11-04-2009, 04:01 PM
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 ... 
Michael Jarrett planned to do all sorts of analysis on the data in Part Two of his article (cited above), but died in the meantime. (I presume the paper was never written.)
Quote: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.
Quote:Does Spaul give his evidence for each unit?Yes, though some caution should be exercised, and all references cross-checked! (He, too, seems to have missed the Hispanorum / Vettonum link.) But, hats off ... he looked at a lot of regiments, which must've made him cross-eyed.
Quote:Where was I Brittanica recruited? (may sound like a daft question, but it suggests a formed Ala of british cavalry pre AD50!)Britannica actually indicates service in Britain, rather than formation in Britain (which would be Brittonum, "of Britons"). Again, there's no particular evidence for this regiment in Britain, other than the fact that its name indicates that, at some point, it served in Britain, and we've no idea where it was stationed during the reign of Claudius (so it may as well be Britain).
Quote:interesting that we have more evidence for cavalry. I suppose they were setting up more inscriptions.That's certainly part of it. But the sheer rarity of Claudian inscriptions (compared to later) is the main problem.
Michael Jarrett planned to do all sorts of analysis on the data in Part Two of his article (cited above), but died in the meantime. (I presume the paper was never written.)
