I've come across contradictory versions of the Second Augustan Legion's role in the Year of the Four Emperors. One (I can't remember where it was) stated that II Aug declared for Vespasian, as a result of which all its centurions were replaced by Vitellian loyalists. However, this website:
http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/legions.htm
reckons that II Aug supported Vitellius. The former would seem to make more sense given Vespasian's links to the legion, but this website has more evidence to back up its claims. Any ideas?
In connection with
legio II Augusta, a first-rate source to have a look at is A.R. Birley's
Officers of the Second Augustan Legion in Britain (Cardiff, 1990; repr. in
The Second Augustan Legion and the Roman Military Machine).
On p.11, Birley writes:
Quote:II Augusta was well disposed to its old legate, Vespasian, Tacitus says in connection with its conduct in 69.
Tacitus' evidence comes from
Histories 3.44:
Quote:... Britain tended to support Vespasian's cause, since he had been sent there by Claudius in command of the Second Legion, and had fought there with great distinction. But the adherence of the province was to some extent opposed by the other legions, in which many of the centurions and soldiers had been promoted by Vitellius. ...
It is true that II Augusta (along with the other two British legions) contributed a detachment to Vitellius' army in AD 69 (
Hist. 2.100), but Tacitus is clear about the main body's adherence to Vespasian.[/url]
Thanks! That's cleared it up nicely. I shall certainly look into that book.
I have a very simple question which will probably be obvious to most people but, unfortunately, my bog-standard Oxfordshire school did not teach me any Latin (notwithstanding the fact that it was a university entrance requirement). When Legio II is referred to as the "Second (Augustan) Legion", does this mean that it was named after Augustas Caesar (ie like "The Duke of Wellington's Regiment"). If so, what is the best way to describe the legion in an article - "Legio II (Augusta)" or the "Second Augustan Legion"? In other words, what is the preferred nomenclature?
I think Legio II Augusta is correct, but I could always be wrong. Everyone says I am so it must be true....
The guidelines for the Journal of Roman Studies suggests that if a foreign word has become naturalized in English that it should be in Roman not Italic. Speciically they cite the use of Legion XV Apollinaris over legio XV Apollinaris. It would seem that Legion II Augusta would be correct
The tombstone of a soldier named Lucius Valerius Gemimus, which was discovered at Alchester Roman site, near Bicester, describes the legion as "LEG II AVG", which (we are assured) is an abbreviated form of "Legionis II Augustae", a possible translation of the full inscription being:
“To the soul of the departed Lucius Valerius Gemimus, the son of Lucius of the Pollia voting district, from Forum Germanorum, veteran of the Second Augustan Legion aged 50 lies here. Set up in accordance with his will”.
The only problem, in my mind, in using the term "Second Augustan Legion" is that some people may assume that there were two Augustan legions. The Alchester tombstone is nevertheless of great interest, insofar as the Bicester area is still an important military centre.
I think I would go with Legion II Augusta.
It is how it appears on the inscription.
I am, as a matter of interest, going to mention Lucius Valerius Gemimus on the "Time Line" of a web site about the military history of Oxfordshire, which is being created by the Soldiers of Oxfordshire Trust. The tombstone suggests that Legio II Augusta may have been stationed at Alchester/Bicester shortly after the Roman invasion, which means that Lucius is the first soldier that we know by name, and his legion was the first regiment to have been based in the Oxford area.
Sounds interesting. We are doing a diary of a soldier on our site, and it would be useful to have this sort of information for our Legion too.
So far. I have only seen the Stele for a signifer from that Legion.