Auxilia Cohorts and the Claudian Invasion of Britain

[D B Campbell]

... it's original name was Ala 1 Flavia Augusta, however Spaul tells us that it was in Britain during the trib' pot X of Caudius which is 50AD.

Again, this is guesswork, Brian. Spaul has decided to compile a listing for AD 50, so he's popped ala I Britannica into the "Britain" list, because (a) he can't find it elsewhere, and (b) its name indicates that it must've been in Britain at some point. (Interestingly, neither Holder nor Jarrett list the regiment, because there isn't a single piece of evidence for it in Britain.)

btw It's original name was probably ala I Augusta (along with a few others, I think) --- it wouldn't have been Flavia until Flavian times! :wink:

... during the invasion of 43 with the Batavians because Tacitus later refers to their "long" service in Britain.

I actually agree with Mark Hassall, Jens: that the first series of Batavian cohorts took part in the invasion. But the remark about "long service" could refer to the later series of Batavian regiments who served at Mons Graupius.

[Praefectusclassis]

I think that one of the biggest problems in identifying auxiliary units in the Roman imperial era is that we assume that one unit with a certain name, can only exist in one place at one time. However, like Schrödinger's cat, that may not be the case. There are, for instance, almost certainly several units I and II Classica around 130 AD.

[Paullus Scipio]

D. Campbell wrote:

It's worth noting that we don't actually know what regiments took part in the invasion, so it's really a matter of which regiments could have taken part, might have taken part, are likely to have taken part ...

Tim Edwards wrote:
Jasper - I don't have this book. If you have a copy on your shelves I'd be very greatful if you could dig out the relevant info.

It's a useful book, but it's now 27 years old! You'd be better with Michael Jarrett's "Non-legionary troops in Britain (Part One)", Britannia 25 (1994). Paul Holder writes that only two regiments are directly attested as taking part in the invasion: ala I Thracum and ala I Hispanorum. Strictly speaking, we don't know that ala I Thracum took part, but it's a good bet, based on early inscriptions from Cirencester (RIB 109) and Colchester (RIB 201). By ala I Hispanorum, Holder presumably means the ala Vettonum (which appears as Hisp Vett on RIB 403). One of its commanders recorded that he had been highly decorated as "praefectus equitum alae I Hispanorum in Britannia" (ILS 2730), so presumably during the invasion.

As Duncan says, it is pretty much deduction and guesswork as to the units of the invasion force.Hard evidence is lacking...Holder also adds that the presence of the Batavian cohorts is "reasonably certain". The Ala Indiana, Cohortes I and VI Thracum and other units may have arrived as re-inforcements following the Boudiccan revolt of AD 61 ( 2,000 Legionaries, to build up Legio IX - badly mauled under Petilius Cerialis (Tac. Annals XIV.31) - 2 Alae and 8 Cohorts were moved from Germany as re-inforcements (Tac XIV.37). Holder also adds that the presence of the cohortes Delmatorum and Gallorum were among these re-inforcements as being 'reasonably certain' due to them not being known elsewhere, and attested on the Rhine previously.

Graham wrote:

As Duncan say's, very little for any unit in the invasion force. The only unit known is Legio II Augusta and that is only due to a mention in the career of Vespasianus.

Tactus confirms that Legiones II, IX, XIIII, and XX were the garrison when the Boudiccan revolt broke out in 60 AD. These were therefore "almost certainly" in the invasion force ( unless one or more had been rotated in to replace original invaders - and there is no evidence for such a rotation that I know of), and of course the invasion force may have been larger, with other legions being withdrawn after initial success. The evidence would be in the locations of various units at this time, as best as can be reconstructed. Tacitus gives the number and distribution of Legions in 23 AD, and it is possible to track changes thereafter - two Legions seem to have been raised, possibly by Claudius, but more likely by Caligula, (Legiones Primigeniae ), certainly fairly early in the reign of Claudius 27 Legiones are known. The invasion force is believed to have consisted of the four Legiones referred to above, three taken from the Rhine and IX Hispania from Pannonia, possibly augmented by several vexillations ( an inscription refers to a vexillatio from VIII Augusta, while an un-named Tribune of V Alaudae received decorations from Claudius, possibly for service in Germany, but perhaps more likely Britain [Dess. 2701 and 974], and we can track the movements of other Legions to replace the invasion force. We can be reasonably confident, then, that the core of the invasion force was the four Legiones referred to. D

[Tim Edwards]

Thanks all for the debate thus far.

