Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1831 edition. Excerpt: ...when dispersed, could not have been easily brought again into the field, except by the subdivision of authority; and before the forces could have been collected, the enemy would have completely overran the country. The influence of the chiefs over their respective dependants enabled them to execute plans with a celerity unknown under other systems; and the various operations being distributed among so many, the whole army was organized with great facility. The immense hosts that were embodied could not have been raised among a semi-barbarous and roving people but through the strong influence of the chiefs, who were perfectly free and independent in the regulation of their own tribes. It is evident that each clan being so constituted, and there being no more general connexion than a common language and similar customs, there could never arise any power able to raise itself to a great superiority over the others. One tribe might predominate for a time; but the subjected people could not forget their allegiance to their natural chief, or feel a cordial attachment to their new lord. This state of things would be, besides, too hostile to the spirit of clanship to exist long; and we therefore find, that whatever successes one nation might obtain over others, the balance of power was, on the whole, preserved among the Gauls, and no one or more of the tribes were ever able to erect any thing like a powerful kingdom. They are governed, says Diodorus, by kings and princes, who, for the most part, are at peace with each other. In Britain, Dio informs us, the people, for the most part, had the government. Their constitutions were certainly democratic. It was not, indeed, unlikely that small tribes should pay deference to those who were more powerful....
