The Fate of Legio XXII Deiotariana and Sundry Related Problems

[Flavius Inismeus]

The long-serving Egyptian legion XXII Deiotariana was last attested in a papyrus dated to AD 119, when it was based at Nikopolis next to Alexandria along with III Cyrenaica. Along with the more famous IX Hispana it disappeared at some time during the following half-century. What did happen to Deiotarus' legion? The theories can be summed up as "Alexandria, Judaea, or Elegeia?"

Now, the early Hadrianic time saw a game of musical chairs in the East, several legions changing bases in the aftermath of Trajan's Parthian war. I think Radu Urloiu was the last one to tackle the subject of their dislocation in AD 119 in "Legio XVI Flavia Firma from Its Creation to the Early Years of Hadrian" (Cogito, Multidisciplinary Research Journal 3 (2010): 71–81). Urloiu came up with the following: 

Cappadocia XII Fulminata (Melitene), XV Apollinaris (Satala)
Syria III Gallica (Raphaneae), IV Scythica (Zeugma), XVI Flavia Firma (Samosata)
Iudaea II Traiana Fortis (Caparcotna), X Fretensis (Hierosolyma)
Arabia VI Ferrata (Bostra)
Aegyptus III Cyrenaica and XXII Deiotariana (Nikopolis).

What did happen in the East in the following 40+ years? To get the North sorted: Syria certainly kept those three excepting the period when III Gallica was taken by legate Marcellus into Judaea to deal with the Bar Kokhba revolt, Cappadocia might've received another legion at some period during the reign of Antoninus Pius, because Sedatius Severianus is presumed to have lost one at Elegeia, and XII and XV continued to exist. It appears that Arrian had only two legions in AD 135 when checking the Alani; Pius or perhaps Hadrian could've reinforced Cappadocia with another legion. 

The problems with the theory are manifold: no known base, no known evidence at all. Did Cappadocia receive legates with greater seniority on supposedly becoming a three-legion province? Doesn't look like it, it sure was no Syria or Britannia. Indeed, how about XII or XV getting destroyed at Elegeia and then reformed by the Augusti? For what it's worth, Severianus could've led a legion-sized group of vexillations from his two legions into the jaws of Parthians.

Now, the South. "The conclusion of our study is there are enough convincing proves for the presence of the legio VI Ferrata in Arabia to say at least for the early years of Hadrian’s reign," writes Urloiu. The epigraphic evidence is, as always, not fully clear, but if we assume that III Cyrenaica already was garrisoning Arabia, there's no place for VI Ferrata anywhere; I guess Urloiu is right. 

VI Ferrata must've replaced II Traiana in Judaea during the second round of musical chairs associated with the Parthian border crisis of AD 123. Mor in his recent book "The Second Jewish Revolt: The Bar Kokhba War, 132-136 C.E." writes that "according to the movements of the legions in the region during the years 117–135, only Legio VI Ferrata could have replaced Legio II Traiana in Judaea in 123 CE"; as an aside, it's a good thing Werner Eck has not to my knowledgeaddressed the question directly, or Mor would've come up with another legion swap!   Anyway, Nathan Ross noted yesterday that Mor "isn't too convinced about the legion's involvement in that war." What can I add? Clearly, there is absolutely no direct evidence that XXII Deiotariana fought and died in the Bar Kokhba War, yet its demise in Judaea appears to me the the most logical end, especially in comparison with that proposed by Mor in 1986 in "Two Legions-The Same Fate? (The Disappearance of the Legion IX Hispana and XXII Deiotariana)" (ZPE):

The fact that after 119 there is no evidence for the presence of the legion in Egypt or in any other province, hints that it was destroyed before the Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Between the years 119-132, however, there were no large scale military events outside Egypt which could account for the destruction of a legion. Only internal problems, like the riots in Alexandria in the years 121/122, may provide the key to this unsolved mystery.

The legion destroyed in a urban riot is I think, an unheard-of event, especially with Hadrian soon reducing the garrison of Egypt to a single one immediately thereafter and even taking a vexillatio out of it during the Parthian crisis of AD 123, whichever legion it was, likely III Cyrenaica still. Even if we are to suppose that Egyptians, or at least the most martially inclined ones, receive some fighting experience and hoarded weapons during the Jewish Diaspora war in the late Trajanic period, but massacring a whole legion in a urban tumultus? Doesn't seem likely, especially given that the riot was supposedly calmed by a single admonitory letter penned by disgruntled Hadrian.

Judaea circa 132-133 remains the best possibility (or the worst, if you're a legionary of the Twenty-second!), given the general scarcity of sources on the Second Revolt; pity we had no Second Josephus. We can speculate that the destruction of XXII Deiotariana was the event which prompted Hadrian to call on Julius Severus' services, but let's not be too Dando-Collinsey! :-)

[Nathan Ross]

Interesting question!

The last evidence for the existence of the 22nd is, as you say, a letter of Hadrian (BGU 140) dated 4 August AD119, about the inheritance rights of soldiers' children 'written in the the winter camp of III Cyrenaica and XXII Deiotariana'.

There's also possibly the 'erased' inscription from the Caesarea aqueduct, with might relate to the 22nd... or might not.

By c123, II Traiana seem to have moved to Egypt, taking the place of the other legion, which is never heard of again.

The most logical assumption, I think, remains that it was somehow destroyed in the Bar Kokhba war, or disbanded in disgrace following some poor performance against the Jewish rebels (perhaps involving the loss of its eagle?)

However, there are problems with this - legions which lost eagles were not always disbanded (V Alaudae, for example, was not). And while there are oblique references to heavy losses in the revolt, there are no references to the loss of an entire legion. Plus - why would XXII have been in Judea? The 'musical chairs' of legion deployment doesn't leave much room for an extra legion in the province, and if they were based elsewhere they would more likely have sent a vexillation to the war than come in full strength.

The idea that the legion's fate relates to the 'Apis Bull' riots in Alexandria in 121/22 might seem a bit unlikely - could a bunch of rioters really destroy a legion? But we should maybe consider that the legion wouldn't have to have been totally 'destroyed', or even defeated in some kind of battle. What if the legionaries of XXII were themselves involved in the rioting? Or what if their suppression of the rioters was so extreme that they somehow disgraced the name of their unit?

