h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: A Roman Mystery - The Lost 9th Legion And The Silchester Eagle - A82866289
Author: bobstafford - U3151547

Try again I think the bugs have been removed

Welcome back Bob Peer Review never seemed the same without something Roman in it!

Please note to all new reviewers that this Entry has been both in the EGE and Peer Review once before, see the conversations at the bottom of the Entry itself.

Let's get this one moving!

How exactly

An amzing entry with a lot of information, and very clearly put - and i was really scraping the barrel to come up with any corrections

relieve Camulodunum. And as a result - doesn't make a great deal of sense with the full stop breaking up what would read better as

relieve Camulodunum, as a result...

You also need to make that your foot note markers are linked to the word, rather than spaced, as a few are - it just leaves large gaps inbetween certain words

As you can see I couldn't find much to mutter deprecations about

Is it worth commenting that the complete loss of a Roman legion in battle would have been the cause of a lot more historical note?

Seems great, look forward to it

Excellent article – I'm glad to see you're back. H2G2's not the same without you.

I'd include links to your Hadrian's Wall articles, Classis Britannica etc – it helps the reader to tie it all in together.

Similarly, I would consider linking to:
Silchester's English Heritage page (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/silchester-roman-city-walls-and-amphitheatre)
Reading Museum (so anyone interested knows they can visit) http://www.readingmuseum.org.uk/collections/archaeology/silchester
and maybe mention that Silchester was excavated by Reading University (http://www.reading.ac.uk/silchester) .

Also, wasn't Tacitus Agricola's son-in-law rather than father-in-law?

<BB<

Lovely entry I really enjoyed Rosemary's Sutclifee's book on it. Is it worth mentioning that the story was featured in her book and also in the film 'The Eagle' in 2011?

There is a geat deal of information in this article, and the mystery of the lost legion makes it intriguing. I remember enjoying Rosemary Sutcliffe's 'the Eagle of the Ninth'but, of course, that's fiction!

There are some places where your meaning could be made clearer by tweaking the sentence construction.

In the sentence beginning 'Opinions are divided', add a colon or a dash after '9th', then 'some favour the explanation that...'.

In the sentence beginning 'Some history of the legion shows' insert 'that' before 'the sort of encounters...'.

In the sentence beginning 'The name Eburacum has', you need 'as' or 'because' after 'Ebros'.

In the sentence beginning 'As the home of the 9th was York', it would be clearer to include 'it is perhaps surprising that the legion took no part of the construction of the Wall' after 'area'. Then start a new sentence.

The sentence beginning 'When after 4 years campaiging' gets a bit tangled. I would suggest 'After 4 years of campaigning the Romans, led by Agricola, finally brought the Caledonian forces to battle at Mons Grapius in AD 84.'

In the sentence beginning 'So the idea of the 9th setting off to subdue' should conclude 'would amount, to be blunt, to crminal folly'.

There are several typos and oddly constructed sentences, but I would like a couple of points cleared up first, to put my mind at rest. On re-reading, I realise that the tone of what I have to say is rather clipped and harsh and I apologise for this. All my questions are driven by simple curiosity.

A general point about the legion: It was founded in Spain - do we know if its soldiers were mainly from there or did they pick up men along the way from various peoples encountered in Germania, Britannia and in the wars in Italy?

1. In one of the threads originally attached to the entry, you have a discussion about the title, and end up with the present title "A Roman Mystery - The Lost 9th Legion And The Silchester Eagle" but then you go on to dismiss the Silchester Eagle, only mentioning it in a short section quite late on in the proceedings and practically saying that it can be identified as non-military at first glance. So why did anyone ever connect the eagle to the 9th? Especially as it was found in Hampshire and not in Scotland.

2. At the beginning you say that the Ninth legion's standard showed a bull. When did this change to an Eagle? Or wasn't I paying attention? Or is an eagle just a useful shape to use as a standard - like we would use a flag today? So would it have been an eagle with a bull on its breast?

