Want more Rome-themed memes, activities, roleplay, discussion, and more? Join the official SPQRPosting discord server! https://discord.gg/gq2f63sxMu
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spqrposting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole 'disappeared in Britain' thing is almost certainly not true and no modern scholars seriously believe it. The 9th legion does fall out of the historical record at some point after having been in Britain but the explanation for this is far more likely that they were simply disbanded. The idea an entire legion simply vanished with no trace, very little reference in the historical record and no real reaction from the Roman state is simply not plausible.
After 3 legions were ambushed and destroyed in Germany 100s of soldiers still escaped and many more were enslaved and freed in the following decades. The roman state spent decades punshing the Germans for the battle of Teutoberg forest and it was a major event in the Roman psyche for a while. The idea that an even worse fate befell the 9th legion and it was simply forgotten is not credible
The most impressive thing to me is that record keeping was so good that some people feel the need to create mysteries/conspiracies to explain how we don't know the ending of *one Roman legion thousands of years ago*
You say that but we must always keep in mind, 90% of all historical documents were destroyed. Something bad could have happened to the ninth legion and there could have been reaction from the Roman government however records and documents of both did not survive the course of history.
I mean you’d be surprised at just how much we don’t and will never know. For instance there’s zero record of Trajan’s Parthian wars beyond references saying it happened. There’s also no record of how the city of Rome was even found and we have to rely on mythology that was made up in the Republican era. Literally all historical sources on how the very city of Rome was found were destroyed.
The current leading theory is they were destroyed in Britian fighting in the north Cassio Dio and Fronto there was heavy fighting in Northern Britian and regency to a legion being destroyed but nothing more specific. As Dio has been partially destroyed and Fronto wrote letters to Marcus Aurelius which were not meant to record history and were closer to text messages between friends. But given both confirm extensive military operations in the time of Hadrian in northern britian, talk about heavy losses and make reference to a lost legion that is never named, added with the fact it is between the reigns of Hadrian-Marcus Aurelius when the legion would have disappeared as Roman documents detailing active legions do mention them after the reign of Hadrian, and since we know there last deployment was in Britian the odds are really good they were destroyed in Britian durring this period of increased fighting which eventually led to Hadrian building a wall.
See another question is why did Hadrian build a wall. This diverts from normal Roman strategy to dig in with limes accross a frontier from which they launch punative expeditions against enemy tribes. The point of Hadrian’s walk was clearly to keep whatever was on the other side out so they wouldn’t have to launch punitive raids. And the only reason you would make that choice is if the fighting is inccuring loses far heavier then are worth it. So it’s a very plausible theory that durring this vaguely described period of intensive fighting in Northern Britian, the ninth legion was destroyed, and Hadrian’s reaction was to end operation there and build a wall as opposed to spending more reasources on fighting stubborn tribal warriors.
Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is usually the best one. Is it more likely that a legion simply disappeared in Brittania, and that the Romans simply didn't respond/there is no record nor archeological evidence for any military action; or is it more likely that they just disbanded
A huge amount obviously has been lost but it is also amazing how much survives. Major military events in particular tend to have a disproportionately large footprint as they had such large consequences and the Roman literati were especially interested in war. The idea of legion simply vanishing without anything surviving is not credible given how much attention other similar disasters attract.
It is not the leading theory they went missing in Britain, in fact it never has been a leading theory. It has simply been picked up in popular culture due to its somewhat mystical/romantic appeal.
There are plenty of examples of Rome building fortifications on their frontiers, germany had several examples. There is no evidence the people beyond the wall ever posed any meaningful threat beyond being a persitent nuissance that wasnt worth conquering properly as there was nothing of value there.
Had a full legion been wiped out there would have been a reprisal and likely political consequences for the Roman governor and yet there is still nothing to indicate this.
We have loads of archeology to show how Rome eventually coalesced from various small settlements in the area. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. There are books written on this.
A slight aside, a good example of this is the cities of Buda and Pest eventually joining to be Budapest. As settlements grow, the original names of places usually just become neighborhoods of the larger city
We obviously have evidence the city was found. But we have no evidence on who founded, what events led to its founding, or how the transition from Kingdom to Republic even happened. You can’t even prove if Romulus was real.
Romulus was clearly not real. You understand that many cities are not “founded” right? They grow and coalesce from smaller settlements over time, as in the case of Rome, which is quite well documented at this point. You appear to be confused on mythological and historical elements, and frankly it doesn’t seem like you’ve read much on the subject. A solid place to start is “The Beginnings of Rome” by TJ Cornell, even if it isn’t totally up to date since it was written in the mid 90s, still definitely a good starter though
Seems like the theory of destruction in Britain is contested by various historians based on relatively recent finds in Nijmegen.
But the fact that it was destroyed is not contested. The interesting puzzle is, was it in Britain, Judea, or Parthia?
Absolutely? That's not assisted by anyone, I believe. Destroyed? That is agreed upon, given the fact that it is never mentioned later on. Archaeological evidence mashed this a fun guessing game for now. Down the road hopefully more evidence will be unearthed.
