04-05-2010, 09:47 PM
Quote:Huzzah!I delivered text + illustrations in July 2009, but the wheels of publishing turn slowly. :roll:Finally seeing the light of day in July then Duncan?
Quote:The missing vexillation of the ninth has been seen as explanation for their being the weakest legion in the army (Agricola 26), although this could just as easily mean that detachments had been left back in southern Britain. Agricola's army could well have been composed of vexillations rather than full legions - we just don't know. What does appear certain, however, is that the British army were being used as a pool for troops needed elsewhere; it's unlikely, therefore, that any legions or other units would be transferred to Britain during this same period.Very perceptive, Nathan. And Tacitus claims that Agricola, remaining with the legionary reserve, "took up his position in front of the vexilla" (Agr. 35.4) -- no mention of aquilae.
Quote:The three Batavian and two Tungrian cohorts are mentioned (Agricola 36) as the spearhead of the Roman attack, but this doesn't mean that they were necessarily the majority of the 8000 auxiliary infantry under Agricola's command. ... In any case, even with five milliary cohorts there are still 3000 auxiliaries left unaccounted-for!Slip of the keyboard, Nathan -- Tacitus mentions four Batavian and two Tungrian cohorts. I assume that these were all quingenary, although technically you are correct -- some could have been milliary by this date. Trawling the diplomas, I have come up with 20 cohorts that were probably in Britain in AD 83, and we can add four Batavian cohorts, who don't appear on the diplomas -- we only need sixteen to make up Tacitus' 8,000, but you can juggle the numbers to allow all 24 to leave holding garrisons in the forts that had probably been built by that time. (We simply don't have any evidence for this, so you could argue until the cows come home.)
