Oppidum Roman Fortifications: Complete And Historically Accurate Modular System For 15mm (1:100) And Smaller

That “Roman fortified camp” you have? Sorry, it's ALL WRONG.
(Unless it is a Baueda Wargames product of course!).

Someone had to tell you... So does the world really need yet more Roman fortified camps? Hades yes! I never seen one that resembles the real thing other than in the most vague (read Hollywoodian) possible way.

Nothing wrong with playing toys and approximate representations, mind you, but I think it’s about time for the uncompromising historical gamers to have access to accurate models of real historical ancient fortifications, and this is what this is all about.

While the models included are all designed on the base of very deep historical research (you’ll find much more detail in the “Oppidum explained” section below if you are interested!) they are realized with the tabletop gaming requirements in mind. The range is available also in a separate version, optimized for 28mm (1:56 scale) and larger. This is for 15mm (1:100 scale) and smaller. Perfect also for HO/00 (1:72 scale), just scale this 15mm version up to 139% (or Multiply by 1.39) to have a robust model perfectly suited for tabletop gaming, or just scale the 28mm version down to 77.8% (or Multiply by 0.778) to have a more finely detailed model.

Include all necessary modules for anything from a marching camp small temporary fortification up to the full grandiose siege works at Alesia!

15mm Oppidum modules

 
40mm wide straight sections:

Ditch 30mm deep

Obstacles (cippi + lilia) 30mm deep

Embankment temporary (15mm high, 30mm deep, sloped front)

Embankment temporary with stairs (15mm high, 30mm deep, sloped front)

Embankment temporary with tower (85mm high, 55mm deep, holds a 40x40mm base on top)

Embankment semi-permanent (27mm high, 52mm deep, sloped front)

Embankment semi-permanent with stairs (27mm high, 52mm deep, sloped front)

Embankment Alesia (27mm high, 47mm deep, vertical front)

Embankment Alesia with stairs (27mm high, 47mm deep, vertical front)

Secondary gate (36mm high, 35mm deep, separate hinged doors)

 
Corner sections:

Embankment temporary 90º corner (sloped front)

Embankment semi-permanent 90º corner (sloped front)

Embankment Alesia 90 º corner (vertical front)

 
Parapets (work on any embankment):

40mm wide straight generic wooden stockade

40mm wide straight wooden stockade with sudes

90 º corner generic wooden stockade

90 º corner wooden stockade with sudes

40mm wide straight “plutei” wickerwork frames

90 º corner “plutei” wickerwork frames

40mm wide straight late Roman/Norman sawn wood

90 º corner late Roman/Norman sawn wood

40mm wide straight republican Roman / Hellenistic stockade

90 º corner republican Roman / Hellenistic stockade

others:

Secondary gate with tower (55mm wide, 85mm high, 40mm deep, separate hinged doors, raised platform holds a 40x20mm base on top)

Separate embankment stairs (15mm high, 28mm deep, 12mm wide)

Step ladder (9mm wide, 37mm high)

Cervus (40mm wide anti-climbing obstacle)

Sharpened stakes for ditch bottom (40mm wide section)

Cheval de frise (40mm wide anti-cavalry obstacle)

All these elements have been test printed, but while the bulkiest parts are optimized for FDM printing, please keep in mind that the smaller details are only really suitable for resin printing.

OPPIDUM explained

Oppidum is a Latin word meaning 'defended (fortified) town'. In his “de Bello Gallico”, Julius Caesar described the larger Celtic Iron Age settlements he encountered in Gaul during the Gallic Wars in 58 to 52 BC as oppida. He did not explicitly define what features qualified a settlement to be called an oppidum, nor is this defined in modern archaeological usage other than as a conventional term for large fortified settlements associated with Iron Age Europe. However in general it refers to a large settlement surrounded by a wall (vallum).

The word vallum properly refers to either the whole or a portion of the fortifications of a Roman camp. The vallum usually comprised an earthen or turf rampart (agger) with a wooden palisade on top and a deep outer ditch (fossa). As mentioned, the name is derived from vallus (a stake), and strictly speaking means only the palisade which ran along the outer edge of the top of the agger, but is usually used to refer to the whole fortification also by ancient sources.

