(History Corner) - History of Imperial Roman Legions - New Article in Organization Section

[ur-Lord Tedric]

@Minas

Thank you for an interesting read. I'd like to query just one bit, something I intend to write something serious on and post elsewhere for some erudite discourse and argument - when I do I shall post a link....

In your part about the Organisation of the legions, can I ask where your assertion that 'the Republican century was 100 men, whilst Augustus reduced it to 80' came from?

Secondly, why you think that the officers of the century formed part of the 80 and were not in addition?

[Antiokhos Euergetes]

PS I would like to see a couple of earlier battles, like Magnesia perhaps or Amnias ?

[rory o'kane]

How about Idistaviso - 16 AD - where Germanicus kicks the living daylights out of Arminius' germanic tribesmen? There's an excellent account of it in Adrian Goldsworthy's 'In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won The Roman Empire'.
Alternatively, there's Watling Street, or Mons Graupius - 83/84 AD, where the Romans beat the snot out of the Caledonians, under Agricola.
There's also the Siege of Jerusalem during the Great Jewish Revolt, which is one of the best-documented Roman campaigns we know of, thanks to Josephus.
Any of Caesar's victories will also qualify (again, thanks to his own Commentarii De Bello Gallico and Commentarii De Bello Civili, these are well-documented).
You could also include Rome's victories over the Hellenic powers - such as at Magnesia or Thermopylae (yes, THAT same Thermopylae) over the Seleucids, or at Pydna or Cynocephalae over the Macedonians. Or, against the Tuetones at Aquae Sextae in 102 BC, or against the Cimbri at Vercellae, in 101 BC. These two victories were as a result of Marius' reforms following the horrendous annihilation of a Roman army 80,000-strong at Arausio in 105BC by these two tribes (another Roman defeat to be looked at later ).

[military tribune]

Watling Street

I like the idea of Watling Street, but too bad infantry can't form wedge formation in RTW.

[Minas Moth]

i forgot to tell you have only one battle o suggest... that's meant for you rory, as i'm really not sure which of the ones posted you opted for...

for now i'll consider the first one (AD 16) as battle of your choice, is it ok?

also guys, for now this will be primarily the Imperial Rome project, so battles before Augustus came to power will be rare and Carrhae should be considered not as an example but a deviation from my plan. there are great battles in Imperial roman history. The Dacian Wars and Jewish revolts hold so many battles that describing those will be behemoth project...

Edit:
Some more rules:
1) Each person can provide only one answer that will be taken into consideration... so, multiple answers will achieve nothing except showing your knowledge about Roman history
2) When you think you know the answer/know the answer just put what you think it is. No citations, links, etc are allowed. This is meant so people try do things themselves and not jump on a bandwagon so they can harvest the rep. Think about it, we are trying to teach people something It's not about how you learned the answer but if you really know it or don't.

[Siimus Maximus]

You should also write about later Roman battles which aren't as well known as Carrhae, Cannae, Pharsalus etc. but are still great achievements.

[Apio Claudio]

Well regarding the disaperance of the nineth Legio Hispaniensis her last known location was Nimega in 131. This place was located in netherlands. After this her track was lost but most historians do believe she went to the eastern provinces

[rory o'kane]

You mean Nijmegen, right? And there's some debate about it. But yeah, Dando-Collins' analysis seems to land him in the minority camp - i.e. those few historians who think the 9th disappeared north of Hadrian's Wall.

[Apio Claudio]

Well with this small piece of information i doubt that the reason of its disappearence was the Picts at the north or something like that. Eventualy it s tracks were lost. Even in the Notitia Dignatum there are a lot of legions that are described there but didn t exist anymore. Most of the documents were lost so my opinion is that the information about the IX Legio was just lost.