There's another slight possibility, but I don't know how feasible it might be. The earliest dated reference, I think, to II Traiana Fortis is a milestone from Judea, in the period Dec 119-Dec 120. The legion presumably existed earlier - the name, and a few possible officers' careers - but we don't know when it was formed, or where.

Might there be a chance that II Traiana actually was XXII Deiotariana under a new name? Or that II simply absorbed XXII (perhaps rather depleted) when it moved to Egypt? In the first case, the old XXII - or a large chunk of it - might have been moved to Syria c.113 and gained a new title after Trajan's Parthian War. Their old camp back in Egypt was maybe still referred to by Hadrian as 'the winter camp of III Cyrenaica and XXII Dieotariana', although the latter legion was no longer there and operating under a new name, so to speak. Then, when II Traiana was moved back to Egypt a few years later it simply took up its old quarters under the new name.

Convoluted, maybe - but do we have evidence of other legions being renamed like this? It would provide a good explanation for the 'dissappearance' of the legion, without having to assume massive battle losses or to indulge in too much 'musical chairs'!

[Timus]

Weird. That made me open again my database of inscriptions and out of 3000+, I could not find a single XXII Deiotariana. I have 38 XXII Primigenia 1 XXII PF and 5 XXII without a surviving name but that's it. I've got 11 II Traiana for what it's worth.
That makes me want to figure a way of adding a date variable of some sort. Between that and the location of the inscriptions that I already have, that would be really interesting.

Aw lord, for the life of me I can't find the spoiler option. Sorry for the huge post.

XXII PF and others

C(aius) Vibulius / C(ai) f(ilius) / O(u)fent(ina) Valentin/us Mediola(no) / mil(es) leg(ionis) XXII / an(norum) XXXVIII stip(endiorum) / XVIII h(ic) s(itus) e(st)

Aulus Baebius C(ai) f(ilius) / Scap(tia) Cleme(n)s Faes(ulis) / m(iles) l(egionis) XXII an(norum) XLI / stip(endiorum) XXIIII h(ic) s(itus) e(st) / Crescens L(uci) f(ilius) c(uravit)

[D(is)] M(anibus) / e<t=E> perpetu(a)e securitati Lupionius / Suebus mil<e=I>s leg(ionis) <XXII=IIXX> mil(i)tavit an/nis XII duplic{i}arius vixit annis / triginta quinque (h)eredes / facer(e) cur(ave)runt

M(arcus) Mucius M(arci) f(ilius) / Pub(lilia) Albi(ngauno) Pud(ens) / mi(les) le(gionis) XXII an(norum) / XXX stip(endiorum) IX / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)

Dis Manibus / T(ito) Terentio Titullo / |(centurioni) leg(ionis) XXII Piae Fidelis / militavit ann(is) XXXI / vixit ann(is) LIII dieb(us) XXVIII / Terentius Naredymus / Terentia Syntyche / Terentius Priscus / Terentius Epaphra / Terentius Candidus / Terentius Lascivos(!) / Terentius Epaphroditus lib(erti) / patrono bene meren(ti) fecerunt / Naredimus de suo quod potuit / fecit

C(aius) Bassius C(ai) f(ilius) Pol(lia) Crispus / Tavio mil(es) leg(ionis) XXII |(centuria) Papiana / vixit annos XXV mil(itavit) (!) IIII / h(ic) s(itus) est

