Article on the L. IX Hispana (Factual????)

[mcbishop]

It has been said that the last evidence of the Ninth comes from tiles dated to 108 AD at Eboracum, but how about the other stamped tiles of the Ninth in Carlisle that were found on another frontier line known as the 255 degree line discovered by the late Raymond Selkirk.

Tile stamps are seldom intrinsically dateable - looks like those have been dated by association with the AD 107/8 York building inscription presumed to come from the fortress' new stone porta principalis dextra (RIB 665).

As for what Miles Russell did or did not say, I'm afraid my innate scepticism about the media makes me doubt that any of the things he is supposed to have said are a verbatim account; I have seen too many friends and colleagues' words mangled by the press.

Can't find Carlisle on that 255 line in my copy of RS's book, but those Ninth tiles probably originate at Scalesceugh, where the legion seems to have had a tilery.

Mike Bishop

[Robert Vermaat]

As for what Miles Russell did or did not say, I'm afraid my innate scepticism about the media makes me doubt that any of the things he is supposed to have said are a verbatim account; I have seen too many friends and colleagues' words mangled by the press.

You are right about the press of course, but Dr . Russell seems to advocate this idea about the Ninth in his publications. I did not read his 'Bloodline' book, but the Wikipedia article about the Ninth has a reference to this book as proof of the 'growing academic support for the scenario that the ninth was destroyed in Britain after all'. So far, I think this 'growing academic support' is limited to dr. Russell.

[PhilusEstilius]

Mike.

That is correct the other stamped tiles of the Ninth came from Scalesceugh, but how interesting it is that the 25 kilns discovered there just happen to be on a crossing point of a north / south Roman road and the 255 frontier line.

[mcbishop]

Dr . Russell seems to advocate this idea about the Ninth in his publications. I did not read his 'Bloodline' book, but the Wikipedia article about the Ninth has a reference to this book as proof of the 'growing academic support for the scenario that the ninth was destroyed in Britain after all'. So far, I think this 'growing academic support' is limited to dr. Russell.

He certainly seems to be a part of the 'what have the Romans ever done for us' school of thinking and I think Reg was put in his place over that one in Life of Brian ;-) There is no actual evidence for this line of thinking about the Ninth, and a small amount against it (which has been patiently examined by various scholars, including Lawrence Keppie); all that can be said is that they are not on the list of legions on the Colonnetta Maffei which dates to about AD 165 in its first form.

Mike Bishop

[Nathan Ross]

As for what Miles Russell did or did not say, I'm afraid my innate scepticism about the media makes me doubt that any of the things he is supposed to have said are a verbatim account; I have seen too many friends and colleagues' words mangled by the press.

Warranted scepticism, I think. For those who are interested, Miles Russell himself gave this assessment less than a year ago:

I know that a lot of frankly silly things have been said about the disappearance of the ninth, and let me just reiterate that I’m not one who believes they marched north to be swallowed up in the swirling mists of the Great Caledonian Forest (quite why anyone thinks the Roman government would have sent a single Legion northwards to its doom is beyond me)

The relevant posts, with Dr Russell's comments on Wikipedia, 'turning academic tides' and related issues, can be found here:

RAT - New Evidence for Annihilation of Ninth Legion?

It seems very much like he's been misquoted in the BBC article, or his name used to dignify another bit of questionable puffery. Unless he's changed his mind considerably in the last ten months? :???:

- Nathan

[Praefectusclassis]

I'll put Duncan's article from AW IV.5 - which provides a clear overview of the evidence - up for free download on Ancient-Warfare.com in the next day or so. That might help, a bit...

[Praefectusclassis]

And here is Duncan's article from Ancient Warfare IV.5.

[Nathan Ross]

Excellent! Good article too.

Thanks Jasper and Duncan.

[Vincula]

My favorite blog has this: http://antoninuspius.blogspot.com/ Pretty funny

[Miles Russell]

Hi everyone.
Thought, as I’d been mentioned a bit in recent posts, that I ought to sign in and, at the very least, add my six-pennies-worth on the current debate about the Ninth Legion.

Nathan Ross wrote:
As far as I remember, Dr Russell was quite dubious of the 'wiped out by Caledonians' theory

I still am. As I said in one of my 2010 postings

Miles Russell wrote:
I know that a lot of frankly silly things have been said about the disappearance of the ninth, and let me just reiterate that I’m not one who believes they marched north to be swallowed up in the swirling mists of the Great Caledonian Forest (quite why anyone thinks the Roman government would have sent a single Legion northwards to its doom is beyond me)

I still believe this. Sending a single Legion out of Roman territory into the “deep dark wood” (as per Centurion and the Eagle) is all very Hollywood but not very realistic. It looks very effective on screen (all Lord of the Rings-y fog and magic) and is effective for hiding the fact that the budget couldn’t perhaps stretch to depict over 5,000 men on the march or drawn up in formation. I doubt very much, especially after the Varian disaster, that this can be a serious scenario for the Roman military.

