Treverorum (Trier) as its capital, and Diocesis Viennensis, which extends to the southernmost provinces, with Vienna (Vienne) as its capital.

    Rise of Christianity

    313-392 AD: Emperor Constantine I (272-337) converts to Christianity in 313. Theodosius I (347-395) continues his work with the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, which declares Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. He bans all pagan practices in 392.

    406 AD: The “barbarian invasions” sweep across Gaul. Vandals, Suebi, and Alans, Germanic tribes, cross the Rhine and destroy everything in their path. Weakened, Emperor Flavius Honorius (384-423) does not intervene.

    410 AD: Rome is sacked by the Visigoths of Alaric I. This Germanic people then seizes Narbonensis and Aquitaine in Gaul.

    Collapse of the Roman World

    476 AD: On September 4, Odoacer, leader of the Heruli, barbarians allied with the Huns of Attila, confronts Romulus Augustulus (461-507), the last emperor of the Western Roman Empire. He deposes him and becomes the first Germanic king of Italy. The Western Empire collapses.

    486 AD: The Roman Empire is replaced in Gaul by a Frankish kingdom ruled by Clovis (465-511). From the Merovingians to the Carolingians, a new Gallo-Frankish identity emerges. Roman civilization begins to merge with the “barbarian” world of the Franks, leading to the birth of the French language.

  • Clergy and Religion During the French Revolution

    Clergy and Religion During the French Revolution

    The period of the French Revolution is often primarily seen as a violent confrontation between two orders, the Third Estate and the nobility, with the execution of Louis XVI in 1793 being a focal point. The religious factor is somewhat relegated to the background. However, the clergy is also an order, at least as powerful as the nobility, and, more importantly, religion holds a central place in a deeply religious France and within a monarchy based on divine right. We will thus address the relationship between the French Revolution and religion, beginning with the situation before 1789.

    Jansenism and the Revolution

    The crisis of Jansenism left its mark on the France of the Ancien Régime, particularly through the papal response with the Unigenitus bull, which reignited Jansenism even within the Parliaments under the reign of Louis XV, where Jansenism and Gallicanism intertwined in opposition to papal influence. For a time, this “parliamentary party” gained momentum, even achieving the expulsion of the Jesuit rivals in 1764. However, Jansenism had to yield to the blows of Maupeou, who quashed the rebellion of the Parliaments in the early 1770s.

    These various crises tore the French Church apart, and although Jansenism was ultimately defeated, it had nonetheless spread its ideas widely and was seen as one of the inspirations for the Revolution. As for the clergy, it found itself acting as “agents of the king.”

    The French Clergy on the Eve of the Revolution

    Officially, the clergy was considered the first estate of the kingdom, but the reality was more complex. By the late 1780s, there were an estimated 130,000 members of the clergy, about 2% of the French population. This included a regular clergy, two-thirds of which was female, and a highly unequal secular clergy, with bishops forming a “general staff” and a large number of parish priests, vicars, and chaplains making up the rest.

    The clergy played a central role in society at all levels, starting with parish registers (a goldmine of sources for historians) and much of the education system. They also held a monopoly over charity and assistance. As an estate, the clergy enjoyed numerous privileges, both judicial and fiscal, and was one of the largest landowners in the kingdom.

    However, the clergy was deeply divided on the eve of the Revolution, the most significant rift being between the upper and lower clergy, with the former enjoying far more privileges. One could even speak of a crisis within the French clergy, caused by these inequalities and the lingering effects of the Jansenist quarrel. One sign of this crisis was the sharp decline in clerical recruitment, both regular and secular, with monastic orders being the most affected.

    In an atmosphere of desacralization of the monarchy, the clergy attempted to oppose all “bad books” by reinforcing censorship through several ordinances in the 1780s. The problem was that the king did not support them in this effort! It seems that, between the Church and the Enlightenment, the king had chosen the latter, even in education, which experienced “secularization” following the expulsion of the Jesuits, much to the dismay of the bishops.

    Protestants and Jews

    France was predominantly Catholic, but the existence of minorities should not be overlooked.

    The situation of the Protestants was mixed, with persecution during the reign of Louis XIV followed by some optimism during the early reign of Louis XV. Ultimately, they continued to live in secrecy until two years before the Revolution, with the Edict of Tolerance in 1787.

    Prejudices against Jews remained strong at the end of the Ancien Régime, and the issue of their emancipation was only raised in a few restricted circles. The clergy largely despised them, and mercantile and economic circles were resolutely hostile. Despite the influence of the Enlightenment and some improvements in the second half of the 18th century, Jews were still subject to severe discrimination on the eve of the Revolution.

