Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Eagle of the Ninth
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
Currently there are two films in preparation about the Ninth legion,Eagle of the Ninth, based on Rosemary Sutcliff's book and Centurion.
Both take the view that the Ninth was wiped out somewhere in modern day Scotland.
This view has been challenged in that the Ninth was posted elsewhere.What is certain is that the legion was last recorded at York (Eboracum)in 108AD and is not included in the list of legions made in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
This site says the legion was not wiped out in 117
and this one argues that the evidence for the Ninth's continued existence is spurious
What do other posters think?
Trike. -
Message 2
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
Rosemary Sutcliffe's childrens' novel The Eagle of the Ninth tells that the regimental totem of the Ninth Legion was taken in battle by barbarians in the far north of Britain. The story is told through the eyes of the son of the centurion killed defending his regiment's totem. I seem to recall his name was Marcus Flavius Aquila. He went to the far north of Britain and restores his family honour by recovering the totem.
The book was turned into a play for Children's Hour on the 鶹Լ 鶹Լ Service in the Fifties and broadcast over six weeks.
The story is nothing more than a stirring children's novel of which Rosemary Sutcliffe wrote a number around that time. In many ways it is amusing how this story has become part of history itself.
The Ninth Legion appears later on in Germany and elsewhere. It had the privilege of being the legion that Boudicca chewed up early in her rising as it raced to aid the garrison of Colchester. I often wonder whether that is the source of this tale. -
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
Hi Tricertops,
I loved Rosemary Sutcliffe's book which I'm sure was the major cause of a life-time's enthusiasm for the Roman empire. The wingless eagle which forms such a major part of the book was excavated at Silchester and can be seen, which much more fabulous stuff, in Reading Museum.
The plot of the novel, and I offer a libation to the shade of Rosemary as I speak, is tosh. The eagle is not from a legionary standard, legio IX hispana did not disappear in Scotland, and the portrait of the Iron Age tribes immediately north of Hadrian's Wall is startlingly unrealistic.
But it's a great read, even for an adult, and the main theme (that courage, friendship and mutual respect overcome ethnic differences) is universal and timeless.
TP -
Message 4
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
I am pretty sure that Rosemary Sutcliffe acknowledged that the story was pure fiction, based on the two "facts" that the Ninth disappeared from the rolls (althogh it was later re-discovered, as mentioned above) and that an eagle was later found. It is pure fictiopn, but the story was so good that it does seem to have been accepted as truth by many.
-
Message 5
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Sunday, 26th April 2009
Hi Triceratops
The disapperance of Legio IX Hispana is almost as strange as that of Legio XX Valeria Victrix in that no records exists regarding the exact downfall of these Legions.
I have always believed that the accepted view that Legio IX was destroyed at Eboracum to be incorrect. As I'm sure you are aware there is no evidence that Eberacum was ever sacked. I, however, believe that this was due to the fact that Legio IX were not at Eboracum when they ultimately met their fate.
I believe that due to there being not only three great legionary camps to garrison but also twenty or so lesser forts in the far north of the province this would have meant Legio IX were constantly on the move up to the Forth or even the Tay defending these areas from attack and would never have settled in one place for more than a year or so. Even Eboracum was in hostile territory so the Legion was kept busy.
From what I have been able to deduce the Brigantes (as this seems the most likely hostile force to the Romans in this area) assembled a huge force and annihilated Legio IX in around 119 AD. Although no direct evidence exists.
Although this date is not mentiond directly anywhere it does coincide with the Emperor Hadrian rushing across Britain the legendary Legio VI Victrix along with 3000 'vexillaries' from both Gaul & Spain. This could only have been in response to the destruction of a legion who were stationed in a strategic location and that would fit with the supposed location of Legio IX in or around Eboracum.
It is a measure of how dangerous Hadrian deemed the Brigantes to be that he would, after destroying a substantial number of them, begin to build his famous wall to stop them from attacking in the future. This may be why Legio IX's downfall has not been recorded. The Romans were very good at recording great victories but not so good when their 'highly trained' troops were defeated by what they considered to be untrained and lesser 'barbarians'.
Regard
DocFortune -
Message 6
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 27th April 2009
DocFortune,
I don't know where you get your information from,and I don't meanto be rude, but I'm afraid you are wrong on several counts.
There is no evidence at all that Legio IX was ever destroyed. The Romans were actually very good and proclaiming military disasters, e.g. Carrhae, Cannae (plus other Hannibalic victories), TeutobergerWald, Boudica's revolt, Tacfarina' rebellion. It is far more likely that the Legion was disbanded but no records survive.
The Legion was based in Eboracum for many years. The constant toing and froing you describe is an illusion created by the three and a half centuries of Roman occupation. They were not marching north and south every couple of days. After Agricola's invasion of Caledonia, th eonyl major incursions north were the building of the Antonie Wall and Septimius Severus' invasion, both of which happened long after 119AD.
You mention three legionary forts. I presume you mean Ebioracum, Deva and Viroconium? Or perhaps Glevum and Lindum? There were others at various times, but in any event, there were almost always at least three legions in Britannia. There was no need for Legio IX to constantly march from one to the next.
The Brigantes occupied what is now most of the north of England. Hadrian built his wall north of the bulk of their territory. It could hardly have stopped them from attacking the province. There are many maps available which confirm this basic geography.
In any event, the Wall was garrisoned mostly by auxiliary troops formost of the time (again, bear in mind it was in use for 300 years).
If Legio IX was destroyed as per the Sutcvliffe fiction, it did not happenin Eboracum. If you read the book, you will see that she invented the story of the legion marching north and being destroyed somewhere in modern day Scotland.
Regards,
TonyG -
Message 7
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Monday, 27th April 2009
Hi Folks,
Thanks for the contributions.