A Republican Roman army (or later) on the march in hostile territory would build a fortified camp every day, with a vallum along the entire outer perimeter. The ancient military manuals of Vegetius, Hyginus, and Polybius describe the regulation ditch; a “fossa legitima” with dimensions that varied on a sliding scale between five feet wide by three feet deep to some seventeen feet wide by nine feet deep.

The considerable difference depends on the actual use: a marching camp, built only for a night would have a five feet fossa, a camp used for a longer period, such as a winter camp for example, would have a more imposing defense. A permanent camp, built as a major defensive center to control a newly conquered area (such as those which eventually developed in many of Europe’s major cities) would have the most substantial defensive works.

This give us a key to understand that when Caesar says he built two ditches fifteen feet wide in front of the siege works at Alesia, he’s telling us he built one of the most impressive field fortification ever seen at his time, not just your everyday normal defensive ditch.

Has a very interesting analysys of a “fossa”, I quote:

“The typical ditch profile was a symmetrical inverted triangle, with a continuous square slot running along the bottom. A rarer ditch profile was the “Punic” ditch which had slopes of differing pitches. The outer counterscarp had an almost vertical face while the inner scarp had a very gentle slope. This arrangement has been described as a man trap feature for attackers caught within the ditch cordon and stuck in missile range unable to escape. A more probable reason is that the gentler inner slope allowed easy supervision of the bottom of the ditch from the rampart.

The purpose of the slot at the base of Roman ditches has generated much speculation and is usually described as a drainage slot or an “ankle breaker” defensive feature.

Neither is a particularly satisfactory explanation. A drainage slot, to function, needs somewhere to conduit water to. The continuous circuit of a defensive ditch does not provide such an outlet and groundwater, waste, mud and probably excrement would have swamped the bottom of any ditch before long regardless of whether it had the square slot at its base or not.

The “ankle breaker” is a superficially attractive suggestion, however, the main casualties of such a feature would be the ankles of the Roman soldiers involved in digging these ditches. The very last thing a Roman commander would have wanted was for his valuable and hard marching assets - the Roman soldiers themselves - to be laid up through an epidemic of ankle injuries each and every time a camp is formed.

The mysterious slot was most likely used to seat obstacles in the base of the ditch, much as was done in the rationalised fortifications of the European early gunpowder era. Sharpened stakes, thorn bushes, and other similarly unpleasant nasty surprises would have been seated in the slot and packed tight with turves or anything else to hand, an ancient equivalent of barbed wire all now long decomposed.”

The rampart was formed from the excavated spoil from the ditch. In forested areas it is possible that it may also have been comprised of some of the smaller branches (with foliage) of the trees that had to be fell to clear the area, while the trunks and the major branches would have provided at least some of the timber required in the construction. Most of the timber however would have to be fell and transported from further away, an activity vividly depicted on Trajan’s column.

The rampart structure I used is based on the latest archaeological evidence, in particular the remains of the post holes excavated in many different sites. These generally comprise of three rows of double post holes, with the central row having the pairs at 90 degrees to the other two lines. I’ve started by placing posts in this position then added hypothetical horizontal elements followed by layers of similarly aligned components, all fitted around the vertical posts.

The result is designed to match as much as possible the original sources (like what is shown on Trajan’s column) within the limits of what I think it is realistically a more practical solution then having full layers of timber beams as shown in the bas-reliefs.

I would also have expected the end of the beams on the front to have been sharpened to a point, but they are always depicted sawn flat, so that’s what I went with. We should however consider there may have been some considerable artistic license in those representations which could have been made by someone who may have never even seen a real one. It is also worth keeping in mind that those sort of representations were highly stylized and followed a sort of conventional symbolic language meant for a purely propagandist purpose.

In any case I included the internal structure here only to ensure the whole thing will be as historically accurate as possible, but very little of it will be visible anyway, as most of the woodwork would be covered in ground and turf to fireproof it.

