04-05-2010, 06:21 PM
I was unaware of the II Adiutrix being in Britain. And I didn't even think about the fact that even if the Batavian and Tungrian cohorts were milliary, they would still be below the estimated auxiliary strength! :oops: It is a shame that Tacitus didn't go into more detail,but I guess since the legions played so little a part he didn't feel it was necessary to record who they were. But if he was singling out the Batavians and Tungrians because of there relative "barbarity", what was his purpose? What was the need of setting such a contrast between the legions and the auxilia? They certainly aren't portrayed in a bad light. Indeed it seems almost the whole credit for winning the battle goes to them. It would almost seem as if he was discrediting the legions,which I doubt he would do given that he was a Senator and a member of the upper class. Was he trying to show how good a general Agricola was by the fact didn't spill "Roman" blood? Or was it that he mentions them simply because the Batavian Revolt was recent memory, and it would bring the Batavians into a good light showing them playing such a key role in the victory and thus erasing the stain of their revolt?
Aurelius Falco (Tony Butara)
