Points of Embarking and Landing. Date of the Arrival in Britain.
VIII. We have indicated, in the preceding pages, Boulogne as the port at which Cæsar embarked, and Deal as the point where he landed in Britain. Before explaining our reasons, it will not be useless to state that in this first expedition, as well as in the second, the account of which will follow, the places of embarking and landing were the same. In the first place, the terms used in the “Commentaries” lead us to suppose it; next, as we will endeavour to prove, he could only start from Boulogne; and lastly, according to the relation of Dio Cassius, he landed on both occasions at the same spot.[365] It is, then, convenient to treat here the question for both expeditions, and to anticipate in regard to certain facts.
Writers of great repute have placed the Portus Itius, some at Wissant, others at Calais, Etaples, or Mardyke; but the Emperor Napoleon I, in his Précis des Guerres de César, has not hesitated in preferring Boulogne. It will be easy for us to prove in effect that the port of Boulogne is the Portus Itius, which alone answers the necessities of the text, and at the same time satisfies the requirements of a considerable expedition.[366]
To proceed logically, let us suppose the absence of all kind of data. The only means to approach the truth would then be to adopt, as the place where Cæsar embarked, the port mentioned most anciently by historians; for, in all probability, the point of the coast rendered famous by the first expeditions to Britain would have been chosen in preference for subsequent voyages. Now, as early as the reign of Augustus, Agrippa caused a road to be constructed, which went from Lyons to the ocean, across the country of the Bellovaci and the Ambiani,[367] and was to end at Gesoriacum (Boulogne), since the Itinerary of Antoninus traces it thus.[368] It was at Boulogne that Caligula caused a pharos to be raised,[369] and that Claudius embarked for Britain.[370] It was thence that Lupicinus, under the Emperor Julian,[371] and Theodosius, under the Emperor Valentinian,[372] Constantius Chlorus,[373] and lastly, in 893, the Danes,[374] set sail. This port, then, was known and frequented a short time after Cæsar, and continued to be used during the following centuries, while Wissant and Calais are only mentioned by historians three or four centuries later. Lastly, at Boulogne, Roman antiquities are found in abundance; none exist at Calais or Wissant. Cæsar’s camp, of which certain authors speak as situated near Wissant, is only a small modern redoubt, incapable of containing more than 200 men.
To this first presumption in favour of Boulogne we may add another: the ancient authors speak only of a single port on the coast of Gaul nearest to Britain; therefore, they very probably give different names to the same place, among which names figures that of Gesoriacum. Florus[375] calls the place where Cæsar embarked the port of the Morini. Strabo[376] says that this port was called Itius; Pomponius Mela, who lived less than a century after Cæsar, cites Gesoriacum as the port of the Morini best known;[377] Pliny expresses himself in analogous terms.[378]
Let us now show that the port of Boulogne agrees with the conditions specified in the “Commentaries.”
1. Cæsar, in his first expedition, repaired to the country of the Morini, whence the passage from Gaul to Britain is shortest. Now, Boulogne is actually situated on the territory of that people which, occupying the western part of the department of the Pas-de-Calais, was the nearest to England.
2. In his second expedition, Cæsar embarked at the port Itius, which he had found to offer the most convenient passage for proceeding to Britain, distant from the continent about thirty Roman miles. Now, even at the present day, it is from Boulogne that the passage is easiest to arrive in England, because the favourable winds are more frequent than at Wissant and Calais. As to the distance of about thirty miles (forty-four kilometres), Cæsar gives it evidently as representing the distance from Britain to the Portus Itius: it is exactly the distance from Boulogne to Dover, whereas Wissant and Calais are farther from Dover, the one twenty, the other twenty-three Roman miles.
3. To the north, at eight miles’ distance from the Portus Itius, existed another port, where the cavalry embarked. Boulogne is the only port on this coast at eight miles from which, towards the north, we meet with another, that of Ambleteuse. The distance of eight miles is exact, not as a bird flies, but following the course of the hills. To the north of Wissant, on the contrary, there is only Sangatte or Calais. Now Sangatte is six Roman miles from Wissant, and Calais eleven.
4. The eighteen ships of the upper port were prevented by contrary winds from rallying the fleet at the principal port. We understand easily that these ships, detained at Ambleteuse by winds from the south-west or west-south-west, which prevail frequently in the Channel, were unable to rally the fleet at Boulogne. As to the two ships of burthen, which, at the return of the first expedition, could not make land in the same port as the fleet, but were dragged by the current more to the south, nothing is said in the “Commentaries” which would show that they entered a port; it is probable, indeed, that they were driven upon the shore. Nevertheless, it is not impossible that they may have landed in the little fishers’ ports of Hardelot and Camiers. (See Plate 15.)