Caesar’s mention a couple of time that vertical walls are preferable when possible, and given the amount of effort spent on these siege works I think it is reasonable to assume they did that. The actual technique to achieve that vertical frontage is again based on archaeological evidence and was widely used on the first version of what would later become permanent camp fortifications (where the wooden and turf earthwork would be first faced with and later gradually replaced by stone walls). At times the frontal vertical posts (the one with the lateral cutting to hold the horizontal planks) are depicted squared, but all post holes excavated to my knowledge are round, and from the point of view of a military engineer would make little practical sense to waste time squaring trunks for no practical purpose, especially when you have to make 35km of it in a hurry…

In theory the whole front could be covered in turf blocks, and indeed that certainly was the case when there wasn’t a vertical wooden wall at the front, but I doubt it was done at Alesia, and for several reasons. First of all freshly cut wood does not burn readily, especially when kept wet by the humidity coming from the considerable volume of fresh dirt piled up behind it, so it would not be strictly necessary to add further fireproofing. In addition, even if the enemy would succeed to burn down the front this would do very little damage to the structure as a whole, merely exposing the layers upon layers of interlocked timber secured by large iron nails and packed tight with the dirt and stones excavated from the ditches behind it. In practice, by burning down the frontage an attacker would only create that very same steep sloped dirt front of the rampart type covered in turf blocks. Second, to pile up an additional turf layer on the front of a vertical wooden wall would require a considerable extra effort but would only result in a loose coating that would be very easy to dislodge, turning it a convenient source of material to create a ramp for scaling the wall. Therefore, although again undoubtedly a common practice when there wasn’t a vertical wooden wall at the front, it would seems a hardly worthwhile addition in case you had one.

Lastly we know this type of fortification (with exposed wooden vertical fronts) was widely used in the Post-Roman world, particularly by Normans and Saxons (therefore made with the same type of timber and employed in the same weather) and those were considered extremely effective by their contemporaries, so I think it is quite safe to assume the same would have been true also for the Roman ones.

The parapet with merlons (loricam pinnasque) is often referred to as “plutei” in the original sources, and we are told it was specifically added later and not built in as part of the rampart frontal structure. Plutei were protective screens made of wickerwork and I assume they must have been enclosed by a solid wood frame since in that way wicker makes for a very light, flexible and resilient panel. This practice is common even today for making gates in wicker fences. Unlike the flimsy reconstructions made for tourists which wouldn’t stop a children’s toy arrow, the real plutei where universally regarded as extremely effective in protecting even from catapults bolts and stone missiles and as such widely used in siege warfare in the whole Hellenistic world, so I’m quite confident this particular is correct.

Turrets (“towers” in the original text) are often depicted with step ladders in popular modern reconstructions but that would make them extremely hazardous to use, leaving anyone climbing up or down completely exposed to enemy throws and with both hands occupied. Given the size and complexity of the works I think wooden staircases would be much more likely to have been used, at least at the first floor. Using these would also leave a legionary’s hands free to hold a scutum and carry weapons, therefore providing additional fighting platforms instead of using up space. Accordingly I made them all on the right side of the towers, so someone running up to defend a section under attack would show the shield side to the enemy. Step ladders are included anyway, for using in situations where building proper stairs was not possible or not necessary (for example inside enclosed towers or for the upper floors).

The sudes (not to be confused with “pila muraria”, a common mistake on much modern literature carried over to the gaming community) have been depicted in a way that many will regard as unusual so I think they require some explanation. Much has been speculated on the soldier’s campaign stakes and how they could be utilised in a variety of ways. Each soldier we are told carried two of these stakes. We even found some examples in relatively good shape, enough to tell with confidence that each stake was made of hardwood, usually oak, about 150–180 cm (5–6 ft) long and about 50–75 mm (2–3 in) wide at the thickest point. Square in section, the shape tapers to a point at both ends. All examples that have been found are rough hewn but the central part is accurately shaped to narrow in a way that may suggests the function of a handle, or could be designed to allow the stakes to be lashed together in a continuous barrier.

