Talk:Legio IX Hispana

	Legio IX Hispana covers content related to York Museums Trust. This organisation has participated in a GLAMwiki project. You may find interesting content related to the topic among their Archaeological collections of the Yorkshire Museum images or items or be find out more about them or from their staff at their GLAM Directory Page. They are keen to help through this and their participation in the global GLAMwiki Project

Why?

Why isn't the idea of the Ninth falling at the hands of Pretanic peoples now accepted? It seems a rather bold statement.

Because some research found that the IX was still active after her journey in Britain.90.9.28.237 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

VIIII

Maybe I missed something but should this be "Legio IX Hispana"? --Looper5920 12:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

--- I agree, it should be moved to Legio IX Hispana 194.17.229.129 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

VIIII / IX

Both are possible. Both are used in inscriptions, for example on tombstones from legionaries of the legion. Roy 15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a related note in our article on Roman numerals. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

yes true both are valid but IX is more common and widely known also.....do you not see that it looks quite weird? [guest] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.238.55 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Or own article in wikipedia [[1]] say the most common form was VIIII. Is this the scholar consesus? Should we not change the name of the Legio IX? There is a reference in the already cited article (Boyne (1968). A manual of Roman coins. p. 13.) that I don´t have how to consult. Anyone have a reliable source to settle this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarikcwb (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Symbol unknown

it says the symbol for the leigon was unknown, yet on the internet i have seen this.. it is part horse part fish(?) but not a seahorse because it has front legs.[2]--SalvoCalcio 07:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Move

I have gone ahead and moved this, and the other similar legions. Articles should be given the most accessible name, and the one most likely to make linking easy. (If someone really wants to move them back, please discuss; but at least the redirects are made.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Latin Wikipedia, I suggest that it should be title "Ninth Legion", as the name by which this unit is most commonly known in English. PatGallacher (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Repetition

The article starts "Legio IX Hispana ..., sometimes known as Legio IX Hispana..." Something wrong there. Languagehat (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture

A strange reference but, it might be worthy of note should this storyline actually be developed into a full scale video game. Who knows.

Legio IX Hispania is currently making an appearance in a MySpace application, "Nightfall: Bloodlines." In the storyline for the application (or minigame or beta test or whatever the hell these things are supposed to be) the Legio IX's history is summed up to York and beyond. ODDLY, it is given the additional nickname Striges. And supposedly was composed of vampires and was nearly annihilated, by... wait for it... Pictish werewolves. Thus explaining its post York history on the fringes of Roman military history.

The unit symbol listed in the game is, obviously, a bat. It also misidentifies the raising of the legion as being done under Caesar.

The Egoist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.86.251 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An appearance in a Myspace application isn't notable. Should it ever be developed into a full scale game (which is a big step from a myspace application), it might be worth mentioning, but we don't have to worry about that now. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the entire first sentence of my post where I actually said, "it might be worthy of note should this storyline actually be developed into a full scale video game."

It is a strange and humorous reference. People interested in the Roman military or in British history, you know, the people who edit this page, might find it funny that Roman military archana has infiltrated something as pop culture as MySpace. I never suggested it be added unless it was developed into a fullscale game.

Although, I'm not sure how notable you have to be on this. Any reference in any format reaching more than 100,000 people would be notable for a topic this obscure. This page is dealing with hardcore archana, even the notable references are hardly notable.

In fact, other than their participation in the founding of York, Legion IX, is of interest to a few Roman Military scholars and a handful of British historians and sci-fi writers. Meaning it's not really all that notable itself.

The Egoist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.86.251 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hispaniensis vs Hispana

Just wondering. According to my (rudimentary) dictionary, 'Hispaniensis' means Hispanic; so does Hispana.

According to the article, "The 9th was withdrawn to Spain in 49 BC where it earned the title “Hispaniensis”", and "Their surname Hispana likely dates from this event and was probably earned for distinction in fighting."

What's the distinction / difference between Hispaniensis and Hispana in this context? Not a major thing, but I'm afraid I don't know any Latin scholars to ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.3.43 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Later evidence

What evidence is there for the legion's existence after 117 AD ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is some doubt because some officers serving into the IX Hispana were still active in Syria after 117 AD. That's a few but... And there are too those two stamped tiles found around Nijmegen... Trouble is, hard to know when there were made before or after its journey in Britain ? In another way, there is no pure evidence this legion was destroyed in Britain too... 92.157.232.73 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

In view of the fact that there is debate about the legion's movements, or even existence, after 117 AD, what is the justification for including them there in 125 AD ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reenactment groups

Several reenactment groups were listed under "External links" and deleted They might be mentioned in the text, so I put them here for reference:

• Reenactment website
• Legio IX Hispana, USA re-enactment group
• LEG VIIII HSPA,

Australian re-enactment group

• Legio IX Hisp, Roman unit in 'The Vicus' re-enactment group.