II Tr
trimmed_text

Dis Manibus Laberius Fortunatus miles legionis II Traianae cohorte IIII hastati prioris militavit annos XXIII Equinus Pompeianus optio secundus heres bene merenti memoriam fecit
Imperatori Caesari Tito Aelio Hadriano Antonino Augusto Pio pontifici maximo tribunicia potestate XX consuli IIII patri patriae veterani legionis II Traianae Fortis qui militare coeperunt Augurino et Sergiano consulibus stipendiorum XXVI et Hibero et Sisenna consulibus stipendiorum XXV missi honesta missione sub Marco Sempronio Liberale praefecto Aegypti et Lucio Iulio Crescente praefecto castrorum cohors I centuria Iuli Crescentis primi pili Publius Scantius Saturninus Caesarea Lucius Aemilius Geta Oea Lucius Fannius Fuscus Lepti Titus Flavius Diadumenus Roma Publius Cattius Faustinus Hadrymeto Caius Pompullius Eucharistus Abella Marcus Fabius Successus Lepti Caius Antonius Longus Gabala centuria Mari Quadrati Tiberius Claudius Fidus Blere centuria Vibi Veri Caius Iulius Severus Carthagine Caius Rubrius Saturninus Carthagine centuria Flavi Aviani Lucius Iunius Iustus Lepci Quintus Pompeius Saturninus Carthagine Marcus Aburius Celer Neapoli Titus Flavius Antiochus Roma centuria Arreni Apollinaris Caius Annius Apollinaris Caesarea Decimus Iunius Felix Carthagine Lucius Aurelius Nepos Sora Caius Crepereius Pudens Thysdro Marcus Caecilius Severus Epifania Marcus Ulpius Diodorus Larissa cohors II centuria Iuli Frontonis Caius Iulius Magnus Anazerbo Caius Arellius Maximus Carthagine centuria Antoni Pudentis Caius Antonius Valens Antiochia Caius Luccius Valerianus Epifania centuria Pomponi Bassi Quintus Iulius Fabianus Utica Lucius Valerius Primus Carthagine Decimus Centenius Faustinus Carthagine centuria Aeli Pharnaciani Lucius Rofillius Agrippinus Cyrro Lucius Salvius Seleucus Apamea centuria Valeri Aquilae Lucius Farsuleius Felix Carthagine centuria Tori Victoris Lucius Crepereius Secundus Thamb Sextus Maecilius Capito Cirta Marcus Helvius Proculus Carthagine cohors III centuria Iuli Repositi Caius Nammeius Peregrinus Uthina Caius Iulius Trebianus Laudicea Caius Ulpius Iovinus Lepci centuria Claudi Germani Caius Iulius Felix Uthica Quintus Ennius Marcianus Utica Caius Sertius Fadius Praesens Iguvio centuria Atti Aucti Lucius Bellenius Iulianus Pergi Caius Pomponius Saturus Carthagine Caius Flaminius Regulus Sutrio centuria Palaesi Respecti Caius Licinius Crispinus Bas Lucius Insteius Felix Thuburbo Maius Caius Terentius Asclepiades Prusiade Caius Granius Felix Carthagine centuria Frontiniana Titus Planius Saturninus Carthagine Caius Munatius Faustus 3 centuria Iuli Marti Quintus Urbius Felix 3 Caius Iulius Laetus 3 cohors IIII centuria Iuli Hannibali Caius Herennius Piso Thysdro Marcus Antistius Felix Utica centuria Papi Firmi Quintus Licinius Trachalus Utica Lucius Stabius Tertius Beryto centuria Titidi Maximi Quintus Aurelius Nummus Lepci Marcus Volusius Impetratus Assuribus cohors V centuria Livi Severi Lucius Iulius Aemilianus Lepti Caius Valerius Felix Carthagine centuria Volusi Senecae Marcus Laelius Victor Utica centuria Iuli Felicis Caius Didius Victor Carthagine Publius Caelius Rogatus Hadrumeto Titus Flaminius Felix Carthagine centuria Mutili Clementis Quintus Caelius Secundus Theveste Caius Valerius Clementinus Cyrro Marcus Scribonius Festus Lepti cohors VI centuria 3 3s Lepti centuria 3iani 3ius Acutus Hadrymeto 3ius Censorinus Ara centuria Valeri Optati 1 Flavius Geta Lepti 1 Manilius Probus Carthagine Marcus Valerius Longinus Neapoli 1 Iunius Annianus Lepti centuria Iuni Gemelli Aulus Mucius Aquila Perusio Caius Sallustius Africanus Utica Publius Antistius Fortunatus Ameria centuria Sevi Leonis Caius Manlius Macrinus Maxula Lucius Tadius Blandus Carthagine Lucius Tadius Vitalis Carthagine centuria Victoriana Caius Bassius Celer Tavio Caius Cincius Perpetuus Ammedara speculator praefecti Marcus Pomponius Silvanus Thysdro Publius Agrius Felix Melzi Caius Longinius Valens Caesarea cohors VII centuria Aureli Theonis Publius Quintinianus Verus Pisis centuria Pompei Siculini Publius Tullius Martialis Thuburbo Decimus Octavius Victor Carthagine centuria Flavi Sereni Lucius Aelius Aquila Thamb Titus Aemilius Ponticus Ammedara Caius Furfianus Crescens Cuicul beneficiarius praefecti centuria Vibi Postumi Sextus Geminius Montanus Sebaste centuria Aeli Sabini Lucius Annius Lupus Varvaria beneficiarius praefecti cohors VIII centuria Minici Sereni Tiberius Claudius Fructus Roma Lucius Popilius Felix Carthagine Lucius Thunnius Fortunatus Carthagine centuria Domiti Materni Lucius Trebius Felix Utica Marcus Octavius Victor Utica Marcus Didius Secundus Nuceria Titus Helvius Neo Amiso centuria Tulli Proculi Quintus Nautius Secundus Carthagine Quintus Lucceius Pudens Brixello Caius Cornelius Victor Carthagine Caius Turpilius Celer Carthagine centuria Antoni Aciliani Caius Vibius Titianus Ptolomaide Caius Sempronius Gallus Achola centuria Iuli Gemellini Caius Graeceius Extricatus Carthagine centuria Ulpi Martini Titus Flavius Maximus Ascalone cohors VIII centuria Agri Maximi Caius Barucius Silvanus Barari Lucius Arruntius Felix Carthagine centuria Aeli Proculi Lucius Magnius Adiutor Thysdro Caius Caecilius Secundus Carthagine centuria Iuli Alexandri Quintus Iulius Saturninus Antiochia centuria Sergi Longi Caius Octavius Rogatus Carthagine centuria Semproni Gemini Quintus Aedinius Gracilis Utica Caius Pompeius Felix Utica Caius Magnius Felix Utica Caius Magnius Felix Utina cohors X centuria Octavi Montani Caius Antonius Sallustianus Lepci Aulus Octavius Berytius Beryto centuria Gerellani Verini Titus Flavius Tertius Nicomedia centuria Caecili Syriaci Marcus Calpurnius Germanus Gadara Quintus Caecilius Cerialis Lepti Decimus Cornelius Victor Carthagine centuria Semproni Dati Lucius Lurius Ianuarius Carthagine Marcus Arrius Felix Utica Lucius Aiacius Fortunatus Utica centuria Antoni Nerei Caius Iulius Gaetulicus Thenis Marcus Gargilius Felix Carthagine Caius Marius Donatus Thysdro Caius Siccius Datus Carthagine Quintus Tannonius Primus Uthina centuria Corbuloniana Caius Iulius Salvianus Uthica Quintus Trebellius Felix Carthagine
Dis Manibus Aurelius Quintianus candidatus legionis II Traianae Fortis cohorte VIIII hastati posterioris militavit annos XIIII vixit annos XXX3 natione Cilix Aurelius Demetrius centuria primi pili dis3 tribuni heres posuit bene merenti
Dis Manibus Marcus Terentius Rufus miles legionis II Traianae Fortis vixit annos LX militavit annos XXIII Cola Terentia Prepusa liberta eius
CANTVE COS Caius Iulius Fabiianus beneficiarius Gai Antisti Veteris consularis miles legionis II Traianae Fortis vixit annos L militavit annos XXIII
legionis II Traianae Fortis 3 qui militavit 3XXXV 3 heres eius virum sanctissimum
legionis II Traianae Fortis 3 3 militavit annis 3 3 fratri merenti 3
Dis Manibus Aurelium Longinum militem legionis II Traianae Fortis Germanicae Severianae cohorte VIII principis prioris stipendiorum VIIII annorum XXXII Aurelia Isidora coniugi dulcissimo et bene merenti memoriam fecit
Dis Manibus Marcus Aurelius Placidus immunis legionis II Traianae Fortis Germanicae Severianaes centuria II principis posterioris stipendiorum XXI Aurelia Severa patri dulcissimo
Pompeius Verinus miles legionis II Traianae Fortis Germanicae centuria VI pili posterioris stipendiorum VIIII Antistius Probus procurator institutus bene merenti posuit
Dis Manibus sacrum Iulius Bassus Sulpicianus centurio legionis II Traianae Fortis item centurio legionis XXII Primigeniae Piae Fidelis item centurio legionis XIII Geminae item centurio legionis III Augustae Piae Vindicis item centurio legionis III Parthicae Severianae vixit annos LIIII militavit annos XXXVII Iulia Saturnina uxor dulcissimo marito bene merenti fecit curante Iulio Basso Donato procuratore
Quintus Iulius Primus imaginifer legionis II Traianae Germanicae Fortis Antoninianae stipendiorum XXII natione Afer domo Theveste translatum ex legione III Augusta Pia Victrici vixit annis XXXXV Aurelia Dioscorus marito amantissimo fecit