I knew our knowledge was sketchy, but I did not realise quite how much presumption was involved, even with Legionary units.

I too was convinced that the presence of Batavian Cohorts in the invasion force was 'fact', rather than interpretation (however reasoned).

The more you learn the less you know eh?! It amazing how factoids seem to develop.

Paullus - Conscious we are moving on a couple of decades, but which Cohors Delmatrum and Gallorum are you referring to and where/how are they attested?

[D B Campbell]

The invasion force ..., possibly augmented by several vexillations ( an inscription refers to a vexillatio from VIII Augusta, while an un-named Tribune of V Alaudae received decorations from Claudius, possibly for service in Germany, but perhaps more likely Britain [Dess. 2701 and 974], and we can track the movements of other Legions to replace the invasion force. We can be reasonably confident, then, that the core of the invasion force was the four Legiones referred to. D

In general, I would agree that the four legions later found in the province were there from the start. And it may be that other legions contributed vexillations, but we have no evidence for this. H.M.D. Parker jumped the gun when he asserted that VIII Augusta contributed a vexillation: ILS 2701 doesn't actually say that. And the tribune of V Alaudae in ILS 974 was probably decorated by Claudius for service on the Rhine -- no need to transplant him to Britain.

I have tried to track the movements of the legions in Roman Legionary Fortresses, 27 BC-AD 378 (Osprey, 2006), which might not be immediately apparent from the title.
[attachment=0:9ubryjhu]<!-- ia0 tabory_rimskych_legii.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:9ubryjhu]

[Paullus Scipio]

D. Campbell wrote:

And the tribune of V Alaudae in ILS 974 was probably decorated by Claudius for service on the Rhine

.....I suspect that the fact that there were major campaigns in Britain, but not on the Rhine ( which was apparently fairly quiet) at this time might make it more likely the awards were earnt in britain....

[D B Campbell]

And the tribune of V Alaudae in ILS 974 was probably decorated by Claudius for service on the Rhine

.....I suspect that the fact that there were major campaigns in Britain, but not on the Rhine ( which was apparently fairly quiet) at this time might make it more likely the awards were earnt in britain....

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. But if Occam's Razor teaches us anything, it suggests that, if a tribune of V Alaudae, stationed at Vetera on the Rhine, was decorated a Tiberio Claudio (ILS 974), we should first look for an explanation closer to Vetera. If none can be found, then we are entitled to widen our search.

When you claim that there were no major campaigns on the Rhine at this time, you have perhaps forgotten Corbulo's campaign against the Chauci in AD 47 (Tacitus, Annals 11.18), major enough to warrant the award of triumphal insignia to Corbulo, and (no doubt) commensurate awards to his officers, amongst them (in my opinion) the unnamed tribune of V Alaudae. Fairly quiet? I don't think so.

[Centurio]

The inscription from Ephesus commemorates Tiberius Claudius Tib.f. Balbillus, military tribune of leg. XX who was decorated by Claudius (d.d.in triumpho a divo Claudio [corona --- et hasta] pura et vexillo - AE.1924.78)

Was he decorated for participation in ivasion of Britain or for his service on Rhine?

[D B Campbell]

Was he decorated for participation in ivasion of Britain or for his service on Rhine?

Jeez, that's a wreck of an inscription!
e[------------------]g XX et prae[-]
fabr divi Cla[---------------]m[---]
Claudio [---------------------------]
pura [-------------------------------]

But, if the expansion d(onis) d(onato) in triumpho a divo Claudio is correct, then it's the British triumph. (Legion XX wasn't involved in Corbulo's Rhine campaign. They presumably had their hands full in Britain by then.)

