What do you think?
Rate this book
Osprey Campaign #269
Alesia 52 BC: The final struggle for Gaul
Caesar's Legions laid siege to Vercingetorix's Gallic army in one of the most tactically amazing battles of all time. Outnumbered 6:1, the Romans built siege lines facing inward and outward and prevented the Gauls from breaking the siege. The campaign leading to the battle revealed ingenuity on both sides, though in the end Caesar established his fame in these actions.
In 52 BC, Caesar's continued strategy of annihilation had engendered a spirit of desperation, which detonated into a revolt of Gallic tribes under the leadership of the charismatic, young, Arvernian noble, Vercingetorix. Though the Gallic people shared a common language and culture, forging a coalition amongst the fiercely independent tribes was a virtually impossible feat, and it was a tribute to Vercingetorix's personality and skill.
Initially Vercingetorix's strategy was to draw the Romans into pitched battle. Vercingetorix was soundly beaten in the open field battle against Caesar at Noviodunum, followed by the Roman sack of Avaricum. However, the action that followed at Gergovia amounted to the most serious reverse that Caesar faced in the whole of the Gallic War. Vercingetorix began a canny policy of small war and defensive maneuvers, which gravely hampered Caesar's movements by cutting off his supplies. For Caesar it was to be a grim summertime - his whole Gallic enterprise faced liquidation.
In the event, by brilliant leadership, force of arms, and occasionally sheer luck, Caesar succeeded. This culminated in the siege of Alesia (north of Dijon), which Caesar himself brilliantly narrates (Bellum Gallicum 7.68-89). With his 80,000 warriors and 1,500 horsemen entrenched atop a mesa at Alesia, the star-crossed Vercingetorix believed Alesia was unassailable. Commanding less than 50,000 legionaries and assorted auxiliaries, Caesar nevertheless began the siege. Vercingetorix then dispatched his cavalry to rally reinforcements from across Gaul, and in turn Caesar constructed a contravallation and circumvallation, a double wall of fortifications around Alesia facing toward and away from the oppidum. When the Gallic relief army arrived, the Romans faced the warriors in Alesia plus an alleged 250,000 warriors and 8,000 horsemen attacking from without. Caesar adroitly employed his interior lines, his fortifications, and the greater training and discipline of his men to offset the Gallic advantage, but after two days of heavy fighting, his army was pressed to the breaking point. On the third day, the Gauls, equipped with fascines, scaling ladders and grappling hooks, captured the northwestern angle of the circumvallation, which formed a crucial point in the Roman siege works. In desperation, Caesar personally led the last of his reserves in a do-or-die counterattack, and when his Germanic horsemen outflanked the Gauls and took them in the rear, the battle decisively turned. The mighty relief army was repulsed.
Vercingetorix finally admitted defeat, and the entire force surrendered the next day. Alesia was to be the last significant resistance to Roman will in Gaul. It involved virtually every Gallic tribe in a disastrous defeat, and there were enough captives for each legionary to be awarded one to sell as a slave. In a very real sense Alesia symbolized the extinction of Gallic liberty. Rebellions would come and go, but never again would a Gallic warlord independent of Rome hold sway over the Celts of Gaul.
In 52 BC, Caesar's continued strategy of annihilation had engendered a spirit of desperation, which detonated into a revolt of Gallic tribes under the leadership of the charismatic, young, Arvernian noble, Vercingetorix. Though the Gallic people shared a common language and culture, forging a coalition amongst the fiercely independent tribes was a virtually impossible feat, and it was a tribute to Vercingetorix's personality and skill.
Initially Vercingetorix's strategy was to draw the Romans into pitched battle. Vercingetorix was soundly beaten in the open field battle against Caesar at Noviodunum, followed by the Roman sack of Avaricum. However, the action that followed at Gergovia amounted to the most serious reverse that Caesar faced in the whole of the Gallic War. Vercingetorix began a canny policy of small war and defensive maneuvers, which gravely hampered Caesar's movements by cutting off his supplies. For Caesar it was to be a grim summertime - his whole Gallic enterprise faced liquidation.