[Nathan Ross]

I could not find a single XXII Deiotariana

There are 11 listed on the Epigraphik Datenbank (search term "XXII Dei") - seven centurions, three tribunes and one vexillation (which could be the aqueduct inscription mentioned above). None have any date evidence, as far as I can see.

I think the 'Deiotariana' name was a late introduction, although apparently connected to the legion's formation; we could assume that the other 'Legio XXII' inscriptions from Egypt relate to the same legion.

[Renatus]

one vexillation (which could be the aqueduct inscription mentioned above)

There are so many square brackets in this inscription that I cannot work out what is actually visible on the stone and what is restored. Has anyone got an image of this?

[Nathan Ross]

Has anyone got an image of this?

I'm assuming that this is a record of the 'erased' inscription from the aqueduct at Caesarea; Abraham Negev apparently examined it in 1963 and decided that the remaining marks (?) suggested an inscription to XXII - later changing his mind and suggesting VI instead. Benjamin Isaac and Israel Roll reexamined the inscription in the 90s and went with XXII again, claiming that the erasure was the result of damnatio memoriae against the legion. I suppose there's no way for anyone to be certain...

   

The more I think about it, the more attractive I find the idea that XXII (last known in Egypt) was somehow renamed or dissolved into II Traiana (later stationed in Egypt)... And perhaps, who knows, IX Hispana (probably last known in Germania Inferior) could have 'become' XXX Ulpia Victrix (later stationed in Germania Inferior)!

[Timus]

I could not find a single XXII Deiotariana

There are 11 listed on the Epigraphik Datenbank (search term "XXII Dei") - seven centurions, three tribunes and one vexillation (which could be the aqueduct inscription mentioned above). None have any date evidence, as far as I can see.

I think the 'Deiotariana' name was a late introduction, although apparently connected to the legion's formation; we could assume that the other 'Legio XXII' inscriptions from Egypt relate to the same legion.

I understand better now, thanks. Most of them didn't have "militavit annis" or an equivalent keyword, so that explains why they weren't included in my dataset. We can add that interesting one though:

T(itus) Gavidius T(iti) f(ilius) Qui(rina) / Primus Utica mil(es) / leg(ionis) XXI Deiot(arianae) |(centuria) Valeri / Fadiani vixit annis / XXXIX mil(itavit) ann(is) XIX cur(am) / egit P(ublius) Valerius Primus / mil(es) leg(ionis) III Cyr(enaicae) |(centuria) Tulli Nigri / h(ic) s(itus) e(st)

province: Aegyptus         place: Al Iskandariyah / Alexandria ; CIL 03, 06602 = CIL 11, *00109,6           EDCS-ID: EDCS-28000891

I looked at the XXIIs without a name. Unfortunately, it turns out none of them is from Egypt:

province: Germania superior         place: Mainz / Mogontiacum ; CIL 13, 06957 = CIL 11, *00222a         EDCS-ID: EDCS-11001015
province: Germania superior         place: Mainz / Mogontiacum ; CIL 13, 06966         EDCS-ID: EDCS-11001024
province: Germania superior         place: Mainz / Mogontiacum ; CIL 13, 06971 = CSIR-D-02-05, 00067 = AE 1982, 00719           EDCS-ID: EDCS-11001030
province: Germania superior         place: Mainz / Mogontiacum ; CIL 13, 06982 = D 02276 = CSIR-D-02-05, 00068           EDCS-ID: EDCS-11001041
province: Thracia         place: Marmaraereglisi / Perinthus         ; CIL 03, 14207,07 (p 2328,86) = Perinth 00077          EDCS-ID: EDCS-30000414
province: Aemilia / Regio VIII         place: Bologna / Bononia    ; EDCS 00212          EDCS-ID: EDCS-51900531

[Flavius Inismeus]

Interesting question!

The last evidence for the existence of the 22nd is, as you say, a letter of Hadrian (BGU 140) dated 4 August AD119, about the inheritance rights of soldiers' children 'written in the the winter camp of III Cyrenaica and XXII Deiotariana'.

There's also possibly the 'erased' inscription from the Caesarea aqueduct, with might relate to the 22nd... or might not.

By c123, II Traiana seem to have moved to Egypt, taking the place of the other legion, which is never heard of again.

The most logical assumption, I think, remains that it was somehow destroyed in the Bar Kokhba war, or disbanded in disgrace following some poor performance against the Jewish rebels (perhaps involving the loss of its eagle?)

However, there are problems with this - legions which lost eagles were not always disbanded (V Alaudae, for example, was not). And while there are oblique references to heavy losses in the revolt, there are no references to the loss of an entire legion. Plus - why would XXII have been in Judea? The 'musical chairs' of legion deployment doesn't leave much room for an extra legion in the province, and if they were based elsewhere they would more likely have sent a vexillation to the war than come in full strength.

The idea that the legion's fate relates to the 'Apis Bull' riots in Alexandria in 121/22 might seem a bit unlikely - could a bunch of rioters really destroy a legion? But we should maybe consider that the legion wouldn't have to have been totally 'destroyed', or even defeated in some kind of battle. What if the legionaries of XXII were themselves involved in the rioting? Or what if their suppression of the rioters was so extreme that they somehow disgraced the name of their unit?