As we all discussed last time, given the ancient references to serious losses of troops in Britain, reinforcements sent on “the British expedition” and the fact that the Britons “could not be kept under Roman control”, I still think (as I did then) that an internal uprising / rebellion / insurrection within Brigantian territory or the lands to the north (given that the northern ‘frontier’ of Britain was, in the latter years of the Flavians, relatively ill-defined (at least from a modern perspective) encompassing a range of forts in a 60km strip stretching from the Stanegate to Newstead). A speculative uprising in the final years of Trajan’s reign or the early years of Hadrian, could started anywhere from York (or even in Brigantian lands to south) to Northumbria and, if you factor in possible invasion / aid from northern tribes at the margins of Roman Britain, you also have to consider fighting in what is now southern Scotland. Such a scenario does not, of course, involve “the valiant Ninth’ striking deep into Scotland, nor should it.

Nathan Ross wrote:

It seems very much like he's been misquoted in the BBC article, or his name used to dignify another bit of questionable puffery. Unless he's changed his mind considerably in the last ten months?

No, not at all. What I have done, however, since the previous debate, was go back to the primary archaeological evidence as recovered from Nijmegen, which appears central to the whole ‘transfer’ debate. Despite what some historians and archaeologists have said in recent years, it is clear from the primary reports that none of the finds with the Ninths stamp on were recovered from sealed contexts, they are all residual / unstratified. In other words they cannot be tied to a phase of fort occupation or fort building, even though the excavator postulated that, as the tiles overlay the fort, they could indicate reoccupation of the site after the transfer away of its previous occupants, the Tenth Legion - No they don’t. They are unstratified pieces of archaeologically durable building tile. They indicate the Ninth (or part of them) were at Nijmegen, but critically not when. Given that we know, from contemporary accounts, that elements of the Ninth were taken out of Britain by Domitian to fight the Chatti, why can’t the pieces date to the mid AD 80s? Why do they have to be early 2nd Century (post York occupation) and why do they have to relate to a period where there is no evidence that the Ninth were taken out of Britain?

As has been discussed, the last secure piece of evidence placing the Ninth anywhere in the world is at York for the period December AD 107 to December AD 108. If an equivalent inscription one day gets unearthed from the Netherlands or Israel that says the Ninth were there at a later date, fine, the theory changes (as all theories do) when new evidence comes to light. At the moment tough, that evidence is just not there.

Crispus wrote:

On a slightly more realistic level, I wonder if letter writing campaigns to editors every time such lazy journalism is spotted might have any influence.

I doubt it. Tabloids write what they like and I’ve never seen a newspaper article that gets its archaeological (or indeed historical) story right. Yesterday in the Daily Express there was, for example, a piece that noted the Ninth Legion was “the SAS of the Roman Empire” and that it had undoubtedly been destroyed by “barbaric Scottish Picts”.

Ahem.

Oh well, I suppose one shouldn’t get too upset, at least the press IS talking about Roman history / archaeology (better than having the subject area be completely ignored) and if anyone is that interested they can research the evidence from slightly more reliable publications.

Vortigern Studies wrote:

he's turning things around: it was the 'legend' of the Ninth disappearing in Scotland which became a fact over the years, without a shred of evidence.

Yes - exactly right, I agree.

Vortigern Studies wrote:

Dr Miles wants us to believe that "It's just a guess which, over time, has taken on a sheen of cast iron certainty". But what is he offering in return as evidence? Nothing.

No, what I said (am saying) is that, when you look at the evidence (archaeological and historic) the ‘Ninth Legion was definitely taken out of Britain and died elsewhere’ theory is just as insubstantial and lacking in firm evidence as the ‘Ninth Legion stayed in Britain and died here’ theory, only that the former has now become accepted fact (on very little) whereas in the 1930s the former was accepted fact (on very little). Neither is definitive (and until someone finds a Varus-style slaughter in either northern England or Israel it’s unlikely that neither theory ever will be) which is why I find it odd that so many seem to cling on to the ‘transfer’ theory.

I know that, someone will soon ask, “but what about Aemilius Karus, Novius Crispinus and Sextius Florentius, surely their careers demonstrate that the Ninth existed into the AD 130s and beyond?”. Unfortunately the case cannot, as far as I can see, go much beyond the ‘Possibly’ stage. Aemilius Karus may have left the ninth as late as 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”…As noted before, all are still uncomfortably close to the arrival of the sixth Legion at York (to replace the Ninth) in around AD 122, so the loss of the Ninth still sits in the very late 110s or early 120s – and of course we don’t know how many officers survived a postulated ‘massacre’ in vexillations or units elsewhere (unless every last man of the Ninth was killed). If the careers of these three could confidently be placed in the later 120s or early 130s I’d be happy to agree with the view that the Ninth was withdrawn from Britain before the sixth arrived and was operating elsewhere in the empire, but they don’t and I can’t.

Vortigern Studies wrote:

In fact he's wrong on more facts. According to Dr Miles, the historians claim about the Ninth is that "sometime before AD 160, they were wiped in out in a war against the Persians.” Of course, that should be 'the Parthians', but who paying attention to detail, really?