Nobody's disputing that RS's book is fiction,but what about these two;
Hadrian's biographer, Spartanius,refers to serious disturbances in Britain when Hadrian ascended to power in 117 AD,"the Britons could not be held under Roman control"
Cornelius Fronto: "as many Romans were killed by the Britons at the beginning of Hadrian's rule as by the Jews"
This sounds like the Romans suffered some kind of serious setback around 117AD.
Trike. -
Message 8
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
This site says the legion was not wiped out in 117
www.livius.org/le-lh...
and this one argues that the evidence for the Ninth's continued existence is spurious
www.romanscotland.or...
What do other posters think?
I'd have had more respect for the second site had they not attacked the integrity of those proposing the other theory:
"Most people are however swayed by what they hear and this has been magnified by certain key "authorities" who appear to have undertaken a crusade to relocate the location of the Ninth legions loss to anywhere other than Scotland."
Yet they go on to be just as speculative. And obviously, as a Cumbrian, I know that the IXth legion was destroyed by the proto-cumbrian Brigantes.
-
Message 9
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Hi cloudyj,
I have been following this thread with great interest. Although I knew about the uncertainties over the final fate of legio IX hispana I never dreamed that anyone really cared one way or the other. To me it is a simple historical problem and a not unusual one; it came as a great surprise that it could still arouse passions.
The author of the website 'romanscotland' is clearly very knowledgeable but I share your reservations about his academic detachment.
To the best of my belief the last attested inscription involving this legion is the one from York dated 107 or 108. There are no inscriptions suggesting that it took part in the construction of Hadrian's Wall (after 122) and the conventional view that Hadrian brought legio VI victrix to York to replace it must surely be correct.
Inscription evidence from Europe, I believe, relates to senior soldiers who served in the legion. I have not seen these myself but apparently they would be easier to explain if at least part of the legion survived after 122. The real problem, as you point out, is the total lack of any positive historical or archaeological evidence that the whole legion was lost in Scotland.
I can't see what is wrong with leaving the legion's fate as unknown. Since vexillations of legions commonly served far from a legion's base there is nothing impossible with the idea that a fragment was caught up in a poorly recorded war in Northern Britain whilst vexillations were also brigaded with other units in Europe.
But not in Cumbria surely? Were not its good citizens in Roman times, as now, occupied in making lead pencils and fleecing tourists?
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
To me it is a simple historical problem and a not unusual one; it came as a great surprise that it could still arouse passions.
I reckon that any such problems where the answer just isn't known gives people a chance to claim their favoured solution. Like the mystery of "King Arthur" it allows people to speculate wildly and passionately.
The author of the website 'romanscotland' is clearly very knowledgeable but I share your reservations about his academic detachment.
I'm a big fan of "conspiracy history" (for want of a better title) - the books are fun to read and easy to spot the errors. One of the classic tactics is to smear traditional historians whose views the author is about to disagree with. Suggesting that they have ulterior motives for lying to the reader is the usual start before going on to make up whatever the author thinks will sell.
Now the Romanscotland author does actually discuss the evidence sensibly. It does seem plausible that the IXth disappeared soon after 108 - the lack of inscriptions form one of the biggest periods of roman military building does beg the question of why wasn't the IXth involved and implies heavily that they no longer existed. That said, Scotland is the most probable place, but not the only possible place in my view.
But not in Cumbria surely? Were not its good citizens in Roman times, as now, occupied in making lead pencils and fleecing tourists?
A triumph of local pride over historical fact unfortunately. Though obviously "Greater Cumbria" was much bigger than the present modern county. -
Message 11
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
I don't think anyone disputes that Britain was a difficult province for the Romans to hold down. After all, it needed 10% of the entire imperial army to keep the place in order. Hadrian certainly had problems to resolve, although whether the wall was a defensive barrier or more a symbol or power and a control mechanism, remains a matter for debate.
While every legion must have suffered casualties in times of rebelion, I still maintain that the Romans would have recorded the destruciton of a legion if it had acually happened. The Romans were fond of recording their own defeats, if only to show that the subsequent reprisal and extermination of the uppity natives was all the more glorious.
As I understand it, ther eis no evidence at all for the destruction of a Legio IX, and som eevidence that it was based in Germany after it left Britain. While many legions did remain in th esam eprovince for a very long time, it was not uncommon for legions to be moved from one place to another. No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe II Augusta, II Adiutrix and XIV Gemina all served in Britain at some point but were moved elsewhere. XX Valeria Victrix were, I think, the only legion to remain in Britain throughout the Roman occupation. As a Scit, I love th eidea of IX Hispana being dstroyed on some reckless march north, but it is just a fiction created by Rosemary Sutcliffe. -
Message 12
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Hi Tony,
There's a lot to be said for your point of view.
Concerning the other legions:
Legio II Augusta probably stayed long in Britain. It was moved from its famous fortress at Caerleon to Richborough in Kent according to the Notitia Dignitatum. It may have been deployed in Europe at the end of the 4th century. Interestingly it is the only legion attested to being present at the invasion of Britain when it was commanded by Vespasian
Legio II Adiutrix was garrisoned in Lincoln and Chester in the 70s and 80s. It probably founded Chester. It was moved to Dacia in the mid-80s.
Legio XIV Gemina Martia fought Boudicca under Suetonius Paulinus. The legion was withdrawn, then moved back to Britain in 69. It was withdrawn finally to Batavia the following year.
Legio XX Valeria Victrix is last attested in the coins of Carausius c300. So far as I am aware no one has suggested it was mysteriously destroyed.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 13
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Tuesday, 28th April 2009
Hi TonyG
In response to your post I would like to say a few things. My information comes from the time I have spent studying the subject and the opinions I have formulated myself. I have no need of a childrens book when it comes to reading history.
