Salve!<br>
Do You know the fate of he legions IX Hispana, XXI Rapax, XII Deiotariana? I Found that tha IX Hispana was in garrison duty in Britain, but in early II century it seems to disappear from the army lists; the XXI Rapax after supporting the rebellion of Saturninus was sent on the Danube river, but where?<br>
Did these units survive unitil the crisis after Commodus and were lost in the following civil war, and maybe replaced by the 3 "Parthica" legions of Severus?<br>
<br>
...thanks,<br>
Lucianus <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 6,734
Threads: 489
Joined: Mar 2001
Reputation:
27
IX Hispana: Traditionally, but incorrectly, thought to be lost in Scotland, somewhere after 120 AD. Now it's thought it was destroyed later in Hadrian's reign somewhere in the east. Perhaps one of the IX (or VIIII) Hispana fans here can elobarate on this.<br>
XXI Rapax: Traditional view is that the legion was destroyed by the Sarmathians in 92 CE. Bérard however argues - since there is no trace whatsoever of the legion in Pannonia and Suetionus' declaration in Domitian 7 does not necessarily mean a whole legion was destroyed - that another explanation is needed. He points to some official inscriptions in which the legions nickname and number have been removed and suggests that the legion, a redoubtable fighting unit with bad press, was dissolved in 89 CE as punishment for their role in the revolt of Saturninus (see: F.Bérard, 'XXIe Rapax', in: Y.Le Bohec (ed.), Les Légions de Rome sous le Haut Empire (Lyon 2000). In the same volume is an article in Italian which seems to imply that XXI Rapax survived into the Dacian wars and got its damnatio memoriae from a bad performance there.<br>
XXII Deiotariana: not too clear either, according to Ritterling this legion was most probably destroyed in the Jewish revolt 132-135 CE. Just before that it was stationed in Egypt and it is certainly no longer in being in 145.<br>
<br>
In conclusion: these legions had all disappeared from the lists long before the civil war after Commodus' death. <p>Greets<BR>
<BR>
Jasper</p><i></i>
Thanks again!<br>
<br>
...Lucianus <p></p><i></i>
The fate of the Ninth Legion is a really dodgy topic.<br>
<br>
For many years it was thought that the Ninth Legion was lost in Britain during wars that took place during the late years of Trajan's reign/early years of Hadrian's reign. The last evidence of the Ninth in Britain is from AD 108, and an inscription put above a gate to the newly rebuilt fortress at Eboracum.<br>
www24.brinkster.com/occul...rib665.htm<br>
(copy and paste the URL to see the page)<br>
<br>
<br>
However, a tile stamp of the Ninth's together with a moratorium found at Nijmegan seemed to point to the Ninth's being stationed there in the early 120's (although this has been disputed).<br>
<br>
Various authors (Birley, Keppie, et al.) have argued for a later date for the legion's demise, and this leads to a problem. In a letter to the emperor Marcus Aurelius, Fronto consoles him on the loss of a legion in Armenia, reminding him that "Hadriano imperium optinente quantum militum a Iudacis, quantum a Britannia caesumâ€ÂÂ
Posts: 6,734
Threads: 489
Joined: Mar 2001
Reputation:
27
Legio IX Hispana was in Nijmegen in the early 2nd century, that much is clear. What is disputed is, as you rightly say, is when. But if the legion was transferred to Nijmegen before ca. 120 AD, the garrison of Britain would have been reduced to two legions, with none to guard the north. After all, Legio VI Victrix only arrived in Britain in 122 - a date that for once can be stated with quite some confidence thanks to epigraphy.<br>
<br>
I'm not offering another solution for IX Hispana's disappearance, but it was probably not in Britain when it happened. <p>Greets<BR>
<BR>
Jasper</p><i></i>
Salve!<br>
Thanks for your detailed reply.<br>
You wrote:<br>
..."During the reign of Marcus Aurelius a monument was put up listing the legions in existence and where they were stationed. This monument does not mention either the Ninth Legion, or the XXIInd Deiotariana"... What about the XXI Rapax? There is any mention about this legion in the monument you told us?<br>
...thanks again,<br>
Lucianus <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 6,734
Threads: 489
Joined: Mar 2001
Reputation:
27
It's this one, ILS 2288 = CIL 6, 3492 = AE 1994, 0037 = 1995, 0044 (Rome):<br>
Nomina leg(ionum) //<br>
II Aug(usta) / VI Victr(ix) / XX Victr(ix) /<br>
VIII Aug(usta) / XXII Prim(igenia) / I Min(ervia) /<br>
XXX Ulp(ia) / I Adiut(rix) / X Gem(ina) /<br>
XIIII Gem(ina) / I Parth(ica) //<br>