Experimental reconstructive archaeology (mostly done by amateurs) usually suggests they could be incorporated into the top of the rampart mound and lashed together to form a ridiculously flimsy and basically useless low palisade, or that three of them could be lashed together to form a sort of spiked caltrop device, but this is a very light obstacle which could be extremely easily moved or smashed by any attacker. The only other reasonable assumption I ever seen is that a felled log could have a series of pairs of these stakes lashed to it as cross spars to make a cheval de frise, functioning as a perfectly adequate (if somehow low) movable barrier at the camps gateways. But depending on the size and date of the camp there could be between four and six of these entrances and that wouldn’t require but a very small percentage of the several thousand of sudes we know the army carried. Despite re-enactors best efforts to oversize them to make them look somehow more effective when used as described above, the real examples are quite simply too thin and unsubstantial to be used as a self standing obstacle; beside, it is difficult to justify carrying all those carefully shaped stakes for doing something a legionary could very easily have done with a bunch of roughly cut felled sapling found on location…
Tentative identification with the stakes mentioned by Polybius is frankly risible, not only because he’s talking about at least 300 years earlier than the attested standardized usage of sudes, but because he clearly states: “while the stakes of the Romans have but two or three, or at the most four strong lateral prongs” which is a description that is clearly in no way fitting to the straight square sawn tapered shape examples we have.

Fortunately we are now finally over all such nonsense (although undoubtedly it will take many years to get rid of the unfortunate legacy of these past speculations) because we have finally found a well preserved example in the damp soil in the Bad Ems area of Germany. It shows exactly how they were used, and unsurprisingly it just makes perfect sense: they were placed atop the palisade to prevent climbing over it, in a manner functionally identical to that of modern barbwire, as shown here. So all the others you have seen so far? Sorry, they are just wrong.

Two main forms of Roman camp gateway are known. The most commonly encountered is the “titulus” or traverse, a short length of rampart and ditch placed in an advanced position beyond an opening left in the main defensive circuit. A rarer form is the “clavicula” gateway. This had quarter-circle extensions of the rampart mound internally and/or externally, the external portion sometime having a corresponding length of ditch to its front. There are variations in the form of the clavicula type but the basic principle allowed what appears to have been a strengthened gateway that exposed any attacking tribesmen’s right-hand side (the side usually not protected by the shield) to missiles discharged from the rampart.

Why clavicula gateways appear more in Scotland than elsewhere is not immediately clear, perhaps the famous storming of the Ninth Legions camp in Scotland in 82 AD with much of the ensuing fighting reportedly taking place in the gateways inspired some later Roman officers in charge of camp construction – the Praefectus Castrorum – to adopt this stronger gate feature. The type of camp utilising clavicular gates are known in archaeology as Stracathro types, named after the site in Angus where the feature was first identified. One of the legionary camps at Masada features a single clavicula gateway, while all others are straight, so there may have been a specific reason to use one instead of the other, but regrettably this just isn’t known.

Pincer gates were already being used in earlier Celtic fortification in Central Europe and become the prevalent gate type in later permanent stone gateways, so it is fair to assume these would have been in use throughout the period. A pincer gate would probably be used to close the gap in either “titulm” or “clavicula” gateway arrangements, the only difference being that in the second case it would be turned 90 degrees.

Finally, I roughed out what the complete outern defensive line with the two ditches and all the full line of obstacles mentioned in the “de Bello Gallico” would look like, to scale, but this would require considerable extra work and it would not have been described in such detail if it was a standard practice.

I made all these components separate, so it is entirely up to you how many lines of such outer fortifications to include in your project, if any at all. I have shown here a couple of possible arrangements that may have been more common.

This image shows you the full extent of the defensive works built at Alesia on the left (two ditches – one flooded – cippi, lilia and stimuli), and a game-friendly simplified version with only one ditch and a condensed obstacles base.

 
1/72 Oppidum
Just scale the 28mm version down to 77.8% (or Multiply by 0.778) to have a finely detailed model for 1:72 figures.

Who am I
My name is Claudio Berni, I’m an Italian freelance artist, I was born in Milan and I now live and work at the very northernmost edge of Italy (think Swiss alps snow and bacon rather than pizza and sea). I’ve been running Baueda Wargames for the past 20 years or so. Before that I was doing 3D models for computer games and even before that I was doing illustrations for book covers (yes, I’m ancient and historical too!). I always had a fascination for ancient and medieval sieges and I’ve read a pretty substantial amount of books on the subject, including most of the original sources. I’ve also always had a passion for wargames and you can rest assured that the models are all designed to be as compatible as possible with the most used gaming standards for unit frontage and basing.
Feel free to contact me to discuss any aspect of this project!