There's another slight possibility, but I don't know how feasible it might be. The earliest dated reference, I think, to II Traiana Fortis is a milestone from Judea, in the period Dec 119-Dec 120. The legion presumably existed earlier - the name, and a few possible officers' careers - but we don't know when it was formed, or where.

Might there be a chance that II Traiana actually was XXII Deiotariana under a new name? Or that II simply absorbed XXII (perhaps rather depleted) when it moved to Egypt? In the first case, the old XXII - or a large chunk of it - might have been moved to Syria c.113 and gained a new title after Trajan's Parthian War. Their old camp back in Egypt was maybe still referred to by Hadrian as 'the winter camp of III Cyrenaica and XXII Dieotariana', although the latter legion was no longer there and operating under a new name, so to speak. Then, when II Traiana was moved back to Egypt a few years later it simply took up its old quarters under the new name.

Convoluted, maybe - but do we have evidence of other legions being renamed like this? It would provide a good explanation for the 'dissappearance' of the legion, without having to assume massive battle losses or to indulge in too much 'musical chairs'!  

Thank you for such a detailed response! Really made me think and look into some scholarly papers.

Plus - why would XXII have been in Judea? The 'musical chairs' of legion deployment doesn't leave much room for an extra legion in the province, and if they were based elsewhere they would more likely have sent a vexillation to the war than come in full strength.

The easiest solution is that II and XXII swapped places in the aftermath of the Parthian crisis, with Hadrian deciding that the Deiotariana was in need of certain changes, or perhaps just feeling like it  - the solution which, of course, has no archaeological or epigraphic support. 

The idea that the legion's fate relates to the 'Apis Bull' riots in Alexandria in 121/22 might seem a bit unlikely - could a bunch of rioters really destroy a legion? But we should maybe consider that the legion wouldn't have to have been totally 'destroyed', or even defeated in some kind of battle. What if the legionaries of XXII were themselves involved in the rioting? Or what if their suppression of the rioters was so extreme that they somehow disgraced the name of their unit?

Very good ideas, I'd say. Yet, such an extraordinary thing should've snuck into the annals and especially into HA - Augusta is big on scandals, even the invented ones. As an aside, the person who compiled it saddled the following generations with a whole load of fake history, never mind fake news now in the news! 

To go into detail: what was too extreme for Egypt back then? Roman Egypt in general was regarded as a weird, who-knows-not-what-monsters-demented-Egypt-worships place. It is accepted that a few years before, the Roman army along with local militias exterminated the Jewish population of Egypt, which was pretty extreme even considering the times - and, I think, served as the bedrock of the later reduction the Egyptian garrison to a single legion, now that there was no internal Jewish threat to account for.

There's another slight possibility, but I don't know how feasible it might be. The earliest dated reference, I think, to II Traiana Fortis is a milestone from Judea, in the period Dec 119-Dec 120. The legion presumably existed earlier - the name, and a few possible officers' careers - but we don't know when it was formed, or where.


Might there be a chance that II Traiana actually was XXII Deiotariana under a new name? Or that II simply absorbed XXII (perhaps rather depleted) when it moved to Egypt? In the first case, the old XXII - or a large chunk of it - might have been moved to Syria c.113 and gained a new title after Trajan's Parthian War. Their old camp back in Egypt was maybe still referred to by Hadrian as 'the winter camp of III Cyrenaica and XXII Dieotariana', although the latter legion was no longer there and operating under a new name, so to speak. Then, when II Traiana was moved back to Egypt a few years later it simply took up its old quarters under the new name.

Gaining a new title after Trajan's Parthian War is unlikely - Cossonius Gallus of ILS 1038 did command II Traiana somewhere; given that he is now supposed to have been consul in 116 or (at the latest) 117 and had served as proconsul of Sardinia and legate of Galatia in between, his command of II Traiana must be dated to c. 110 (" L. Cossonius L. f. Stell(atina tribu) Gallus Vecilius Crispinus Mansuanius Marcellinus Numisius Sabinus pro consule provinciae Sardiniae e la constitutio del Forum Traiani", Gerión 32, 2014, pp. 199-223). II Traiana and XXII Deiotariana must've coexisted for some time.

Addition: Another thing - the prefect of Egypt in command during the Alexandrian riots continued in his post for two or three years, and his supposed son became senator, legate of Arabia and consul. Certainly no imperial displeasure here.

[Nathan Ross]

such an extraordinary thing should've snuck into the annals and especially into HA... the prefect of Egypt in command during the Alexandrian riots continued in his post for two or three years, and his supposed son became senator, legate of Arabia and consul. Certainly no imperial displeasure here.

Yes, good points! We'd have to imagine a situation in which the legion had somehow revolted against their own governor and gone on the rampage, so all the blame would fall on them - but, as you say, such a singular occurance would surely have been recorded! It does seem rather unlikely.

Cossonius Gallus of ILS 1038 did command II Traiana somewhere... II Traiana and XXII Deiotariana must've coexisted for some time.

I spotted Gallus before, and his command does indeed suggest the earlier existence of II. However, thinking laterally - aside from the Hadrian letter of 119 (which strictly speaking refers to the camp rather than the legion itself!), what's the next latest dated evidence for XXII?* They seem to have left comparatively little impression in the historical record. Is there a chance that Hadrian might have referred to the 'camp of the legion' when the legion itself was either elsewhere or operating under a different name?

Conversely, is there also a chance that, by Hadrian's reign, XXII had become so depleted by drafts or low recruitment that the remainder could have been merely absorbed into the new legion II Traiana when they moved to Egypt in c.123?


EDIT * - next latest (probable) evidence would seem to be the Apollinaris Archive, which has the soldier's father Sabinus transferring from III Cyrenaica to another legion in Egypt, probably XXII, in AD106.

Meanwhile, I was rereading Kennedy's paper on the early garrisoning of Arabia. A few interesting points - firstly, according to K, II Traiana must have joined the garrison of Egypt by AD123 at the latest. Secondly, he suggests that an Egyptian legion would not have been based in Judea (although exactly why I'm unsure). Also some intriguing things about eastern legions being augmented by drafts from III Augusta, the Misene fleet and perhaps other places, suggesting recruitment problems.

