Kitap 2
11.82
The losses of Italians on each side — for there was no report of the losses of auxiliaries, either because of their multitude or because they were despised — were as follows: in Caesar’s army. thirty centurions and 200 legionaries, or, as some authorities have it, 1200; on Pompey’s side ten senators, among whom was Lucius Domitius, the same who had been sent to succeed Caesar himself in Gaul, and about forty distinguished knights. Some exaggerating writers put the loss in the remainder of his forces at 25,000, but Asinius Pollio, who was one of Caesar’s officers in this battle, records the number of dead Pompeians found as 6000.Caesar puts his own loss at thirty centurions and 200 private soldiers, and Pompey’s at 15,000 killed and 24,000 prisoners. We must infer that Appian was not acquainted with Caesar’s Commentaries, for if he had been he would most probably have quoted him here instead of referring in a loose way to exaggerating writers. Such was the result of the famous battle of Pharsalus. Caesar himself carries off the palm for first and second place by common consent, and with him the tenth legion. The third place is taken by the centurion Crastinus, whom Caesar asked at the beginning of the battle what result he anticipated, and who responded proudly, We shall conquer, O Caesar, and you will thank me either living or dead. The whole army testifies that he darted through the ranks like one possessed and did many brilliant deeds. When sought for he was found among the dead, and Caesar bestowed military honors on his body and buried it, and erected a special tomb for him near the common burial-place of the others.The affair of Crastinus is mentioned by Caesar, by Florus, and by Plutarch in his life of Pompey and again in his life of Caesar. The reference here made to Asinius Pollio has led to much discussion in the learned world, touching the sources from which Appian and Plutarch drew. The words used by Crastinus are almost identical in the three passages (one of Appian and two of Plutarch), and this leads Wynne, Hulleman, and Hermann Peter to believe that both authors borrowed from Pollio’s history. Vollgraff on the other hand contends that as Pollio wrote in Latin it would have been little less than miraculous if both of them had used the same Greek words in translating it. He considers it remarkable also that the only reference made to Pollio’s writings by either of them should have been here, and that both of them mentioned incidentally the fact that Pollio himself took part in the engagement. All of these coincidences may be explained if we suppose that both Plutarch and Appian took the facts from a common Greek source; that is, from some author who took them from Pollio. (See Vollgraff’s Greek Writers of Roman History, Leyden, 1880.)
