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

[Robert Vermaat]

Hello Dr Russell,

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

Indeed, and my thanks for the worthwhile replies.

Vortigern Studies wrote:
he's turning things around: it was the 'legend' of the Ninth disappearing in Scotland which became a fact over the years, without a shred of evidence.
Yes - exactly right, I agree.

OK, I’m glad we cleared that one. I guess this sentence belongs to an overeager BBC journalist then?

I find it odd that so many seem to cling on to the ‘transfer’ theory.

Agreed. However, you have suggested a destruction in Britain as a result of an uprising, but also without providing evidence.
Your solution that the Sixth was a replacement for the destroyed Ninth might seem a solution, but it is still extremely close to the supposed destruction of the Ninth.

I mean, given that the Sixth arrived in 122, and that the Ninth was destroyed at that time (possibly even in 121 at the time of Hadrian’s visit, or even the year before that) Aemilius Karus would have been either a survivor of the destroyed legion, if his service with the legion would date back to 122. Following that, the Ninth can hardly have been gone by the 110s, but must have been destroyed before 122 (when the Sixth arrived), or just a very short time before that (when Karus serves there). Novius Crispinus’ tribunate (‘as late as the mid-120’) might even postdate the arrival of the Sixth in 122, meaning that the Sixth could not have been a replacement of a destroyed Ninth.

Of course, any one of these men may have been a survivor, but to me it would be a bit strange that officers who survive a destroyed legion (a tribune no less) go on to have very distinguished careers, instead of suffering the shame of a lost eagle etcetera.

Any which one of these cases to me presents, although indeed like you say ‘possibly’, more evidence of a Ninth legion serving outside Britain, while being replaced by the Sixth in 122, than a destroyed legion between the late 110s and 122. We are however in full agreement that there is no firm evidence about the final fate of the Ninth.

Vortigern Studies wrote:
In fact he's wrong on more facts. According to Dr Miles, the historians claim about the Ninth is that "sometime before AD 160, they were wiped in out in a war against the Persians.” Of course, that should be 'the Parthians', but who paying attention to detail, really?
Well if you want to be really pedantic the Parthians WERE part of the Persian Empire and therefore are culturally (if not ethnically or politically) Persian. I guess if you say ‘Parthian’ to the general public they’ll counter with ‘er…?’ (same with Sassanid or Seleucid I guess) but ‘Persian’ strikes a chord (even if there’s a feeling with most people today that it only applies to Iran).

I’m sure I’m not the only one who can’t follow you in this. Pedantic or not, the fact that the Parthians were once part of the Achaemenid Persian empire does not make them Persians at all. Of course they claimed to be the successors to the Achaemenids, but that does not make them Persians, linguistically, culturally nor politically. Persians were ethnically just a part from this empire, as were the Sassanid Persians after them. Their language was related but different. Etcetera. Nor were the Seleucids, who were defeated by the Parthians, Persians. They were the Hellenist successors to Alexander, ruling over Persians, but very different.
If we would make such comparisons when discussing the Roman empire, we could suggest that the Franks (or the Goths, the Saxons, or any number of successor states) were in fact Romans, because they were once part of the Roman empire, and ‘therefore’ culturally (if not ethnically or politically) Roman.

I know ‘Persian’ strikes a chord with the general public, but I don’t think that we should provide them with the wrong information, even though they may not recognize that information. The newspapers are already full of such nonsense, and I think it’s our task to educate, not participate in the dumbing down of the general public.

Vortigern Studies wrote:
Dr . Russell seems to advocate this idea about the Ninth in his publications. I did not read his 'Bloodline' book
Perhaps you should? I can’t claim that you’ll like it (in fact I suspect you won’t) but then I read lots of stuff on a daily basis that I don’t like or don’t actually agree with, just so I know what arguments are ‘out there’ in order to debate or argue against more successfully.

Oh, I certainly should, I fully agree with you. It’s just that I have a small mountain of books and articles to read, and no spare time to accomplish that any time soon. I promised Jasper 2 reviews 2 years ago.. We should have spare lives, or gadgets like Harry Potter, to read and at the same time do other things in a parallel universe..

Why would you suspect I would not like it? I collect Arthurian stuff (novels and theories), and I like everything one that’s well written or well argued. I also publish theories on my website (Vortigern Studies) which I don’t agree with, as long as they are not utter nonsense.

Vortigern Studies wrote:
So far, I think this 'growing academic support' is limited to dr. Russell.
Well, we obviously move in different academic circles as no one I’ve spoken to over the last year seems supportive of the ‘transfer theory’ – guess we’ll have to agree to disagree there and draw a line under it.

I have no doubt that we do!
But have any of these academics also published their opinions? I’d like to read some of their ideas (if I can ever get through the aforementioned mountain).
Of course we can agree to disagree, we can discuss the various reasons behind our opinions though.