Whilst you clearly point out that no records exist to show the destruction of Legio IX I believe that logical conclusions as to what happened to it can be made from the evidence that is available. For instance, It has been established that Legio IX was the legion that the Britons, under Boudicca encountered on their way to London after destroying the town of Colchester in 61 AD. The legion was, at this time, under the command of the completely useless Q.Petillius Cerialis. He was eager to engage the Britons and the Ninth suffered huge losses of its infantry units with very few of them escaping. Cerialis, as he had in numerous other failed battles, fled and escaped with his life and the remains of his cavalrymen.
As I'm sure you are aware it was left to Suetonius to gather a huge force to combat the threat from the Britons, which he did and succeeded in defeating them with an almagamation of different legions. It was at about the time of the Britons defeat in this battle that Legio IX reappears, whether still under the command of Cerialis is unlikely, The legion had been reinforced with 2000 or so legionary infantry units and also had 8 cohorts of auxiliary infantry and roughly 1000 auxiliary cavalry. I believe it was at this time that they were sent to be stationed at Eboracum. The historical information for the legion after this time is indeed scant, witht the one attested reference mentioned in the other posts, but there are scraps which with a logical thought process can put together to deduce it's fate.
You mention that it is most likely that the legion was disbanded, this I don't understand due to the fact that the Romans never made a habit of disbanding legions which, as I mentioned in my original post, held strategic posts. Legio IX most definately held one of these. There were, after all, at the very frontier of the Roman Empire and the Romans were, at this time, still very much interested in extending the 'known world'. I therefore find it very unlikely that the legion would have been disbanded. The reason for my belief in their destruction is due to Hadrians almost desperate movements of troops to the area which I previously mentioned. The reason for bringing in troops from Spain & Gaul as well as what was one of the 'toughest' legions in the VIth mean that he had to be responding to some sort of emergency, like the destruction of an entire legion. I mean why disband a legion to then replace it with a larger force, surely the reason for bringing them in so quickly was to avenge the loss of the Ninth?. There is, I think, little disagreement in the fact the Hadrian did bring all these troops over in a hurry for some reason and for me, at least, it has to be to annihilate the Brigantes who had triumphed over Legio IX.
As for the Brigantes territory, on every 'map' of the tribes of Britain that I have seen their 'territory' is 'writ large' across the North of England due to the fact that their exact origin and 'home town', if you will, has never been clear. One thing that I am sure of (though please, anyone correct me if I am wrong) is that the Romans attacked them and forced them from what territory they held and it seems very unlikely that they would drive them southward and much more likely that the Brigantes would be forced Northwards, away from territory held by the Romans, thus pushing them ever closer to 'Scotland'.
I do remember reading a book some years ago, I think it was called 'The Tribes of Britain' or something similar which mentioned the Brigantes moving North and having possible made an allegiance with the Dumnonii, or the Votadini to fight against the Romans. I am rather hazy on this and I might be confusing this with something else though.
As I have said, I am not pushing a new version of history, just my humble opinion based on information I have read and what I consider to be logical assumptions based on that information. A lack of evidence in any situation does not mean that certain things did not, or could not, have happened, so simply because there is no evidence for the destruction of Legio IX it does not mean that it didn't happen and whilst Rosemary Sutcliffe may have created a piece of childrens fiction it cannot be used as a reason for the unlikelyhood of similar events in reality. Afterall did she simply 'dream' the whole thing up or was she maybe a little more informed on the subject than you and others are giving her credit for?
Was not the film Gladiator, whilst primarily a work of fiction, based on certain historical facts? It remains a fictional story with historical elements woven into it's fabric.
Kind Regards
DocFortune -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Hi DocFortune,
Most of the great mysteries of history would not be mysterious in any way if the information we had was more complete. But I do feel that in forming your views on this issue, and also the last few years of Imperial Britain, you place more weight on the limited evidence than it can really bear.
The question we have to decide is how secure are the extrapolations we make from the facts we do have. This process is not made easier by the tendency of Roman writers to 'talk up' the threats from 'barbarians' in order to give the Emperor 'worthwhile' enemies, whilst minimising defeats. As others have suggested I think it quite possible that Roman writers were very likely reluctant to record the names of legions that were disgraced or destroyed. The conclusion that legio IX Hispana was possibly destroyed and/or disgraced somewhere seems secure, but that irritating word 'possibly' has to be employed. There is just no positive evidence. As another example of a secure extrapolation we might ask what legions were originally part of the Roman invasion force of AD43? Legio II Augusta is attested. As far as XX Victrix, IX Hispana and XIV Gemina Martia are concerned the best we can say is 'probably'. They were present by the time of the Boudiccan campaign of AD 60, which brings us to Petilius Cerialis.
I think your views on Petilius Cerialis are far from secure. Tacitus certainly records that a portion of the IX Hispana were defeated under his command in the attempt to save Colchester. But if Cerialis was 'completely useless' as you suggest is it not surprising that he was later given command of XIV Gemina Martia (then in Germany), and was even appointed Governor of Britain in AD 71, and Consul? Some of this preferment may have been the rewards due to his loyalty to the Flavians, but since his post of legate of IX Hispana was his first recorded posting I can reasonably ask you where were the 'numerous other failed battles' from which you say he fled. 'Brave but rash' would be my judgement.
Now, what about this huge force that Suetonius assembled? He had legio XIV and vexillations from legio XX. Legio II Augusta famously did not participate, and legio IX were (of course) now unable to. With auxiliaries Tacitus suggests a force of 10,000 men, and if you accept this figure you are probably compelled to also accept his assessment that the Romans were outnumbered by more than 8:1 (Dio says the Britons had over 200,000 men!). Even if Tacitus has exaggerated by 100% the Roman army deployed against Boudicca doesn't really look so huge. After the rebellion Tacitus records that the Roman army was reinforced with 2000 or so legionary infantry units and also had 8 cohorts of auxiliary cohorts (presumably infantry) and 1000 auxiliary cavalry as you say. He definitely doesn't state that all these troops were destined for legio IX, only that this legion was brought up to strength. The 2000 legionary soldiers mentioned presumably had also to make good the other losses experienced at Angelsey and in the final battle with Boudicca. If legio IX received, say, 1500 men to bring it up to strength then I would say its losses in the rebellion (from a nominal strength of 5500) were substantial but perhaps not huge.