In the event, by brilliant leadership, force of arms, and occasionally sheer luck, Caesar succeeded. This culminated in the siege of Alesia (north of Dijon), which Caesar himself brilliantly narrates (Bellum Gallicum 7.68-89). With his 80,000 warriors and 1,500 horsemen entrenched atop a mesa at Alesia, the star-crossed Vercingetorix believed Alesia was unassailable. Commanding less than 50,000 legionaries and assorted auxiliaries, Caesar nevertheless began the siege. Vercingetorix then dispatched his cavalry to rally reinforcements from across Gaul, and in turn Caesar constructed a contravallation and circumvallation, a double wall of fortifications around Alesia facing toward and away from the oppidum. When the Gallic relief army arrived, the Romans faced the warriors in Alesia plus an alleged 250,000 warriors and 8,000 horsemen attacking from without. Caesar adroitly employed his interior lines, his fortifications, and the greater training and discipline of his men to offset the Gallic advantage, but after two days of heavy fighting, his army was pressed to the breaking point. On the third day, the Gauls, equipped with fascines, scaling ladders and grappling hooks, captured the northwestern angle of the circumvallation, which formed a crucial point in the Roman siege works. In desperation, Caesar personally led the last of his reserves in a do-or-die counterattack, and when his Germanic horsemen outflanked the Gauls and took them in the rear, the battle decisively turned. The mighty relief army was repulsed.
Vercingetorix finally admitted defeat, and the entire force surrendered the next day. Alesia was to be the last significant resistance to Roman will in Gaul. It involved virtually every Gallic tribe in a disastrous defeat, and there were enough captives for each legionary to be awarded one to sell as a slave. In a very real sense Alesia symbolized the extinction of Gallic liberty. Rebellions would come and go, but never again would a Gallic warlord independent of Rome hold sway over the Celts of Gaul.
96 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
9 people are currently reading
86 people want to read
About the author
Nic Fields
87 books22 followersDr Nic Fields started his career as a biochemist before joining the Royal Marines. Having left the Navy, he went back to University and completed a BA and PhD in Ancient History at the University of Newcastle. He was Assistant Director at the British School of Archaeology, Athens, and is now a lecturer in Ancient History and Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
August 2, 2014
A classic battle plan from Julius Caesar. This is truly a wild and weird battle at the heart of Caesar's campaign to reduce the battle capability of the Gauls.
The leader of the Gauls, Vercingetorix, pulled together a major alliance--outnumbering Roman forces. The Roman legions had been fairly successful at suppressing the Gauls, but the latter mounted a major effort.
This slender Osprey volume, as others in the "Campaign" series, has a fairly standard organization. First, an introduction to the campaign. Then, a useful chronology. The key leaders are then profiled--in this instance Vercingetorix and Julius Caesar. We begin to get a sense of the opposing leaders, their personalities, and their leadership skills. The competing armies are then described. One important component, for instance, in Caesar's forces was Germanic cavalry, who played an important role during the campaign. Then, the action plans of the two forces.
Finally, the campaign and culminating battle, the aftermath, and how the battlefield has survived over the centuries.
What makes the final battle so fascinating is that Caesar constructed two different lines of battle--one facing inward as his forces besieged Alesia, where Vercingetorix's forces were stationed. However, behind the inward facing lines were outward facing lines--to repel reinforcements coming to the aid of the besieged Gauls. Although outnumbered considerably, the Roman forces won an improbable victory, cementing Caesar's reputation and standing.
Maps are sometimes not as useful as they could be, although they do help to understand the action.
In the end, a nice addition to the Osprey "Campaign" series.
The leader of the Gauls, Vercingetorix, pulled together a major alliance--outnumbering Roman forces. The Roman legions had been fairly successful at suppressing the Gauls, but the latter mounted a major effort.
This slender Osprey volume, as others in the "Campaign" series, has a fairly standard organization. First, an introduction to the campaign. Then, a useful chronology. The key leaders are then profiled--in this instance Vercingetorix and Julius Caesar. We begin to get a sense of the opposing leaders, their personalities, and their leadership skills. The competing armies are then described. One important component, for instance, in Caesar's forces was Germanic cavalry, who played an important role during the campaign. Then, the action plans of the two forces.
Finally, the campaign and culminating battle, the aftermath, and how the battlefield has survived over the centuries.
What makes the final battle so fascinating is that Caesar constructed two different lines of battle--one facing inward as his forces besieged Alesia, where Vercingetorix's forces were stationed. However, behind the inward facing lines were outward facing lines--to repel reinforcements coming to the aid of the besieged Gauls. Although outnumbered considerably, the Roman forces won an improbable victory, cementing Caesar's reputation and standing.
Maps are sometimes not as useful as they could be, although they do help to understand the action.
In the end, a nice addition to the Osprey "Campaign" series.
March 20, 2022
Enjoyable reading, lots of pictures, facts, pictures, graphs of arguably the greatest military victory of all time (of course any Alexander the Great victory, Battle of Midway, Battle of the Catalaunian Plains etc. are contenders). If you are interested in military history or history in general this is fantastic.