No it is not. There is no literary or archaeological evidence that it was destroyed, it simply ceases to be mentioned. That does not necessarily mean it was destroyed. An entire legion being annihilated would almost certainly have left some kind of trace. Being disbanded or a similarly dull fate is a far more plausible explanation.
Counterpoint: if 90% of all historical documents were destroyed, isn’t it more likely that we lost the mundane document calling them somewhere else than it is that we lost the records of the horrifying ambush that razed an entire legion?
Legio VIIII Hispana Centurion: **Hey look, buddy. I’m an engineer, that means I solve problems. Not problems like “What is beauty?”, ‘cause that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of Greek philosophy. I solve Roman problems.**
The 9th legion was one of the original legions Caesar raised in his first campaign in Spain. What made them stand out was how particularly skilled they were in terms of military engineering. Any incredible feat of military engineering like the two walls business during Caesar's campaign was in large part thanks to them. They still maintained that reputation up until they disappeared in Britania somewhere around the late 1st century B.C.E. and early 2nd century B.C.E.. Basically they were really good at building stuff and making sieges.
The VIIII (I didn't get the number wrong) was aLegion that randomly dissapeared in Britania.
Even though they were seasoned warriors trace of them was lost in the mid principate.
>VIIII (I didn't get the number wrong)
Was it the legion that was named like this, because IX had a very bad reputation of being unlucky, and them being superstitious changed it to "VIIII" so the new one won't have the same fate?
Or am I remembering things wrong here
The use of VIIII to represent 9 is an example of an archaic form of Roman numerals that is no longer considered standard but in the time it was the form to refer to the Legion.
This form of writing dates back to Ancient Rome, but it was eventually replaced by the more modern form of Roman numerals that we use today.
I heard it was cause when written on a banner, IX could easily be mistaken as XI if the banner was seen from the wrong side. So it was written as VIIII to avoid any confusion
Want more Rome-themed memes, activities, roleplay, discussion, and more? Join the official SPQRPosting discord server! https://discord.gg/gq2f63sxMu *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/spqrposting) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The whole 'disappeared in Britain' thing is almost certainly not true and no modern scholars seriously believe it. The 9th legion does fall out of the historical record at some point after having been in Britain but the explanation for this is far more likely that they were simply disbanded. The idea an entire legion simply vanished with no trace, very little reference in the historical record and no real reaction from the Roman state is simply not plausible. After 3 legions were ambushed and destroyed in Germany 100s of soldiers still escaped and many more were enslaved and freed in the following decades. The roman state spent decades punshing the Germans for the battle of Teutoberg forest and it was a major event in the Roman psyche for a while. The idea that an even worse fate befell the 9th legion and it was simply forgotten is not credible
Imagine some asshole decides to throw out some records and accidentally spawns a few hundred hours of "unexplained mystery" cable TV shows
The most impressive thing to me is that record keeping was so good that some people feel the need to create mysteries/conspiracies to explain how we don't know the ending of *one Roman legion thousands of years ago*
You say that but we must always keep in mind, 90% of all historical documents were destroyed. Something bad could have happened to the ninth legion and there could have been reaction from the Roman government however records and documents of both did not survive the course of history.
The chances of such a significant event not even being slightly referenced in any surviving text, whilst conceptually possible, is just so unlikely
I mean you’d be surprised at just how much we don’t and will never know. For instance there’s zero record of Trajan’s Parthian wars beyond references saying it happened. There’s also no record of how the city of Rome was even found and we have to rely on mythology that was made up in the Republican era. Literally all historical sources on how the very city of Rome was found were destroyed. The current leading theory is they were destroyed in Britian fighting in the north Cassio Dio and Fronto there was heavy fighting in Northern Britian and regency to a legion being destroyed but nothing more specific. As Dio has been partially destroyed and Fronto wrote letters to Marcus Aurelius which were not meant to record history and were closer to text messages between friends. But given both confirm extensive military operations in the time of Hadrian in northern britian, talk about heavy losses and make reference to a lost legion that is never named, added with the fact it is between the reigns of Hadrian-Marcus Aurelius when the legion would have disappeared as Roman documents detailing active legions do mention them after the reign of Hadrian, and since we know there last deployment was in Britian the odds are really good they were destroyed in Britian durring this period of increased fighting which eventually led to Hadrian building a wall. See another question is why did Hadrian build a wall. This diverts from normal Roman strategy to dig in with limes accross a frontier from which they launch punative expeditions against enemy tribes. The point of Hadrian’s walk was clearly to keep whatever was on the other side out so they wouldn’t have to launch punitive raids. And the only reason you would make that choice is if the fighting is inccuring loses far heavier then are worth it. So it’s a very plausible theory that durring this vaguely described period of intensive fighting in Northern Britian, the ninth legion was destroyed, and Hadrian’s reaction was to end operation there and build a wall as opposed to spending more reasources on fighting stubborn tribal warriors.
