+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Mons Graupius Legions (/showthread.php?tid=16700)
Mons Graupius Legions - AureliusFalco - 04-05-2010
Salve! Having just re-read the great article in Ancient Warfare Magazine about Mons Grapius, a question comes to mind. We know basically what auxillia cohorts were there(the Batavians and Tungrians) but what of the legions? It should be a small list to pick from, there only being three in Britain at the time to choose from. But were there vexillations from other legions on the mainland? If there were 8,000 auxiliaries and some 3,000 cavalry, that would leave about 9,000 men. That would mean three legions at 3,000 apiece or two at about 4,500. Also any clues to the identity of the cavalry units at the battle? Gratias Tibi!
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - D B Campbell - 04-05-2010
You should probably pre-order this. :wink:
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - Peroni - 04-05-2010
Huzzah!
Finally seeing the light of day in July then Duncan?
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - Caballo - 04-05-2010
Huzzah again!
Btw, Peronis, looks like you've been immortalised in a computer game!
http://img212.imageshack.us/i/batavianmq2og4.jpg/
![[Image: batavianmq2og4.jpg]](http://img212.imageshack.us/i/batavianmq2og4.jpg/)
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - AureliusFalco - 04-05-2010
Wow! I'm going to have to!!
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - Nathan Ross - 04-05-2010
Quote:You should probably pre-order this. :wink:
I was wondering whether Mr Campbell would take this opportunity
... In the meantime, however, and lacking his expertise, I would suggest the following points:
1. Legions - there were actually four of them available to Agricola: II Augusta, II Adiutrix, IX Hispana and XX Valeria Victrix. Adiutrix was transferred to the Danube at some point in the later 80s or early 90s, probably following one of the disasters inflicted by Dacians or Sarmatians. However, we do know that a vexillation of at least one British legion (IX Hispana) was sent to the Rhine frontier at some point in the 80s (probably - the inscription to L. Roscius Aelianus Maecius Celer, tribune of the IX, who participated in a 'German expedition' with a vexillation of the legion is undated. It's usually assigned to the period of Domitian's Chattian war, c83, but the dating for this campaign is as disputed as that of Graupius, and as the date of the one in part depends on the date of the other it's all a bit hazy...). The missing vexillation of the ninth has been seen as explanation for their being the weakest legion in the army (Agricola 26), although this could just as easily mean that detachments had been left back in southern Britain. Agricola's army could well have been composed of vexillations rather than full legions - we just don't know. What does appear certain, however, is that the British army were being used as a pool for troops needed elsewhere; it's unlikely, therefore, that any legions or other units would be transferred to Britain during this same period. Agricola's four legions would have been the maximum available to him. Agricola 29 states that the general marched with an army 'equipped for expedition' - thus a light fast moving column. This might suggest vexillations drawn from the four available legions, rather than full units - but since we know so little about the dispositions of the rest of the army we can't be sure.
2. Auxiliaries - The three Batavian and two Tungrian cohorts are mentioned (Agricola 36) as the spearhead of the Roman attack, but this doesn't mean that they were necessarily the majority of the 8000 auxiliary infantry under Agricola's command. Tacitus might have mentioned them in particular because they were the most obviously 'barbarian' unit in the Roman force - the Batavian revolt of the 70s being within fairly recent memory - and thus a good contrast with the legionary troops used as a reserve. We don't know how big these cohorts actually were - quite possibly by this date they were all milliary (1000-strong), giving a total of 5000 men. The writing tablets from Vindolanda suggest that certain Batavian and Tungrian cohorts in Britain were milliary in the late Domitianic/early Trajanic period, but there are discrepancies in the 'strength report' of the First Tungrian Cohort, dated c.90, suggesting that they may have been in a period of transition at that point (Bowman & Thomas, 'A Military Strength Report from Vindolanda', JRS 91 1991). In any case, even with five milliary cohorts there are still 3000 auxiliaries left unaccounted-for!
Another possible clue - the only Roman casualty at Graupius was one Aulus Atticus, a cohort prefect. The name is unusual in Tacitus, who usually gives Roman names as nomen+cognomen. A.R. Birley (The Roman Government of Britain 2005 p93), following a suggestion of Syme, notes that the officer's full name might have been Aulus Julius Atticus, and he the son of Julius Atticus, a writer on viticulture from Narbonensian Gaul and a friend of Agricola's own father. The Batavian and Tungrian cohorts of this period, however (according to Tacitus on the Batavian revolts, and the names of officers on the Vindolanda tablets) were possibly Romanised nobles of the Batavi and Tungri - many of them have the imperial nomen Julius, but none the unusual praenomen Aulus. Atticus was clearly not a Batavian or Tungrian. So either these cohorts were sometimes led by non-native officers (Romans or Romanised Gauls), or there were cohorts in the thick of the battle who were neither Tungrian nor Batavian... Birley also mentions a Gaius Julius Karus, prefect of Cohors II Asturum Equitata, decorated for his part in a British campaign: he too was from Narbonensian Gaul, as was Agricola himself - the battle was probably Graupius, and the Asturian mounted cohort would therefore have been present and in action.
