New evidence for annihilation of Ninth Legion in Britain?

[jkaler48]

Movies are gradually getting better legionary equipment even if bending history to make better stories. See Ancient period movie reviews: <!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27506">viewtopic.php?f=7&t=27506<!-- l for more on that subject. Reviews on Centurion and the other "Disappearance of the Ninth Legion" movie "Eagle of the Ninth" will show up there when the movies are available later this year. It does seem to me that Roman era films tend to portray views of Rome's enemies as much more primitive and more warlike cultures than they really were.

[Nathan Ross]

Hello Miles - thanks for joining in. (This reminds me of the Conn Iggulden thread from years back, if anyone remembers that 'authorial intervention' :wink: )

A few comments on some of the interesting points in your post above:

3) large numbers of (unamed) units were lost in Britain early in the reign of the emperor Hadrian as Marcus Cornelius Fronto, writing in the 160s AD, noted: “what great numbers of soldiers were killed by the Jews, what great numbers by the British” (Fronto Parthian War 2, 220). The Jewish wars of course we know about, thanks to numerous contemporary references, but the number and extent of British losses remain shrouded in mystery. Fronto’s reference must relate to a significant event (otherwise why would he have mentioned it?) and it probably involved Legions, for auxilliary losses would not, I think, have registered on the imperial radar.

The Fronto quote is from a letter to Marcus Aurelius, written in the aftermath of the Elegeia disaster, I think, and intended as consolation - Fronto mentions various comparable recent disasters to Roman arms. It's problematic though - Stanier (1965) writes "the whole passage is corrupt, and the Latin of this particular passage is suspiciously tortuous'. In addition, these are rhetorical questions - it's not clear what 'great numbers' are being talked about. A whole legion is not mentioned in any case. As far as I know, there's no actual evidence for the loss of a legion in Judea - Dio just say 'Many Romans... perished in the war' (Roman History 69.14.3). The loss of a legion was surmised to explain the disappearance of XXII Deiotariana from neighbouring Egypt around the same time. Not a bad surmise, but to then surmise from this that a legion was also lost in Britain is a bit tenuous.

4) Early on in Hadrian's reign for we hear that when he “took over the government” in August AD 117, he discovered that “the Britons could not be kept under Roman control” (Scriptores Historiae Augustae Hadrian, 5, 1). The geographical vaguary is annoying, but the Britons being refered to are described in the same breath as the Moors, the Sarmate and “those peoples Trajan had subjugated”, his major spheres of conflict being against the Dacians and the Parthians... Is it reasonable then, given the phrasing, that the Britons who could not be kept under Roman control were operating within the province of Britannia: say Brigantia or somewhere further south?

Very reasonable, I'd say. There was, I think, coinage issued for a victory in Britain c119 (which I now realise invalidates my note above about the lack of retributory measures for the 'loss' of an eagle :? ) - your point about the slighted head of Hadrian might fit here too. One other suggestion - Juvenal (Satires 14) has a father advising his son to go and 'destroy the huts of the Mauri and the Brigantian forts', in order that he might one day 'get an eagle' (ie become Primus Pilus, presumably). Juvenal was probably writing late in Trajanic or early in Hadrianic times - it's anecdotal, but suggests that at this point the Mauri and the Brigantes were known enemies of Rome. There is, I think, evidence from diplomas of unusual troop movements to Mauretania at this same period (vexillations sent from the Danube?), so it might be more than a flight of poetic fancy).*

However, having a Brigantian revolt around 119 or so doesn't equate to the loss of a legion at this point. There may well have been fighting, but only Fronto's letter mentions heavy casualties, and as noted above this doesn't mean a whole legion being destroyed.

Any theories about the loss of the legion would still have to account for those officer inscriptions - Aemilius Karus, Novius Crispinus and Sextius Florentius can't be made to go away. At a push, they may all have served in the legion at more or less the same time as tribunes and legate, around 120 or so at the earliest, and had extraordinarily protracted political careers, but the probability is that they didn't - to insist on it would be to try and force the evidence into the hypothesis, rather than the other way around!