Finally what about this 'almost desperate movements of troops to the area' which you say that Hadrian undertook? The facts are simple. We know that legio IX was in York in 107 and this is their last attested appearance. Hadrian became emperor 10 years later. Five years after this he came to Britain and legio VI Victrix probably came with him (from Lower Germany not Gaul & Spain). Although there are certainly hints of British insurgence at this time there is nothing to suggest that Hadrian's dispositions were desperate. Indeed the fact that he chose to commit his forces to a major engineering project suggests the opposite.
I'll leave the Iron Age tribes of Northern Britain for the moment except to say that we know even less about them than we do about legio IX!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 15
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:49 GMT, in reply to TwinProbe in message 14
-
Message 16
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:50 GMT, in reply to TwinProbe in message 14
But if Cerialis was 'completely useless' as you suggest is it not surprising that he was later given command of XIV Gemina Martia (then in Germany), and was even appointed Governor of Britain in AD 71, and Consul? Some of this preferment may have been the rewards due to his loyalty to the Flavians,
I must add, one must question whether Vespasian would give such rewards to an incompetent, even if he was a loyal supporter. I'm sure that most canny of Emperors could have found him something lucrative but harmless if Cerialis had been truly incompetent - rather than putting him in charge of somewhere like Britain. -
Message 17
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 1st May 2009
TwinProbe,
Many thanks for some detailed and well argued points. Speculation and theory are wonderful things, and are what make these discussions so interesting. I will simply restate my main argument which is that the only literary source which states that Legio IX was destroyed in Britain is Rosemary Sutcliffe's fictional novel. It is a well thought out and inventive story, but it is fiction. I can't agree with DoCFortune that RS was perhaps better informed than I give he credit for. Where did she get her informaton? Creative writers take bits of information and weave a story around them. The film, "Gladiator" which has been mentioned was entertaining, but certainly not very accurate historically.
I do agree with you regarding Hadrian's visit to Britain. Hadrian toured the whole empire, with Britannia bein gone stop on that tour. While he certainly ensured that order was imposed, and Britannia was allegedly a province which was in turmoil, I don't believe there are records of any major battles,and Hadrian did not stay all that long. He enjoyed large scale building projects as witness th elibrary in Athens. Did he not also have Legio II build a wall in Africa?
Certainly, building the Wall in Britannia would have been difficult if the legions were also fighting the locals. And while our knwledge of the Iron Age tribes is scanty, the notion that the wall was built to stop the Brigantes raiding south cetainly defies geography. -
Message 18
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Hi Tony,
I agree with everything you say. I assumed that Rosemary Sutcliffe (in a book which is a great personal favourite) used a pre-existing legend. But I don't know this for a fact and it's intriguing to think she may have invented the whole thing!
The serious point that I was trying to make is that we all think we know far more about the Romans that we really do. All their historians had their own agendas and were really not that concerned with the accurate portrayal of Iron Age tribes in remote corners of the Empire.
Anyone wanting a serious discussion on this era has to be able to distinguish between fact, extrapolation from fact, and speculation.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 19
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Hi Everyone,
It's my understanding that RS based her novel on the academic theory current at the time.
Finding evidence after 19 centuries is not going to be easy. There is, after all,no archaelogical evidence for Mons Graupius, so there is inevitably going to be some guesswork.
The written sources available,like Tacitus, could also be suspect. In fact, it didn't take long to find a couple of sites that argue against Tacitus.
[second article]
and this next one also gives more credit to Cerialis [A-N message 16]
Thanks again to everyone who has joined in. This is an era of history with which I'm not particularly well acquainted with and it's been good to find out about.
Trike -
Message 20
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Fri, 01 May 2009 19:48 GMT, in reply to Triceratops in message 19
Interesting. I really don't find the first article you refer to convincing, though! -
Message 21
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 1st May 2009
A-N
Neither do I
Trike. -
Message 22
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Martin Henig is an extremely knowledgeable authority. What parts of his hypothesis do you find unconvincing?
TP -
Message 23
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Evening TP,
I thought Togodumnus was one of the Southern Britons resistance leaders along with Caractacus.
Trike. -
Message 24
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 1st May 2009
and I've completely got mixed up.
-
Message 25
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Togidubnus / Togodumnus
-
Message 26
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Fri, 01 May 2009 20:41 GMT, in reply to TwinProbe in message 22
Perhaps I have misunderstood, but he seems to be implying that because Togidubnus and one or two others were Romanised, there was no military conquest. He claims that British troops were involved in the defeat of Boudica - even at the final battle - on no solid evidence that I can see. He claims that there was no Battle of Mons Graupius, with very little decent evidence. It's hardly surprising that there is no archaeological evidence for the battle, as no-one is certain exactly where it was supposed to have taken place! He says, "Even in Tacitus, it is said that no legionaries were killed". Yes, because the auxiliaries did all the fighting, and there were casualties amongst them. A very odd comment. It is rash to make assertions based on the terrain, when - as already stated - the exact terrain is not certain. -
Message 27
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Hi Triceratops,
Yes, Caractacus and Togodumnus were said to be brothers, and led the British resistance to the Roman invasion. Togodumnus was killed but Claudius is believed to have spared Caractacus once he was captured.
Togidubnus (aka Cogidubnus) along with Verica were client kings of the Romans in southern Britain. Togidubnus may have been the owner of Fishbourne Palace which is incredibly fine for such an early date in the NW Provinces.