January 27, 2025
Nic Fields is clearly one of the best general public historian in existence and in this Osprey campaign volume he manages the feat of integrating the engagement of the title in the respective campaign, providing simultaneously all the indispensably relevant information without sacrificing a large part of the book. And that wasn’t an easy feat. In 52 BC the campaign was in its seventh year! Using wisely an excellent chronology divided by years and providing relevant information not only in the commanders’ description but also in the opposing forces summaries, the author quickly goes to the dramatic events that lead to Alesia and then to the epic siege itself, which have the lion’s share of the book. One way Fields shares information quickly and competently is with very good maps, for example of Avaricum and Gergovia, which allows the reader not only to see the lay of the land but also how the attack occurred.
The usage of the sources are fabulous, without removing importance but understanding the political objective of “Bello Gallico”, and using as much ancient sources on the Gauls and other relevant issues as possible. Good bibliography and glossary, although I believe it has one small mistake: “Breastwork” isn’t the translation of lorica which means breastplate; probably he wanted to say “Antemurale” (or maybe he wanted to write breastplate but made a mistake).
The photographs with artifacts and reconstructions are very good and perfectly adequate. You’ll find a fused Roman mail, Montefortino and Buggenum helmets, the mouth of a carnyx, sling bullets, photographs of the terrain nowadays, mannequins and reconstructed siege works at MuséoPark Alésia (which everyone should visit by the way). The only regarding the images no-no in my opinion is the abundance of XIX century statues of Gauls and Vercingetorix which are quite useless as historical reference (one would be enough).
The artwork is Peter Dennis at his best including wonderful double page plates of: "the construction of the Roman siege works at Alesia" (with an inset showing the several types of traps and obstacles), "the night time sortie by the Gauls" (the Gauls using fascines and ladders while trying to protect themselves from the heavy fire of the Romans and scaling the defenses) and "the final Gaulish assault at the siege lines" (where you can see the desperate fighting and the Germanic cavalry riding for a rear charge).
For all intents and purposes this ends my review. A very good book from an excellent author. From this point on this is just a minor issue that in my humble opinion the author continues to use wrongly – yes, the ever present issue of circumvallation and contravallation. And this time the author even uses one page to justify his use of contravallation to name the siege works facing the fortress! Using an XIXth century North American military engineering manual as source and stating that Caesar doesn’t use the words circumvallation or contravallation in his seventh commentaries; using only in BG 7.11.1 the term circumvallavit.
Well, Caesar could never had used the term contravallation because the Romans didn’t have that word!!! It was used in the modern age, in the XVIII, XIX th centuries, and I don’t dispute that words have evolutions. For example, ballista was in the Roman times a stone throwing engine, later it became used for a huge arrow/spear thrower! In the issue of the usage of a terminology we can have two different approaches: use what the Romans used or use the present day terminology.
Now for the Roman usage of the word. Nic Fields states that Caesar only uses the word circumvallavit regarding the siege of Vellaunodunum and the author says that that word means “encircled it with entrenchments”; which is correct and obviously implies what circumvallate really means (although the author didn’t accept it as such).
BG 7.11 “…oppugnare instituit idque biduo circumvallavit…”
Then the author refers that the terms only appear regarding Alesia in the times of Napoleon III. Which is wrong (see below) and pretty useless information, since there are innumerous ancient sources saying clearly what a circumvallation is. Even Caesar uses the word circumvallare when referring to the impossibility to make siege encirclement at Avaricum.
BG 7.17 “…Castris ad eam partem oppidi positis Caesar, quae intermissa [a] flumine et a paludibus aditum, ut supra diximus, angustum habebat, aggerem apparare, vineas agere, turres duas constituere coepit: nam circumvallare loci natura prohibebat.” Here Caesar states that he can’t besiege Avaricum with a circumvallation due to the lay of the land; and obviously he isn’t referring to siege fortifications to prevent an attack from the outside/reinforcements. Everything on that phrase is in regard to Avaricum.
BG 7.68 “...adhortatus ad laborem milites circumvallare instituit.” Here Caesar decides to invest Alesia with siege fortifications and contrary to what Fields states, he does use the word “circumvallare”.
Using other ancient sources unrelated to this war we can find many times the word circumvallare is used, always with the same meaning.
BH 32 “…ex fuga hac qui oppidum Mundam sibi constituissent praesidium, nostrique cogebantur necessario eos circumvallare.”
RG 17.2 “...retento milite circumvallare disposuit castella munita quae Mosa fluvius praeterlambit...” Ammianus Marcellinus
RG 18.10 “...ad civitatem reduco, circumvallato murorum …” Ammianus Marcellinus
De Architectura Book 2 Caput Nonum 16 “…admirans Caesar iussit extra telorum missionem eos circumvallari.” Vitruvius; stating that Caesar invested with siege works the town of Larignum due to the fire resistance of certain wood type.