* Incidental note on Juvenal - the line from Satire 4 about Arviragus and his chariot, often cited on web pages and suchlike about the disappearance of the ninth as evidence for a war in Britain early in the second century is nothing of the kind. Juvenal was writing in the Trajanic era, but the dramatic date of the satire is c.82 (Jones The Emperor Domitian) - the references are all Domitianic, as is Mr Arviragus: the British war in question is that of Agricola. Whether Arviragus really was a British leader of the day - a sort of Calgacus figure - or just a suitably British-sounding name concocted by the satirist is unknown...

- Nathan

[jkaler48]

Here is my theory about how some Legions were "Lost". A Legion first suffers a serious defeat including the loss of an Eagle or mass desertions in the face of the enemy or other very poor performance in battle. The Legion is then transferred to a new area of the empire and reconstituted. If the reputation of the Legion has suffered badly enough good quality officers and recruits are hard to find and the rebuilding of the Legion as an effective unit is unsuccessful and the unit is then disbanded, merged with another unit, or reflagged" with a different designation.

[Robert Vermaat]

Dear professor Russell'

Dear all
Apologies for interceding at such a late date (but have only just been pointed to this thread by a colleague), but I hope you’ll accept (or at least consider) some corrections to a few factual issues with regard to Bloodline – the Celtic Kings of Roman Britain..

I'd be very happy to!

Ok, but again that’s not my theory and neither has it anything to do with Bloodline

It's indeed a point I should take to heart, because I was apparently fooled by comments of others about your book and perhaps the blurb from the publishers. All that about Geoffrey of Monmouth and British kings, btw, was only about Geoffrey of Monmouth and what he wrote, not a comment on your book.

Vortigern Studies said:
I have not seen any evidence of any turning academic tide when it comes to the descruction of VIIII Hispana on British soil.
Neither have I particularly….I don’t believe that I’ve ever talked about ‘turning academic tides’ with regard to the IX Legion (nor any other aspect of Roman Britain) in the book or anywhere else. I wouldn’t dare to presume that I know what the great seething mass of academia is thinking or indeed believing. Bloodline sets down my point of view and I do not speak for anyone else.

That was a comment, apparently, from the wiki page in which they quoted you as being part of a 'turning academic tide'. If you say this is not the case that's even better to me.

Vortigern Studies said:
Much less that 'strong evidence' quoted in that book!
Have you read the book? I’m more than happy to discuss the evidence (which is ultimately no stronger than that suggesting that the Legion was posted East and died out in some atrocity there). It’s a point of view and all the ‘strong evidence’ (again, not something that I claim) is in the public domain, although it is just rarely debated. Ultimately it’s discussion, debate and serious consideration that I’m trying to instigate. I make no big claims beyond that.

I have indeed not read your book (point taken! :oops: ) , and I begin to wonder whether the person who wrote that comment on the wiki page did either!

Vortigern Studies said:
I bet it's Mr Russell himself (or perhaps his publisher) who wrote that on Wiki.
Or someone who has read the book and liked it…stranger things have happened.

Indeed they have. As was proven today in this news item from the BBC

[PhilusEstilius]

Professor Russell.

In para 4. of you discussion you refer to the Emperor Trajan and how there is little evidence that he took much interest in the province of Briton which I think that I may well agree with up to a point.
Then we keep hearing over and over from all directions of Roman history how Hadrian came along and built his wall, however all that he did was to make changes to an earlier frontier system that may well have been a Trajanic one.
I don't know if you are familiar with the work of an old friend of mine the late Raymond Selkirk where in his book "On The Trail of The Legions" he explains what he calls the 255 line, which is a frontier that pre-dates Hadrians' Wall and runs from Whitley Bay on the east coast to Maryport in Cumbria on the west coast with mile forts and other larger ones very similar to what Hadrian installed later.
I can assure you that this frontier is there and even Whitley Castle may well be one of the forts on this line, then when Hadrian built his wall he also put in a line of defence all the way from the Solway down to Maryport.
There is even reference to a fort on it by no less than the Antiquarian Camden and this is almost at the point where the two lines cross ( 255 and Hadrians' Wall. )
I wonder can the troops you refer to as the "British Experdition" have been sent to man this line.

