Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Rome's Lost Legion
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 18th March 2011
I know there has been a discussion about the Ninth Legion here before but there is renewed interest in light of the new film. However, I have just watched a documentary which purported to explain the history behind the film but which gave such a biased and unbalanced view of events that it left me seething.
I have no problem with the theory that the Ninth may have been destroyed in Britain. The argument put forward in the documentary is that troops were sent from Spain and Germany to Britain in around 117 AD and that Hadrian brought the Sixth Legion with him when he visted in 122AD. There is certainly a plausible argument that says this could have been to replace troops lost in serious fighting and that the Ninth could have been destroyed around this time.
However, the programme only interviewed "experts" who held this apocalyptic view and there were no contributions at all from any historian holding any other point of view and this theory was presented almost as fact.
In my view, there were several other misrep[resentations of events. Without wishing to bore anyone, I noticed the following:-
1. The famous Silchester Eagle that Rosemary Sutcliffe used as her inspiration for her novelwas examined. The museum curator was asked if it could be a military Eagle and specifically and categorically said it was civil, not military. Cut to the presenter who said something like, "So while we cannot prove it was military, it may still support the theory of the lost legion". In his defence, perhaps he was not listening to the person he was interviewing.
2. Letters from Vindolanda were cited as evidence that the Ninth could have been involved in heavy fighting with northern tribes, completely ignoring the fact that Vindolanda, along with the rest of the Wall, was built after the Ninth allegedly disappeared.
3. We were told that Hadrian had no reason to come to Britain except to sort out a major disaster and that building the Wall was an admission of defeat. This completely ignored the known fact that Hadrian toured the entire empire and had other defences built, including a wall in Africa. He also withdrew from Mesopotamia. This was his policy, reversing the expansionism of his predecessors. There was no mention of this policy, nor of any of his actions outside of Britain..
4. Pits found on the berm beyond the Wall were explained as possibly being the remains of a wooden defensive wall built to protect the legions from attack while constructing the stone Wall and were therefore evidence of native unrest and constant attack. This ignores the fact that such pits were also found by the Antonine Wall and were more lkely simply part of the defensive barrier.
5. We were told that the reason there is no written evidence of the Ninth's destruction is that Hadrian probably wanted to hush up the loss of a legion. This seems stretching things more than a bit. The Romans were never afraid to mention their own losses and at the very least one would have expected Hadrian to have claimed credit for re-establishing order and Antoninus Pius to have recorded that his later advance into northern Britain was to avenge any such loss. It seems far more likely to me that there is no written evidence either because the disaster never happened or because, if it did, the records simply have not survived.
Well, that is a bit of a rant, for which i apologise. I am not disputing that the Ninth may have been destroyed but if TV producers are going to make "historical" documentaries, you would think they could at least present a balanced view and take all the facts into account instead of selectively choosing the ones that fit thier own preconceived ideas and presnting theory as fact. Or is that too much to ask these days? Is the British public so stupid that it must have its mind made up for it by TV programmes? Can we not be given the facts and the conflicting theories and be allowed to form our own opinion? Apparently not.
Tony (aka Mr Angry) -
Message 2
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Saturday, 19th March 2011
if TV producers are going to make "historical" documentaries, you would think they could at least present a balanced view and take all the facts into account instead of selectively choosing the ones that fit thier own preconceived ideas and presnting theory as factΒ
Academics and historians do it too! TV producers don't usually allow facts to get in the way of sensationalism -
Message 3
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 19th March 2011
Interesting. I wasn't aware of the documentary you refer you, but I must admit I was under the impression that the destruction of the Ninth had pretty much been universally accepted as bunkum, these days - at least amongst academia.
So far as I can tell, documentary makers tend to choose a view point then select or try to manipulate the evidence to fit that viewpoint. One bizarre example I recall is a documentary Channel 4 did a few years back about Warwolf, Edward I's (?) giant trebuchet. They had two rival teams building replica trebuchets, one with a fixed counterweight, one with a swinging counterweight. At the end the narrator announced "We now *know*(!) that Warwolf was a trebuchet with a swinging counterweight" - even though the fixed weight version had proved far superior in the tests and better fitted the scant evidence available, never mind the strong speculative aspect one or or t'other!
Obviously there are limits to how much detail a one-hour (or whatever) documentary can go into concerning the various arguments, but I wish they'd be a bit less one-sided. I'm sure audiences could cope. -
Message 4
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Saturday, 19th March 2011
Tony, don't be so apologetic, you have stated your case eruditely and this is the forum in which to do it. I only take issue with point 4. The berms on both Hadrians and Antonine's walls indicates that BOTH areas were under threat from constant attack - that is why they had to build huge walls to repel them.
I thought the IXth was destroyed in the rebellion of Bouddica?
What channel was this documentary on, and when? -
Message 5
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 19th March 2011
Hi fascinating
The ninth legion was partially destroyed by Boudicca but reconstituted after the Iceni were defeated.
There is archeological evidence thet around AD 71 they constructed a new fortress at York (Eburacum), as shown by finds of tile-stamps from the site.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 6
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 20th March 2011
The documentary was on the HIstory Channel. Ttitled, "Rome's Lost Legion." I wouldn't bother watching it unless you enjoy one-sided sensationalism.