Well if you want to be really pedantic the Parthians WERE part of the Persian Empire and therefore are culturally (if not ethnically or politically) Persian. I guess if you say ‘Parthian’ to the general public they’ll counter with ‘er…?’ (same with Sassanid or Seleucid I guess) but ‘Persian’ strikes a chord (even if there’s a feeling with most people today that it only applies to Iran).


Vortigern Studies wrote:

Dr . Russell seems to advocate this idea about the Ninth in his publications. I did not read his 'Bloodline' book

Perhaps you should? I can’t claim that you’ll like it (in fact I suspect you won’t) but then I read lots of stuff on a daily basis that I don’t like or don’t actually agree with, just so I know what arguments are ‘out there’ in order to debate or argue against more successfully.

Vortigern Studies wrote:

So far, I think this 'growing academic support' is limited to dr. Russell.

Well, we obviously move in different academic circles as no one I’ve spoken to over the last year seems supportive of the ‘transfer theory’ – guess we’ll have to agree to disagree there and draw a line under it.

Crispus wrote:

Hmmm, when I was at university senior lecturer positions normally required a fair degree of knowledge and scholarship. It seems they are going cheap at Bournemouth 'University'.

Really Crispus, I’m not going to rise to that one!

Cheers

Miles

[PhilusEstilius]

I have to say that I have enjoyed reading the replies given by Miles Russell very interesting indeed, in fact each time the subject of the Ninth comes up I like to throw in the much neglected subject concerning the earlier coast to coast frontier ( the 255 degree line ) discovered by the late Raymond Selkirk.

Where I have earlier given mention that stamped tiles of the Ninth have been found in west Brigantian territory along this line, it might well be time that serious thought was given to taking a look at this possible Trajianic frontier it may just give a lot more understanding of Roman Britian.

[Crispvs]

Dr Russell,

Thank you for your interesting and informative replies. I am afraid I had forgotten the previous thread (interesting though it was) and did not immediately recall your name.

However, rather than edit my previous post to remove the evidence, I would like to take this opportunity to issue a public apology and state a formal retraction of an ill advised comment written when I was on the verge of going to sleep and much too tired to have been making any such judgments.

Crispvs

[Miles Russell]

Hi Crispus
Thanks for your reply - honestly, I didn't take it badly (and you should see what I've inadvertantly emailed to people at 3am when I really should have been asleep!) - no worries.

Miles

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

If the IX went deep into scotland, and if they were vanquished there, would not Caracalla and his Legions have found remains of them, or even have inquired to the whereabouts ? And if they would have been mentioned at all by any of the tribal prisoners, would not the Severan literary sources like Cassius Dio have written something on them ? It was not that many years since the Legion "disappeared" I for one do not believe at all this Legion was destroyed in the territory above Hadrians Wall.

M.VIB.M.

[Nathan Ross]

Thought, as I’d been mentioned a bit in recent posts, that I ought to sign in and, at the very least, add my six-pennies-worth on the current debate about the Ninth Legion.

Hello Miles - I hoped you might be tempted to join in!

when you look at the evidence (archaeological and historic) the ‘Ninth Legion was definitely taken out of Britain and died elsewhere’ theory is just as insubstantial and lacking in firm evidence as the ‘Ninth Legion stayed in Britain and died here’ theory, only that the former has now become accepted fact (on very little) whereas in the 1930s the former was accepted fact (on very little).

Exactly - but the problem here is 'definitely'. Anyone claiming a 'definite' answer to the mystery of the ninth legion is clearly being antihistorical - but nobody actually is! The theory of their transfer is only that - a theory, which provides the most workable explanation for the available evidence. As far as I know, nothing new has come to light since the Vindolanda inscription in 1997 (quoted above), and that was hardly groundbreaking. To overturn a theory you need some firm ground to stand on and a decent lever - otherwise it's all just a speculation competition!

Neither is definitive... which is why I find it odd that so many seem to cling on to the ‘transfer’ theory.

'Cling' is a bit of a loaded word - implications of sinking ships, lifeboats, desperation, etc... Without new evidence, the theory that provides the best working analysis of available findings is bound to gain primacy. But there's no academic grandstanding in this - even the most convinced advocate of the 'transfer' theory would, I'm sure, be delighted if some new discovery pointed unequivocally to a British end for the ninth. Historical enquiry should always, surely, be a push and pull between different interpretations.

But it is true, I think, that there remains a widespread popular impression, supported by novels and particularly by certain recent films, that the story is entirely true. Claims that there may be proof of this - implications that some 'new evidence' has demonstrated that the inspiring stories are, in fact, solid historical facts - only shore up popular mythology and provide more ammunition for those who would strip history of sceptical enquiry. Against the massive weight of prevailing popular notions and popular entertainment, the doubting voices of a few professional historians count for very little. Whatever doubts exist, whatever contrary evidence works against an easy interpretation, should therefore be taken very seriously and not lightly discarded.

- Nathan