Historical references
Many measurements used here are taken from "Models of the Roman Army" by Gary Brueggeman, an excellent reconstruction work based on accurate historical sources and much real life measuring which I would strongly recommend to everyone interested in the argument:

Theoretical Structural Archaeology

De Munitionibus Castrorum

(Source: De Munitionibus Castrorum ("Concerning the fortifications of a military camp") Unknown author. Due to this work formerly being attributed to Hyginus Gromaticus, its author is often referred to as "Pseudo-Hyginus". Most probably date from the late 1st to early 2nd century AD, between the reigns of Trajan and Septimius Severus. The author says that what he has prepared is an explanation of his new way of laying out a camp which, he hopes the Emperor will agree, is an improvement upon the customary way. In modern terms, it is a bid, or a proposal, or a sales pitch, put together by an engineer. Due to possible errors in the copying of the original, or even additions to it by unknown hands, it is difficult to know just exactly what the original was, but the version that has been passed down to us it’s not well organized, is incomplete, and it’s not even internally consistent, so we can be reasonably sure it is not a pristine copy of the original. It is still an important reference text, however, since “Pseudo-Hyginus” is the only source we have for a legionary Roman camp after Polybius, who described the camp of a manipular army at the time of the second Punic War, in the 3rd century BC, some 350 years earlier.

Castra

Some relevant extracts from primary sources:

“The following is their manner of breaking up camp. Immediately upon the signal being given they take down the tents and every one packs up. No tent, however, may be either taken down or set up before those of the tribunes and consul. On the second signal they load the pack animals, and on the third the leaders of the column must advance and set the whole camp in movement. They usually place the extraordinarii at the head of the column. Next comes the right wing of the allies and behind them their pack animals. The first Roman legion marches next with its baggage behind it and it is followed by the second legion, which has behind it both its own pack animals and also the baggage of the allies who bring up the rear; for the left wing of the allies forms the extreme rear of the column on the march. The cavalry sometimes marches in the rear of the respective bodies to which it belongs and sometimes on the flanks of the pack train, keeping the animals together and affording them protection.

When an attack is expected from the rear, the same order is maintained, but the allied extraordinarii not any other portion of the allies, march in the rear instead of the van. Of the two legions and wings each takes the front or rear position on alternate days, so that by this change of order all may equally share the advantage of a fresh water supply and fresh foraging ground.

They have also another kind of marching order at times of danger when they have open ground enough. For in this case the hastati, principes, and triarii form three parallel columns, the pack trains of the leading maniples being placed in front of all, those of the second maniples behind the leading maniples, those of the third behind the second and so on, with the baggage trains always interposed between the bodies of troops. With this order of march when the column is threatened, they face now to the left now to the right, and getting clear of the baggage confront the enemy from whatever side he appears. So that very rapidly, and by one movement the infantry is placed in order of battle (except perhaps that the hastati may have to wheel round the others), and the crowd of baggage animals and their attendants are in their proper place in the battle, being covered by the line of troops.

When the army on the march is near the place of encampment, one of the tribunes and those centurions who are specially charged with this duty go on in advance, and after surveying the whole ground on which the camp is to be formed, first of all determine from the considerations I mentioned above where the consul’s tent should be placed and on which front of the space round this tent the legions should encamp. When they have decided on this, they measure out first the area of the praetorium, next the straight line along which the tents of the tribunes are erected and next the line parallel to this, starting from which the troops form their encampment. In the same way they draw lines on the other side of the praetorium. All this is done in a very short time, as the marking out is a quite easy matter, all the distances being fixed and familiar; and they now plant flags, one on the spot intended for the consul’s tent, another on that side of it they have chosen for the camp, a third in the middle of the line on which the tribune’s tents will stand, and a fourth on the other parallel line along which the legions will encamp. These latter flags are crimson, but the consul’s is white. On the ground on the other side of the praetorium they plant either simple spears or flags of other colours. After this they go on to lay out the streets and plant spears in each street. Consequently it is obvious that when the legions march up and get a good view of the site for the camp, all the parts of it are known at once to everyone, as they have only to reckon from the position of the consul’s flag. So that, as everyone knows exactly in which street and in what part of the street his tent will be, since all invariably occupy the same place in the camp, the encamping somewhat resembles the return of an army to its native city. For then they break up at the gate and everyone goes straight on from there and reaches his own house without fail, as he knows both the quarter and the exact spot where his residence is situated. It is very much the same thing in a Roman camp.