    Religious Practice in France

    Religion played a central role in the collective life of Ancien Régime France, even setting the rhythm of life. However, secularization was gaining ground, particularly through the growing prevalence of secular festivals.

    The situation seems more complex than has often been portrayed: France was generally thought of as deeply religious and devout, “broken” by the revolutionary rupture. It is difficult to present a unified picture: some regions remained highly devout, others much less so, and still others were influenced by a “poorly rooted” Protestantism. This diversity would later manifest itself in the reactions to the revolutionaries’ religious policies, especially regarding the process of dechristianization.

    Thus, the religious situation in France on the eve of the Revolution was complex. The clergy was divided and relatively weakened, religious practice was uneven, the Protestant minority remained solid, and the influence of the Enlightenment was growing. It is, therefore, no surprise that this complexity would resurface when the Revolution broke out.

    Cahiers de doléances: The Clergy, and Religion

    Cahiers de doléances
    Cahiers de doléances

    The Estates-General were convened at the end of 1788 to meet on May 1, 1789. It was during this election campaign for deputies that the cahiers de doléances (grievance lists) were drafted, totaling 60,000, written by rural communities and urban professional groups.

    Religion, especially the clergy, is a topic addressed in these cahiers but not among the primary concerns (only a tenth according to Mr. Vovelle). Notables from the West and Franche-Comté regions were highly critical of the clergy, who in these areas exerted strong control over the morals of rural populations. It was also in the West where demands for the abolition of the tithe and regular clergy were most common, despite these not being the regions where the tithe was highest or religious figures most numerous. Conversely, in the Southwest, where the tithe was at its highest, only its reform was requested.

    As for the issues that foreshadow the future Outline of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the most radical measures of the Constituent Assembly (such as the complete sale of Church property), the demands were concentrated in a continuous zone stretching from the western Paris Basin to Brittany. In these regions, the notables of the Third Estate were the most anti-clerical, and it was also here that counter-revolutionary uprisings would be most significant.

    However, the geography of the Cahiers de doléances differs when addressing more strictly religious matters (rather than ecclesiastical ones), such as the reduction of the number of religious holidays. The most vocal regions in this regard were the Mediterranean basin, as well as a Picardy/Lyonnais zone, including the Paris region. These areas would later be among the most affected by de-Christianization.

    Regarding the clergy itself, the grievances partly reflect its internal divisions. Most of the clergy’s cahiers defended privileges, the religious monopoly, and condemned the tolerance edicts. However, a few voices from parish priests sought to improve their social status. They were supported in this by some of the village cahiers from the Third Estate.

    Nevertheless, none of these Cahiers de doléances

    questioned religion itself as a whole.

    “It was those damn priests who made the Revolution”

    This famous quote is attributed to an anonymous aristocrat, and while it shouldn’t be taken literally, it aptly reflects the events of the spring of 1789. First, we must consider the role of the clergy (in its diversity) at the Estates-General, then examine the actions of its members from the opening of the Estates-General until the night of August 4, 1789.

    At the Estates-General, the clergy was represented by 291 deputies (out of 1,139), the majority (more than 200) being parish priests. There were only 46 bishops representing the clergy. Most of the lower clergy members supported change (though there would later be opposition between Abbé Grégoire and Abbé Maury).

    During the heated debates of the Estates-General starting on May 5, 1789, parish priests played an increasingly important role as the Third Estate resisted the decisions of the king and the pressures from the nobility and high clergy.


    Following Mirabeau’s initiative on June 12, three and then sixteen priests left their order to join the Third Estate; among them was Curé Jallet, who, when reproached by the prelates for this defection, replied, “We are your equals, we are citizens like you…”

    At the same time, on June 17, 1789, under the influence of Abbé Sieyès, the Estates-General transformed into the National Assembly. Two days later, the clergy, by a majority of its members, decided to join the Third Estate, while the nobility sided with the king. This led to the Tennis Court Oath on June 20, 1789, again with Abbé Sieyès playing a central role, alongside figures like Abbé Grégoire. However, the clergy’s adherence to this movement should be tempered, as it remained divided, especially among prelates, still attached to privileges. And in the rising context of insurrection, particularly in rural areas, members of the high clergy were not spared.

    Night of August 4th

    Events were accelerating, and the king was overwhelmed. On July 9th, the deputies proclaimed the National Assembly as “constituent.” On July 14th, 1789, the Bastille was stormed. The movement spread to the countryside, resulting in the Great Fear.

    It was in this both turbulent and euphoric context that the famous night of the abolition of privileges occurred, although it had been well prepared in advance. During this all-nighter on August 4th, 1789, the clergy members were far from inactive, as they were part of the privileged class. However, there was sometimes an escalation of generosity from certain members of the old order or the nobility, with reciprocal proposals. For instance, the abolition of hunting rights was proposed by the Bishop of Chartres, to which the nobility responded with the idea of abolishing the tithe.