And probably that s the name sorry but i m portuguese and oftenly i read spanish books and similiar ones and the one I read about this is spanish

[Minas Moth]

yep... when it comes to the 9th, everything is circumstantial at best... there are no evidences of legion ever leaving for east, no evidence for going north... there is as said only an evidence that legion or part of it was indeed present in Nijmegen at some time between 108-130. 108 AD is the last known year of legion being transferred to Carlisle (which is present day Wales if i'm not mistaken). what happened after that, is a real mystery...


oh, the "contest" is over... Indeed it was a Boudicca's revolt in England that i had my mind on...

cheers

[Minas Moth]

sorry for double posting, but new legions added...

and hopefully, i'll manage to upload some more "contorversial" stuff about Roman Legions,

cheers

[Sandrus Castus]

If you upload controversial and strongly discussed things about the Roman legions, I'd reconsider the title of the thread. History is not to make facts out of speculations. Also, providing your sources would a good idea when speaking of history.

[Minas Moth]

If you upload controversial and strongly discussed things about the Roman legions, I'd reconsider the title of the thread. History is not to make facts out of speculations. Also, providing your sources would a good idea when speaking of history.

ah, there we have different opinions my friend... what we consider History is in much cases someones interpretation of past events. The exact past-day information is rare, and in many cases should be looked not as 100% accurate. As you already know many of the past-day authors were sponsored by powerful political figures of that time, and they wrote with strong notion about "mishaps" that could occur if they offend their mighty benefactors... In many cases authors shunned people they considered weak or shunned them because present day emperors considered them responsible for some dire affair...

to me, History is ever in motion and never set, just like a future... who knows what we may find out tomorrow...

[Sandrus Castus]

What you call history, I call pseudo-history. History is based on facts. Speculations can be made, but only when mentioned it's speculation, and not presenting it as history. History is not a fairy tale, but a discipline which is exercised by researchers/scholars/academics/however you want to call them.

If you want to call history interpretation from something, then call it interpretation of facts/textual sources/archaeological finds, not interpretation of "the past", as you only can know the past through historical research, which is based on facts/textual sources/archaeological finds.

Also, even if you wish to use the term "interpretation of the past", you cannot do it freely. If you go interpretating facts without any sound evidence or a critical attitude (which is the highest virtue for a historian, ask any of them), you're just looking for sensation.

If you speak about sources lying (as that is what you are referring to, aren't you?) you are absolutely correct that this happens. Also it isn't only consciously lying, but faults by copying, ignorance, or other causes are also possible. But that's where the critical attitude is needed. You have to be critical, but that is still not the same as stating a speculative and not substantiated theory.


Nevertheless, whatever view on 'history' you have, I recommend you make mention of your sources.

[CrisGer]

History of Ancient Rome is greatly supported by the sources we have, for they were a highly literate culture. We also have a great deal of archaeological evidence that is being enhanced every season as new work is published. There are many modern interpretations as well as some fine older research. In any portion of this rich field of analysis, there are differences of opinion that may in time lead to established fact. But conjecture and theory remain fertile fields for future fact making. Your thread is a lively discussion. History itself is absolute however, things happened in one way and one way only. We do not often have the chance to know that fully. But that is our goal as historians, others have other goals. Authors of fiction or historicism enjoy much more freedom and room for creative conjecture and are paid for their success in that venue. Historians are paid to be accurate and careful and above all, sincere in their examination of evidence. We as such cannot be boldly making personal claims based on our own opinion alone, we work together with peers establishing consensus careful step by careful step.

One of the main problems with the modern world is that the speed of modern technology and communication make hasty statements or hopes appear with the same validity as long crafted and careful research. In the "old days" words did not reach the state of print or publication without many filters for quality and truth. Now, any person with a keyboard can type out what appears to be valid text. Herein lies the greatest danger to the true Historian, appearance is not fact, nor is hope, belief or theory. All are important aspects of discovery but fact remains fact.

We can fortuantely find many facts supported by both ancient sources such as Tacitus, Suetonius, Caesar, Livy, Marcus Aurelius, and many more because over many centuries scholars laboured to preserve what was then extant only on fragile parchment or found in inscriptions. With the development of modern scientific archaeology, we have tools to add to the fragile record preserved from the past. But it is heartbreaking to many a scholar to read of how many important works of antiquity were lost forever, and we must through careful and diligent scholarship now labour to restore what we can often only guess at.