[Miles Russell]

Hi Nathan
Lots of interesting points. Hadn’t seen the Victory coin issue for c. 119 AD (though I realise the ‘spin’ of official state sanctioned versions of world events often played up the political and military reality) but tied to the (scanty) references to the 'British War’ it is all rather intriguing. There are of course rather a few Roman references to the Brigantes as enemies and I’m never sure whether these stemmed from the troubles evident under Cartimandua/Venutius, persistent troubles rumbling through the late 1st and early 2nd centuries or just because they were recognised as a people at the very limits of the (near) civilised world (and therefore bound to be troublesome).

Nathan Ross Said:
Any theories about the loss of the legion would still have to account for those officer inscriptions - Aemilius Karus, Novius Crispinus and Sextius Florentius can't be made to go away.

Indeed – ultimately it’s a shame though (at least for the purposes of working out exactly when the ninth was last functioning) that the dates for these three aren’t much later in the 2nd century. Birley, in his book The Roman Government of Britain observes that Aemilius Karus may have left the ninth in AD 122, Novius Crispinus’ tribunate of the ninth may have been as late as the mid 120s AD whilst Sextius Florentius can be dated “to Hadrian’s first few years”…all still uncomfortably close to the arrival of the sixth at York (to replace the ninth) in around AD 122 – and of course we don’t know how many officers were with any putative vexillations of the ninth at Nijmegan whilst the rest of the Legion were happily disappearing in Britain and/or the East). If the careers of these 3 men could confidently be placed in the late 120s or early 130s I’d be happier saying ‘it’s a fair cop’ and agreeing with the view that they must have been withdrawn from Britain before the sixth arrived and still operating elsewhere in the empire some time after. Of course none of the three men’s details specify exactly WHERE they served in the ninth…..I am, therefore, still prepared to be convinced….one way or another!

Cheers
Miles

[Miles Russell]

Hi Robert,

Vortigern Studies said:
I was apparently fooled by comments of others about your book and perhaps the blurb from the publishers. All that about Geoffrey of Monmouth and British kings, btw, was only about Geoffrey of Monmouth and what he wrote, not a comment on your book.

I know…it’s infuriating how once an error in basic advertising blurb creeps in, it gets regurgitated in adverts etc everywhere, however many times you try to correct it. I was thinking about writing on an aspect of GoM by the way for something else, but have been put off to date for fear of careering headlong into the cul-de-sac of ‘fringe-archaeology’…perhaps I’ll give it another 10 years or so!

Vortigern Studies Said:
That was a comment, apparently, from the wiki page in which they quoted you as being part of a 'turning academic tide'. If you say this is not the case that's even better to me.

I know…when I saw I was apparently part of a ‘turning academic tide’ I must admit I cringed…as I said, I can only speak for myself and make no claim to being part of a wider academic movement (if such a thing exists)

Vortigern Studies Said:
As was proven today in this news item from the BBC

Ah academics eh……Wonderful. Can't live with them, can't write a review about them.....!
Cheers again

Miles

[Nathan Ross]

Hadn’t seen the Victory coin issue for c. 119 AD

And in fact I'm not convinced that anyone else has either, after a bit of enquiry... The coin in question appears to be this one, apparently the first to show the image of Britannia, and dated to some time before Hadrian's arrival in Britain, possibly. Although there's no actual victory or 'imperator' acclamation on it, so the reason for its issue remains a bit of a mystery.

I am, therefore, still prepared to be convinced….one way or another!