    The consequences for the clergy were significant, with decisions affecting them both directly and indirectly. The abolition of feudal dues also impacted chapters and abbeys, and the abolition of privileges as a whole deprived the clergy (which officially ceased to exist as an order) of its fiscal privileges. The clergy was then more directly affected by the elimination of the casuel (payments by the faithful for religious services), proposed by parish priests, and, of course, the abolition of the tithe. The latter, even contested by Sieyès, had the most consequences as it required the state to provide for the clergy, who had lost most of their income necessary for conducting religious activities.

    In the weeks and months following, there was still a sense of unity and some euphoria, aided by the context. Religious and revolutionary celebrations took place together, and priests assumed responsibilities, especially in municipal structures. The nobles were viewed with more suspicion than the priests. This “honeymoon” period lasted at least until the spring of 1790, despite some tensions and the emergence of real divergences during the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen on August 26, 1789.

    It was ultimately the Civil Constitution of the Clergy on August 24, 1790, that would ignite the situation…

    Rise of Tensions

    Looting of a church during the Revolution,
    Looting of a church during the Revolution, c. 1793. Credit: Swebach-Desfontaines, Public Domain

    Despite the dissolution of the clergy as an order and the participation of many parish priests in the first decisions of the Constituent Assembly, an anti-religious sentiment seemed to be growing in the country by the end of 1789. Indeed, “the happy year” was not as peaceful as it was long thought, and the elements that would constitute the religious crisis were coming into place.

    It began with decisions like the temporary suspension of religious vows (October 28, 1789) and the nationalization of church property (November 2), while at the beginning of 1790, the citizenship of non-Catholics, Protestants, or Jews was being debated.

    Then came the debate on religious freedom during the drafting of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August 1789. The discussions were heated, ultimately resulting in Article 10: “No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.”

    As the end of the Constituent Assembly approached, some unsuccessfully tried to impose an article making Catholicism the state religion or the “national religion.” On April 12, 1790, Dom Gerle even requested that Catholicism be the only public religion, sparking an outcry, as the deputies sought instead to place all religions on equal footing.

    The suspension of solemn vows aimed to attack the chapters, as the revolutionaries believed that freedom should not stop at the doors of the convents. The Jean-Baptiste Treilhard decree of February 13, 1790, allowed male and female religious members to be released from their vows and to leave their monasteries or convents, granting them a pension. Congregations were spared for the time being, although they were affected by the confiscation of their property, as was the case with all clergy assets. However, teaching orders were dissolved on August 18, 1792.

    Civil Constitution of the Clergy

    The major decision on the religious question was undoubtedly the passing of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. This aimed to organize the Catholic Church, and the Ecclesiastical Committee of the Assembly began considering the matter as early as August 1789. This Committee was strengthened in February 1790 by patriotic priests due to rising tensions within its ranks.

    From April onwards, discussions centered on a proposal by Martineau, a Gallican Catholic, who sought to clarify the procedures for appointing priests and to eliminate privileges, particularly those stemming from Rome. The nation was to compensate clergy members. This raised the issue of the Pope, who was not consulted, intensifying tensions.

    Despite these challenges, the proposal was passed on July 12, 1790, without significant difficulty, and the king accepted it on July 22. However, this did not quell the tensions—quite the opposite. Protests mainly came from bishops, who wanted to appeal to the Pope (who condemned the Constitution in March 1791) and called for a national council, a demand Robespierre rejected. But it was the constitutional oath that truly ignited the situation.

    Constitutional Oath and the Explosion

    The constitutional oath was a logical follow-up to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. It responded to the bishops’ refusal to implement the Constitution. On November 27, 1790, it was decided that public clergy officials were required to swear loyalty to the Nation, the Law, the King, and the Constitution. In the Assembly, only seven bishops, following Grégoire’s lead, took the oath. The Assembly members were surprised by the lack of adherence. By 1791, just over 50% of the clergy had taken the oath, with significant regional disparities.

    This schism within the Church in France led to clashes and violence at the local level, directed at both constitutional clergy and those who resisted the oath, despite the Assembly’s efforts to enforce religious freedom while imposing the constitutional Church. Punitive expeditions, collective humiliations, and even stoning became common practices, not only among the Sans-Culottes.

    On November 29, 1791, the activist refractory clergy were labeled “suspected of sedition”; on May 27, 1792, they became eligible for deportation. The fall of Louis XVI on August 10, 1792, triggered a large emigration of refractory clergy.