The Romans by thus studying convenience in this matter pursue, it seems to me, a course diametrically opposite to that usual among the Greeks. The Greeks in encamping think it of primary importance to adapt the camp to the natural advantages of the ground, first because they shirk the labour of entrenching, and next because they think artificial defences are not equal in value to the fortifications which nature provides unaided on the spot. So that as regards the plan of the camp as a whole they are obliged to adopt all kinds of shapes to suit the nature of the ground, and they often have to shift the parts of the army to unsuitable situations, the consequence being that everyone is quite uncertain whereabouts in the camp his own place or the place of his corps is. The Romans on the contrary prefer to submit to the fatigue of entrenching and other defensive work for the sake of the convenience of having a single type of camp which never varies and is familiar to all.”

(Source: Polybius, The Histories, Ι, Book VI)

"Flamininus, not being able to discover where the enemy were encamped, but knowing for a certainty that they were in Thessaly, ordered all his soldiers to cut stakes for a palisade to carry with them for use when required. This appears to be impossible when the Greek usage is followed, but on the Roman system it is easy to cut them. For the Greeks have difficulty in holding only their pikes when on the march and in supporting the fatigue caused by their weight, but the Romans, hanging their long shields from their shoulders by leather straps and only holding their javelins in their hands, can manage to carry the stakes besides. Also the stakes are quite different. For the Greeks consider that stake the best which has the most and the stoutest offshoots all round the main stem, while the stakes of the Romans have but two or three, or at the most four strong lateral prongs, and these all on one side and not alternating. The result of this is that they are quite easy to carry — for one man can carry three or four, making a bundle of them, and when put to use they are much more secure. For the Greek stakes, when planted round the camp, are in the first place easily pulled up; since when the portion of a stake that holds fast closely pressed by the earth is only one, and the offshoots from it are many and large, and when two or three men catch hold of the same stake by its lateral branches, it is easily pulled up. Upon this an entrance is at once created owing to its size, and the ones next to it are loosened, because in such a palisade the stakes are intertwined and criss-crossed in few places. With the Romans it is the reverse; for in planting them they so intertwine them that it is not easy to see to which of the branches, the lower ends of which are driven into the ground, the lateral prongs belong, nor to which prongs the branches belong. So, as these prongs are close together and adhere to each other, and as their points are carefully sharpened, it is not easy to pass one's hand through and grasp the stake, nor if one does get hold of it, is it easy to pull it up, as in the first place the power of resistance derived from the earth by all the portions open to attack is almost absolute, and next because a man who pulls at one prong is obliged to lift up numerous other stakes which give simultaneously under the strain owing to the way they are intertwined, and it is not at all probable that two or three men will get hold of the same stake. But if by main force a man succeeds in pulling up one or two, the gap is scarcely observable. Therefore, as the advantages of this kind of palisade are very great, the stakes being easy to find and easy to carry and the whole being more secure and more durable when constructed, it is evident that if any Roman military contrivance is worthy of our imitation and adoption this one certainly is, in my own humble opinion at least".

(Source: Polybius, Book XVIII Campaign of Flamininus in Thessaly and Battle of Cynoscephalae.)

“But this is usually the form of all the Gallic walls. Straight beams, connected lengthwise and two feet distant from each other at equal intervals, are placed together on the ground; these are morticed on the inside, and covered with plenty of earth. But the intervals which we have mentioned, are closed up in front by large stones. These being thus laid and cemented together, another row is added above, in such a manner, that the same interval may be observed, and that the beams may not touch one another, but equal spaces intervening, each row of beams is kept firmly in its place by a row of stones. In this manner the whole wall is consolidated, until the regular height of the wall be completed. This work, with respect to appearance and variety, is not unsightly, owing to the alternate rows of beams and stones, which preserve their order in right lines; and, besides, it possesses great advantages as regards utility and the defence of cities; for the stone protects it from fire, and the wood from the battering ram, since it being mortised in the inside with rows of beams, generally forty feet each in length, can neither be broken through nor torn asunder.”