Barsoomian (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Destroyed in Britain and Miles Russell x 4

We've now used him as a source for this argument citing his book, a BBC news magazine article, and a BBC history magazine article (as those two are around the same time they may well be virtually the same thing. Tell a lie, we've used him 4 times, ref 11 is a review of a film. The only other reference is a Daily Mail article which probably isn't a reliable source in any case. I don't think we have enough to say 'some' - I suggest we just have on sentence attributing the claim to Russell (whose claim doesn't seem to be discussed anywhere in the literature yet in any case) with one cite to him. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

CE/BCE or AD/ BC

There are periodic edit wars about the date format, AD/BC or CE/BCE. There seem to be several (or perhaps one) IP editors who turn up and change the format to BC/AD, often doing it incompletely and messing up other things in the process. I've reverted the last couple of such changes. I think that modern archaeological use tends to CE/BCE. Any reason not to follow this? Barsoomian (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is WP:ERA, which is pretty vague but encourages us not to change the style without good reason. In this edit summary one of the IPs points out that the original version of the article used BC/AD. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have to be bound by whatever the first person to post wrote in 2003. I checked the history of the article, and all of the editors changing (or reverting if you prefer) to AD/BC are IP accounts making driveby edits. Regardless of how it got there, at the moment it's all CE and I propose we stick to that. Barsoomian (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERA It is very clear on this matter. If someone wishes to change the date style from the original, they MUST follow the criteria listed at WP:ERA. Until that happens, the original style should not be changed. To say we should "stick with what is there now" is not acceptable as "what is there now" has been changed back and forth. Since a consensus has not be reached to change from the original and a valid reason for the change has not been given, the original style shall remain. Again, if there is a valid reason (preference is not a valid reason as WP:ERA stated there is no preference on wikipedia's part) So, follow the proper procedures for these edits if that is what you wish, but do not engage in an edit war. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

When I started editing this article, the style was mixed, I made it consistent. I wasn't changing an established style. Obviously many contributors had made additions using both styles, with a preponderance of BCE. That indicates the preference and consensus here, more than comments by editors who flit from article to article and hammer this one issue. Barsoomian (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP is almost a single-purpose editor whose edits are mainly changing BCE/CE to BC/AD but never the other way around. We can change it, and I agree it should be CE/BCE. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, glad to get some input here. Reviewing the IP's edits, many of them he changed the style despite the creating edit using BCE, (e.g. (creation, IP edit); (creation, IP edit), (creation, IP edit -- disingenuously described as "fix typo"). So he clearly is enforcing his own preference, just making driveby edits when he can get away with it. Barsoomian (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting enough, WP:ERA now says nothing about 'creating edits' or original style, just "Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." I think we have a valid reason for this article being BCE/CE. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In the lead para of that article it does say "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." And I think the discussion here has satisfied that. It isn't locked down from the first edit. Barsoomian (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on date style

In order to avoid edit wars, we should follow the rules as they are written at WP:ERA. The original date style of this article is BC/AD. There are contributors to this article who would like it to be changed to BCE/CE. Both date styles are acceptable per WP:ERA and preference should not be a reason. Can anyone provide a valid reason this article should be change from its original style BC/AD to BCE/CE. Again, keep in mind that both are acceptable and preference is not a valid reason 99.101.160.126 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All discussed above. Barsoomian (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The above section all relates to preference. What is the valid reason for the change from the original style? Also, the above section had two people supporting BC/AD and two supporting BCE/CE. WP:ERA states four key points: 1)"No preference is given to either style." 2)"Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article." (This is what took place when the original style was changed.)3)"a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." 4)"establish a consensus for change at the talk page." How does the above section meet the criteria laid out at WP:ERA? Unless the criteria is met, this article needs to be reverted to the original date style. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All discussed above. Barsoomian (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the mediator/clerk at DRN Legio IX Hispana my edits were justified. With that being said, this article will be reverted to the original date style. I will wait a couple days to allow others to weigh in. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No such determination was made. Barsoomian (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Destruction of Legio IX Hispana