I also remembered a point I'd made in a previous thread about a reference from the Sibylline Oracles to a legion (called 'the third great ram of Cyrene') being defeated at 'the dikes of the Nile' during the Jewish revolt of 117. This suggests III Cyrenaica, although they're attested in Arabia and Judea at this point... There's also a reference to '[governor] Lupus's other legion' arriving in Memphis. Unfortunately I cannot remember the source for either quote! Although I suspect I may have got them from this book...

The idea that one or both Egyptian legions might have suffered heavily during the Jewish revolt of AD117, and that eastern legions may have had recruitment problems over the following decade, might give support to the idea that XXII Deiotariana was simply incorporated into II Traiana when the latter legion arrived in Egypt c.120.

One other option, as I see it, would be to have three legions in Judea at some point - some consular provinces (Britain?) had three, and Judea was a troublesome place. This would put X Fretensis in Jerusalem, II Traiana (perhaps) at Legio/Caparcotna and XXII somewhere else... One possibility might be a temporary placement around Ascalon and Gaza, perhaps billeted in civilian cities. When VI Ferrata took over Legio, II Traiana moved to Egypt, but XXII must have remained where it was, until meeting its end a decade or so later...

Problem with this - why, in 123 or thereabouts, was II Traiana 'jumped' across into Egypt, while the former Egyptian legion XXII apparently remained in Judea? Why was III Cyrenaica moved to Arabia, when XXII would have been much closer to that new province?

Having XXII no longer in existence at this point makes things a whole lot simpler!

[Flavius Inismeus]

I spotted Gallus before, and his command does indeed suggest the earlier existence of II. However, thinking laterally - aside from the Hadrian letter of 119 (which strictly speaking refers to the camp rather than the legion itself!), what's the next latest dated evidence for XXII?* They seem to have left comparatively little impression in the historical record.

That high water table of Alexandria, sadly.

Is there a chance that Hadrian might have referred to the 'camp of the legion' when the legion itself was either elsewhere or operating under a different name?

As far as I know, scholarly opinions differ. Gatier says there is, Urloiu thinks there isn't.

Conversely, is there also a chance that, by Hadrian's reign, XXII had become so depleted by drafts or low recruitment that the remainder could have been merely absorbed into the new legion II Traiana when they moved to Egypt in c.123?

That's actually a very attractive solution! Hadrian could've been in the 'I'm the new Augustus, I can afford an army drawdown!' mood now that there were no more Egyptian Jews, at least until the Parthian crisis.

Problem with this - why, in 123 or thereabouts, was II Traiana 'jumped' across into Egypt, while the former Egyptian legion XXII apparently remained in Judea? Why was III Cyrenaica moved to Arabia, when XXII would have been much closer to that new province?

The three-legion Judaea option has the same problem -- why not return XXII to good old Egypt instead of sending II Traiana? One solution is that during the Parthian crisis, many Eastern legions were on the move and got somehow scrambled around the western bank of Euphrates, with XXII ending up closer to Judaea and/or II Traiana closer to Egypt - at least there's inscriptional (ILS 5919) evidence of a vexillation composed from elements of II Traiana and (Egyptian) III Cyrenaica, which might well mean that II Traiana already was an Egyptian legion, of course. Perhaps Hadrian was not impressed by the Deiotariana performance in the Diaspora War and decided to give the legion another chance of suppressing the Jews - or maybe he WAS impressed and sent XXII to Judaea out of sheer bloody-mindedness towards the population.

[Nathan Ross]

there's inscriptional (ILS 5919) evidence of a vexillation composed from elements of II Traiana and (Egyptian) III Cyrenaica, which might well mean that II Traiana already was an Egyptian legion

Yes, that's the one Kennedy cites (I think) as evidence that the Egyptian garrison comprised these two legions in AD123.

It's probable, but not necessarily the case - AE 1904,00091 from Jerusalem, dated to just after the Bar Kokhba war (Hadrian is imperator II) mentions vexillations of X Fretensis, II Traiana and XII Fulminata, so apparently detachments operating together didn't have to come from the same province.

The idea you mentioned above, that Traiana and Deiotariana swapped places c.120, seems initially quite attractive: the other legions could maintain their positions, with VI Ferrata in Arabia and III Cyrenaica in Egypt with II Traiana, leaving XXII at Caparcotna until it's destroyed in the revolt, whereupon VI moves west to Caparcotna and III moves to take its place in Arabia.

However, there are (of course) a couple of problems with this too! The Bar Kokhba revolt seems to have been centred around the Judean Hills/Hebron/Bethar district, spreading west to Emmaus and east to En Gedi and (perhaps) across the Jordan into Arabia. The Galilee region seems to have remained quiet, so unless a legion at Caparcotna left its base and moved south (unwise, surely) there would be little chance of its being 'destroyed' by the rebels.

More importantly, there's CIL 14, 03610, the inscription of C Popilius Carus Pedo trib(uno) laticlavio leg(ionis) III / Cyreneicae donato donis mili/taribus a divo Hadriano ob / Iudaicam expeditionem - clearly, if III Cyrenaica had a senatorial tribune, they could not have been based in Egypt! So they were surely already in Arabia by the time of the war, which would put VI Ferrata at Caparcotna and once again leave XXII Deiotariana homeless...

[Dagalaifus]

I apologize in advance if this theory has already been discussed and discounted, but
what about Cassius Dio "mystery" legion that was obliterated at Elegeia in Armenia?

[Nathan Ross]

what about Cassius Dio "mystery" legion that was obliterated at Elegeia in Armenia?

That's always been one of the options on the table, I think. Dio (71) does mention that 'a legion stationed at Elegeia in Armenia' was completely destroyed, and the usual candidates are XXII and the mysterious IX.

It's problematic though - the location of Elegeia is unknown, but it was probably close to Satala, the base of XV Apollinaris. It seems unlikely that another legion would be 'stationed' so close. Also, the Greek word that Dio uses might not mean 'legion' necessarily, but could refer to a mixed force of detachments and auxiliaries - see Everett Wheeler's footnote 16 here. If Severianus was leading an expeditionary force into Armenia, it would perhaps more likely be composed of detachments of the Cappadocian legions - and besides, legions could be defeated and disgraced in battle without being disbanded, as we see with XII Fulminata in the first Jewish War.