Since several drafts were made on the British army during the Domitianic period, and (as far as I know) no units are attested as being moved from elsewhere to replace them, the force in Britain during Agricola's campaign would presumably by the same as that of a decade of so later, minus II Adiutrix. A military diploma exists giving at least part of this complement for the year 98 - I would imagine, then, that most if not all of the units on that diploma would have been in Britain under Agricola's command. I don't have the full text of the diploma - a helpful person might - but in the meantime the following site provides a handy listing of all available evidence for Roman forces in Britain. Look under auxiliaries, and any that are mentioned as featuring on the 98 diploma, plus a few others (ala Gallorum Sebosiana, for example, noted on a tablet from Carlisle) would probably have been available to Agricola for the Graupius campaign:
[url:2qfcwbgn]http://www.romanbritain.freeserve.co.uk/Auxilia.htm[/url]
Regards - Nathan
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - AureliusFalco - 04-05-2010
I was unaware of the II Adiutrix being in Britain. And I didn't even think about the fact that even if the Batavian and Tungrian cohorts were milliary, they would still be below the estimated auxiliary strength! :oops: It is a shame that Tacitus didn't go into more detail,but I guess since the legions played so little a part he didn't feel it was necessary to record who they were. But if he was singling out the Batavians and Tungrians because of there relative "barbarity", what was his purpose? What was the need of setting such a contrast between the legions and the auxilia? They certainly aren't portrayed in a bad light. Indeed it seems almost the whole credit for winning the battle goes to them. It would almost seem as if he was discrediting the legions,which I doubt he would do given that he was a Senator and a member of the upper class. Was he trying to show how good a general Agricola was by the fact didn't spill "Roman" blood? Or was it that he mentions them simply because the Batavian Revolt was recent memory, and it would bring the Batavians into a good light showing them playing such a key role in the victory and thus erasing the stain of their revolt?
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - Nathan Ross - 04-05-2010
Quote:But if he was singling out the Batavians and Tungrians because of there relative "barbarity", what was his purpose? What was the need of setting such a contrast between the legions and the auxilia? They certainly aren't portrayed in a bad light. Indeed it seems almost the whole credit for winning the battle goes to them. It would almost seem as if he was discrediting the legions,which I doubt he would do given that he was a Senator and a member of the upper class. Was he trying to show how good a general Agricola was by the fact didn't spill "Roman" blood? Or was it that he mentions them simply because the Batavian Revolt was recent memory, and it would bring the Batavians into a good light showing them playing such a key role in the victory and thus erasing the stain of their revolt?
My point was that ancient historians could well have mentioned particular incidents and details more for their rhetorical significance than their historical accuracy! The 'Agricola' in particular was intended as a piece of propaganda - it has been suggested that it was deliberately intended to mirror Caesar's commentaries on the Gallic War, thereby suggesting that Agricola was as good a general as Caesar, and would have been honoured as such if it wasn't for that pesky Domitian... We shouldn't be too uncritical of the text - Tacitus mentions the Batavians and Tungrians alone in the battle, and probably they did play the major part, but there might have been other reasons too.
The speech of 'Calgacus', delivered just before the battle, mentions that the Roman army is 'compounded of the most different nations': "Gauls, and Germans, and (I blush to say it) even Britons, who, though they expend their blood to establish a foreign dominion, have been longer its foes than its subjects[...] Terror and dread alone are the weak bonds of attachment; which once broken, they who cease to fear will begin to hate." (Agricola 32). In other words, Roman domination is weak, and the various nations of auxiliaries have no true bond to Rome.
'Calgacus' almost certainly never existed, and the speech is the work of Tacitus himself. Clearly, as a patriotic Rome, he believed no such thing - so he has to counter this statement and prove it false. In the battle which follows, we see the Batavians and Tungrians (those 'Germans' mentioned by Calgacus?), culturally and militarily very close to the Britons themselves and very recently in open rebellion against Rome, making mincemeat of the Britons and giving Agricola a great victory. This not only proves Calgacus himself wrong (with Roman training and equipment, 'barbarians' can fight as vigorously and as enthusiatically as Romans), but also proves the power of Roman dominion over subject peoples - Agricola wins his battle without having to use his citizen legionaries!
Incidentally, the mention of British auxiliaries suggests that at least some of Agricola's 8000 infantry may have been native British levies from further south, or even from neighbouring allied tribes.