I am concerned that the English language version of this article does not reflect the current stand of research. Specifically, the disappearance of Leg IX Hisp is too much tied to events in Britain, reflecting, perhaps, an anglocentric viewpoint of the writer(s) and an overemphasis on popular culture. Comparison with the German language version shows very clearly that this legion cannot have been destroyed in Britain, since it is clearly attested later in Germania inf. (Nijmegen). German scholars suspect that the legion was lost under Marcus Aurelius, either in the Bar Kochba revolt in Palestine or against the Parthians. See: Bogaers: Die Besatzungstruppen des Legionslagers Nijmegen [3] 91.10.91.119 (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from editing the article yourself. Just be careful to cite reliable sources. Though perhaps German sources have their own biases. The section on the 9th Legion in fiction is extensive, but separate from the real history. Barsoomian (talk) 12:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reworded it. There are plenty of reliable sources in English that it was transferred out of Britain and the lead didn't make it clear that that is the general scholarly opinion now. We need to discuss the later evidence for Nijmegen, but I don't have time to do more than mention it in the lead. Some sources:[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Dougweller (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Caesar? Which one?

It seems a little strange that "Caesar" is used so liberally without saying which Caesar it was:

• "but Caesar is known"
• "Caesar's Ninth Legion"
• "Caesar disbanded the legion"
• "Following Caesar's assassination"

It is the same as saying:

• "but Emperor is known"
• "Emperor's Ninth Legion"
• "Emperor disbanded the legion"
• "Following Emperor's assassination"

While I appreciate there is a misconception that "Caesar" will only refer to Julius, care must be taken to correct these errors. In particular Octavian Caesar, "Imperator Caesar", and Claudius Caesar - both of whom are mentioned in the same section and in some cases the same paragraphs and sentences. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You may have a point. WP:SOFIXIT. Barsoomian (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And so if I do have a point, and have not fixed it, you can only assume that rather than you do it (who seems to know something about this) you suggest I (who knows nothing about the topic) do it?

If I was sure about which was being referred to I would have fixed it. That is why I have brought it here, because I do not know which is which - but if you would rather just look clever by quoting something I am extremely aware of rather than fix the article ... WP:AGF Chaosdruid (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I claim no expertise in Roman history. I took an interest in the article mainly via the fiction about it. And since then I've cleaned it up and protected it from vandalism. If you know enough to think there is a problem, then you know more than I. So, go ahead and fix it. By saying that I was indeed assuming good faith. I wouldn't suggest anyone edit it otherwise. There is no tiger team of historical scholars waiting for you to direct their efforts. Editors are self-selected. If you don't want to make the effort, then it's unlikely anyone else will. Barsoomian (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I know enough to know there is a problem because I know there was more than one Caesar. That has little to do with this subject, so you actually know more than me about it; though I accept that as you did not know there was more than one Caesar, or did not bother to read the whole article, you may in fact know just as much as me about the subject.

Instead of telling me to do it, you could simply have done it yourself rather than wasting all this time writing oratories about who is more qualified. It seems to me that you have edited the article quite a bit, professed to a knowledge of the subject "via the fiction about it" and seem better capable than me to fix this matter. At the end of the day I leave a message for someone else to fix it because they may know more than me. If you cannot help, adding "Do it yourself" is not constructive and is quite rude, similar to the many forums where people ask for help and someone says "Well mine is working fine" Chaosdruid (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

So you prefer to spend your time insulting other editors rather than improving articles. Barsoomian (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Have dealt with the first two points of the original post--"but Caesar was known" and "Caesar's Ninth Legion" For the first of these the Caesar referred to is the Caesar of the Civil War, Gaius Julius Caesar, and so the reference put in to Julius Caesar and linked to the appropriate article. Since the paragraph immediately below, "Caesar's Ninth Legion" refers to the material immediately above, the change "The Caesarian Ninth Legion" seemed sufficient to clarify. The other two points need no further clarification once the link was made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahab Qvetcher (talk • contribs) 05:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Lost in Britain?