3. You say in the introductory and concluding paragraphs that the "legion's name disappears from military rolls" but go on to say parts of the legion are mysteriously active in Arabia, Holland and Germany for forty more years. So did they disappear, or didn't they? Or am I simply misunderstanding this? Perhaps the records between 117 AD and 160 AD were just not military rolls... Sorry to be so pedantic.

4. Also in the introduction you mention a memorial to a soldier "killed in a great battle". The only other mention of this memorial, further on, says that it might refer to the battle against the Iceni. That is rather a long way from Caledonia, so how could this confusion arise? And - out of interest: Where is this memorial now? Also in Reading Museum?

5. I found the description of Pannonia rather confusing - there is a lot of territory between Austria and Serbia - (Slovenia, Croatia...) At first I thought it was perhaps Silesia, but according to Wiki, it was Serbia, but also including the rest of Northern ex-Yugoslavia. Perhaps I'm the only person who would be disconcerted by this, though.

6. "At the time of the British invasion" - can you add the year here? (Was it 44 BC?) If anyone's not bothered by dates, they don't have to read it, but it is a rather significant date in the story.

7. I agree that the history of York is very interesting. Small typo "It was form this base" ...

8. The two sentences "As the home of the 9th was York and the area that was to become Hadrian’s wall was in the legion's patrol area. As the legion took no part in the construction of the wall, it could indicate that either the 9th were either busy elsewhere in Britain" need a bit of work on the conjunctions.

9. The heading "So What Happened In Caledonia 117 to 180 AD" requires a question mark. (Ooh, picky, picky. Sorry)

10. In the paragraph on Agricola the sentence "And as a result during the battle and subsequent withdrawal had suffered a reported casualty rate of over 50%. " needs attention.

11. As does "So to indicate a later incursion by the 9th there would evidence provided by a string of marching camps which would also provide proof of the route taken."

12. I had to look up "Vindolanda" - could you add a short word as to what and where that is, please.


Anyway, I found the whole subject most captivating and will now go on to read more of your entries and perhaps even to go to Reading and look at the museum (My sister used to live in Reading, but doesn't any more, which is a pity) Also I shall have a look into visiting some of those places around Hadrian's Wall, and I've been meaning to go back to York for over 30 years now.

But nothing you have said will put me off having another look at the film with Jamie Bell, and possibly even getting the Sutcliffe book out again. The book may not have been based on any truth, but I bet it got lots of kids interested in Roman history.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Sub-editors, please take notice of all the comments in the post higher up this thread.

but well done Bob!

Thank you everyone and I am glad that the book and films will still give the enjoyment intended.

Hi Bob

Just read this entry from the Front Page, nice job! For some reason it won't let me start a conversation on it to tell you that so I came here. Great topic for an entry and nicely done.

Unfortunately I haven't been around much lately so I didn't see it in PR.

I picked up a few things I wanted to mention, though I may be wrong because it's a long time since I've studied this:

"Tacitus, apart from being a historian, was also Agricola's father-in-law" - I thought Tacitus was Agricola's son-in-law?

I have entries on Eboracum (A6377790), The Romans In Britain: The Army (A3421072) and the Vindolanda Tablets (A29849106).

"Investigating these facts further, if the 9th Legion went north in 177 AD, it would have most probably have travelled along Dere Street, and on into Caledonia using the route taken by Gaius Julius Agricola 35 years earlier." - if Agricola won the Battle of Mons Grapius in 84 AD then these dates don't add up.

"There are some records indicating that former officers of the 9th Legion were still on active duties after the possible loss of the 9th. Perhaps the most notable former officer was the Governor of Arabia during 142–143 AD, Lucius Aemilius Karus. Cohorts of the 9th are also recorded performing frontier duties during 121 AD, stationed near Nijmegen in Holland. It has been claimed these men were on detached duties when the 9th could have moved north and they missed the disaster, it is very possible however that these facts11 are subject to interpretation." - ditto the above. If I'm reading it right, you're suggesting that the legion moved north in 177AD so th existence of these other soldiers is not notable. So I think some of the dates must be wrong.

On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that I'm not reading it properly!

Thanks for that information I will check some of the recearch material may be wrong I shall let you know