II Adiut(rix) / IIII Flav(ia) / VII Claud(ia) /<br>
I Italic(a) / V Maced(onica) / XI Claud(ia) /<br>
XIII Gem(ina) / XII Fulm(inata) / XV Apol(linaris) /<br>
III Gall(ica) / II Parth(ica) //<br>
IIII Scyth(ica) / XVI Flav(ia) / VI Ferrat(a) /<br>
X Frete(nsis) / III Cyren(aica) / II Traian(a) /<br>
III Aug(usta) / VII Gem(ina) / II Italic(a) /<br>
III Italic(a) / III Parth(ica)<br>
<br>
<br>
It's been dated to about the 160s (don't know why, perhaps Severus's Legiones Parthicae were added later?) and gives an indication of the legionary dispositions (e.g. the first three are easily recognised as the British legions). And as you can see, Rapax is missing.<br>
<p>Greets<BR>
<BR>
Jasper</p><i></i>
again, thanks.<br>
...very interesting the insertions of the names of the "Parthica" legions... is there any possible doubt that these were actually rised by Severus or early in the time of Marcus Aurelius? ...the names of the Parthica's seems simply added to the list in the available spaces, and there is no relation about the known dislocation of the Parthica's in the time of Severus and the place of service of the other legion present in the same line of the inscription... but if the legions were rised earlier in time, probably these maybe served in other places...<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Luciano <p></p><i></i>
Posts: 6,734
Threads: 489
Joined: Mar 2001
Reputation:
27
It's quite certain that the Legiones Parthicae were raised by Septimius Severus after the Civil War. Just like the Legiones II and III Italicae were raised by Marcus Aurelius (Dio LV 24: "Marcus Antonius [established] the Second in Noricum, and the Third in Rhaetia, both of which are named Italica; and Severus the Parthicae, the First and Third, quartered in Mesopotamia, and the Second in Italy")<br>
You're right, these five legions are just added at the bottom of the rows, not where they should be. Perhaps that's the argument for dating them.<br>
<p>Greets<BR>
<BR>
Jasper</p><i></i>
How's this for a try at squaring the circle on Fronto's letter?<br>
<br>
IX was badly mauled in Britain when he says it was, but not lost (no damnatio memoriae, no eagle loss). This having happened to it in Britain way too often, the high command decided it was time for a change, sent them to the Rhine and replaced them with VI Victrix. Later the IX went to Armenia where it was in fact destroyed. I think there's a tribune's inscription suggesting he served in IX around 160. Meanwhile Deiotariana was destroyed in Judaea.<br>
<br>
Three disasters, two legions lost.<br>
<br>
By the way, whatever happened to V Alaudae? Were they lost with Fuscus or was that a separate incident?<br>
<br>
E <p></p><i></i>
Legio V Alaudae was part of the army of Germany Inferior and as such supported Vitellius during the civil war of 68/69 AD. Part of it was probably destroyed by Vespasian's forces at Cremona. Its remains as well as those of XV Primigenia were first defeated near Nijmegen by the Batavians in rebellion under Civilis, subsequently besieged and finally surrendered at Xanten in the spring of 70. Not much later, I Germanica and XVI Gallica surrendered as well.<br>
Vespasian armies under Cerialis finally restored imperial dominion over the area.<br>
V Alaudae and XV Primigenia were never re-formed.<br>
I Germanica was mixed with VII Hispanica --a Galbian legion-- to make the VII Gemina. XVI Gallica was for its part renamed XVI Flavia. <p></p><i></i>
My understanding is that the ninth was formed under Pompey but served under Ceasar Julius, and that there was two recruitments, one in Hispania and the other in or around Armenia. That the IX served in Britain but the time taken to move from Britain to Armenia for the last of the recruitments don't match up. The legion could not have made it in time for the last recruitment. Is it possible that the legion was split and as a consequence of the battles fought (and lost) that it was subsumed by another legion. Bearing in mind that, as I understand it, many of the officers of the ninth were taken by Julius to serve in the tenth. Does this hold water? <p></p><i></i>
The IX Legion was one of the four veteran legions Caesar took command of when he was made governor of Illyria, Near and Far Gaul. When the legion was retired and paid off after the Civil War Octavian raised a new Legio IX (originally called Macedonica) which is apparently the same unit (by no means 100% certain but very likely according to the current research). The 'old' IX fought against Pompey and the new one raised by Ocatvian fought against Sextus Pompey (one of Pompey the Great's sons). <p></p><i></i>
|