The important part of Henig's article is his disbelief in Tacitus's account. I'm not disputing the greatness of the historian but his ambition was not to give a simple and impartial account of the facts. His respect for Agricola demanded that the general fought a set piece battle and won a great victory. His hatred of Domitian ensured that Tacitus could see no merit in the emperor's foreign policy even though no subsequent emperor could ever hold 'Scotland' for more than a brief period.
Sadly Tacitus was so uninterested in real events in this obscure corner of the world that he even mistook Boudicca's tribal afiliation.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 28
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Hi A-N,
No, I don't think you have misunderstood. Clearly Iron Age Britain was not a unitary state and it is virtually certain that some British leaders welcomed the Roman invasion, even if they later came to regret their acquiescence.
There is no evidence one way or another for British forces fighting Boudicca. If Britons were being recruited and trained for axillary regiments, which they almost certainly were, and if they were available, then in a time of crisis Suetonius may have employed them. I don't think one can be more definite than that.
Very few ancient battles in Britain have positively identified sites. Where is Brunanburh for example? I think that there must have been a battle against Boudicca since what else would have stopped her? I could believe that Mons Graupius was embellished fact, if not exactly fictitious. Tacitus had a motive for contriving a victory for his father in law. Would a skilled leader of the Northern Britons really have risked a pitched battle with the Romans? Well, we certainly can't be sure.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 29
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Friday, 1st May 2009
It is very hard to believe that any Roman historian could have got away with completely inventing a battle just to credit a victory to his father in law.
Even the most blatant propaganda needs some element of truth, or else the idea behind the propaganda backfires and makes those involved look like fools.
The Roman army would have known if the battle was a real event, that is thousands of men, some of whom had considerable influence within the ruling elite.
Tacitus was writing about events that took place in his lifetime, he was not inventing bygone legends to support his family prestige, as was the case with some more modern “historians”.
Unfortunately there is not archaeological evidence to shine any light on the battle of Mons Graupius, but it is pretty obvious there was a battle and that the Caledonian tribes were beaten with comparative ease.
Why would the Caledonian tribes have risked a battle against the Roman army? Probably because they did not really understand what they were up against. The Roman military machine was alien to the thinking of tribal warriors more accustomed to raids and cattle rustling.
Faced with an invading army the tribes of Britain either chose to fight or negotiate, the Caledonian tribes at Mons Graupius chose to fight, it would certainly not be the last time that these desperate decisions were taken.
As for Britons serving in the Roman army during the Boudica revolt I very much doubt that the Roman army would have begun large scale local recruitment so soon after invading Briton.
But there is very little evidence to suggest that any of the British tribes had a sense of “Britishness”, the people of Iron Age Briton would probably have considered their tribe as their nation and as such would have been willing to join with “foreign” Romans against domestic “foreign” tribes.
Tribal kings and queens were not bound to any British nationalism so their actions cannot be considered disloyal or treasonous.
Just because some southern British tribes had close links with the continent before the invasion does not imply they were client kingdoms, just that they were more open to Roman ideas and commerce than more remote areas of Britain. -
Message 30
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 1st May 2009
Hi EV,
There is no certainty here but I think that you say what you do about the objectivity of Tacitus because you are used to a literate society with libraries and newspapers and investigative journalism. Also a society where the distinction between fiction and non-fiction is (usually) clear.
How many literate legionaries present in the battle would have ended up walking the streets of Rome? For any officers that did, when they were told that they were heroes of the British wars, how many would have complained?
Naturally there was an element of truth in Tacitus's account; Agricola did take his army into 'Scotland', this much is attested by archaeology. What we are doubting is a set piece battle somewhere near Inverness with Calgacus telling his troops: "they make a desolation and call it peace". This type of writing to the greater glory of the general and the ordained task of Imperial Rome would have seemed perfectly natural to an educated society brought up on Livy.
I can't agree that the Caledonians were ever defeated with 'comparative ease'. The evidence is that on several occasions they fought the Romans to a standstill. Their performance (also shown against Anglian and later armies) must surely have been the result of intimate knowledge of the ground, the ability to live off the land, and the avoidance of pitched battles in favour of guerrilla tactics.
We cannot be sure about the presence, or otherwise, of British auxilaries in the Roman army that faced the army of Boudicca. But I cannot see why you would doubt the recruitment of British auxilaries more than a decade after the invasion. I will check the reference if you wish but my memory is that after Marcus Aurelius defeated the Sarmatians he recruited auxiliary cavalry immediately, some of which were sent to Britain.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 31
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
Hi TwinProbe
I live in a literate society, well for the most part, but so did the Romans in the 1st century AD.
Literacy within the general population was very high compared to the Middle Ages and certainly all forming the officer classes within the Roman military would be expected to read.
The large amount of graffiti that turns up from Roman sites demonstrates that literacy was widespread simply because written words as graffiti are pointless unless the target population can read. One possible reason why modern inner city adolescents resort to stylised “Tags” for their graffiti rather than the written word.
Each of the Legions at Mons Graupius would have been under the command of men who were either Senators or of senatorial rank and in the process of political and military advancement.
It would have been plainly obvious to every man within the senate if a historian had tried to invent battles and victories to just attribute the laurels to a family member. This would have meant open ridicule or maybe quiet ridicule if that family happened to be immensely powerful.
Of course the speech attributed to Calgacus before the battle is probably an invention of the historian, and in the same way the casualty figures could have been massaged to reflect the achievement of Agricola. In much the same way that Shakespeare attributes glorious speeches to Elizabeth but could not have got away with inventing a great land victory that never took place. Elizabethan England was certainly no more literate than 1st century Rome but even in 16th century England the propaganda had to be believable propaganda if it was not to be ridiculed.
As for the Caledonians being defeated easily in a set piece battle it is plainly obvious that this was not the only occasion when less advanced societies have been brushed aside by more military advanced societies on the field of battle, only to then achieve some measure of success by continued low level resistance. One only needs look to the unfortunate situation in Afghanistan to see this happening now.
