5,000 Men Vanish
The Disappearance of the Ninth Legion Hispania
The legend of the disappearance of the Ninth Legion is one that has transcended historical fact. It tells the story of a legion of elite Roman soldiers who, marching north into Caledonia to quell a rebellion of the northern tribes of Britain, disappeared, perhaps at the hands of peoples such as the Picts. Begun in 1955 by Ian Richmond and popularised by Rosemary Sutcliff’s novel The Eagle of The Ninth, the legend has become the widely accepted 'truth' due to the lack of primary sources concerning the legion. However, recent archaeological evidence, and even prosopographical research and evidence from classicists such as Emil Ritterling and Werner Eck from as early as the 1920s, clearly disputes the legend and sheds more light on what actually happened to the five thousand men of the Ninth Legion.
Archaeological evidence places the legion, almost unquestionably, in Nijmegen (Netherlands) during the early second century AD. Prosopography identifies several high ranking Roman officials as serving with the Ninth Legion until approximately AD 140. The work of archaeologists Eric Birley and Jules Bogaers suggests that rather than being destroyed in AD 117-122 as is asserted by the legend, the Ninth Legion was transferred at that time, with Birley going onto propose that the legion was transferred in relation to either the Parthian War in modern-day Armenia and Syria or the Jewish War in the Judea Province. However, what is known for certain is that by AD 161, the Ninth Legion Hispania was missing from an inscription listing all of the legions of the Roman Empire. There are a number of theories that account for this absence, the most convincing of which involves the destruction of the majority of the legion during the Jewish War (the Bar Kokhba Revolt) of AD 132.
Research into the disappearance of the Ninth Legion was begun by antiquarian John Horsley in 1732. Horsley identified the various legions of the Roman army present in Britain as legio XIV Gemina, legiones II Augusta and XX Valeria Victrix, and legio IX Hispania. However, while the movements of the three other legions in Britain at the time were well documented, after Tacitus’ account of an ambush on the Ninth by a group of Britons in AD 82, Horsley could find no trace of the legion. The ultimate fate of the legion perplexed Horsley: "it might possibly be broken or incorporated with the legio sexta victrix".1
This tentative explanation was furthered by the research of Italian antiquarian Count Bartolomeo Borghesi in the 1830s and his use of prosopography. By this time, the science of prosopography - "the study of persons and their careers from the evidence of inscriptions"2, had become more widely used and Borghesi came across an inscription from the Appian Way describing the career of Lucius Barbuleius Ligarianus3. This inscription stated that Ligarianus began his military career as tribunes laticlavius legionis IX Hispanae4 (senatorial tribune of the Ninth Legion Hispania).
It was common practice for prospective senators to serve for a few years as a senatorial tribune, biding their time until they qualified for entry into the Senate at age 24. Thus, it can be assumed that most senatorial tribunes were about 20. Borghesi assumed that, as he was consul in AD 135 at about the age of 40, Ligarianus probably served with the Ninth Legion in around AD 115.
The ultimate fate of the legion after this date perplexed Borghesi. He was aware of the fact that the legion was absent from the list of legions drawn up in AD 1655 and thus he proposed that, soon after AD 115, the legion had been overwhelmed in a rebellion similar to an attack described in Tacitus: "The enemy...massed for a night attack on the ninth legion...Striking panic into the sleeping camp, they cut down the sentries and broke in"6 and was replaced by the Sixth Legion.
Borghesi's proposal was happily accepted by his contemporaries and the great German scholar Theodor Mommsen lent his fairly considerable authority to the proposal: "Under Hadrian, there was a terrible catastrophe here, apparently an attack on the fortress at Eboracum and the annihilation of the legion stationed there, the very same Ninth that had fought so unluckily in the Boudican revolt."7 Mommsen believed that a passage from Hadrian's biographer pointed to a British rebellion as the cause of the Ninth's destruction: "The nations that Trajan had subjugated were defecting, the Moors were attacking, the Samaratians were making war, the Britons could not be kept under Roman control."8
However, there is only circumstantial evidence and subjective numismatics for a British war during this time (AD 117-119). But, due to the lack of primary evidence, the theories of Borghesi and Mommsen stood as the accepted explanation for the disappearance of the legion until Emil Ritterling, in 1925, planted a seed of doubt about the evidence used by Mommsen and began questioning the theory that the Sixth Legion was transferred to replace the Ninth.