Which is just about all anyone could say about it! As mentioned above, theories about the ninth will probably continue to be thrown around, until perhaps some new find casts a conclusive light on the matter. My favourite theory to date is the one proposed by Tom Stanier in the 1965 essay noted above (The Brigantes and the Ninth Legion, Phoenix 19, no.4), which is quite a masterpiece: Stanier suggests that the Brigantes, fed up with the bossy Romans, decamped en masse to the north - furthermore, the soldiers of the ninth legion, who by this time were very friendly with the charming Brigantian ladies, deserted in a body to go and live with them... Hadrian then built his wall and ditch to stop this sort of irregular conduct... :wink:

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

Hadn’t seen the Victory coin issue for c. 119 AD (though I realise the ‘spin’ of official state sanctioned versions of world events often played up the political and military reality) but tied to the (scanty) references to the 'British War’ it is all rather intriguing. There are of course rather a few Roman references to the Brigantes as enemies and I’m never sure whether these stemmed from the troubles evident under Cartimandua/Venutius, persistent troubles rumbling through the late 1st and early 2nd centuries or just because they were recognised as a people at the very limits of the (near) civilised world (and therefore bound to be troublesome).

The coin is well-known (e.g. Breeze & Dobson, Hadrian's Wall, 1976; 4th edn. 2000, p. 25: "There is a coin showing BRITANNIA issued in 119 which is usually taken to imply a victory in Britain.") but it is not explicitly a "victory" coin. It simply indicates that Britain was "in the news" during Hadrian's reign, which (of course) we knew from the SHA passage. (And Hadrian's Wall is a bit of a giveaway, too.)

Breeze & Dobson date the coin to 119, following their source (Mattingly & Sydenham, Roman Imperial Coinage, 577a), but -- as you probably know -- Hadrian's titulature never allows any inscription to be so closely dated without the TRP number. Strictly speaking, the coin could have been minted as late as AD 128 (after which he tends to call himself Pater Patriae, unlike the titulature on this coin).

As regards the Brigantes, I was under the impression that there are rather few references to this tribe, after the obvious ones in Tacitus! (Maybe that's what you meant?)

Birley, in his book The Roman Government of Britain observes that Aemilius Karus may have left the ninth in AD 122, Novius Crispinus’ tribunate of the ninth may have been as late as the mid 120s AD whilst Sextius Florentius can be dated “to Hadrian’s first few years”…all still uncomfortably close to the arrival of the sixth at York (to replace the ninth) in around AD 122

Of course, Birley only mentions these dates as termini post quem. It is interesting that, as an epigrapher/prosopographer par excellence, Eric Birley thought that one of these (I can't remember which one, off hand) was probably as late as AD 140, until he realised the implications. In other words, if there had been no pressure to remove the legion ca. AD 120, we would most logically have seen it surviving up to ca. AD 140.

[Nathan Ross]

It is interesting that, as an epigrapher/prosopographer par excellence, Eric Birley thought that one of these (I can't remember which one, off hand) was probably as late as AD 140, until he realised the implications. In other words, if there had been no pressure to remove the legion ca. AD 120, we would most logically have seen it surviving up to ca. AD 140.

This was Q Numisius Junior, I think - Consul in 161, also attested as tribune of IX (CIL X 5670). Birley originally put the tribunate, as you say, at 140. Keppie believed that the consul was the son of the tribune, in order to maintain the destruction of the legion around the 120s. (Mor, Two Legions, the same Fate? Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 62, 1986, p269)

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

My favourite theory to date is the one proposed by Tom Stanier in the 1965 essay noted above (The Brigantes and the Ninth Legion, Phoenix 19, no.4), which is quite a masterpiece: Stanier suggests that the Brigantes, fed up with the bossy Romans, decamped en masse to the north - furthermore, the soldiers of the ninth legion, who by this time were very friendly with the charming Brigantian ladies, deserted in a body to go and live with them... Hadrian then built his wall and ditch to stop this sort of irregular conduct... :wink:

Hmmm ... we're straying towards the fringe again! To be fair, in 1965, this essay probably seemed fairly plausible. And Stanier has a nice prose style. But historical study marches on, leaving out-of-date theories in its wake (although I know, to my cost, that there are RAT members who dispute the concept of "out-of-date"! :wink: ).