I do not have any references to support my idea that British recruits were not serving in the Roman army during the Boudica revolt, but I doubt it due to the short time span between the invasion and the revolt.
The Roman units involved would still have been recruiting from their original areas and the bureaucratic machine would not have been in full operation in Britain to enable the processing of local recruits.
The Sarmation troops you refer to served as Foederati in their own fighting style and not as Auxiliary cavalry. It is of course possible that British tribes fought alongside Roman troops during the revolt, even though there are no references to this.
The 6,000 Sarmations sent to Britain were prisoners of war rather than part of the Roman army.
There are references to British troops as Auxiliary fighting at Mon Graupius, maybe the Auxiliary Cohorts 1st and 2nd Brittonum Milliaria, but so far this is only conjecture. -
Message 32
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
Sat, 02 May 2009 18:52 GMT, in reply to TwinProbe in message 30
It is possible that Tacitus manipulated figures to make the battle larger and casualties more heavily in favour of the Romans; however, I still don't think there is sufficient reason to doubt Tacitus's claim that there was a significant action at a place known to the Romans as Mons Graupius. (In any case it would be a nuisance if it didn't happen - it's one of the few detailed accounts of auxiliaries in action!)
With regards to British auxiliaries, we know that they existed by AD69, as they were involved in the civil wars of the Year of the Four Emperors. It would be, however, unusual for units of auxiliaries to be based in their home territories, as there was a fear they might swap sides in a revolt. Having said that, it's quite possible that foreign units, even the legions, were recruiting locally. Throughout the Imperial period the Army suffered problems with recruiting and chronic desertion, so they would make up the numbers as they could; it was far from unknown to recruit non-citizens into the legions in an emergency - technically against the rules, but the Romans were nothing if not pragmatic. It seems reasonable to suppose that but the Boudican Revolt there were already relatively few Italians - let alone actual Romans - in the British Legions; II Augusta, for example, may have primarily been composed of Germans, Gauls and quite probably a fair number Britons - all recruited from locations where they had been based. -
Message 33
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 2nd May 2009
Hi EV,
Sorry I didn't make myself clear. The Roman officer class were certainly literate, especially those embarked on the cursus honorum that you describe. There may indeed have been some veteran colleagues of Agricola who read Tacitus's account of the campaign. But, these same readers would have appreciated the conventions of Roman historical writing and would not expect Tacitus or Livy to tell the unvarnished truth about the engagements described. Tacitus's purpose was to write a eulogy of his father in law, and through it to blacken the reputation of Domitian. Very successful on both counts I should say. His descriptions of the battles against Boudicca and Calgacus could be accurate accounts I suppose, but I rather imagine they were modified to suit his higher purpose. I can't prove it one way or the other, but I am very doubtful.
Graffiti is evidence of literacy after a fashion I guess, but I don't imagine the legionary that writes “Ferox's helmet” on his equipment relaxed in the evening with a few pages of Tacitus. any more than the author of “ I like kissing Freda” goes home to read 'Middlemarch'. As to whether Shakespeare could invent a great land battle that never took place, well perhaps not. But unquestionably we see Richard III through his eyes, just as our picture of Agricola is formed by Tacitus. I don't know that Shakespeare's portrait of Richard was ever ridiculed by the groundlings, which demonstrates how successful propaganda can be when written by a master.
If you want to discuss the speed at which newly conquered people could be 'processed' into auxilaries then we shall have to begin by seeing if we can agree about the definition of 'foederati'. The unit you seem to have in mind, native troops fighting in their own style and with their own weapons (and perhaps commanded by their own officers), is surely a 'numerus'. A famous example was the numerus Barcariorum Tigrisiensium at South Shields. 'Foederati' were large units, still under the command of their own rulers, placed in an area by the Empire to defend that area in exchange for land or supplies. Both the numerus and foederati are more phenomena of the 3rd and 4th centuries than the 1st and 2nd which we are discussing.
I was thinking of a auxiliary units like the ala Sarmatarum (Bremetenacum) from Ribchester, although the tombstones recording them are undatable. I'm puzzled that you think that Marcus Aurelius sent prisoners to Britain. I accept that the troops were being got out of the way to a place where they could do no harm, but that's a very different thing from imprisonment. Epitome of Dio Cassius LXXI, 16, 2: 'As their contribution to the alliance the Iazyges immediately provided him (Marcus Aurelius) with 8000 cavalry, 5500 of whom he sent to Britain'. The important point here is not the the cavalry were being sent co-incidentally to Britain, but that they were provided immediately.
I believe that Birley reported that no less than 16 British auxiliary units are attested in the 1st and 2nd centuries. If some of these were raised immediately, or even within 17 years, they might have been available in a crisis to fight Boudicca even if operating within their homeland was exceptional. That is not to say that they did, of course.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 34
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Sunday, 3rd May 2009
Hi TwinProbe
The use of propaganda by historians has been a constant theme throughout history, in fact it could well be the main driving force behind historical writings.
I have no doubt that Tacitus would have embellished his works with the intention of supporting one faction or another, but I very much doubt that wholesale invention of battles and victories would have been acceptable to the people who read his works.
All propaganda is not necessarily lies or fabrication, most of the more effective propaganda is the emphasise of the positive points of history and the overlooking of the unfortunate truths.
The five to six thousand Sarmation troops sent to Britain were from the troops given to Marcus Aurelius by the defeated Iazyes after the Marcomannic wars. Part of the peace settlement was the return of Roman prisoners and the turning over of Sarmation troops.