By the time Ritterling published his magisterial survey of the Roman legions in volume 12 of Paulys Realenclyclopädie it was generally accepted that the legion had been destroyed in the early years of Hadrian's reign. However, Ritterling realised that there was no certainty that the Sixth Legion had been transferred to replace the destroyed Ninth; this had been an assumption of Borghesi and Mommsen. Ritterling based his doubts on the science of prosopography. Through his studies, Ritterling found that the chronology of the careers of certain officers was implausible if they had served with the Ninth before its demise. "Looking at their later careers, several tribunes of senatorial rank cannot have served in the legion before 120"9. Lucius Aemilius Karus, a tribune of the Ninth, was reported to have been governor of Arabia in AD 142, the task of a man in his mid to late thirties10.
Ritterling proposed, considering the fact that tribunes were generally about 20 years old, that Karus served with the Ninth "only after AD 120"11. The senatorial tribune Lucius Novius Crispinus Martialis also gave weight to Ritterling's doubts. Martialis became consul in AD 150 after his service with the Ninth Legion. "He was probably born in around AD 105"12, and thus Ritterling realised that Martialis' service "could not reasonably have fallen before AD 123"13. Thus, Ritterling proposed that "we must take into account the possibility that a second British revolt took place in the middle or latter part of the 120s, in which the legion was destroyed."14 So, Ritterling had established that the Sixth Legion was not guaranteed to have been transferred to Britain to replace an annihilated Ninth Legion and, through his prosopographical research, he had opened up a new line of inquiry into the disappearance.
This view was developed by British archaeologist Eric Birley who, in 1948, based on his interpretation of the sources, proposed two possible scenarios to account for the disappearance of the Legion. Either the legion had been transferred to the Parthian War and the Sixth had been brought over to bring the British garrison back up to three legions, or the Sixth had been brought to Britain for the building of Hadrian's Wall. The Ninth was then transferred in response to Hadrian's Jewish War: "Legio IX could then have been transferred to Lower Germany, and perhaps in 132, taken part in the Jewish War...".15
Ritterling's cautions and Birley's well-considered suggestions were swept aside by the pre-eminent Roman military scholar of the day, Ian Richmond, who spun the tale of the mysterious disappearance that has become "fact": "[Trouble in Britain] is to be connected with the issues of victory coins in AD 119 and the fact that by AD 122 the Ninth Legion was replaced at York by the Sixth and disappeared from the army list thereafter. That the legion was cashiered, there is no doubt, and it seems evident that this fate, at the hands of disciplinarian Hadrian, followed an ignominious defeat. But the unit was not annihilated. Some of its officers at least survived and nothing whatever is reported of the circumstances or place of the trouble."16 This tale is based primarily on the beliefs of Harold Mattingly who stated that a certain style of coins from early in Hadrian's reign "celebrate the restoration of peace in the North after the revolt under Trajan, in which the Ninth Legion was destroyed."17
This subjective analysis was given credence by the explanations of H.M.D. Parker and Wilhelm Weber who both claimed that the legion was destroyed not later than AD 122, arguments which were clearly influential in Richmond's development of his explanation. Thus, Richmond uses evidence based on subjectivity and, in the case of Parker, "misplaced confidence"18 and compromises the integrity of his theory, thus creating a legend which, through popular culture and the attraction of a dramatic tale, has dominated the public belief.
Rosemary Sutcliff brought Richmond's theory into the public arena with her novel The Eagle of the Ninth. Published in 1954, the foreward to the novel describes the situation thus: "Sometime around the year AD 117, the Ninth Legion, which was stationed at Eboracum where York now stands, marched north to deal with a rising among the Caledonian tribes and was never heard of again. ... No one knows what happened to the Ninth Legion after it marched into the northern mists."19 This notion is, perhaps inadvertently, given support by Tacitus: "Fired with self-confidence and the glory of this victory [over the Britons in their night attack (see above)], the army protested that no obstacle could bar its brave advance; 'We must drive deeper and deeper into Caledonia ...'."20 However, as the novel is primarily based on the insubstantial evidence and subsequent theory of Ian Richmond and on the fact that The Eagle of The Ninth is a novel intended for entertainment, the idea that Sutcliff proposes is invalid in terms of an accurate description of the disappearance of the Ninth Legion.
A shift in the understanding of the disappearance of the legion occurred in 1959. The work of archaeologist Jules Bogaers et al provided pursuasive evidence for the transfer of the legion. While excavating the legionary fortress on the Hunerberg at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, roofing tiles were discovered which bore the ownership stamp of the Ninth Legion.
