Calling all armchair generals! Boudica's Last Stand.

[Renatus]

When's the earliest date for the name 'Valeria Victrix', incidentally? Might these titles have been won during Agricola's northern campaigns?

In the article that I cited, R. McPake convincingly argued against the Twentieth Legion having any cognomina before the time of the revolt but, as to their introduction, could say only that abbreviations for 'Valeria Victrix' appear on inscriptions from the late 1st century onwards. He noted that the Fourteenth had acquired the title of 'Martia Victrix' by AD66 (CIL III, 395) and concluded that the similarity between the two titles indicated that they were bestowed at the same time and that the occasion was likely to be the suppression of the Boudican revolt.

His principal concern was to establish that the Twentieth's cognomina did not appear before AD61; Roger Tomlin, in the article cited by John1, dealt with the date of their introduction. Without rehearsing his arguments in detail, let me state my understanding of his main conclusions. There are over a hundred inscriptions in Britain naming the Legion and, excluding doubtful cases and those too damaged to assist, there are 96 in which it is possible to ascertain whether or not the cognomina are referred to. Of these, only eight omit them. One is Severan or later and another is an informal building stone. All the remaining six are early and, of these, only two are clearly dateable to post-AD61 – RIB 293 (Wroxeter), AD66-86, and RIB 502 (Chester), soon after AD86. Looking further afield, he follows D. Kennedy, 'C. Velius Rufus', Britannia 14 (1983), 183-196, in the dating of ILS 9200 (Heliopolis/Baalbek) which places Rufus' command of a task force including a vexillation from XX Vic(trix) in AD89, making this "the earliest dated instance of the cognomina". He concludes that the cognomina 'Valeria Victix' are well attested in inscriptions from immediately after AD86, but not before. However, the position is not clear-cut because of the difficulty in dating some inscriptions that may be earlier and the possibility that the cognomina may have been omitted on others by accident or design. RIB 502 is anomalous whether the cognomina were awarded in 61 or 84 and prompts the question whether they might have been similarly omitted from RIB 293, notwithstanding that they were current. As to the Carlisle document, he raises the possibility that the cognomina might have been omitted through oversight or because they were thought unnecessary, although he seems to doubt this. Nevertheless, his final conclusion is that the evidence inclines towards the title ‘Valeria Victrix’ being awarded in 61, but that it is not yet conclusive.

I remain uncertain. Ritterling’s opinion that honours could only be won by a whole legion is persuasive and militates against an award after the suppression of Boudica’s revolt. On the other hand, if one postulates the award following Agricola’s campaigns in Scotland, there is the difficulty that Tacitus’ account does not refer to any legion having particularly distinguished itself during those campaigns. Mons Graupius, in particular, was won by the auxiliaries, with the legions held in reserve.

Have you seen David Hall's article in Ancient Warfare I.3?

I had overlooked that. Having refreshed my memory, I am not convinced. He blandly assumes a withdrawal up Watling Street and, from the map, appears to subscribe to the ‘cavalry dash’ scenario and to the final battle taking place at Mancetter (at least, I assume that; the map makes it look more as if it took place near Hinckley). He also seems to misdescribe the topography of the battlefield – unless I have missed the evidence of the Britons attacking uphill. He is right that Suetonius’ claim that Nero contemplated withdrawing from Britain lacks context. Nero may well, at some stage, have thought that the province was more bother than it was worth but, if he did, we do not know when. Modern writers may have been seduced by the romantic notion of the defeated heroine but there seems little reason for Roman writers to have been similarly deceived.