was in this state of affairs that the enemy, who consisted of Cimbri, Teutones, Tigurini, and Ambrones, attacked the Romans, who lost eighty thousand men and forty thousand camp-followers, as Q. Valerius Antias, quoted by Orosius, writes. The same numbers are given in the Epitome of Livy, though Livy, who often quotes Valerius, accuses this annalist of monstrous exaggeration. Two sons of the consul fell in this dreadful fight; and only ten men are said to have escaped, a statement which we cannot accept; and it is indirectly contradicted by the fragment of Licinianus. But the fact is certain that the Romans sustained a signal defeat. There is no indication of the site of the battle-field'. The day was the sixth of October, B.c. 105, and it was one more black day added to the Roman calendar.

Q. Sertorius, a name afterwards well known, was in Caepio's army. He lost his horse and was wounded, but he saved his life by swimming in his armour across the rapid current of the Rhone. The barbarians got possession of two camps and an immense booty, all of which they wasted for some religious reason, or in pursuance of a vow, as Orosius conjectures. They tore in pieces the dress of the soldiers, threw all the gold and silver into the river, hacked the coats of mail, and destroyed the horses' housing. The horses were pitched into the Rhone, and the prisoners were hung on trees. Such wild vengeance and waste seem quite incredible, but so the story is told.

Caepio deserved punishment for his scandalous misconduct; and, according to Livy's epitomator, he was condemned by a vote of the popular assembly, his property was seized to the use of the state, and he was deprived of his proconsular authority. Nothing is said by the Epitomator about the punishment of Maximus, but it would be consistent with

1 In the text of Livy's Epitome (67), where the old reading is "secundum populi Romani jussionem," it has been proposed to read "secundum Arausionem," and to place these words at the end of the preceding sentence, which refers to the defeat of Mallius and Caepio. It may be doubted if the old text is right; but it is also certain that the new reading, "secundum Arausionem," even if there were more authority for it than there is, cannot be accepted as Latin. Arausio is Orange, on the left bank of the Rhone, north of Avignon.

Roman practice to find that both Maximus and Caepio were immediately called to account. Indeed, some have concluded from a passage of Cicero that Maximus was tried, and that he was defended by M. Antonius; but this conclusion cannot be derived from the words of Cicero. It would be quite as fair a conclusion that Maximus perished in the great battle, for nothing is ever said of him afterwards, except in a passage of Licinianus, which states that "Cn. Mallius was ejected from Rome by a plebiscitum proposed by L. Saturninus, and for the same reason that Caepio had been ejected." But this passage is interpolated in the text out of the order of time, and cannot be relied on as a part of the genuine text of Licinianus, for we must assume that the proceedings of Saturninus against Caepio took place in the tribuneship of Saturninus, of which we shall speak hereafter. The expression in the text of Licinianus also implies that Mallius Maximus was ejected from Rome after Caepio had been ejected. It is said, on the authority of Asconius, that in B.C. 104, the year after the defeat of Caepio and Maximus, L. Cassius Longinus, a tribune, carried several laws, the object of which was to weaken the power of the nobility. One of these laws was to the effect that if a man had been condemned by the people, or deprived of that authority or commission named by the Romans Imperium, he should lose his place in the Senate. Cassius, in carrying this law, had in view the punishment of his enemy Caepio, who had been deprived of his commission for his misconduct in the war against the Cimbri. This enactment was a usurpation of power by the popular assembly, which had no constitutional authority for determining who should sit in the Senate. In consequence of the original vote of the assembly Caepio would lose all his property and his rank of senator; and it appears probable also that he was obliged to leave Rome. But if he left Rome, he certainly came back, for he was tried again, as we shall see, though there is some difficulty in determining the year of his second trial and final ruin.

This loss of two armies in Transalpine Gallia spread alarm through Italy. All men turned their thoughts to Marius, who was still in Africa; and notwithstanding the law about

re-election, Marius in his absence was chosen consul for the year B.C. 104, and the Provincia Gallia, or the south of France, was assigned to him. But if Marius was not elected till the news of the defeat near the Rhone reached Rome, the consular elections of B.c. 105 must have been delayed much beyond the usual season.