This find was not isolated; earlier excavations at the legionary pottery and tile works less than 5 kilometres from the fortress had unearthed the rim of a thick ceramic bowl used in the army, stamped with the letters LGVIIIIHIS, "a clear abbreviation for l(e)g(io) VIIII His(pania)"21. Until this point, all tile stamps that had been found at Nijmegen belonged to the Tenth Gemina Legion, the legion which had rebuilt the fortress towards the end of the first century AD. The Tenth left the fortress at Nijmegen for Trajan's Dacian Wars. An inscribed pendent from a horse harness found 10 kilometres west of the Hunerberg fortress at the site of a Roman villa also bears the stamp of the Ninth Legion.
In the light of this archaeological evidence, Jules Bogaers suggested that the Ninth Legion took up residence in the Hunerberg fortress after it was transferred from Britain. Unfortunately, there is no precise date for the tile stamps from the Ninth Legion other than the broad "early second century". The work of Jules Bogaers thus forms the basis of modern scholarly opinion. Most scholars now believe that the legion was lost either during Trajan's Parthian or Hadrian's Jewish War.
Classicist G. R. Watson, in his book The Roman Soldier, felt confident enough to state that "the loss of IX Hispania...[occurred] probably during the Jewish War of AD 132-135"22. Roman historian Dio Cassius (c. AD 150), in describing the Jewish War of AD 132-135, states that "Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war"23. While this statement is not specific to the Ninth Legion, or obviously convincing about the end of the legion, it does provide a foundation for an explanation for the Ninth's absence from written sources.
According to Andrew Morrison, the curator of archaeology at the Yorkshire Museum, "It is known that the Romans would not be too keen to publicise a mass defeat"24 as it was Roman policy not to record publicly the fate of legions that had been disgraced or annihilated in battle25. It was also common practice for legions that were disgraced by defeat or the loss of a standard to be punished, sometimes by restriction of rations, in other cases by the harsh method of decimation in which one in every ten men of the legion would be killed. Thus, if the legion was destroyed during the Jewish Revolt, it would not be surprising to find it absent from sources, including legionary records and lists.
In his account of the Jewish Revolt, Dio Cassius explains that "Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war"26. While this is a general statement that could be applied to many of the wars in which the Roman army fought, Dio also states that "Hadrian, in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, 'If you and your children are in health, it is well: I and the legions are in health.'"27 Thus, in AD 161 when an inscription was made listing all of the Roman legions that existed under the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the Ninth Legion Hispania is missing, suggesting that, at the time the inscription was being made, the Ninth Legion no longer existed.28 So, it would seem that the theory that the Ninth Legion disappeared during the Jewish War is the most substantially supported by primary evidence and thus is the most accurate theory available at this time.
The views of early historians and antiquarians were restricted by the amount of evidence that was available to them. John Horsley and Count Borghesi were restricted to the science of prosopography and the incomplete, in terms of the Ninth Legion, accounts from Tacitus and his contemporaries. Thus, the scenarios put forward were unable to offer a definitive explanation and, due to the restrictions of historical research of the time, these scenarios went unchallenged.
As historical inquiry advanced, so too did the knowledge and information offered about the fate of the Ninth. The questioning of Emil Ritterling in 1925 prompted a re-evaluation of the accepted explanations for the legion's disappearance. Archaeology and further interpretation and evaluation of a wider variety of sources, such as Dio Cassius, along with inscriptions including the list of Roman legions from AD 165, allowed for a more complete understanding of the legion and its eventual fate. However, despite the advances made in historical research and enquiry, the evidence concerning the legion is still fragmentary and thus any conclusion drawn as to the eventual fate of the legion is based considerably on interpretation of the available evidence. The majority of current explanations that are put forward by modern scholars show an awareness of source limitations and an acknowledgment that these explanations may not be the "truth" but are valid interpretations of the evidence.
Bibliography
Campbell, D. (n.d.). The Fate of the Ninth. Ancient Warfare, IV(5), Retrieved from Ancient Warfare.
This is an article from a military history magazine that essentially traces the development of knowledge about the Ninth Legion and the legion’s disappearance. It presents the different explanations as they developed and the evidence that each historian/antiquarian used as the basis for their theory. I used this article as the chronological frame for my essay. As this article also refers directly to the work of a variety of historians such as Ian Richmond and Jules Bogaers, these direct references allowed for a more in-depth exploration of the different explanations that have been proposed and an extension on the conclusion that Campbell comes to.
