Early British Auxiliary Units

[Nathan Ross]

I'm trying to gather whatever scanty evidence is available for 'British' auxiliary units in the 1st C AD, pre-Trajan. What little I have is noted below. Can anyone add anything?

AD 69: ala Britannica - mentioned by Tacitus (Histories III.41) as a unit sent from Britain to fight for Vitellius. Possibly means a cavalry ala from the British garrison rather than an actual unit of Britons though.

AD 71: ala I Brittonum - from diploma AE 2003,02060 / RMD.324. Pannonia. If veterans are being discharged in 71, they must have been recruited c.46, which makes this very early. 'Brittonum' suggests they were actually Britons as well. Recruited by Aulus Plautius, maybe?

AD 80: cohors I Britannica - from diploma CIL 16, 00026. Pannonia. A cohort originally drawn from the British garrison, presumably, rather than Britons.

AD 84: cohors I Britannica - diploma CIL 16, 00030. Pannonia. Same again.

AD 85: cohors I Britannica milliaria & cohors I Britonnum milliaria - diploma CIL 16, 00031. The first of these is presumably the same unit mentioned in 80 and 84, but now milliary. The second cohort (if we accept the nomenclature) is properly British, i.e of Britons. Could this sudden increase in size relate to the end of Agricola's campaign in Britain, perhaps? Tacitus suggests he had 'Britons' in his force, perhaps in irregular allied formations. Maybe they were shipped across to the Danube and joined to the pre-existing 'Britannic' unit? Veterans from I Britonnum would presumably have enlisted c.60.

c.AD 89: ala Flavia Domitiana Britannica milliaria c.R - from tombstone ILS 9140, Germania Inferior. The dating for this is Domitianic (obviously!) and the honorific might relate to the Saturninus revolt of 89. The soldier, Draccus, died after 22 years service, and was from the Sequani. This unit were not actually Britons, then!

All these units turn up post-1st C on other diplomas - Alae I Britannica and I Britonnum later serving together on the Danube and in Dacia, with other Britannic and Brittonic cohorts turning up in Pannonia, Moesia, Germania and further afield.

Is there any more evidence for the existence or placement of British units pre-Trajan? And does anyone know the earliest possible date range from the numeri Brittonum? I assume Trajanic, but could they be earlier?

Thanks - Nathan

[D B Campbell]

AD 69: ala Britannica - mentioned by Tacitus (Histories III.41) as a unit sent from Britain to fight for Vitellius. Possibly means a cavalry ala from the British garrison rather than an actual unit of Britons though.

AD 80: cohors I Britannica - from diploma CIL 16, 00026. Pannonia. A cohort originally drawn from the British garrison, presumably, rather than Britons.

AD 84: cohors I Britannica - diploma CIL 16, 00030. Pannonia. Same again.

AD 85: cohors I Britannica milliaria & cohors I Britonnum milliaria - diploma CIL 16, 00031. The first of these is presumably the same unit mentioned in 80 and 84, but now milliary. ...

c.AD 89: ala Flavia Domitiana Britannica milliaria c.R - from tombstone ILS 9140, Germania Inferior. The dating for this is Domitianic (obviously!) and the honorific might relate to the Saturninus revolt of 89. The soldier, Draccus, died after 22 years service, and was from the Sequani. This unit were not actually Britons, then!

Be careful with the Britannica units, Nathan. (I think you have realised that they are different.) Cheesman showed that the adjectival form of a provincial name indicated service in that province, not the place of origin. Units like cohors I Thracum Syriaca (where Syriaca, like Britannica, is a provincial name as an adjective) prove the case. (In this case, a unit originally raised in Thrace, but recently serving in Syria.)

For some reason, Cheesman changed his mind where Britannica was concerned. He needn't have, though.*

* D.L. Kennedy, "The ala I and cohors I Britannica", Britannia 8 (1977), pp. 249-255.

[Nathan Ross]

Be careful with the Britannica units, Nathan. (I think you have realised that they are different.)
* D.L. Kennedy, "The ala I and cohors I Britannica", Britannia 8 (1977), pp. 249-255.

Yes, I got the info on the Domitianic tombstone from Kennedy. His suggested histories of the Britannica units are quite convincing, and explain the use of the cognomen. However, as he points out the earliest origo we have for a soldier of a Britannica unit is (or appears to be) Dobunni - i.e. a Briton. Kennedy's attempts to explain away this origin seem a bit convoluted - the stonecutter making a mistake etc (tombstones were important, and a cutter that absent-minded can't have made much of a living!). Far easier, surely, to assume that Mr Lucco actually was what his monument claims - a native Dobunnian.