[Paullus Scipio]

Well, one may quibble with that. Here is what Tactus says in full:

During the same period, the Chauci, untroubled by domestic strife and elated by the death of Sanquinius, forestalled the arrival of Corbulo by raiding Lower Germany under the leadership of Gannascus, — a Canninefate by extraction, once an auxiliary in the Roman service, then a deserter, and now with a piratical fleet of light vessels engaged in ravaging principally the coast of Gaul, with the wealth of whose peaceful communities he was well acquainted. On his entry into the province, however, Corbulo, showing extreme care and soon acquiring that great reputation which dates from this campaign, brought up his triremes by the Rhine channel and the rest of his vessels, according to their draughts, by the estuaries and canals. Sinking the hostile boats, he ejected Gannascus, and, after adequately settling affairs on the spot, recalled the legions, as lethargic in their toils and duties as they were ardent in pillage, to the old code with its prohibitions against falling out on march or beginning an action without orders. Outpost and sentry work, duties of the day and the night, were carried out under arms; and it is on record that two soldiers were punished by death, one for digging soil for the rampart without side-arms, the other for doing so with none but his dagger. Exaggerated and possibly false as the tales may be, their starting-point is still the severity of the commander; and the man may safely be taken as strict and, to grave offences, inexorable, who was credited with such rigour in regard to trifles.

translation courtesy Lacus Curtius site.

A very minor naval campaign against one tribe ( at most) of pirates is hardly on the same scale as the Invasion of Britain. Given that the Legions apparently played no part in the campaign ( he recalls the Legions after "settling affairs", and disciplines them for their slackness), and there is no record of 'action' by them, only training/fatigues, one might consider that Britain was more likely the occasion for distinction.

I did not express a categorical opinion one way or the other, but the Invasion versus no action at all ?....one might consider the Invasion a more likely occasion for awards to Tribunes of a Legion.

"Fairly quiet?" It would seem so, if this is the best example of "action" you can come up with - in fact no action at all by the Legions.

[Paullus Scipio]

D.B. Campbell wrote:

Jeez, that's a wreck of an inscription!

....agreed, and perhaps you could explain how you get " d(onis) d(onato) in triumpho a divo Claudio " out of "XX et prae[-]
fabr divi Cla[---------------]m[---]
Claudio [---------------------------]
pura [-------------------------------] " ...the 'fabr divi Cla..." in particular?

[Praefectusclassis]

....agreed, and perhaps you could explain how you get " d(onis) d(onato) in triumpho a divo Claudio " out of "XX et prae[-]
fabr divi Cla[---------------]m[---]
Claudio [---------------------------]
pura [-------------------------------] " ...the 'fabr divi Cla..." in particular?

That's not Duncan who did it, but the editor of the inscription. 'Fabr' goes with the 'Prae' of the previous line as 'Praefectus Fabrum' and therefore belongs to a previous clause, the space after "divi Cla" is apparently sufficient to add in "udi et d d in triu". The lone M likely functioned as clue.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I have that title, in English tho.....Very interesting for it!

[Centurio]

....agreed, and perhaps you could explain how you get " d(onis) d(onato) in triumpho a divo Claudio " out of "XX et prae[-]
fabr divi Cla[---------------]m[---]
Claudio [---------------------------]
pura [-------------------------------] " ...the 'fabr divi Cla..." in particular?

That's not Duncan who did it, but the editor of the inscription. 'Fabr' goes with the 'Prae' of the previous line as 'Praefectus Fabrum' and therefore belongs to a previous clause, the space after "divi Cla" is apparently sufficient to add in "udi et d d in triu". The lone M likely functioned as clue.

Maybe the whole text was written before the stone was damaged. Just guessing.

[D B Campbell]

The inscription from Ephesus commemorates Tiberius Claudius Tib.f. Balbillus, military tribune of leg. XX who was decorated by Claudius (d.d.in triumpho a divo Claudio [corona --- et hasta] pura et vexillo - AE.1924.78)

perhaps you could explain how you get " d(onis) d(onato) in triumpho a divo Claudio " out of "XX et prae[-] ..?

Your inscription has been causing consternation for at least one RAT member, Oleg!

Perhaps we should explain that the original publication suggested the expansion: [d.d. in triu]M[pho a divo] CLAVDIO [corona murali et vexillo et hasta] PVRA.

No other equestrian of the Julio-Claudian period received this combination of decorations, which seems slightly suspicious. In fact, Valerie Maxfield (who knows a thing or two about military decorations) suggested a different expansion: [donato ab i]M[p. divo] CLAVDIO [ob bellum Britannicum hasta] PVRA [corona aurea? ...]

Ah, the games that epigraphers play! wink: )