Disappearance of the IX Legion (2009). Retrieved from Sons of Scotland
Down, K. (2009, November 22). The Mystery of the Ninth Legion. Retrieved from Diggings Online
Lendering, J. (n.d.). Legio VIIII Hispania. Retrieved from Livius
Ritterling, E. (1925). legio. Realencyclopädie of klassischen altertumswissenschaft. Retrieved from Roman Army
Sansom, M. (n.d.). The Ninth Legion. Retrieved from Ermine Street Guard
This is an article which charts the movements of the Ninth Legion and the evidence for its presence in Britain. Primarily, this article states the evidence that accounts for the legion in Britain and proposes that advances in historical enquiry and research will allow for greater accuracy in accounting for the movements of the legion. Sansom explicitly states that this article is his own interpretation and as such he proposes that the legion was destroyed in the Jewish revolt of 132-135 AD. To support this proposal, Sansom uses evidence from Dio Cassius which proved to be the most reliable evidence for any other theory of the disappearance that I had previously found in my research. This prompted my further research into Roman policy and thus I was able to come to a similar conclusion that was further supported by Roman political, military and social practices.
Schiffman, L. (1998). Texts and traditions: a Source Reader for the study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken, NJ: KTAV Publishing House.
Schoenberg, S. (2011). The Bar-Kokhba Revolt. Retrieved from Jewish Virtual Library
Tacitus . (1964). On Britain and Germany. Victoria, Australia: Penguin Books.
Tacitus is one of the few primary sources who accounts for the Ninth Legion in Britain during the Roman campaigns to conquer Britain. Considered to be one of the great Roman historians, Tacitus would have incorporated Roman beliefs and practices into his account, thus perhaps explaining why Tacitus’ account of the legion ends at 82 AD, if the legion was annihilated in battle and thus disgraced. This premature end to the account limits the evidence that Tacitus provides and thus my essay is considerably informed by the interpretations of modern scholars. Primarily, I used Tacitus to show the evidence used for each theory, particularly the proposal of Ian Richmond. I felt it was important to have an awareness of a wide variety of sources and a basis on ancient evidence for my discussion and thus I researched Tacitus’ account, purpose and possible social influences.
Webster, G. (1998). The Roman Imperial Army of the First and Second Centuries A.D. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press
Yorkshire Museum marks 'Lost' Roman Legion. (2011, March 29). BBC News. Retrieved from BBC website
Notes
1 1 J. Horsley Britannia Romana: The Roman Antiquities of Britain. As cited in D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
2 2 D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
3 3 CIL X 6006 = ILS 1066 Return
4 4 D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
5 5 CIL VI 3492 = ILS 2288 Return
6 6 Tacitus On Britain and Germany 26 Return
7 7 T. Mommsen Römische Geschichte, Book 8, (1885). As cited in D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
8 8 Augustan History, Life of Hadrian 5.2. as cited in D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
9 9 E. Ritterling LXIV Legio VIIII Hispania Return
10 10 CIL VI 1333 = ILS 1077 Return
11 11 E. Ritterling. As cited in D. Campbell in The Fate of the Ninth Return
12 12 D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
13 13 E. Ritterling. As cited in D. Campbell in The Fate of the Ninth Return
14 14 E. Ritterling LXIV Legio VIIII Hispania Return
15 15 E. Birley The End of the Ninth Legion in G. Webster The Roman Imperial Army of the first and second centuries A.D. Return
16 16 I. A. Richmond Roman Britain. As cited in D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
17 17 H. Mattingly. As cited in D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
18 18 D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
19 19 R. Sutcliff The Eagle of the Ninth Return
20 20 Tacitus On Britain and Germany 27 Return
21 21 D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
22 22 G. R. Watson The Roman Soldier. As cited in D. Campbell The Fate of the Ninth Return
23 23 Dio Cassius Historia Romana LXIX 14:3. As cited in L. Schiffman Texts and Traditions: a source reader for the study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism p. 488 Return
24 24 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-12862028 Return
25 25 http://thesonsofscotland.co.uk/xilegion.htm Return
26 26 Dio Cassius Historia Romana LXIX 14:3. As cited in L. Schiffman Texts and Traditions: a source reader for the study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism p. 488 Return
27 27 Dio Cassius Historia Romana LXIX 14:3 Return
28 28 CIL 06.3492 at http://www.livius.org/le-lh/legio/legions_cil_6_3492.html Return
© Hannah Guest 2011