Cassio Dio LXX11 16
“The Iazyges were defeated and came to terms, Zanticus himself appearing as a suppliant before Antoninus. Previously they had imprisoned Banadaspus, their second king, for making overtures to him; but now all the chief men came with Zanticus and made the same compact as that to which the Quadi and the Marcomani had agreed, except that they were required to dwell twice as far away from p37the Ister as those tribes. Indeed, the emperor had wished to exterminate them utterly. For that they were still strong at this time and had done the Romans great harm was evident from the fact that they returned a hundred thousand captives that were still in their hands even after the many who had been sold, had died, or had escaped, and that they promptly furnished as their contribution to the alliance eight thousand cavalry, fifty-five hundred of whom he sent to Britain. “
In this way the Sarmations can be called foederti, or “treaty troops”, they were part of the peace treaty or they could be called “prisoners of war”, forced to serve a new master and stationed a long way from home in a remote region.
Foederti were used from at least the time of Trajan so they could have been around earlier. The later use of entire tribes as foederti during the 4th century led to large numbers of “barbarians” entering the empire and is a more common understanding of the term.
I was speculating as to the possibility of British tribes supplying foederti to the Roman army at the time of the Boudica revolt, I personally do not think it to be very likely though.
Maybe there were British warriors serving as symmachiari, or allied troops, with the Roman army at the time of the revolt, but again there is no evidence to support this idea.
Without any further evidence appearing it it is of course impossible to determine if any British soldiers were in the Roman army at the time of the Boudica revolt. -
Message 35
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Hi EV,
I guess that we agree about most of the facts, even if our interpretations are somewhat at variance. I'm also aware that although I would cheerfully discuss the minutiae of Imperial Rome indefinitely this topic is evidently is not proving very interesting to anyone else!
Your comments have had me thinking about the wholesale invention of battles in literature. Geoffrey of Monmouth invented battles, although it would be stretching a point to call him an historian. Oral tradition had done some very strange things to the battle of Roncesvalles before the account in the Song of Roland.
I've tried to identify the first use of the term feoderati. Evidently the meaning of the word changed between Republican and later-Imperial times, although the idea of military support for the main Roman army was maintained. The origin must be the Latin word for 'treaty' from which English derives 'federal' and 'federation'. 'Laeti' must have been a similar institution; barbarians settled within the Empire from which military recruits could be taken.
It is simple to find examples of laeti and foederati in the 4th century. It's clear that several commentators, including yourself, have assumed that Marcus Aurelius utilised the same principle at the end of the Marcomannic Wars, but in this case neither Latin word is employed by contemporary sources. I think that those of us who are really keen not to adopt the concept of 'foederati' anachronistically may reasonably ask how you distinguish between 'treaty troops' and the ordinary recruitment of auxiliaries?
You can imagine that it I feel a little uncomfortable with your use of treaty troops then equating this with 'prisoners of war' is more difficult still. Unquestionably the brand new Sarmatian cavalry were posted many many miles from home, and doubtless had no say in the matter. They would have been forced to learn a new language and would have been governed by a strict discipline enforced by new officers. But in these respects how did their situation differ from that of ordinary auxiliaries?
An alternative approach would be to look at a Sarmatian unit in operation and, as already mentioned, we conveniently have at least one in Britain. Marcus Aurelius's 'expeditio sarmatica' was concluded in 175. Later the ala sarmatarum (Bremetenacum) were stationed in Ribchester where they replaced another cavalry unit, ala II asturum. When was this, and did the status of the troops differ from that of any other cavalry regiment? Here I run into difficulties; Ribchester seems a perfectly ordinary military fort and the naming of the unit follows that of ordinary auxiliary cavalry units, but dates are lacking. A cuneus sarmatarum is attested in the Notitia Dignitatum, and there is an altar inscription referring to Saramatians that has been dated to 241. But I can see that a great deal could have happened between 175 and 241, not least three generations! So we're back to guesswork.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 36
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Your comments have had me thinking about the wholesale invention of battles in literature. Geoffrey of Monmouth invented battles, although it would be stretching a point to call him an historian.
TP
Geoffrey didn't invent battles that had taken place in his own lifetime, and even so he was called a charlatan by his contemporaries.
Btw, there's not a shred of archaeological evidence for the battle of Hastings in 1066. -
Message 37
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Hi Haesten,
Geoffrey of Monmouth was a 12th century figure. His history, if one can dignify it by this name, ended with Athelstan. So his opportunity to invent contemporary battles was somewhat restricted; otherwise I'm sure that he would have!
I don't doubt that you are correct about Hastings. The difference is that the consequences of this battle changed the whole course of English history so that it would be difficult to argue that it had never taken place. The expedition of Agricola to Caledonia is well attested but the battle against Calgacus, if indeed it did take place, had no long-term effect whatever. Tacitus would have us believe that this was the consequence of Domitian's colonial policy. Well, he might be right.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 38
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Geoffrey of Monmouth was a 12th century figure. His history, if one can dignify it by this name, ended with Athelstan. So his opportunity to invent contemporary battles was somewhat restricted; otherwise I'm sure that he would have!
TP
Even so he was sacked by Robert of Gloucester and replaced by William of Malmesbury.
Your Martin's criticism of Tacitus seems to be only based on the grubber disease of "if you can't dig it up it didn't happen", sorry. -
Message 39
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Hi Haesten,
Fair enough, but also fatal is the disease known as 'it's in a book so it must be true'. Equally sorry.
TP -
Message 40
Posted by 3exodus (U13947330) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Just a quick comment - The edition of the Eagle of the Ninth that I have has an historical note by RS where she quite categorically states that it is fiction based loosely on the hypothesis at the time of writing.
I read the book when I was 9 and I am now in my 50s so the theories that were around then have moved on considerably in 40 plus years.
So why not take it as it was written - an absolutely ripping yarn for kids (and grown up kids) Otherwise you will start anlysing the novels of Simon Scarrow, Steven Saylor, Lyndsey Davies etc. -
Message 41
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Mon, 04 May 2009 21:59 GMT, in reply to 3exodus in message 40
Otherwise you will start anlysing the novels of Simon Scarrow, Steven Saylor, Lyndsey Davies etc.