(Source: Julius Caesar, Gallic War, 7.23)

7/72

Caesar, on learning these proceedings from the deserters and captives, adopted the following system of fortification; he dug a trench twenty feet deep, with perpendicular sides, in such a manner that the base of this trench should extend so far as the edges were apart at the top. He raised all his other works at a distance of four hundred feet from that ditch; [he did] that with this intention, lest (since he necessarily embraced so extensive an area, and the whole works could not be easily surrounded by a line of soldiers) a large number of the enemy should suddenly, or by night, sally against the fortifications; or lest they should by day cast weapons against our men while occupied with the works. Having left this interval, he drew two trenches fifteen feet broad, and of the same depth; the innermost of them, being in low and level ground, he filled with water conveyed from the river. Behind these he raised a rampart and wall twelve feet high; to this he added a parapet and battlements, with large stakes cut like stags' horns, projecting from the junction of the parapet and battlements, to prevent the enemy from scaling it, and surrounded the entire work with turrets, which were eighty feet distant from one another.

7/73

It was necessary, at one and the same time, to procure timber [for the rampart], lay in supplies of corn, and raise also extensive fortifications, and the available troops were in consequence of this reduced in number, since they used to advance to some distance from the camp, and sometimes the Gauls endeavored to attack our works, and to make a sally from the town by several gates and in great force. Caesar thought that further additions should be made to these works, in order that the fortifications might be defensible by a small number of soldiers. Having, therefore, cut down the trunks of trees or very thick branches, and having stripped their tops of the bark, and sharpened them into a point, he drew a continued trench every where five feet deep. These stakes being sunk into this trench, and fastened firmly at the bottom, to prevent the possibility of their being torn up, had their branches only projecting from the ground. There were five rows in connection with, and intersecting each other; and whoever entered within them were likely to impale themselves on very sharp stakes. The soldiers called these "cippi." Before these, which were arranged in oblique rows in the form of a quincunx, pits three feet deep were dug, which gradually diminished in depth to the bottom. In these pits tapering stakes, of the thickness of a man's thigh; sharpened at the top and hardened in the fire, were sunk in such a manner as to project from the ground not more than four inches; at the same time for the purpose of giving them strength and stability, they were each filled with trampled clay to the height of one foot from the bottom: the rest of the pit was covered over with osiers and twigs, to conceal the deceit. Eight rows of this kind were dug, and were three feet distant from each other. They called this a lily from its resemblance to that flower. Stakes a foot long, with iron hooks attached to them, were entirely sunk in the ground before these, and were planted in every place at small intervals; these they called spurs.

7/74

After completing these works, saving selected as level ground as he could, considering the nature of the country, and having inclosed an area of fourteen miles, he constructed, against an external enemy, fortifications of the same kind in every respect, and separate from these, so that the guards of the fortifications could not be surrounded even by immense numbers, if such a circumstance should take place owing to the departure of the enemy's cavalry; and in order that the Roman soldiers might not be compelled to go out of the camp with great risk, ho orders all to provide forage and corn for thirty days.

7/85.…. The least elevation of ground, added to a declivity, exercises a momentous influence. Some are casting missiles, others, forming a testudo, advance to the attack; fresh men by turns relieve the wearied. The earth, heaped up by all against the fortifications, gives the means of ascent to the Gauls, and covers those works which the Romans had concealed in the ground. Our men have no longer arms or strength.

7/86….. Caesar, on observing these movements, sends Labienus with six cohorts to relieve his distressed soldiers: he orders him, if he should be unable to withstand them, to draw off the cohorts and make a sally; but not to do this except through necessity. ………: hither they bring the engines which they had prepared; by the immense number of their missiles they dislodge the defenders from the turrets: they fill the ditches with clay and hurdles, then clear the way; they tear down the rampart and breast-work with hooks.

7/87.……… orders part of the cavalry to follow him, and part to make the circuit of the external fortifications and attack the enemy in the rear. Labienus, when neither the ramparts or ditches could check the onset of the enemy, informs Caesar by messengers of what he intended to do. Caesar hastens to share in the action.

7/88.…….. Our troops, laying aside their javelins, carry on the engagement with their swords. The cavalry is suddenly seen in the rear of the Gauls; the other cohorts advance rapidly; the enemy turn their backs; the cavalry intercept them in their flight, and a great slaughter ensues.

(Source: Julius Caesar. Caesar's Gallic War; 7.72 – 7.88)