While Maximus was in Gallia, his colleague, P. Rutilius Rufus, was well employed at home in raising troops to resist the threatened invasion. He required an oath from all the juniors, or those under a certain age, who were bound to military service, that they would not leave Italy; and men were sent to all the coasts of the peninsula and the harbours to give notice that no man who was under thirty-five years of age should be taken on board a vessel. There must have been some apprehension that many men would leave the country in this moment of peril, and save themselves while they were depriving Italy of their services. It was also necessary to improve the discipline of the Roman army and to prepare the recruits to meet a formidable enemy. The consul began by setting a good example. He might have kept his son about him as one of his staff, if he chose; but he made him serve in a legion. As men are not fit for soldiers unless they have been trained, Rutilius instituted a new practice. He took a number of men who had been used to train gladiators, and employed them in teaching his new soldiers the art of attack and defence. Valerius Maximus attributes to Rutilius the introduction of a regular training of men to the use of arms; and Freinsheim supposes that this was the origin of the Campidoctores, or masters at arms, though the name, as far as we know, was not used till a much later period. The Roman soldier was taught to thrust with the sword, and not to cut, as Vegetius remarks, and thus his blow was more efficient and his own body was less exposed than if he cut with the edge of the sword. In the Roman way of fighting every thing depended on the courage, strength, endurance, and bodily activity of the soldier; and the constant exercise which was necessary to prepare him for a campaign gave him also healthy occupation during the seasons of repose. Rutilius prepared the men who, under

C. Marius, dispersed the hosts of the northern invaders and deferred to a distant time the horrors of a barbarian conquest of Italy. In this emergency the Romans did not trust to their superior wealth, nor yet to numbers, for in this matter they were far inferior to the enemy. They proved the falsehood of the saying that money furnishes the nerves of war: they saved themselves by the courage of their men and the skill of their general.

Marius remained in Africa after the capture of Jugurtha (vol. i., p. 490), which event is placed by Clinton early in B.C. 106. It has been inferred from the last chapter of Sallust's Jugurthine war that the Numidian king was captured in B.C. 105, but this is a very uncertain conclusion from the vague words of the historian. It is also inconsistent with the narrative of the campaigns of Marius, for he went to Africa in his consulship in B.c. 107, and Sallust speaks of him going only once into winter-quarters before the capture of Jugurtha. But the historian's chronology is so loose that we can place no confidence in it, and it has been shown (vol. i., p. 470, &c.) that the events which Sallust describes in the campaigns of Marius could not possibly have taken place in the short period which he allows for them. For this reason then it is very probable that the capture of Jugurtha was not accomplished before B.c. 105; and indeed we can conceive no sufficient reason for Marius remaining so long in Africa, if the war was ended early in B.c. 106. There was little for Marius to do in Numidia after he had secured Jugurtha. The Romans did not form Numidia into a province, which was their usual policy after a conquest. They had already in their province, named Africa, as much as they could look after in that part of the world; and if they had settled Numidia as a province, they could only have held it by keeping a large force there, which they could not do at a time when they wanted men, and Italy was threatened by the northern invaders. If the Romans kept their promise to Bocchus, his dominions were enlarged by the addition of a large part of western Numidia. The rest of the kingdom was probably given to Gauda, the brother of Jugurtha, or rather his half-brother, if Gauda was legitimate, as Sallust's

narrative implies, for he tells us that King Micipsa had named Gauda in his testament as his heir, in case of the failure of the line of his sons, Hiempsal and Adherbal, and his bastard nephew Jugurtha (vol. i., p. 442). It is supposed on the authority of an inscription that Gauda was the father of King Hiempsal II., whose name will occur afterwards.

It

At the close of B.C. 105 Marius returned to Rome with Jugurtha. Marius entered on his second consulship with C. Flavius Fimbria on the 1st of January B.C. 104, and on this day also he had his triumph. Jugurtha, loaded with chains, and his two sons with him, passed in the procession through the streets of Rome. There was a great display of the precious metals, both coined and uncoined, the booty of the Numidian campaign, for Marius had employed his time. well since the capture of Jugurtha in taking for the use of the Roman state the accumulated wealth of the Numidian princes. After the triumph Jugurtha was thrown into the foul hole named Tullianum. This prison, which is said to have been built by King Servius Tullius, was a subterranean dungeon the lower part of it still exists on the Capitoline hill on the right of the present ascent from the Forum. was usual to strangle great captives after the triumph, and Eutropius says that this was the end of Jugurtha; but, according to Plutarch, he had a worse fate. When he was brought to the Tullianum, some of the executioners tore his clothes from his body, and others, eager to secure his golden ear-rings, pulled them off and the lobe of the ear with them. "In this plight, being thrust down naked into a deep hole, in his frenzy with a grinning laugh he cried out, 'O, Hercules, how cold your bath is!' After struggling with famine for six days, and to the last moment clinging to the wish to preserve his life, he paid the penalty due to his monstrous crimes" (Plutarch). Probably both the sons of Jugurtha were spared. One of them at least, named Oxyntas, was living a prisoner at Venusia when the Social War broke out.

Marius had summoned the Senate to meet in the Capitol, and as soon as the pompous pageant was closed, he stepped from his car and entered the house in his triumphal robe.