- Source
- Julius Caesar. Aulus Hirtius. C. Iuli Commentarii Rerum in Gallia Gestarum VII A. Hirti Commentarius VII. Holmes, T. Rice (Thomas Rice), editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1914.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi0448.phi001.humanitext-lat2:5.29.1-5.29.7
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-10-29
Titurius (Sabinus) clamorously argues for immediate departure, pointing to Caesar's absence and the hostile state of Gaul and Germany, and criticizes the opposing plan for risking starvation under a long siege.
Contra ea Titurius sero facturos1 clamitabat, cum maiores manus hostium adiunctis Germanis convenissent, aut cum aliquid calamitatis in proximis hibernis esset acceptum. Brevem consulendi esse occasionem. Caesarem arbitrari profectum in Italiam;
Against these arguments, Titurius clamorously insisted that they would act too late when larger forces of the enemy had assembled, with Germans added to them, or when some disaster had been sustained in the nearest winter quarters. That the opportunity for deliberating was short. That he believed Caesar had set out for Italy;
neque aliter Carnutes interficiendi Tasgeti consilium fuisse capturos,2 neque Eburones, si ille adesset, tanta contemptione nostri ad castra venturos esse.
that otherwise the Carnutes would not have formed the design of killing Tasgetius, nor would the Eburones, if he were present, have come to our camp with such great contempt for us.
Non hostem auctorem, sed rem spectare: subesse Rhenum; magno esse Germanis dolori3 Ariovisti mortem et superiores nostras victorias;
That he did not look to the enemy as the authority, but to the fact: that the Rhine was close at hand; that the death of Ariovistus and our former victories were a great source of grief to the Germans;
ardere Galliam tot contumeliis acceptis sub populi Romani imperium redactam superiore gloria rei militaris exstincta.
that Gaul, having sustained so many insults and having been reduced under the sway of the Roman people, was burning with rage, her former glory in military affairs being extinguished.
Postremo quis hoc sibi persuaderet,4 sine certa re Ambiorigem ad eiusmodi consilium descendisse?
Finally, who could persuade himself of this, that without some certain ground Ambiorix had resorted to a plan of this kind?
Suam sententiam in utramque partem esse tutam: si nihil esset durius, nullo cum periculo ad proximam legionem perventuros; si Gallia omnis cum Germanis consentiret, unam esse in celeritate positam salutem.
That his own opinion was safe in either case: if there were nothing harder, they would arrive at the nearest legion with no danger; if all Gaul were conspiring with the Germans, their only safety was placed in dispatch.
Cottae quidem atque eorum, qui dissentirent, consilium quem habere exitum?5 In quo si non praesens periculum, at certe longinqua obsidione fames esset timenda.
What issue, indeed, did the advice of Cotta and of those who differed from him have? In which, if there were no immediate danger, yet certainly famine from a long siege was to be feared.
- 5.29.1sero facturos
With esse omitted. The subject of facturos [esse] is omitted but understood as the Romans (themselves). It means 'they would act too late.'
- 5.29.2fuisse capturos
The apodosis of a past contrary-to-fact conditional (cepissent in direct discourse) converted in indirect discourse into the future active participle with fuisse.
- 5.29.3dolori
Dative of purpose or tendency (part of a double dative construction with Germanis), meaning 'a source of great grief to the Germans.'
- 5.29.5persuaderet
Deliberative or potential subjunctive in the imperfect tense in a rhetorical question, expressing past possibility or incredulity: 'who could have persuaded himself...?'
- 5.29.7quem habere exitum
A rhetorical question in indirect discourse. Although a direct question would use the indicative (habet) or subjunctive (habeat), here it is expressed as an accusative with infinitive, as is common for rhetorical questions that are equivalent to statements.