They did show that the last recorded mention of the Ninth Legion was an inscription found at York in AD108. The first part of the programme was more or less factually accurate but it degenerated into speculation the longer it went on.
The evidence for the destruciotn of the Ninth is circumstantial but viewers of this programme would be forgiven for thinking it is fact.. I would like to kepe an open mind on the topic as some more evidence may come to light. Programmes like this do not help.
As for th epit son th eberm, yes I agree they may indicate the threat of attack but they are normally interpreted as pits, perhaps with stakes embedded, to channel attackers into a narrower killing area. Perhaps they are instead evidence of a wooden wall beyond the stone wall but that viewpoint was pretty much the only one presented with only a passing reference to the other interpretation.
It is possible to make well-informed documentaries, as witness Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 2's "Bible's Buried Secrets" which has been mentioned in another thread. Sadly, too many are like "Rome's Lost Legion". -
Message 7
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 20th March 2011
Sorry - a few typos in that message. That will teach me to try to type quickly.
qzoxgjkl
Damn, Did it again. -
Message 8
Posted by irene (U2450323) on Thursday, 31st March 2011
I know there has been a discussion about the Ninth Legion here before but there is renewed interest in light of the new film. However, I have just watched a documentary which purported to explain the history behind the film but which gave such a biased and unbalanced view of events that it left me seething.
I have no problem with the theory that the Ninth may have been destroyed in Britain. The argument put forward in the documentary is that troops were sent from Spain and Germany to Britain in around 117 AD and that Hadrian brought the Sixth Legion with him when he visted in 122AD. There is certainly a plausible argument that says this could have been to replace troops lost in serious fighting and that the Ninth could have been destroyed around this time.
However, the programme only interviewed "experts" who held this apocalyptic view and there were no contributions at all from any historian holding any other point of view and this theory was presented almost as fact.
In my view, there were several other misrep[resentations of events. Without wishing to bore anyone, I noticed the following:-
1. The famous Silchester Eagle that Rosemary Sutcliffe used as her inspiration for her novelwas examined. The museum curator was asked if it could be a military Eagle and specifically and categorically said it was civil, not military. Cut to the presenter who said something like, "So while we cannot prove it was military, it may still support the theory of the lost legion". In his defence, perhaps he was not listening to the person he was interviewing.
2. Letters from Vindolanda were cited as evidence that the Ninth could have been involved in heavy fighting with northern tribes, completely ignoring the fact that Vindolanda, along with the rest of the Wall, was built after the Ninth allegedly disappeared.
3. We were told that Hadrian had no reason to come to Britain except to sort out a major disaster and that building the Wall was an admission of defeat. This completely ignored the known fact that Hadrian toured the entire empire and had other defences built, including a wall in Africa. He also withdrew from Mesopotamia. This was his policy, reversing the expansionism of his predecessors. There was no mention of this policy, nor of any of his actions outside of Britain..
4. Pits found on the berm beyond the Wall were explained as possibly being the remains of a wooden defensive wall built to protect the legions from attack while constructing the stone Wall and were therefore evidence of native unrest and constant attack. This ignores the fact that such pits were also found by the Antonine Wall and were more lkely simply part of the defensive barrier.
5. We were told that the reason there is no written evidence of the Ninth's destruction is that Hadrian probably wanted to hush up the loss of a legion. This seems stretching things more than a bit. The Romans were never afraid to mention their own losses and at the very least one would have expected Hadrian to have claimed credit for re-establishing order and Antoninus Pius to have recorded that his later advance into northern Britain was to avenge any such loss. It seems far more likely to me that there is no written evidence either because the disaster never happened or because, if it did, the records simply have not survived.
Well, that is a bit of a rant, for which i apologise. I am not disputing that the Ninth may have been destroyed but if TV producers are going to make "historical" documentaries, you would think they could at least present a balanced view and take all the facts into account instead of selectively choosing the ones that fit thier own preconceived ideas and presnting theory as fact. Or is that too much to ask these days? Is the British public so stupid that it must have its mind made up for it by TV programmes? Can we not be given the facts and the conflicting theories and be allowed to form our own opinion? Apparently not.
Tony (aka Mr Angry)Β I agree with you entirely -
Message 9
Posted by Tim of Acleah (U1736633) on Friday, 27th May 2011
When I was at University taking my first degree (1969 to 72) which included a module on archaeology up tothe end of Roman Britain, I was told that the only evidence for the destruction of the 9th was its disappearance from the records but that evidence had since been uncovered that it had been posted to the Rhine. It later did disappear from the records.
Tim -
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 27th May 2011
Tony,
History programme which set out to prove a theory annoy me too - especially where they ignore inconvenient evidence such as the Silchester Eagle comments.
2. Letters from Vindolanda were cited as evidence that the Ninth could have been involved in heavy fighting with northern tribes, completely ignoring the fact that Vindolanda, along with the rest of the Wall, was built after the Ninth allegedly disappeared.</quote>
Vindolanda as a fort definitely predates Hadrian's Wall (and the alleged disappearance of the ninth legion) by almost 40 years. Perhaps you're thinking of it's reoccupation which was contemporary with Hadrian's Wall.
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 Β 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
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.