EDIT: Oops -- just realised that you were probably being ironic, Nathan. Sorry -- brain's tired today. Too many late nights. But I'll leave my comments in case anyone else wishes to see what Stanier was on about:

Stanier began with three pieces of evidence that he wished to explain: the famous "Genounian district" passage of Pausanias (Descr. Greece 8.43.4); the fragmentary Jarrow inscription (now RIB 1051); and the existence of the vallum running along behind Hadrian's Wall.

The Pausanias passage, although hopelessly problematic (where is the Genounian district?), surely refers to the Antonine advance into Scotland, and not to anything during Hadrian's reign. (Pausanias explicitly mentions Antoninus Pius.) And it is surely special pleading to link the "dispersal" of ?barbarians on RIB 1051 (the inscription is broken here) with a Hadrianic mass migration of the Brigantes. First prove your migration; then link the "dispersal".

When Stanier writes that "we have now made some sense of the Pausanias passage", he is deluding himself and his readers, because he hasn't! When he writes that "the coinage of 119 points emphatically to Britain and includes several victory issues", we have seen (above) that he is mistaken; it should properly be dated "AD 119/128" and includes no explicit victory issues. And when he writes that "Q. Roscius Falco, the governor, went on in 122 to be governor of Asia -- a post offered only to the most successful of governors", he is referring to the man usually known as Pompeius Falco, and his governorship of Asia (currently dated 123/4) was the result of a ballot of qualified consulars, so it should not be attributed to any specific military success.

Finally, his theory that the vallum was intended to stem the trickle of refugee Brigantes and disaffected Ninth legionaries from escaping to the north seems positively bizarre to me. (Although it would make a great premise for a movie.)

[Crispvs]

With regard to 'The British War' it might be worth noting that there seems to be quite a lot of evidence of damaged military kit dating to the first quarter or early second quarter of the second century AD in the north of Britain, the most obvious examples being the damaged weapons and equipment which constituted the majority of the Corbridge Hoard (now apparently dated to the early 130s) and the Carlisle manicae, which had been created out of the cannibalised remains of numerous damaged manicae and whose deposition also dates to the late 120s or early 130s.
It might be useful for Mike Bishop to intervene at this point.

Crispvs

[Nathan Ross]

EDIT: Oops -- just realised that you were probably being ironic, Nathan. Sorry -- brain's tired today.

Erm, yes I was . Sorry for further tiring your brain! I could have made the irony more explicit, I suppose, but I didn't want to appear too scornful of Mr Stanier, who may be (or have been) a fine fellow as far as I know - plus he writes engagingly, and his theory is innovative if nothing else! I mentioned it mainly (besides its humour value) to further illustrate the variety of theories that have been proposed over the years for the 'loss' of the ninth - some nuttier than others. So, while it's best to take an agnostic approach to the issue (the ninth very probably left Britain before 122, they were very probably destroyed in some unidentified conflict elsewhere in the next two or three decades, but we can say nothing with certainty), there isn't and has never been the total and dogmatic academic consensus that some persons (not here, of course) have implied. Such a consensus would necessarily depend on certain evidence which is not available to us at present, and perhaps never will be...

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

... perhaps never will be...

Steady with those negative waves! :wink:

[PhilusEstilius]

I think that if we want to look for evidence about the later period of the Ninth Legion in Britain, it would be a good thing for Archaeologists to get out their Trowels and go look for it along the earlier frontier discovered by the late Raymond Selkirk known as his 255 degree line.
It was a frontier very well known to Hadrian possibly built by Trajan, and all he did when he came here was to swing this earlier line around on it's axis point where the two lines now cross about 1-5 miles west of the fort of Vindobala ( Rudchester )
Where I mention it may have been built by Trajan is where it might be considered that the original idea for this frontier may have been concieved in the late Flavian period when the withdrawal from Scotland came in around AD98.
Where I have said earlier that I consider the answer lies in mid Cumbria, this is indeed the heart land of the west Brgantian tribes who were well known for collaberation with the Novantii and Selgovii just to the north of the Solway.