Also, am I right in thinking that the discovery of the AD 71 diploma post-dates Kennedy? (2003, is it?). It would also appear to post-date Birley's idea (People of Roman Britain p.101) that the Brittonum units were raised by Agricola or later - and that 'Brittonum' relates to the northern Britons rather than the southerners.

I know that assuming ethnic origins for auxiliary units is tricky at best, especially in the Flavian and later eras. But might it be feasible that both Britannica and Brittonum units were originally raised in Britain itself within a decade or so of the Roman conquest - perhaps as four units, two cavalry and two infantry, the first pair called Britannica and the second Brittonum? Possibly the Britannica ones were senior, as the cohort was discharging men in Pannonia five years before Cohors I Britonnum. The difference in cognomen might still relate to their ethnic foundation - Britannica being a mix of troops from other auxiliary cohorts and native Britons, while the Brittonum units were solely British. This would explain the difference - 'from Britain' as opposed to 'of Britons', while still allowing natives like Lucco of the Dobunni to find a place in Cohors I Britannica.

This theory would also allow both cohorts in Pannonia to be doubled in size using men (perhaps native Britons) released from the army in Britain itself with the culmination of Agricola's campaign. Perhaps Lucco could have joined I Britannica then?

Hmm... speculative, I know - but might it make sense?

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

However, as he points out the earliest origo we have for a soldier of a Britannica unit is (or appears to be) Dobunni - i.e. a Briton. Kennedy's attempts to explain away this origin seem a bit convoluted - the stonecutter making a mistake etc (tombstones were important, and a cutter that absent-minded can't have made much of a living!). Far easier, surely, to assume that Mr Lucco actually was what his monument claims - a native Dobunnian.

In fairness to Kennedy, he does say that "none of his solutions is entirely satisfactory". Like you, I'm not sure what the problem is. First, a unit named cohors I Britannica clearly served in Britain, regardless of its origin. Second, a man discharged in January AD 105 was probably recruited in AD 79. Third, the unit is known in Pannonia in June AD 80. Occam's Razor says that the unit (of unknown origin) was stationed in Britain at some point in the first century, where it continued to recruit (as normal -- units recruited locally) until it was shipped out early in AD 80.

Also, am I right in thinking that the discovery of the AD 71 diploma post-dates Kennedy? (2003, is it?). It would also appear to post-date Birley's idea (People of Roman Britain p.101) that the Brittonum units were raised by Agricola or later - and that 'Brittonum' relates to the northern Britons rather than the southerners.

Whoa! The veteran of ala I Brittonum on RMD 324 (ZPE 143, 2003, 220-228) is a Thracian, which throws everything up in the air. One solution (I think this is Werner Eck's idea) is that the ala Brittonum (maybe raised in southern Britain around AD 60, when Tacitus talks about a dilectus in Britain) was formed around a cadre of Thracians. Our man, Cersus son of Denturasadus, would have been one of these Thracians, originally recruited in AD 45/46 to a Thracian unit and transferred to Britain (along with some colleagues) when the ala Brittonum was formed.

The difference in cognomen might still relate to their ethnic foundation - Britannica being a mix of troops from other auxiliary cohorts and native Britons, while the Brittonum units were solely British. This would explain the difference - 'from Britain' as opposed to 'of Britons', while still allowing natives like Lucco of the Dobunni to find a place in Cohors I Britannica.

Remember that any units stationed in Britain would be attempting to recruit locally. I think that's where Lucco fits in. We don't need to reject Cheesman's theory that Britannica ("from Britain") indicates a unit which had spent some time in Britain, rather than a unit recruited in Britain (which was properly called Brittonum, "of Britons").

Edit: comment on stonecutter. The inscription is a diploma, and some of them have shocking mistakes!

[Nathan Ross]

Whoa! The veteran of ala I Brittonum on RMD 324 (ZPE 143, 2003, 220-228) is a Thracian, which throws everything up in the air.

So he is! I hadn't noticed that bit - does change things indeed...

One solution (I think this is Werner Eck's idea) is that the ala Brittonum (maybe raised in southern Britain around AD 60, when Tacitus talks about a dilectus in Britain) was formed around a cadre of Thracians. Our man, Cersus son of Denturasadus, would have been one of these Thracians, originally recruited in AD 45/46 to a Thracian unit and transferred to Britain (along with some colleagues) when the ala Brittonum was formed.

Do you have a reference for the Eck idea? Sounds interesting. But were there not Thracian cavalry already in Britain that could have supplied this proposed cadre? Tacitus, I think, just mentions that the Britons had 'borne the dilectus cheerfully' or something, so maybe implying that it had happened some time ago, perhaps - or maybe was even a regular thing (or would that be in the plural?).

The inscription is a diploma, and some of them have shocking mistakes!

My mistake! - I was confusing the two sources mentioned by Kennedy :oops:

- Nathan