Caledonii incursion 180AD - Information?

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Does any one have any material on the incursion of the tribes north of the wall in the reign of Commodus round 180AD?

I know a general was killed, and some forts destroyed, but not much else. I think Cassius Dio wrote about it? Lasted about four years and all that.... does anyone have any sources or material relating to it?

Thanks.

[D B Campbell]

I know you are not an ancient history/archaeology student, Yuri, so I thought it might be useful to explain where an ancient history/archaeology student would find this kind of information. Hopefully, this will be useful in future.

(1) One of my prized possessions is a small 40-page booklet published by Newcastle Museum of Antiquities in 1971: J.C. Mann (ed.), The Northern Frontier in Britain From Hadrian to Honorius: literary and epigraphic sources, which is a collection of 204 quotations (mostly in Latin; Greek sources are translated). It is long out-of-print, but occasionally pops up as a "used book" at a reasonable price.

(2) The London Association of Classical Teachers publishes an excellent compendium of Literary Sources for Roman Britain (edd. J.C. Mann & R.G. Penman, 1978 = Lactor #11), which is still available in a new updated edition. (The sources are translated, but not numbered.)

(3) A poor substitute (in my opinion) is Stanley Ireland's Roman Britain: A Sourcebook (3rd edn., 2008), which I reviewed here. (A poor substitute, because it doesn't give the sources in their original language, so they can easily be misinterpreted.) The sources are numbered.

Finally getting to your question ... :roll: Mann (1971) presents the evidence as item 83: Cassius Dio 72.8. (Also in Lactor #11. And in Ireland 2008, p. 103 no. 152.) Commodus took the title Britannicus maximus in AD 184 (e.g. ILS 393, 394, 395; numerous coins, noted by Mann 1971 as items 87, 88, 89, 90, 91), indicating that the trouble was over by then. But we have no indication of how long the unrest had lasted.

Over the years, this overly concise report in Dio has engendered a debate regarding the governorship of Ulpius Marcellus. Some scholars even thought that there must have been two men called Ulpius Marcellus, in order to bring Dio's report into line with the inscriptional evidence (RIB 1329 = Mann 1971, item 84; RIB 1463-4 = Mann 1971, items 85-86). E.g. M.G. Jarrett, "The Case of the Redundant Official", in: Britannia 8 (1978), 289-92; M. Brassington, "Ulpius Marcellus", in: Britannia 11 (1980) 314-5. The Guttmann diploma of AD 178 (Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas # 184) has pretty much clarified the Ulpius Marcellus problem and solved the debate -- not noted by Ireland (I should have added this in my review! :wink: ).

Apologies for a lengthy lecture ..!

[Nathan Ross]

The Guttmann diploma of AD 178 (Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas # 184) has pretty much clarified the Ulpius Marcellus problem and solved the debate

Any chance you could tell us the answer then? 8) (those of us with rather smaller bookshelves...)

- Nathan

[D B Campbell]

Any chance you could tell us the answer then?

Can't you wait to read Tony Riches' book which appears to centre on Ulpius Marcellus?! :wink:

[Tony Riches]

Just buy the first one, (Wounds of Honour), which focuses on the start of the rebellion - but please note - IT"S FICTION!

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I thought I had seen your name somewhere...... :roll:

[Tony Riches]

No worries, I never expected to be a household name - more like a household cleaner.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I know you are not an ancient history/archaeology student, Yuri, so I thought it might be useful to explain where an ancient history/archaeology student would find this kind of information. Hopefully, this will be useful in future.

(1) One of my prized possessions is a small 40-page booklet published by Newcastle Museum of Antiquities in 1971: J.C. Mann (ed.), The Northern Frontier in Britain From Hadrian to Honorius: literary and epigraphic sources, which is a collection of 204 quotations (mostly in Latin; Greek sources are translated). It is long out-of-print, but occasionally pops up as a "used book" at a reasonable price.

(2) The London Association of Classical Teachers publishes an excellent compendium of Literary Sources for Roman Britain (edd. J.C. Mann & R.G. Penman, 1978 = Lactor #11), which is still available in a new updated edition. (The sources are translated, but not numbered.)

(3) A poor substitute (in my opinion) is Stanley Ireland's Roman Britain: A Sourcebook (3rd edn., 2008), which I reviewed here. (A poor substitute, because it doesn't give the sources in their original language, so they can easily be misinterpreted.) The sources are numbered.

Finally getting to your question ... :roll: Mann (1971) presents the evidence as item 83: Cassius Dio 72.8. (Also in Lactor #11. And in Ireland 2008, p. 103 no. 152.) Commodus took the title Britannicus maximus in AD 184 (e.g. ILS 393, 394, 395; numerous coins, noted by Mann 1971 as items 87, 88, 89, 90, 91), indicating that the trouble was over by then. But we have no indication of how long the unrest had lasted.

Over the years, this overly concise report in Dio has engendered a debate regarding the governorship of Ulpius Marcellus. Some scholars even thought that there must have been two men called Ulpius Marcellus, in order to bring Dio's report into line with the inscriptional evidence (RIB 1329 = Mann 1971, item 84; RIB 1463-4 = Mann 1971, items 85-86). E.g. M.G. Jarrett, "The Case of the Redundant Official", in: Britannia 8 (1978), 289-92; M. Brassington, "Ulpius Marcellus", in: Britannia 11 (1980) 314-5. The Guttmann diploma of AD 178 (Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas # 184) has pretty much clarified the Ulpius Marcellus problem and solved the debate -- not noted by Ireland (I should have added this in my review! :wink: ).

Apologies for a lengthy lecture ..!

Thanks Duncan, I do apologise for the very late reply, I just recently moved to my uni flat which is currently without internet.

Thanks for the thorough explanation, its in no way a lecture. So basically, we don't really know how long it lasted, and under which circumstances the ''general'' was killed. I read somewhere it was probably during a routine inspection of the wall, but why would Cassius Dio go through the trouble of also saying ''with his troops''? Is it not possible he perished with his legion, or a vexilatio of it?

Best Wishes,
Yuri

[Nathan Ross]

So basically, we don't really know how long it lasted, and under which circumstances the ''general'' was killed. I read somewhere it was probably during a routine inspection of the wall, but why would Cassius Dio go through the trouble of also saying ''with his troops''? Is it not possible he perished with his legion, or a vexilatio of it?

I think this 'wall inspection' idea supposes that the 'general' killed was the governor of Britain, who would usually have been based in London. There's no evidence to suggest it, as far as I know, and it's never seemed very likely - Dio implies that the 'general' was killed after the enemy had crossed the wall, so there would have been nothing 'routine' about the situation, and no need to invent reasons explain the presence of a Roman commander and troops in the area.

To expand on Duncan's point, the 178AD diploma states that Ulpius Marcellus was governor of Britain at that time. Dio has Marcellus 'sent' by Commodus to deal with the invasion, and the imperial title of 184AD indicated that the battle was won by that year. Perhaps Marcellus was governor for a longer than usual period (not impossible), but then we would need to explain Dio's point about Commodus 'sending' him against the enemy - Marcellus seems to have been a rather vigorous character, and would surely not need prompting! Alternatively, then, he was replaced some time between 178 and 183/4 with another man, who was either himself killed in battle with the Caledonians, or perhaps superceded due to his inept handling of the situation (ie the death of a legate and the loss of a large number of troops). Marcellus, who had presumably demonstrated his abilities in his previous governorship, would therefore be 'sent' back to the province by Commodus to restore order, doing so by 184.

- Nathan