Just one area of study alone, the reasons for Trajans' Eastern campaign, have been the source of many long years of debate and we still do not know truly what the purpose, course of events and outcome were. We can theorize, and guess and suggest, but the facts still remain unconfirmed. This does not mean we do not try, and I am sure many will continue to try over the future centuries, to delve into what really happened long ago among the legions and beyond. So I agree, it will be important for our own assessment of your proposals here to know your sources..... and in sharing that, we can all then make better assessment of what you suggest. This is the way true history is formed.

There is no validity in claiming that History is this or that in your or any other's opinion. History is fact, we may never know the facts that we seek, but History itself is not fungible, negotiable or subject to opinion. Theories of history are however fair game, and wide open to all comers. With that spirit, let us continue to enjoy this wonderful subject and the chances we all share of mutual discovery and future paths of inquiry.

I will close with some examples to cite that may illustrate my points made herein:

I would refer the reader to the History of the Jugurthine War and the Conspiracy of Cateline by Gaius Sallustius Crispus who we call Sallust...he was active in the Senate twice and an officer of Caesar's and ended up at one point as proconsular Governor of Africa Nova, but his historical monographs were greatly admired in antiquity by such as Quintilian, and Tacitus, and it serves as a fine example of ancient history. Back then, history was not the rigorous pursuit of truth but more a realm of poetry or prose epic, intended to please and instruct the reader in his culture and to inspire in a way similar to philosophy or sophistry. The works of Tacitus, such as his Agricola and The Germans was more similar to modern historical works, he made efforts to research and to offer facts about the topics he wrote about. Sallust had his own agenda for his writing. His career contained both service to the State and also to himself, he plundered his province and was only kept from indictment by the support of Caesar, and he ended up a very rich man. He had we may assume his own motives for writing and addressing the events of his time, not the least a form of vindication for his own actions by focusing on the corruption around Jugartha who bribed many Roman officials and even at one point suborned actual units of the Roman army in the field, and Cataline who led a dangerous revolt against the State itself for his own gain. History in such a guise is not the history we practice within the modern discipline but it is an fine example of the form of historicism that you appear to be supporting. It is not without its own purpose, but it is NOT History as we practice it today.

In modern times another example i may cite is that great epic work on world history by Will and Amy Durant, The Story of Civilization and in particular, their Volume 3 titled Caesar and Christ. It is full of historical information and indeed based on much fact. However, they had a broader purpose in mind to instruct and to expand the knowledge of the reader in more than just facts. These three sources will prove fruitful in explaining what I am describing here as the true nature of History as it is perceived and practiced by respected scholars who we can turn to for accurate information about the Roman legions and who we can hope will help us establish understanding we can apply to our expansion of this fine sin that we have in Rome Total War. I am sure the ancient Romans themselves would much enjoy having the chance to parse their own battles as we do. Valle and thank you for giving me this chance to share. I am as interested in sharing theories as anyone, and much enjoy seeing what you share here in this thread.

[Minas Moth]

sources are various; mostly livius.org, Dando-Collins's Book... other than that, they will/are be stated under the article itself (as is the case with Battle of carrhae).

on all the other stuff said above i really don't have a comment. it's not a purpose of this thread to discuss such things.

[CrisGer]

If your purpose is to share authentic history, then the considerations above certainly do apply. But that is up to you. Good luck with your research.

[Marcus Publius]

Thanks interesting read.

[Diocle]

Good work Minas Moth! It is alwys interesting a good and informative thread about the history of the Roman Legions, I'm interested in the history of the VI Ferrata Fidelis Constans, recruited by Caesar in 52 BC in Gallia Cisalpina (Italy), 'the ironclads' fight against Vercingetorix and during all the campaigns of Caesar and the Civils Wars, its long history continued until the Emperor Philippus the Arab (244-249), and maybe Valerianus (260). It is interesting also the history of the XXII Primigenia Pia VII Fidelis VII, from 39 AD until the reign of Constantinus I (306-337).

o.c. +rep!

[HMonk]

Yes very nice work.