But it could be true, assuming that Cappadocia was promoted to a three-legion province at some point, maybe following the Alanic threat under Arrian's governorship.

The only other options, as I see it, would be either:

1. XXII was a particularly weak or understrength legion, and had perhaps performed badly in the disturbances of 117, and at some point during the army reorganisation of the 120s it was simply disbanded and the manpower used to reinforce II Traiana and/or III Cyrenaica, which had been experiencing recruitment difficulties.

2. XXII remained in Egypt when III Cyrenaica left for Arabia in c123, sharing its camp with II Traiana. In AD132 or so it was marched north en masse against the Jewish rebels around Hebron or Jerusalem and was destroyed, or sufficiently badly mauled or disgraced that whatever remained of it was disbanded, or incorporated into II.

In the second case, it might only have been a vexillation sent and defeated, with perhaps the twin detachment of II Traiana surviving to appear as part of the three-legion vexillation that turns up in Jerusalem a few years later. Although it's still hard to see why the whole legion should be judged on the merits of a detachment!

There's no evidence for either of these, of course, but despite the dramatic appeal of option 2, I tend to think that option 1 seems the more likely.

[Flavius Inismeus]

But it could be true, assuming that Cappadocia was promoted to a three-legion province at some point, maybe following the Alanic threat under Arrian's governorship.

It's a weak base for assumptions, but the known Cappadocian legates of the period (Burbuleius Optatus, Aemilius Karus, Cassius Apollinaris, and the ill-starred Sedatius Severianus) do not look like the legates of a three-legion province; in the 2nd century, Syria and Britannia, especially the former, tended to be the crowning achievements of a long career.

Pannonia Superior was usually entrusted as a first province to a 'new man' who could have been permitted to be the most dangerous man in the empire, with three legions not far from Rome; in the end there was a slight miscalculation with Septimius Severus. Sergius Paullus, an exceptional patrician in Carnuntum, must've been a particular favorite of the Antonines who showered all kinds of honors (Syria, urban prefecture, second consulship) on him.

Cappadocia was often a steeping stone to the three-legion Syria, with Burbuleius and Apollinaris being promoted in such a manner.

To add: I forgot that Moesia Inferior also had three legions for the better part of the century. It did receive both new men and patricians, usually as first consular command. It weakens my thesis, already far from robust.

The only other options, as I see it, would be either:

1. XXII was a particularly weak or understrength legion, and had perhaps performed badly in the disturbances of 117, and at some point during the army reorganisation of the 120s it was simply disbanded and the manpower used to reinforce II Traiana and/or III Cyrenaica, which had been experiencing recruitment difficulties.

2. XXII remained in Egypt when III Cyrenaica left for Arabia in c123, sharing its camp with II Traiana. In AD132 or so it was marched north en masse against the Jewish rebels around Hebron or Jerusalem and was destroyed, or sufficiently badly mauled or disgraced that whatever remained of it was disbanded, or incorporated into II.

There's no evidence for either of these, of course, but despite the dramatic appeal of option 2, I tend to think that option 1 seems the more likely.

I have to admit that I like the second one more, but the first one has an appeal of simplicity.

[Nathan Ross]