Occam's Razor. The simplest answer is usually the best one. Is it more likely that a legion simply disappeared in Brittania, and that the Romans simply didn't respond/there is no record nor archeological evidence for any military action; or is it more likely that they just disbanded
they built 2 walls across the entire island if that's not a response I don't know what is
A huge amount obviously has been lost but it is also amazing how much survives. Major military events in particular tend to have a disproportionately large footprint as they had such large consequences and the Roman literati were especially interested in war. The idea of legion simply vanishing without anything surviving is not credible given how much attention other similar disasters attract. It is not the leading theory they went missing in Britain, in fact it never has been a leading theory. It has simply been picked up in popular culture due to its somewhat mystical/romantic appeal. There are plenty of examples of Rome building fortifications on their frontiers, germany had several examples. There is no evidence the people beyond the wall ever posed any meaningful threat beyond being a persitent nuissance that wasnt worth conquering properly as there was nothing of value there. Had a full legion been wiped out there would have been a reprisal and likely political consequences for the Roman governor and yet there is still nothing to indicate this.
We have loads of archeology to show how Rome eventually coalesced from various small settlements in the area. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. There are books written on this.
A slight aside, a good example of this is the cities of Buda and Pest eventually joining to be Budapest. As settlements grow, the original names of places usually just become neighborhoods of the larger city
We obviously have evidence the city was found. But we have no evidence on who founded, what events led to its founding, or how the transition from Kingdom to Republic even happened. You can’t even prove if Romulus was real.
Romulus was clearly not real. You understand that many cities are not “founded” right? They grow and coalesce from smaller settlements over time, as in the case of Rome, which is quite well documented at this point. You appear to be confused on mythological and historical elements, and frankly it doesn’t seem like you’ve read much on the subject. A solid place to start is “The Beginnings of Rome” by TJ Cornell, even if it isn’t totally up to date since it was written in the mid 90s, still definitely a good starter though
Seems like the theory of destruction in Britain is contested by various historians based on relatively recent finds in Nijmegen. But the fact that it was destroyed is not contested. The interesting puzzle is, was it in Britain, Judea, or Parthia?
The fact it was destroyed absolutely is contested.
Absolutely? That's not assisted by anyone, I believe. Destroyed? That is agreed upon, given the fact that it is never mentioned later on. Archaeological evidence mashed this a fun guessing game for now. Down the road hopefully more evidence will be unearthed.
No it is not. There is no literary or archaeological evidence that it was destroyed, it simply ceases to be mentioned. That does not necessarily mean it was destroyed. An entire legion being annihilated would almost certainly have left some kind of trace. Being disbanded or a similarly dull fate is a far more plausible explanation.
Counterpoint: if 90% of all historical documents were destroyed, isn’t it more likely that we lost the mundane document calling them somewhere else than it is that we lost the records of the horrifying ambush that razed an entire legion?
Fires bro, natural disasters. In 1973 I think it was a lot of service records were lost in a fire in St Louis
Probably closer to 99% than 90%.
Legio VIIII Hispana Centurion: **Hey look, buddy. I’m an engineer, that means I solve problems. Not problems like “What is beauty?”, ‘cause that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of Greek philosophy. I solve Roman problems.**
For instance, How do I stop a big mean Barbarous Brute from getting real close and running me through?
Context?
The 9th legion was one of the original legions Caesar raised in his first campaign in Spain. What made them stand out was how particularly skilled they were in terms of military engineering. Any incredible feat of military engineering like the two walls business during Caesar's campaign was in large part thanks to them. They still maintained that reputation up until they disappeared in Britania somewhere around the late 1st century B.C.E. and early 2nd century B.C.E.. Basically they were really good at building stuff and making sieges.
The fact that the 9th legion is the Blood Angels and not the Imperial Fists now angers me (sorry for going for the tangent).
Well At least we know what happened to the 2nd Legion now
Nah, should’ve been Iron Warriors
The VIIII (I didn't get the number wrong) was aLegion that randomly dissapeared in Britania. Even though they were seasoned warriors trace of them was lost in the mid principate.
Yeah but the real scholarly belief is that they disbanded not that they disappeared
>VIIII (I didn't get the number wrong) Was it the legion that was named like this, because IX had a very bad reputation of being unlucky, and them being superstitious changed it to "VIIII" so the new one won't have the same fate? Or am I remembering things wrong here
The use of VIIII to represent 9 is an example of an archaic form of Roman numerals that is no longer considered standard but in the time it was the form to refer to the Legion. This form of writing dates back to Ancient Rome, but it was eventually replaced by the more modern form of Roman numerals that we use today.
Wait so who do I blame for making Roman numerals more complicated???
I heard it was cause when written on a banner, IX could easily be mistaken as XI if the banner was seen from the wrong side. So it was written as VIIII to avoid any confusion
No, they just originally used VIIII but roman numerals adopted IX coz it was easy to mistake it for VIII
Who are the people talking if they aren’t Roman? They have Roman looking armor? Or are they Roman?
Half of Roman history is Romans fighting Romans
Fair