While the theory of the legion being lost in Britain may be largely discredited, it deserves more prominence here because it's been so influential culturally. Some historian must have come up with the theory. It also seems to me that Rosemary Sutcliff had a major role in popularising the idea. While it might have been plausible to say that the legion was destroyed in fighting, the idea that it disappeared without trace seems to have no historical evidence, though it obviously captured the imagination.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think stating that the theory is largely discredited is overstating the case. The tiles are hardly conclusive - the ninth is only one interpretation of the stamps, and even if it was demonstrated that the stamps definitively indicated the involvement of the ninth, it does not require the presence of the ninth. The evidence against loss in Britain is at least as flimsy as the evidence for loss in Britain, and the question remains open ... 212.69.47.202 (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have greatly expanded the section on the theory of loss in Britain. There are still some things missing, I think. I strongly doubt that Sutcliff invented the "disappeared without trace in Caledonia" story. It makes sense as speculation to explain the lack of physical evidence of war, and the creation of Hadrian's wall. After all the Ninth had been involved in the nominal subjugation of the north under Agricola a few decades earlier. The creation the wall suggests that it was part of a strategy to separate the parts of Britain that were deemed worth keeping under control and those that were not, and to divide tribes who might combine to provide a threat. I'm guessing that the theory that the rebellion included Caledonians, possibly in alliance with Brigantes (as described in the novel) was expressed by historians of the 1940s-50s era, but I can't find evidence of that. Paul B (talk) 10:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"I strongly doubt that Sutcliff invented the "disappeared without trace in Caledonia" story." Why not ? After all Sutcliff was a novelist who wrote several historical fictions.90.42.176.112 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gee, what an insight. You miss the point entirely. First, she makes this statement in a preface, not in the novel. It's presented as fact, not fiction. Secondly, all the rest of my post explains why it's likely that the theory was established before the book. We all know that the story of Aquila recovering the eagle is fiction, but all historical novels interweave fiction with established historical fact (or what is believed to be so). Distinguishing the two is the point. Paul B (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I did miss the point, it's comparable to the preface of Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code", which despite the more notorious fame of the book, is just another work of fiction claiming some historical background. But the point is that the disappearance of Legio IX in Britain is only a theory, strongly supported and singularly by British historians, but finally no more or less convincing that the theory of its disappearance in Judea or the one in Armenia. Proof is still needed in this case. 90.42.4.7 (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You certainly did miss it. The preface to the Da Vinci Code does indeed refer to claims that Brown did not invent. He got them from previous "factual" (albeit fringe) history books such as the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation. I've already explained that the Caledonia theory is presented as fact in the preface. I don't think British historians especially 'want' the legion to have been destroyed in Britain, though there is certainly a Scottish nationalist aspect to this, more populist than scholarly. Paul B (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, one preface presents some hearsay as facts (Sutcliff) and another one presents some lunacy as facts (Brown), so it's comparable as Brown didn't limit himself to copy and paste the books you did mention (the forgery of Pierre Plantard per example). I didn't say British historians want this legion destroyed in Britain, I pointed out that it seems only some of them defend this theory, here lies the difference. Finally your explanation to justify this theory seems too restricted to Britain whereas it explains the need to fortify almost all the Empire's limits. Hadrian systematically fortified the frontier of all the Empire and he was continuating some smaller scale works started under Caligula, well long before the loss of the Legio IX. The strategy to divide differents tribes from unity against Roman rule was the case again on the frontier of all the Empire. The both Upper and Lower Germanic Limes or even the different dispersion of legions made by Caesar during the Gallic Wars are prime examples of that strategy. Your explanation is tempting, but looking at a larger scale, doubt arises as it doesn't seem something particuliary of Britain around AD 117 with the disapearance of a legion there. 90.42.57.75 (talk) 00:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Against Parthians

There are 4 texts on the ninth legion in Nijmegen dated between 121-130 and an altar of Apollo built by one of his officers in Aachen. And it is known that several officers based on their age could not be part of it before 125 and one before 130. In the list of 162 of Marcus Aurelius missing two legions, the ninth and twenty-second. The last one was disbanded after the Jewish revolt of 131-135. Dion Cassius says that a legion was destroyed in 161 in Armenia against the Parthians, which gives reason to believe that this was the end of the ninth legion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.35.216 (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legio IX Hispana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213001946/http://www.readingmuseum.org.uk/collections/album/pdfs/sileagle-38.pdf to http://www.readingmuseum.org.uk/collections/album/pdfs/sileagle-38.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140430054437/http://www.vicus.org.uk/ to http://www.vicus.org.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Sequential legions?

Inquiries from ignorance... (this Yank doesn't know much Roman history)

Could a diminished Legio IX have been demobilized in northern Britain and a new IXth recruited in Germany? Likewise, could a successive legion been formed in Syria? Answers to these questions may improve the article.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)