To be fair, Lindsey Davis is on the whole very thorough in her research! She does make the odd mistake though, as she admits herself; I forget what it was, but there was an item of household equipment in Falco's possession which was based on a surviving artefact. A reader kindly pointed out that said artefact had actually been found in an Etruscan tomb, and was thus a couple of centuries too early for Falco... so the next time it appeared Falco observed that his father had probably nicked it from a tomb! -
Message 42
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 4th May 2009
Hi 3exodus,
If you re-read the postings you will see that the one thing that everyone agrees with is that Sutcliffe's novel is a great read. None of the thread is devoted to her criticism.
One problem is that some people take the story of the disappearing legio IX hispana quite seriously. The second problem is that one or two people (including me) rather fear that Tacitus is about as accurate as Rosemary Sutcliffe; others take a quite different view.
So all in all I think that there is still something to discuss.
TP -
Message 43
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
TP
Would you like to make the case for Chichester (Fishbourne, which seems to be the current favourite with archeologists) being the landing place of the Claudian invasion, rather than Rutupiae (Richborough).
Presumably Aulus Plautius would have marched directly on London to cross the Thames, so which river would have barred his way before the Thames?
Why would Plautius risk the long sail to Chichester from Cape Gris-nez and the treacherous tides off Selsey Bill, rather than follow Caesar's route where they could be supplied by sea all the way to London?
Tacitus account of the Battle of the Medway hasn't survived and we have to rely on Dio Cassius, but "possible confirmation of this route came from the discovery in 1957, of a hoard of 37 Roman gold coins at the village of Bredgar. As they all date from the Claudian period and the newest was minted in AD 42, it is reasonable to associate them with the invasion. Such an amount of money would represent 3 months pay for a Centurion, or 4 years pay for an ordinary Legionary soldier."
-
Message 44
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Hi Hasten,
No, definitely not. I grew up on the south coast and the conditions there would seem to make Chichester implausible for an invasion. To be certain we need the lost books of Tacitus, providing he told the truth of course!
When the practicalities are considered Richborough seems the more likely site. We know from Dio that the invasion fleet set sail from Bologne. The journey to Richborough is only 40 nmiles – say 16-18 hours. The tides are favourable for such a journey (SW-NE) and favourable winds (S or SW) are more likely than not. The journey to Fishbourne is 95 nmiles, which might take an invasion fleet 2-3 days.
If I had to argue the case for Chichester then I would say that an invasion at Fishbourne would support a known ally of Rome (Togidubnus) and provide a safe bridgehead. It would facilitate the surrender of the Dobunni (reported by Dio) a tribe from 'Gloucestershire'. It would also be a logical jumping off point for the known campaign of Vespasian and legio II Augusta in the south-west.
Defensive ditches were dug at Richborough which effectively turned the site into a promontory fort to protect a bridgehead. There is nothing similar at Fishbourne, although I suppose that this would not have represented hostile territory. Both sites have early granaries (44-85 AD) appropriate to supply bases. Finds at Fishbourne include: a helmet, and Augustan pottery; it was shortly to be the site of a magnificent palace. Military activity at Richborough ceased c 100 AD but was resumed in 250 AD. It is believed to have had a triumphal arch through which all visitors to Roman Britain passed. The military fortifications were reconstructed on a number of occasions, and it was occupied to the very end of Roman Britain.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 45
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
TP
Dio says the secondary fleet set sail from Bologne, Caesar says Bologne was to small for his second invasion (800 ships).
Dio says the first wave was 3 divisions (legions?) -
Message 46
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Hi Haesten,
I have seen Dio's comment about the invasion force interpreted as meaning that the army was organised in three ‘divisions, waves or squadrons’. Those that believe three separate landing places are indicated still have a choice! Is it Richborough, Dover and Lympne or Fishbourne, Chichester and Clausentum?
The geography of Dover and Lympne make them unsuitable places for troop landings in the pre-Roman period. At Dover, between the cliffs, is a steep valley. At Lympne troops would have to climb the North Downs.
It is not known for certain if the landing was opposed; if it wasn't Dio could be saying the invasion force was divided into three and that one group was disembarked when the shipping carrying the first group had left the landing area.
The uncertainty remains. With Julius Caesar the situation is even worse. I believe I am correct it saying that no artefact or field monument indisputably linked to his invasion has ever been identified. But it probably happened!!
TP -
Message 47
Posted by englishvote (U5473482) on Saturday, 9th May 2009
Hi TwinProbe
It is plain that in his account of the two invasions attempted by Julius Caesar he is at great pains to spin the story into a success when the reality was something very different.
As a propaganda tool for himself the history book “ The Conquest of Gaul” works to promote Caesar as a great general and statesman, but even his control and power could not allow him to simply invent a victory where none existed.
Two failed attempts at invasion and struggling to bring the isolated and beleaguered troops back across the channel would not have been Caesar’s idea of a great victory. But it was the facts that he had to work with and within these fact he span the propaganda up as best he could to try and reflect on his own personal courage and ability.
Maybe Tacitus, who had far less power than Julius Caesar enjoyed, added some propaganda to his works or maybe he fleshed own the cold facts with some courageous speeches, but I still very much doubt that he could have invented victories when none existed.
As for the “collaboration” of British tribes in the Claudian invasion I can not see why a tribe is considered amenable to invasion just because it has trading links with a neighbouring empire.
After the events of AD9 and the loss of three legions under the command of Varus while he believed he was travelling though the territory of allies and friends, I very much doubt that the Romans would have allowed Cogidubnus the same opportunity.
They would have still fortified their camps and positions as was required while on campaign, and as such if the invasion had landed in Atrebates territory we would still expect to find fortified camps the same as if it had occurred in any other tribe’s area.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.