- Nathan
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - AureliusFalco - 04-05-2010
Okay that makes sense. I sometimes forget that the roman historian rarely was writing for a purely historical agenda. More often they were propagandists or story-tellers! Interesting point about Tacitus' Caesar-Agricola connection: I would certainly believe Tacitus capable of it,familial duty and all that! :wink: One wonders if he had the wife in his ear.........
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - D B Campbell - 04-05-2010
Quote:Huzzah!I delivered text + illustrations in July 2009, but the wheels of publishing turn slowly. :roll:
Quote:The missing vexillation of the ninth has been seen as explanation for their being the weakest legion in the army (Agricola 26), although this could just as easily mean that detachments had been left back in southern Britain. Agricola's army could well have been composed of vexillations rather than full legions - we just don't know. What does appear certain, however, is that the British army were being used as a pool for troops needed elsewhere; it's unlikely, therefore, that any legions or other units would be transferred to Britain during this same period.Very perceptive, Nathan. And Tacitus claims that Agricola, remaining with the legionary reserve, "took up his position in front of the vexilla" (Agr. 35.4) -- no mention of aquilae.
Quote:The three Batavian and two Tungrian cohorts are mentioned (Agricola 36) as the spearhead of the Roman attack, but this doesn't mean that they were necessarily the majority of the 8000 auxiliary infantry under Agricola's command. ... In any case, even with five milliary cohorts there are still 3000 auxiliaries left unaccounted-for!Slip of the keyboard, Nathan -- Tacitus mentions four Batavian and two Tungrian cohorts. I assume that these were all quingenary, although technically you are correct -- some could have been milliary by this date. Trawling the diplomas, I have come up with 20 cohorts that were probably in Britain in AD 83, and we can add four Batavian cohorts, who don't appear on the diplomas -- we only need sixteen to make up Tacitus' 8,000, but you can juggle the numbers to allow all 24 to leave holding garrisons in the forts that had probably been built by that time. (We simply don't have any evidence for this, so you could argue until the cows come home.)
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - Nathan Ross - 04-05-2010
Quote:Tacitus mentions four Batavian and two Tungrian cohorts.
He appears to, now I check - "quattuor Batavorum cohortis ac Tungrorum duas cohortatus est"... But the Church and Brodribb translation (which is online in various versions, and was the one I was lazily relying on) gives only three Batavian and two Tungrian. It would appear, actually, that the original text has a lacuna at this point: "Agricola... Batavorum cohortes ac Tungrorum duas cohortatus est" (according to 'Some Notes upon Roman Britain' in Classical Review Vol 18 , 9, 1904) - the missing number having been variously supplied as quinque, tres or quattuor. To be fair, though, it does seem that the latter is the accepted modern one, and the Church/ Brodribb translation is very old (1868?!) and presumably relying on some outdated interpretations... This, I suppose, is one problem with having all these very old translations floating about on the web!
So anyway, less :oops: than :? in this case, but point taken!
- Nathan
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - D B Campbell - 04-05-2010
Quote:It would appear, actually, that the original text has a lacuna at this point: "Agricola... Batavorum cohortes ac Tungrorum duas cohortatus est" (according to 'Some Notes upon Roman Britain' in Classical Review Vol 18 , 9, 1904) - the missing number having been variously supplied as quinque, tres or quattuor. To be fair, though, it does seem that the latter is the accepted modern one, and the Church/ Brodribb translation is very old (1868?!) and presumably relying on some outdated interpretations.The Agricola is certainly a mess at certain points. But this isn't one of them! The problem here is that Church & Brodribb were working from an inferior manuscript. The "good" one wasn't discovered until 1902! (This is not the "Codex Toletanus" that McElderry refers to in the article you've read -- the Toletanus was discovered in 1897 -- but the "Codex Aesinas", which was discovered in 1902 and published in 1907.) And it reads quattuor.
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - Nathan Ross - 04-05-2010
Quote:And it reads quattuor.
... ah, the mists have cleared... Thanks for the clarification, Duncan!
- Nathan
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - Gaius Julius Caesar - 04-06-2010
Who was Aesinas?
Re: Mons Graupius Legions - D B Campbell - 04-06-2010
Quote:Who was Aesinas?No idea!
Here is a page of the Agricola from the "Codex Aesinas", in case anyone is curious to see it.
[attachment=0:1t5b7bqt]<!-- ia0 CodexAesinas_65v_small.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:1t5b7bqt]
You're looking at page 65 verso of the codex, which is the final page of the Agricola and contains ch. 45.3-46.4.
At top left, lines 3-4, you may be able to pick out Tu vero felix, Agricola, non vitae tantum claritate, sed etiam opportunitate mortis (45.3: "You were indeed blessed, Agricola, not only in the brilliance of your life, but because of the moment of your death"; trans. Birley, Tacitus: Agricola and Germany, Oxford World's Classics 1999).
The codex then continues with Tacitus' Germania.
I found the page image on this web site.