So there is no doubt that the Romans used in fact, contrary to the author’s opinion, the word circumvallation. And that word meant a siege investment and was used even when there was no double lines of walls to prevent a relief army to attack the besiegers. When there was such defenses, they called it double lines of circumvallation. So that is the terminology we can use if we respect the sources.
The second option is acknowledging the evolution of the language and terminology and use the present day usage of the words circumvallation and contravallation.
And here starts the issue. The Oxford Dictionary writes circumvallation in a way that can be used with both meanings; the same with the Webster’s College University where the definition of contravallation is “a fortification set up to protect a besieging force from attack by the defenders of the besieged place or by a relieving force from the outside”.
Some examples: one of the best specialists in Roman Siege warfare Rubén Abad, author of “Los Grandes Asedios de las Legiones Romanas” prefers the usual circumvallation for the siege works (like the Romans used) and contravallation for the protection against a relieving force. Si Shepard in his “The Jewish Revolt” by Osprey also uses “circumvallation” to describe the siege lines of Masada (and not contravallation), I could give a multitude of examples here.
This leads to the main problem…Contravallation was a word created by the French (contravallation), probably in the XVIIth century to be used instead of a word that already existed! And the original word was given another meaning. In my opinion (and many other historians) this makes no sense at all. And I will continue to use the word circumvallation as the Romans used it…for a line of fortifications encircling a city. But if you consult the main dictionaries you’ll see that both terms can be used.
Are you still awake??? Thank you for reading my ramblings, you are indeed a patient person. Cheers. Now go on and buy this book. It’s very good.
The usage of the sources are fabulous, without removing importance but understanding the political objective of “Bello Gallico”, and using as much ancient sources on the Gauls and other relevant issues as possible. Good bibliography and glossary, although I believe it has one small mistake: “Breastwork” isn’t the translation of lorica which means breastplate; probably he wanted to say “Antemurale” (or maybe he wanted to write breastplate but made a mistake).
The photographs with artifacts and reconstructions are very good and perfectly adequate. You’ll find a fused Roman mail, Montefortino and Buggenum helmets, the mouth of a carnyx, sling bullets, photographs of the terrain nowadays, mannequins and reconstructed siege works at MuséoPark Alésia (which everyone should visit by the way). The only regarding the images no-no in my opinion is the abundance of XIX century statues of Gauls and Vercingetorix which are quite useless as historical reference (one would be enough).
The artwork is Peter Dennis at his best including wonderful double page plates of: "the construction of the Roman siege works at Alesia" (with an inset showing the several types of traps and obstacles), "the night time sortie by the Gauls" (the Gauls using fascines and ladders while trying to protect themselves from the heavy fire of the Romans and scaling the defenses) and "the final Gaulish assault at the siege lines" (where you can see the desperate fighting and the Germanic cavalry riding for a rear charge).
For all intents and purposes this ends my review. A very good book from an excellent author. From this point on this is just a minor issue that in my humble opinion the author continues to use wrongly – yes, the ever present issue of circumvallation and contravallation. And this time the author even uses one page to justify his use of contravallation to name the siege works facing the fortress! Using an XIXth century North American military engineering manual as source and stating that Caesar doesn’t use the words circumvallation or contravallation in his seventh commentaries; using only in BG 7.11.1 the term circumvallavit.
Well, Caesar could never had used the term contravallation because the Romans didn’t have that word!!! It was used in the modern age, in the XVIII, XIX th centuries, and I don’t dispute that words have evolutions. For example, ballista was in the Roman times a stone throwing engine, later it became used for a huge arrow/spear thrower! In the issue of the usage of a terminology we can have two different approaches: use what the Romans used or use the present day terminology.
Now for the Roman usage of the word. Nic Fields states that Caesar only uses the word circumvallavit regarding the siege of Vellaunodunum and the author says that that word means “encircled it with entrenchments”; which is correct and obviously implies what circumvallate really means (although the author didn’t accept it as such).
BG 7.11 “…oppugnare instituit idque biduo circumvallavit…”
Then the author refers that the terms only appear regarding Alesia in the times of Napoleon III. Which is wrong (see below) and pretty useless information, since there are innumerous ancient sources saying clearly what a circumvallation is. Even Caesar uses the word circumvallare when referring to the impossibility to make siege encirclement at Avaricum.