Imperatori Caesari Tito Aelio Hadriano Antonino Augusto Pio pontifici maximo tribunicia potestate XX consuli IIII patri patriae veterani legionis II Traianae Fortis qui militare coeperunt Augurino et Sergiano consulibus stipendiorum XXVI et Hibero et Sisenna consulibus stipendiorum XXV missi honesta missione sub Marco Sempronio Liberale praefecto Aegypti et Lucio Iulio Crescente praefecto castrorum cohors I centuria Iuli Crescentis primi pili Publius Scantius Saturninus Caesarea Lucius Aemilius Geta Oea Lucius Fannius Fuscus Lepti Titus Flavius Diadumenus Roma Publius Cattius Faustinus Hadrymeto Caius Pompullius Eucharistus Abella Marcus Fabius Successus Lepti Caius Antonius Longus Gabala centuria Mari Quadrati Tiberius Claudius Fidus Blere centuria Vibi Veri Caius Iulius Severus Carthagine Caius Rubrius Saturninus Carthagine centuria Flavi Aviani Lucius Iunius Iustus Lepci Quintus Pompeius Saturninus Carthagine Marcus Aburius Celer Neapoli Titus Flavius Antiochus Roma centuria Arreni Apollinaris Caius Annius Apollinaris Caesarea Decimus Iunius Felix Carthagine Lucius Aurelius Nepos Sora Caius Crepereius Pudens Thysdro Marcus Caecilius Severus Epifania Marcus Ulpius Diodorus Larissa cohors II centuria Iuli Frontonis Caius Iulius Magnus Anazerbo Caius Arellius Maximus Carthagine centuria Antoni Pudentis Caius Antonius Valens Antiochia Caius Luccius Valerianus Epifania centuria Pomponi Bassi Quintus Iulius Fabianus Utica Lucius Valerius Primus Carthagine Decimus Centenius Faustinus Carthagine centuria Aeli Pharnaciani Lucius Rofillius Agrippinus Cyrro Lucius Salvius Seleucus Apamea centuria Valeri Aquilae Lucius Farsuleius Felix Carthagine centuria Tori Victoris Lucius Crepereius Secundus Thamb Sextus Maecilius Capito Cirta Marcus Helvius Proculus Carthagine cohors III centuria Iuli Repositi Caius Nammeius Peregrinus Uthina Caius Iulius Trebianus Laudicea Caius Ulpius Iovinus Lepci centuria Claudi Germani Caius Iulius Felix Uthica Quintus Ennius Marcianus Utica Caius Sertius Fadius Praesens Iguvio centuria Atti Aucti Lucius Bellenius Iulianus Pergi Caius Pomponius Saturus Carthagine Caius Flaminius Regulus Sutrio centuria Palaesi Respecti Caius Licinius Crispinus Bas Lucius Insteius Felix Thuburbo Maius Caius Terentius Asclepiades Prusiade Caius Granius Felix Carthagine centuria Frontiniana Titus Planius Saturninus Carthagine Caius Munatius Faustus 3 centuria Iuli Marti Quintus Urbius Felix 3 Caius Iulius Laetus 3 cohors IIII centuria Iuli Hannibali Caius Herennius Piso Thysdro Marcus Antistius Felix Utica centuria Papi Firmi Quintus Licinius Trachalus Utica Lucius Stabius Tertius Beryto centuria Titidi Maximi Quintus Aurelius Nummus Lepci Marcus Volusius Impetratus Assuribus cohors V centuria Livi Severi Lucius Iulius Aemilianus Lepti Caius Valerius Felix Carthagine centuria Volusi Senecae Marcus Laelius Victor Utica centuria Iuli Felicis Caius Didius Victor Carthagine Publius Caelius Rogatus Hadrumeto Titus Flaminius Felix Carthagine centuria Mutili Clementis Quintus Caelius Secundus Theveste Caius Valerius Clementinus Cyrro Marcus Scribonius Festus Lepti cohors VI centuria 3 3s Lepti centuria 3iani 3ius Acutus Hadrymeto 3ius Censorinus Ara centuria Valeri Optati 1 Flavius Geta Lepti 1 Manilius Probus Carthagine Marcus Valerius Longinus Neapoli 1 Iunius Annianus Lepti centuria Iuni Gemelli Aulus Mucius Aquila Perusio Caius Sallustius Africanus Utica Publius Antistius Fortunatus Ameria centuria Sevi Leonis Caius Manlius Macrinus Maxula Lucius Tadius Blandus Carthagine Lucius Tadius Vitalis Carthagine centuria Victoriana Caius Bassius Celer Tavio Caius Cincius Perpetuus Ammedara speculator praefecti Marcus Pomponius Silvanus Thysdro Publius Agrius Felix Melzi Caius Longinius Valens Caesarea cohors VII centuria Aureli Theonis Publius Quintinianus Verus Pisis centuria Pompei Siculini Publius Tullius Martialis Thuburbo Decimus Octavius Victor Carthagine centuria Flavi Sereni Lucius Aelius Aquila Thamb Titus Aemilius Ponticus Ammedara Caius Furfianus Crescens Cuicul beneficiarius praefecti centuria Vibi Postumi Sextus Geminius Montanus Sebaste centuria Aeli Sabini Lucius Annius Lupus Varvaria beneficiarius praefecti cohors VIII centuria Minici Sereni Tiberius Claudius Fructus Roma Lucius Popilius Felix Carthagine Lucius Thunnius Fortunatus Carthagine centuria Domiti Materni Lucius Trebius Felix Utica Marcus Octavius Victor Utica Marcus Didius Secundus Nuceria Titus Helvius Neo Amiso centuria Tulli Proculi Quintus Nautius Secundus Carthagine Quintus Lucceius Pudens Brixello Caius Cornelius Victor Carthagine Caius Turpilius Celer Carthagine centuria Antoni Aciliani Caius Vibius Titianus Ptolomaide Caius Sempronius Gallus Achola centuria Iuli Gemellini Caius Graeceius Extricatus Carthagine centuria Ulpi Martini Titus Flavius Maximus Ascalone cohors VIII centuria Agri Maximi Caius Barucius Silvanus Barari Lucius Arruntius Felix Carthagine centuria Aeli Proculi Lucius Magnius Adiutor Thysdro Caius Caecilius Secundus Carthagine centuria Iuli Alexandri Quintus Iulius Saturninus Antiochia centuria Sergi Longi Caius Octavius Rogatus Carthagine centuria Semproni Gemini Quintus Aedinius Gracilis Utica Caius Pompeius Felix Utica Caius Magnius Felix Utica Caius Magnius Felix Utina cohors X centuria Octavi Montani Caius Antonius Sallustianus Lepci Aulus Octavius Berytius Beryto centuria Gerellani Verini Titus Flavius Tertius Nicomedia centuria Caecili Syriaci Marcus Calpurnius Germanus Gadara Quintus Caecilius Cerialis Lepti Decimus Cornelius Victor Carthagine centuria Semproni Dati Lucius Lurius Ianuarius Carthagine Marcus Arrius Felix Utica Lucius Aiacius Fortunatus Utica centuria Antoni Nerei Caius Iulius Gaetulicus Thenis Marcus Gargilius Felix Carthagine Caius Marius Donatus Thysdro Caius Siccius Datus Carthagine Quintus Tannonius Primus Uthina centuria Corbuloniana Caius Iulius Salvianus Uthica Quintus Trebellius Felix Carthagine
(...)

I've just been taking a look through this inscription - really interesting! (although I'm sure it's been mentioned before...)

The men listed here are from II Traiana, and were enlisted, I think, in AD133 and 134 (by the consular names) - i.e. at the height of the Bar Kokba war. First interesting thing - the first cohort has only 5 centuriae listed, whereas II, III, VI, VIII and X have 6. The others have less, which might mean we're just missing one from the first cohort, but it does support the idea that the first cohort had only five centurions (including the primus pilus) at this date...

Second interesting thing - look at the range of places of origin! The majority of men listed come from the provinces of Africa and Cyrenaica: loads from Carthage, Utica, men from Thysdrus and Lepcis. But there are also plenty from the eastern provinces: Antioch, Cyrrus and Ammaedara in Syria, Berytus and Gadara, Ptolemais, Perge and Prusa in Asia, Caesarea and Sebaste, Laodicea, Ascalon, even one from Amisus in Pontus.

Most of the rest appear to be from Italy: Neapolis, Nuceria, Brixellum, Abella in Campania, even a handful from Rome itself. There are a couple of outliers - a man from Varvaria in Dalmatia and one from Larissa in Macedonia.

Why would men from such varied origins be recruited into the same legion (or other legions and subsequently transferred) on these two crucial dates? There are none listed, of course, from Egypt itself! One suggestion might be that the legion was very mobile during this period, moving around the eastern provinces, perhaps. Another could be that it was reinforced with drafts of newly enlisted men from other legions (principally III Augusta?) after suffering heavy losses. Or there was a manpower problem in the area, for some other reason... But why so many Italians? Regional dilectus, perhaps?

Perhaps it doesn't pertain directly to the fate of XXII, but opens some other suggestions, maybe, about the state of the legions in the east at that time.