    Dechristianization

    Cult of the Supreme Being
    “The French people recognize the Supreme Being and the immortality of the soul” (1794 print). Credit: Wikimedia, Public Domain

    Amid the growing tensions surrounding the Church, and localized violence (in the South) involving Protestants, there was a parallel rise in anticlericalism. The year 1793 marked the beginning of a period during which the rejection of Christianity was neither a spontaneous revolt nor a directive of the revolutionary government.

    The phenomenon had been present in revolutionary celebrations since the Federation Festival on July 14, 1790. In the same spirit, the Festival of Regeneration, or Unity and Indivisibility of the French, held on August 10, 1793, was a fully secularized ceremony marking a key moment. However, the offensive occurred during the winter of the same year, initiated by politically active circles.

    This period saw rural communities renouncing religious worship, or antireligious demonstrations, led by figures such as Fouché in Nièvre. Elsewhere, churches were transformed into Temples of Reason (as happened to Notre-Dame on November 10, 1793), priests were married, and religious books were burned in public displays. The most affected regions were the Paris area, the Center, the North, parts of the Rhône Valley, and Languedoc.


    In a less radical move, on October 5, 1793, the Convention abandoned the Gregorian calendar for the Republican calendar.

    This dechristianization movement shocked even the Committee of Public Safety, and Robespierre, in a speech on November 21, 1793, harshly criticized “aristocratic atheism.” Following his lead, the Convention condemned “all violence and measures against religion.” Nevertheless, dechristianization continued in rural areas until the spring of 1794.

    The end of the dechristianization period saw the rise of Robespierre’s deist influence and the emergence of the Cult of the Supreme Being, following other revolutionary cults. The year 1795 also witnessed the first law separating Church and State.

  • Women in Napoleon’s Grande Armée

    Women in Napoleon’s Grande Armée

    Vivandières, cantinières, washerwoman, prostitutes… Women were fully part of the Grande Armée. Incorporated into units or offering their services to passing troops, these women improved the well-being of soldiers who were far away from their families. Some of them even became prominent figures in the Napoleonic epic, known for their heroism, courage, and, in certain cases, for their unique careers as soldiers!

    Cantinières: Vivandières, and Laundresses

    A French cantinière in the Crimea during the Crimean War in 1855, photographed by Roger Fenton
    A French cantinière in the Crimea during the Crimean War in 1855, photographed by Roger Fenton

    The cantinier was a man, usually a non-commissioned officer, but it was generally accepted that he could have a woman with him to help in the kitchen (one per battalion). These women had the sole mission of preparing meals, although, in practice, they sometimes competed with the vivandières.

    Two types of women were officially allowed to follow the Imperial army: laundresses and vivandières. Their numbers were strictly regulated, with a maximum of four per battalion and two per squadron, army headquarters, or division. Laundresses took care of the soldiers’ laundry, and under the 1809 regulations, they were permitted to have a packhorse to carry their supplies. These were typically soldiers’ wives, and as non-combatant military personnel, they were entitled to a security card (which confirmed their role), lodging, and bread.

    buy naprosyn online in the best USA pharmacy https://buybloinfo.com/naprosyn.html no prescription with fast delivery drugstore

    They also wore a regulatory medal.

    Vivandières, on the other hand, sold food, drink, and sometimes small items to the soldiers. They were allowed to have a cart pulled by two horses. Comparable to a modern army’s canteen service, they essentially ran a mobile shop. Their numbers were limited in the same way as the laundresses. They did not receive any salary but were still officially part of the military personnel: they needed a security card issued by military authorities, had the right to use military hospitals during wartime, and had to be present for roll calls conducted by column commanders.

    Discipline was strict. Laundresses and vivandières who missed a roll call faced fines for the first offense, imprisonment for the second, and confiscation of their horses and cart for the third. Worse, if one was accused of looting or facilitating looting (vivandières were sometimes involved in hiding stolen goods to sell for themselves), her cart would be burned along with all her belongings, and the woman, dressed in black, would be paraded through the camp and expelled.

    French vivandière Marie Tepe
    French vivandière Marie Tepe of the 114th Pennsylvania Infantry Regiment, a vivandière in the American Civil War. Credit: William H. Tipto, Public Domain

    But that was not the most humiliating punishment. During the Spanish campaign, the penalty for a woman following the army without authorization was severe: she would be stripped, shaved all over, covered in shoe polish, forced to march in front of the troops, and sent to the rear.

    Nevertheless, vivandières were among the iconic figures of the Grande Armée. During marches, they were relatively protected, with their carts placed at the rear of the convoy between the column and the rear guard. The vivandière became a symbol in the historiography of the Imperial army, improving the soldiers’ daily lives with her goods and small cask of brandy, and sometimes coming to the aid of the wounded on the battlefield. The vivandière is one of the few female figures in a predominantly male institution. In the 19th-century romantic imagination, she also came to represent a kind of substitute mother for younger conscripts.

    Among the best-known vivandières was one nicknamed Marie Tête-de-Bois. Marie married a grenadier in 1805, who was killed in Paris in 1814. That same year, their son was killed at the Battle of Montmirail, and Marie herself was wounded while retrieving his body. Having served in seventeen campaigns, Marie Tête-de-Bois was with the Guard during the Hundred Days in 1815. It was in this final campaign of the Empire that she met her death, struck by a bullet that pierced her cask. As she crawled among the dead, a second bullet is said to have hit her face. A dying grenadier reportedly joked that she wasn’t very pretty like that, to which she supposedly replied that she could still boast of having been a daughter, wife, mother, and widow of soldiers.

    Catherine Balland, from the 95th Line Infantry Regiment, was honored by the painter Lejeune, who depicted her in his painting of the Battle of Chiclana. She was awarded the Legion of Honour in 1813.

    Prostitutes and Campaign Loves

    The Grande Armée never had an official or semi-official brothel, as was later the case in the French army. Nevertheless, prostitutes (often referred to as “grisettes”) closely followed the troops to offer their services. They inevitably became the main vectors of venereal diseases, which greatly occupied military doctors. Some prostitutes even approached soldiers directly, as evidenced by General Friant’s order on September 18, 1811, instructing to “arrest the runners who sneak into the camps.”

    The Grognards also took advantage of the services of local prostitutes in the cities they passed through, both in France and abroad. These women were either professionals or poor souls driven to prostitution by the misery caused by war. In 1806, Berlin women prostituted themselves for a bit of bread, and in 1812, well-off Moscow women, starving, were forced into prostitution, even offering their daughters to the French soldiers.

    In addition to professional sex workers, the soldiers of the Grande Armée also engaged in relationships with local women during their campaigns, though these relationships were often fleeting. Upon the imperial army’s departure from Berlin in 1806, it was estimated that 2,000 women were pregnant.

    However, some of these campaign relationships did lead to marriages. Starting in 1808, soldiers had to obtain permission from the administrative council of their regiment to marry their chosen partner (officers had to seek authorization from the Minister of War). Despite this new status, it did not change their military situation. In 1810, a decree even provided financial support for soldiers marrying a “respectable girl.

    buy flexeril online https://buyinfoblo.com/buy-flexeril.html no prescription pharmacy

    ”

    Women Soldiers

    Marie-Thérèse Figueur
    Marie-Thérèse Figueur, in her dragoons uniform

    Officially, Napoleon’s Grande Armée was not supposed to have women soldiers. Even during the Revolution, the profession of arms was denied to women, as military service was ideologically linked to citizenship (and, by extension, the right to vote). However, there were a few exceptions that proved the rule, such as Marie-Thérèse Figueur (1774 – 1861).

    Orphaned and placed with a cloth merchant in Avignon, she pleaded with her uncle in 1792 to let her wear a uniform.

    buy zithromax online https://buyinfoblo.com/buy-zithromax.html no prescription pharmacy

    Her uncle, who commanded a company of gunners, placed her in a counter-revolutionary federalist troop. She was captured along with her uncle by the Legion of Allobroges, and General Carteaux offered them the chance to switch sides, which they accepted. Young Figueur participated in the siege of Toulon in 1793 with the Legion of Allobroges before switching units, first joining the 9th Regiment and later the 15th Regiment of Dragoons. She was nicknamed “Sans-Gêne” (she later inspired the play by Victorien Sardou and Emile Moreau).

    With this cavalry regiment, she participated in several campaigns: the Eastern Pyrenees, Germany, the Army of the Rhine, the Swiss campaign, and the Italian campaign.

    On November 4, 1799, her horse was killed beneath her, she was wounded, and she was captured at the Battle of Savigliano (Piedmont). She was brought before Prince de Ligne, who allowed her to join his army.

    Under the Consulate, in 1800, she was forced into retirement but managed to reintegrate the 9th Dragoons, with whom she participated in the 1805 campaign, including the battles of Ulm and Austerlitz. In 1806, she fought in the Battle of Jena but fell ill and was repatriated to France. Once recovered, she joined the Young Guard and went to fight in Spain, where she was again taken prisoner at Burgos.

    buy toradol online https://buyinfoblo.com/buy-toradol.html no prescription pharmacy

    She was handed over to a Scottish regiment, which delivered her to the Portuguese.

    Figueur was then transferred to a women’s prison and later to Southampton, where she remained until the end of the Empire. Upon her return to France during the Restoration, Marie-Thérèse opened a guesthouse for officers and married an old comrade, the sergeant Sutter, late in life.

    Although rare, we know of other examples of women soldiers, such as Marie Angélique Duchemin, who distinguished herself during the Revolutionary campaigns and for whom Marshal Sérurier tried to obtain the Legion of Honour during the Empire. Other European armies also had such examples, as in the Prussian army. It was only when mortally wounded at Dannenberg (1813) that soldier Renz confessed to being a woman—it was Eleonore Prochaska, who had enlisted during the Prussian War of Liberation as a drummer and later as a line soldier, successfully concealing her true identity.

    buy nolvadex online in the best USA pharmacy https://buybloinfo.com/nolvadex.html no prescription with fast delivery drugstore

  • Napoleon’s Grande Armée Medical Service

    Napoleon’s Grande Armée Medical Service

    4,300 to 7,000 wounded in the ranks of the Grande Armée by the evening of Eylau, more than 21,000 wounded by the evening of the Moscow! The dark side of these Napoleonic victories are the mass graves, the field ambulances where amputations are performed in assembly-line fashion, and the makeshift hospitals where the wounded are crowded together. Here, the soldier faces new enemies: gas gangrene, tetanus, dysentery, fevers… To save those who can still be helped, the medical service established an entire support network from the battlefield to rear facilities.

    Triage System

    • Dominique Jean Larrey is often credited with developing one of the first triage systems, where wounded soldiers were treated based on the severity of their injuries rather than rank or nationality. This practical approach prioritized those who needed urgent care, which helped save countless lives on the battlefield.

    Napoleon: Medicine, and Surgery

    Napoleon Bonaparte was always very skeptical of medicine, ambivalent about its true benefits, and often mocking of those who practiced it. He enjoyed teasing Corvisart and mocking remedies that did more harm to the patient than the illness itself. He still maintained at Saint Helena:

    Our body is a machine for living, it is organized for that, it’s its nature; let life run its course, let it defend itself, it will do more than if you paralyze it by burdening it with remedies. Our body is like a perfect watch, which is meant to run for a certain time; the watchmaker does not have the ability to open it, he can only handle it blindly and clumsily. For every one who, by tormenting it with odd instruments, manages to do good, how many ignorant ones destroy it…

    Dr. Godlewski acknowledged that Napoleon’s distrust of the medicine of his time was not entirely unfounded. While the early 19th century was the age of great surgeons, it was not yet the age of great physicians, which would only come with the discoveries of Pasteur, radiology, and bacteriology. Indeed, while he despised medicine, Napoleon held surgery in high esteem, particularly the army medical corps surgeons who risked their lives to save others. Napoleon himself was even personally drawn to the field and reportedly attended anatomy courses three times from April to July 1792, before his military career took off.

    Treating the Army in Garrison

    Each regiment had a few surgeons to care for soldiers in garrison. The most common cases were “fevers,” a generic term that covered various diseases such as influenza, meningitis, and dysentery, often caused by poor water quality and food. If necessary, the patient was sent to a military hospital, or even a civilian hospital in certain special units like the Departmental Reserve Companies. Other treatments were conducted directly at the barracks, particularly for cases of scabies or venereal diseases.

    Field Ambulances

    flying ambulances
    Replica of a flying ambulance at the Musée Larrey in Beaudéan. Credit: Wikimedia, CC BY-SA 4.0

    The massive use of artillery is the cause of the worst injuries found in 19th-century armies. Surgeon-Major de La Flize reports in his memoirs some colder and darker realities than the epic paintings of the same period might suggest:

    I remember some [of the horrific wounds] that particularly struck me. An artilleryman had three-quarters of his face torn off by a cannonball; he had only one eye left but had not lost consciousness and communicated by signs; he was horrible to look at. Another artilleryman had both thighs and one hand blown off and the other arm broken near the shoulder; he could still speak and asked me for brandy; I gave him a drink, and he expired immediately after. […] A young artillery non-commissioned officer, who was on guard near the guns, had his hands resting on the pommel of his saddle when a cannonball crushed both of them. He cried like a child and called for his mother.

    To save those who can be saved, and ensure the morale of all, the Grande Armée quickly equipped itself with an important health service structured by a network of ambulances. In the Grande Armée, an ambulance refers to all centers of varying importance responsible for providing care to those in need, whether at the regimental or army corps level. There are five distinct types of ambulances:

    • The regimental ambulance, closest to the fighting, where first aid is provided to the wounded, but also all operations requiring urgent intervention: from amputation to trepanation… The infantry division ambulance with its two wagons takes charge of the wounded at the division level, theoretically composed of six surgeons, four pharmacists, and four employees.
    • The army corps ambulance is a mounted ambulance, called a light ambulance, which can deploy and redeploy as needed. It can form an ambulance depot just behind the front line to quickly evacuate the wounded during battle. It can also form ambulance divisions to reinforce division ambulances or form ambulance sections responsible for supporting small detached units or deployed at outposts. In the case of ambulance sections, the unit carries provisions in addition to its traditional equipment of dressings and medical instruments.
    • The ambulance reserve, directly attached to the general headquarters, is a strategic reserve composed of about fifty surgeons (under the command of a chief surgeon) on horseback or in carriages to reinforce as quickly as possible any other ambulance that might need it.
    • Finally, the Emperor’s ambulance is responsible for the sovereign’s health. Napoleon always has a surgeon, a doctor, a pharmacist, and a few nurses ready to intervene in case the Emperor is wounded. They have a wagon with all the necessary equipment. Although often exposed, Napoleon was very lucky on the battlefield. He was nevertheless wounded on April 23, 1809, during the Battle of Ratisbon in Austria. A bullet fired from the city walls wounded him in the right heel, grazing the Achilles tendon. It was surgeon Yvan who cut the Emperor’s boot and dressed the wound before he remounted his horse to keep up appearances for the enemy.

    Being Wounded on the Battlefield

    Larrey amputating the arm and leg of colonel Rebsomen at the Battle of Hanau, in 1813
    Dominique Jean Larrey amputating the arm and leg of colonel Rebsomen at the Battle of Hanau, in 1813

    Even though in practice it sometimes happened, soldiers were generally forbidden during battle from going to assist the wounded. Doing so risked weakening the ranks to the enemy’s advantage. While some wounded soldiers managed to reach the ambulance on their own, others were cared for on-site by the medical service. To facilitate this, Larrey set up “flying ambulances (ambulance volante),” two- or four-wheeled carts mounted on springs (to cushion the shocks somewhat), capable of carrying two to four wounded soldiers lying on mobile beds. These flying ambulances allowed for the rapid evacuation of the wounded after they had received first aid from surgeons following the ambulance on horseback.

    However, for cost reasons, this system did not last during the Empire, except within the Imperial Guard, where Larrey operated. Along similar lines, Pierre-François Percy introduced the Wurst, long sausage-shaped carts (hence the name, which means “sausage” in German) that surgeons would straddle like a horse to quickly reach those in need. They were used during the Swiss, Danube, and German campaigns. But more commonly, toward the end, the Grande Armée employed stretcher-bearers equipped with pikes that could be transformed into stretchers. Da La Flize recounts:

    The stretcher-bearers were then ordered to construct stretchers. These men, two by two, unrolled the straps from their packs, unscrewed the iron head of their pikes, inserted the pole into a slip knot formed with the straps, and fixed their canvas belts in place. The stretcher-bearers then headed towards the battlefield.

    The wounded who were not evacuated during the battle usually spent the night without help and had to wait until the next day for the evacuations to resume. Further back, the first-aid posts were improvised, either in pre-existing buildings or under tents on some straw gathered from nearby. The situation was even more critical in winter, as during the Battle of Eylau, since these makeshift shelters offered little protection from the cold. It was at these first-aid posts where the diagnosis was made, and the wounded soldier came into the hands of the surgeons. A former officer of the Grande Armée, Elzéar Blaze, provides a nuanced account of the surgeons, acknowledging their bravery but also the lack of experience among newcomers who learned “on the job”:

    The major surgeons were generally good practitioners. Amputating an arm or a leg was as easy for them as drinking a glass of water; I even knew some for whom the latter operation would have made them grimace. These gentlemen had great zeal, and were often seen on the battlefield assisting the wounded, risking their own lives. Many combined science with practice; for others, practice alone sufficed; but by constantly treating all kinds of wounds, with the same cases repeating every day, they knew as much as they needed to know.

    But new young men constantly arrived from France, who, through connections or to avoid going into battle with a pack on their back, had somehow gotten a surgeon’s assistant certificate after three months at medical school. They then underwent a practical course in the army at the expense of the first unfortunates who fell into their hands, having escaped the cannon; the scalpel awaited them… and… well… It was, in truth, far worse than Scylla and Charybdis.

    The chief surgeon of La Flize recounts in his memoirs the horror of mutilations and operations during the Battle of Borodino in 1812:

    On that day of grim memory, how many cruel operations we performed! One cannot imagine the impression a wounded soldier has when the surgeon is forced to tell him that he is doomed unless one or two limbs are amputated. The unfortunate soul is reduced to submitting to his fate and preparing for horrific suffering. It is impossible to express the groans, the teeth grinding, torn from the wounded when a limb is shattered by a cannonball; the painful cries they let out when the surgeon exposes the limb, cuts through the muscles, severs the nerves, saws the bones, and slices the arteries, with blood splattering everywhere. We could say that we were literally drenched in blood, although we were not responsible for its flow, but were instead striving to stop it.

    In the French army, amputations were frequent. During the Battle of Borodino, the surgeon Larrey stood for 36 consecutive hours and performed 200 amputations himself! For this experienced surgeon, it took only 4 to 5 minutes to amputate a shoulder. In the absence of anesthetics, the speed of the operation was crucial to minimizing the sufferings of the wounded.

    Often, the patient was given just a little alcohol to drink. Sometimes, he clenched his clay pipe to endure the pain: if the wounded died during the operation, his jaw would sometimes loosen, causing the pipe to fall to the ground and break — the origin of the expression ‘to break one’s pipe’ (a French idiom meaning ‘to die’). These rapid and repeated amputations may seem cruel, but they often saved the wounded who would otherwise have died from gangrene.

    This extensive resort to amputation was also justified by the very particular context of wartime surgery: if the wounded soldier survived, he would be transported along rough roads and cared for by inexperienced personnel who would be unable to properly manage a serious wound requiring regular dressing — the stump offered a better chance of survival. Aside from a few wealthy exceptions, like generals who could afford luxury prosthetics, most amputated soldiers spent the rest of their lives with a wooden leg (sometimes jointed at the knee), or a simple crutch. Some, unable to afford or bear such prosthetics, were left with crutches or canes.

    The soldier’s recovery was not the end of his misfortunes. On the battlefield of Borodino, La Flize reports that there was a lack of food for the wounded. However, the Guard was better fed. As the army resumed its march, the wounded were left in field hospitals, sometimes tens of kilometers from the battlefield, and not all survived the journey. Percy, recounting the arrival of a convoy of wounded during the Peninsular War, wrote:

    It had been five days since most of them had left the cart that had served both as their transport and their bed; their straw was rotting; some had a mattress under them, soiled with the pus from their wounds and their excrement. […] The stench was unbearable. The wounds had not been dressed in several days, or had been done so poorly; many were already gangrenous…

    Upon their arrival, they were greeted under conditions that varied greatly depending on the location and time. In 1809, a corps of hospital nurses was even created, deployed in Austria, Spain, and Italy. These nurses were unarmed, not even carrying a small sword, with Napoleon hoping this would ensure their neutrality on the battlefield—an initiative later adopted by the Red Cross. This neutrality was reinforced by the fact that French doctors treated all wounded, regardless of nationality. However, no written agreement on the inviolability of military hospitals was reached during the Napoleonic wars, despite an attempt that Austria rejected in 1800.

    Regardless, these hospitals are remembered grimly: the wounded often lacked food, heating, especially during the Russian campaign, and typhus outbreaks occurred frequently (such as in Mainz in 1813). There were also personnel shortages (if there were no local staff, particularly nuns, prisoners were requisitioned without hesitation), as well as shortages of medicine and bandages. At the Mojaïsk hospital in 1812, the wounded were bandaged with straw due to the lack of cloth or bandages.

    However, these dark descriptions should be tempered by acknowledging that there were well-run field hospitals under the Empire, such as in Burgos in 1810, which had a bathroom, fans for the summer, and stoves for the winter. Despite the difficult conditions and frequent improvisation, it is notable that only 10% of the wounded who reached the hospital died. To understand this figure, it must be considered that hospitals treated not only the war wounded but also the sick in general.

    In the end, our view of the healthcare services during campaigns under the First Empire must be nuanced. It was run by dedicated, qualified, and dynamic men who constantly had to make do with limited material and human resources. Napoleon, who always favored short campaigns carried out by fast-moving armies, ultimately invested little in modernizing the healthcare service, which did not allow for maintaining a sufficient and experienced staff. Young surgeons gained experience, and nurses were often neophytes, more or less voluntary depending on the circumstances. Observing the shortage of nurses at Eylau on February 9, 1807, Napoleon exclaimed in frustration: “What an organization! What barbarity!” Surgeon Lombard then dared to explain the lack of enthusiasm for joining the healthcare service:

    Sire, when one is sure that in peacetime, no matter how well one performed during the most difficult and perilous war, they will be dismissed, it is hard to be zealous and decide to follow an army as an employee or nurse; this very title upon returning to France will be a terrible recommendation.

    One can indeed speak of a lack of recognition for the healthcare service, which, straddling the civilian and military spheres, remained overshadowed by the latter. Napoleon distributed the Legion of Honor to them sparingly (ten surgeons were decorated after Eylau, two of whom died of exhaustion a few days later…) and forbade surgeons from wearing epaulets, which he believed should be reserved for true soldiers (although the surgeons of the Guard granted themselves this right…). Nonetheless, it was these few years of war that allowed surgery to develop at an unprecedented speed.