BG 7.17 “…Castris ad eam partem oppidi positis Caesar, quae intermissa [a] flumine et a paludibus aditum, ut supra diximus, angustum habebat, aggerem apparare, vineas agere, turres duas constituere coepit: nam circumvallare loci natura prohibebat.” Here Caesar states that he can’t besiege Avaricum with a circumvallation due to the lay of the land; and obviously he isn’t referring to siege fortifications to prevent an attack from the outside/reinforcements. Everything on that phrase is in regard to Avaricum.
BG 7.68 “...adhortatus ad laborem milites circumvallare instituit.” Here Caesar decides to invest Alesia with siege fortifications and contrary to what Fields states, he does use the word “circumvallare”.
Using other ancient sources unrelated to this war we can find many times the word circumvallare is used, always with the same meaning.
BH 32 “…ex fuga hac qui oppidum Mundam sibi constituissent praesidium, nostrique cogebantur necessario eos circumvallare.”
RG 17.2 “...retento milite circumvallare disposuit castella munita quae Mosa fluvius praeterlambit...” Ammianus Marcellinus
RG 18.10 “...ad civitatem reduco, circumvallato murorum …” Ammianus Marcellinus
De Architectura Book 2 Caput Nonum 16 “…admirans Caesar iussit extra telorum missionem eos circumvallari.” Vitruvius; stating that Caesar invested with siege works the town of Larignum due to the fire resistance of certain wood type.
So there is no doubt that the Romans used in fact, contrary to the author’s opinion, the word circumvallation. And that word meant a siege investment and was used even when there was no double lines of walls to prevent a relief army to attack the besiegers. When there was such defenses, they called it double lines of circumvallation. So that is the terminology we can use if we respect the sources.
The second option is acknowledging the evolution of the language and terminology and use the present day usage of the words circumvallation and contravallation.
And here starts the issue. The Oxford Dictionary writes circumvallation in a way that can be used with both meanings; the same with the Webster’s College University where the definition of contravallation is “a fortification set up to protect a besieging force from attack by the defenders of the besieged place or by a relieving force from the outside”.
Some examples: one of the best specialists in Roman Siege warfare Rubén Abad, author of “Los Grandes Asedios de las Legiones Romanas” prefers the usual circumvallation for the siege works (like the Romans used) and contravallation for the protection against a relieving force. Si Shepard in his “The Jewish Revolt” by Osprey also uses “circumvallation” to describe the siege lines of Masada (and not contravallation), I could give a multitude of examples here.
This leads to the main problem…Contravallation was a word created by the French (contravallation), probably in the XVIIth century to be used instead of a word that already existed! And the original word was given another meaning. In my opinion (and many other historians) this makes no sense at all. And I will continue to use the word circumvallation as the Romans used it…for a line of fortifications encircling a city. But if you consult the main dictionaries you’ll see that both terms can be used.
Are you still awake??? Thank you for reading my ramblings, you are indeed a patient person. Cheers. Now go on and buy this book. It’s very good.
February 12, 2022
In 52 BC, Caesar established his fame in the famed battle of Alesia in which his legions were initially outnumbered 6:1. Building defenses both inward and outward, the Gallic tribes united under the leadership of Arvernian noble Vercingetorix marshaled his skill, will and unifying personality to hone the force of the tribes to face the Caesarian legions, yet ultimately failed.
This book is filled with numerous photos, descriptions and ends with a current day discussion of the archeological dig located in modern day France. Historians of this era will dig this unique work of historical scholarship!
This book is filled with numerous photos, descriptions and ends with a current day discussion of the archeological dig located in modern day France. Historians of this era will dig this unique work of historical scholarship!
March 20, 2021
A brief, but engaging, examination of the battle of Alesia and more generally the context and events leading up to it. The book is short - Goodreads reports 96 pages, though my copy was 142 pages - and so full of pictures the actual text is short and digestible and could easily be read in one sitting if the reader desired. I enjoyed the several maps that are included and used this to acquaint myself somewhat with the context before I begin Carolyn Hammond's translation of Caesar's Commentarii.
July 28, 2018
Superb
Really great I enjoyed this book, it is really very informative with maps and images, a lot of useful and interesting information, great detail about the battle. The author can save his opinions about Caesar for himself.
Really great I enjoyed this book, it is really very informative with maps and images, a lot of useful and interesting information, great detail about the battle. The author can save his opinions about Caesar for himself.
July 5, 2019
Although not long, it is a detailed (as so few information survived) and interesting account of the battle. Also a good contextualization of the years preceding the last struggle.
I recommend reading this book together with original the Caesar's Commentaries.
I recommend reading this book together with original the Caesar's Commentaries.
June 28, 2019
They didn't f*** around back then did they?
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews