London is undoubtedly Roman Britain’s greatest legacy. At 138 ha (330 acres), it was the largest city in the province, and served as the centrepiece for a system of communication that has shaped the face of modern Britain. London is today exactly what it was in the beginning: an international commercial metropolis. Ironically, the intensive occupation of London since antiquity means that more Roman material has been found here than at any other Romano-British town. Bombing in World War II and the subsequent redevelopment has led to an almost unending sequence of major excavations and discoveries.
Until the conquest in 43, the Thames served largely as a tribal boundary. There is no trace of any significant prehistoric settlement in the London area. After the conquest, the Thames became the most important route into the heart of Britain. By the year 50 a bridge had been built, close to the present site of London Bridge. It was a decisive moment. London’s name provides us with no clues as to its origins. But by the time of the Boudican revolt, Londinium was a well-known and prosperous trading centre that had developed of its own accord. Yet the city was important enough to make it one of the three key urban targets for the rebellious Britons. It seems that the combination of a vast increase in military commercial traffic under Roman occupation, together with the bridge and roads made London’s development into a significant town inevitable. The most likely scenario is that Roman entrepreneurs, servicing the influx of soldiers and administrators, took advantage of the facilities and settled there. Confident and complacent, none of them took the trouble to install fortifications. During the rebellion, London was torched and any remaining inhabitants massacred. The aftermath was equally dramatic, as London was transformed from a frontiertrading town into the capital of Roman Britain, with all the features necessary to make it a major administrative, social and economic centre.
90. Reconstruction view of Roman London.
London in the second century AD. The settlement, the largest in Roman Britain, was dominated by the massive Hadrianic forum-basilica.
Temporary fortifications were erected and London was rebuilt. The new procurator of the province, Gaius Julius Alpinus Classicianus, was based in London instead of at Colchester. His tombstone has survived, reused in a bastion added to the walls in the late fourth century (see [ 32]). His presence marks the time when London emerged as the pre-eminent town in Roman Britain, and we can safely assume that the governor was also based there. A massive building on the site of the present-day Cannon Street station has been tentatively identified as the governor’s palace. The fort in the northwest part of the city housed his garrison, and was certainly in existence by the early second century. Its associated amphitheatre had been built by the year 70. The many tiles stamped ‘PPBRLON’ (see [82]) show that the Roman government was behind a number of the major public buildings. The city may have been classed as a colony or a municipium, but ironically no inscription has ever been found that specifies its formal legal status.
A crucial part of the reconstruction was the installation of public buildings. London received a modest forum and basilica by 85 at the latest. They were soon replaced by a far bigger version on the same site, with a cathedral-sized basilica begun under Hadrian (117-38), and from which the well-known bronze bust of the emperor (see [ 133]) may have come. Public baths on Huggin Hill were begun around the same time as the first forum, but there were several other, earlier baths.
Around these great structures houses and shops proliferated, jockeying for position and street frontage. Excavations at No. 1 Poultry have produced evidence for a series of tightly-packed wooden buildings along the street, and this seems to have been typical of much of Roman London in the first and second centuries.
Roman London has produced epic quantities of evidence for commerce from soon after 43. The waterlogged Walbrook (a tributary of the Thames, see [ 91]) area has preserved wooden writing tablets, for example one recording a slave girl’s sale (see Chapter 9, ‘Slavery in Roman Britain’), hundreds of leather shoes, basketry, pewter plates, amber, brooches, and a large number of phallic amulets. Wharf sites have yielded abundant imported pottery such as Italian and Spanish amphorae and Gaulish samian ware.
London’s modem streets bear little relation to known Roman streets shown on the plan, though the third-century walls (which incorporated the earlier fort) provided the foundations for the medieval walls.
London’s population is known to us from tombstones and graffiti. Its military population, serving on the governor’s bodyguard or acting in some other official capacity (such as policing), is as usual more conspicuous than any other group of people. Ulpius Silvanus, a veteran of the II legion and devotee of Mithraism, is recorded on the marble relief he donated to London’s mithraeum (see Chapter Io, ‘The cult of Mithras’). Silvanus had enlisted at Orange in Gaul, but London’s inhabitants included people from even further afield. Aulus Alfidius Olussa, who died in London at the age of 70, had been born in Athens. Tulla Numidia’s tombstone was incomplete when found, but her name suggests that she or her father originated in North Africa.
Religion is another indicator of how closely this early London resembled its modern counterpart. Open only to men and emphasizing the importance of valour and physical resilience, Mithraism was popular amongst soldiers and traders. Its adherents carried the cult around the Empire, as did the followers of the Egyptian goddess, Isis. Two inscriptions, a first-century graffito on a flagon and a third-century altar, record a temple of Isis in London. Such exotic cults sat easily alongside more mainstream religious pursuits. Tiberinius Celerianus, probably a merchant shipper, made his dedication to Mars Camulos and the Imperial Spirits at a temple precinct in Southwark (see Chapter 7. ‘Merchants and traders’).
92. Borough High Street (London).
An oil-lamp in the shape of a human foot, found during the digging of the Jubilee Line extension. The wick was placed in the hole in the big toe, and oil would have been poured through the hole in the ankle. Mid-second century.
Reconstruction of the fort at London, possibly built as part of improvements at the time of Hadrian’s visit. The fort housed the garrison of the governor, including detachments from units stationed across Britain.
London’s later history was just as dramatic as its beginning. After substantial damage sustained by fire c. 125-30, London was rebuilt, but the boom had passed. Commerce began slowly to decline over the next hundred years. As with most towns in Roman Britain, a circuit of stone walls was built in the third century, but we have no idea whether this was to meet a specific threat, to control movement, or to simply be a statement of power. The new walls were later reinforced with riverside fortifications. In 286, London became the capital of the independent breakaway regime ruled by Carausius (286-93). Carausius struck the first coins in London, a process continued by his murderer and successor, Allectus (293-96). The female personification of London first appeared on the gold medal struck for Constantius Chlorus (293-306), to commemorate his recovery of the city for the Empire (see [65]).
The city’s latter years were very different. The forum and basilica had been demolished by c. 300, and other public buildings were in various states of disuse. The riverside fortifications had a devastating impact on commerce. The cramped commercial quarters of the first and second centuries had been replaced by more widely-spaced housing. Nevertheless, investment in the defences continued, with bastions being added to the walls after 350. London seems to have faded quietly in the way of most of Roman Britain’s towns, as the economy that supported them ceased to exist. In the fifth century, settlement seems to have shifted temporarily west to the area now known as Aldwych, but by the tenth and eleventh centuries London was once again a thriving city.
Tile and stone culvert used to drain water from the city out to the Thames.
The army had a monumental impact on the character of Roman Britain, and was responsible more than anything else for those defining characteristics of Romanization. Its remnants dominate the archaeological record. The army was not a faceless mechanism made up of disciplined and programmed androids executing imperial military strategy. It was also not an exclusively military organization in the way we understand it. Evidence from around the Roman Empire, especially Egypt, shows that soldiers were often behind public buildings and engineering projects. They acted as administrators and policemen, tax-collectors, manufacturers and labourers, and even trapped wild animals for the circus. In other words, soldiers did more or less whatever was required of them by the state.
Units in the Roman army, legions and auxiliary regiments alike, were proud of their identities and loyalties to their respective commanders, and jealously maintained traditions of titles and ethnicity. Those identities were cumulative products of each unit’s individual history, and stretched back in some cases over several centuries. The XIV legion left Britain by around the year 70, but for the rest of its existence it basked in the titles Martia Victrix, won for suppressing the Boudican revolt. In the same manner, the RAF’s No. 617 Squadron is known to this day as the ‘Dambusters’ after its exploits in May 1943, and will be for as long as it exists.
The identity of a regiment, with its standards and battle honours, provided a solid psychological and social foundation [ 96]. Where it had been based and for how long, from where its numbers had originally been recruited, and what its duties had been, all helped to create a unique combination of military traditions and external influences. A unit that had been based for generations on a Hadrian’s Wall fort, for example, had over the years abundant opportunity to interact with the local population, affecting customs and language. A unit that had arrived in Britain after a period based somewhere else on the imperial frontiers brought its own ethnic traditions, absorbed from where it had been based, and perhaps soldiers born to women there.
A modern re-enactor poses as a second-century auxiliary cavalryman near the earth-and-timber Antonine fort at Drumlanrig (Dumfries and Galloway).
The army in Britain has been afforded much attention in traditional Roman archaeological and historical literature because of its visibility in the record. This is so crucial that its effects cannot be overestimated. Inscriptions provide us with more evidence than anything else for religious activities, individuals and families. In Britain, almost half of all surviving inscriptions come from the Hadrian’s Wall area, and most of these are explicitly attributable either to a military unit, or to individual soldiers [ 97]. The rest are usually attributable to probable soldiers or their immediate civilian associates. Most of Britain’s other inscriptions belong to the military zone. Even in the so-called ‘civilian’ towns of southern Britain, a grossly
Disproportionate quantity of the few extant inscriptions can be attributed either to soldiers from the military phase of the settlement’s existence, or to later soldiers in transit or on other duties. In other words, soldiers were far more likely to commission inscriptions, whether commemorative unit inscriptions, individual religious dedications, or tombstones. This raises the important question of how much soldiers were responsible for other examples of Romanization, such as the use of coinage or building of accomplished architecture, even where we cannot prove their involvement.
97* Vindolanda (Northumberland).
Altar dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus by Quintus Petronius Urbicus, commander of the Fourth Cohort of Gauls. Early third century.
Since archaeologists necessarily use surviving physical evidence to understand and assess each community, this visible and tangible bias to the military raises all sorts of peculiar problems. The apparently higher levels of literacy amongst soldiers, testified in Egypt where documents survive much better than anywhere else, correspond with Britain’s epigraphic record. 1 In a remote province, where literacy scarcely existed before the Roman invasion, the Roman military may not only have been the principal engine behind Romanization in all its forms, but may have remained so throughout much of the period.
ORGANIZATION OF THE ARMY
Until the end of the third century, the army was based around the legions and their attendant auxiliary troops. Despite the importance of the army, our understanding of how it was organized depends on making sense of a large number of incomplete pieces of evidence. Writing in about the year 23, Tacitus listed 27 legions dispersed around the Roman Empire.2 They were allocated according to strategic and tactical needs. As a result, the Rhine, one of the most dangerous frontiers, had eight legions, nearly a third of the total at the time. From what we know of other legions at different times, the number seems to have hovered at around 30 for most of the rest of the next two centuries [99].3
98. The Roman military in Britain.
The principal military installations of Roman Britain, not all of which were occupied at the same time. The map also shows the main civilian settlements and mineral sources.
Tombstone of Gaius Valerius Victor, a legionary with IIAugusta, who died at 45 years of age after 17 years’ service. He came from Lyons (Lugdunum) in Gaul. Gaul, Spain and Italy were the most common sources of legionaries stationed in Britain. Probably late first century. (British Museum).
The Legions
Vegetius attributed Roman military success to the brilliance of legionary organization.4 The legion was commanded by the legatus legionis, a man of senatorial status who was literally the ‘delegate’ of the emperor. The second-in-command was the senior tribune (of the six allocated to the legion), and like his commander was of senatorial rank. Such a man might proceed to his own legionary command, and indeed this was the course followed by Agricola. The other five tribunes were of equestrian rank, and might have been promoted to the position of senior tribune after commanding an auxiliary unit, or serving in a civilian administrative post. For these five, a career as a procurator, or further auxiliary commands, might follow. The praefectus castrorum, ‘prefect of the camp’, was third-incommand. His duties were varied, and ranged from being sent off with a party of troops on fort-building detail, or looking after tools used for carpentry.5 During the Boudican revolt, the legate and senior tribune of II
Augusta appear to have been absent, and the praefectus castrorum, Poenius Postumus, was left in charge.6
Legionaries were Roman citizens. The basic unit was the centuria, or ‘century’, meaning literally ‘100’, but the term was used loosely. On campaign each century had eight tent parties ( contubernia), with eight men per tent. This makes 64 soldiers, with another 16 men on guard, giving a total of 80 men per century. 7 In a legionary fortress, all of the troops had accommodation. Each barrack block had ten pairs of rooms, one for each contubernium [100]. The same arrangement was usually found in auxiliary infantry forts. Each century had a centurion, together with his assistant, the optio (‘a helper freely chosen’).8 The century also had its own tesserarius, who organized the daily comings and goings of troops in the century, and the custos armorum, who took care of its equipment.
100. Caerleon (Monmouthshire).
Legionary barrack blocks at Caerleon (Isca) in the northwest corner of the fortress.
The centuries were organized into cohorts. The barracks at the Flavian fortress of Inchtuthil show that nine of the ten cohorts had six centuries,
While the tenth had five double-centuries, confirmed on an inscription from Lambaesis, in North Africa, that names five optiones in the first cohort.9 Therefore, nine cohorts consisted of 480 men each (4,320 plus 108 centurions and optiones), and one had 800 men (plus ten centurions and optiones). The latter was called a mUliaria, derived from the word for ‘thousand’ and which was just as nominal a term as ‘century’. This provides us with a total of 5,120 plus 128 centurions and optiones. The doubling of the centuries in the first cohort seems only to have taken place by the late first century. In the fourth century, Vegetius describes the battle order that started with the first cohort to the right, then the second, and so on to the fifth. The sixth cohort had the most recent recruits, and they fought behind the second cohort. The centurion of the first century in the first cohort was known as primus pilus, and was the legion’s pre-eminent centurion.10 By the late first century BC, the legion had only 120 cavalry, and this remained the
Case.
So the legion in the late first century ad had around 5,368 men, with an additional number of officers and others (such as doctors), collectively making up a total of around 5,500 men. It is obvious from inscriptions and other references that the actual number on any day varied, due to men on detachment to the governor’s guard, sickness, unfilled vacancies and casualties.12 Moreover, legions were continually being divided into vexillations, or wings. Like almost every administrative unit in human history, the complete legion was usually just a theory.
The Auxiliaries
In his description of the army in ad 23, Tacitus says that the auxiliaries were made up of infantry and cavalry. He added that their total was similar to that of the legions, but that their numbers varied continuously as required, and therefore he could not list them. According to Vegetius, auxiliaries were hired for their range of regional fighting techniques and skills, made vastly more useful to the Romans through discipline and their coordinated use within the Roman army.13 Auxiliaries were not Roman citizens, unless a display of special valour had been followed by a grant of status from the emperor.14 Individual auxiliaries who were honourably discharged after 25 years’ service (usually more in practice) were granted citizenship on retirement.
Josephus, referring to the Jewish War in Palestine in the late 60s,
Provides numbers.15 The V, X and XV legions had i8 cohorts of auxiliaries attached to them, with an additional five cohorts and six cavalry auxiliary units brought in for the campaign. Ten of the 23 cohorts were ‘1,000-strong’, and the remainder were ‘6oo-strong with 120 cavalry. The numbers were nominal.
Auxiliaries were commanded by equestrians. The cavalry units and infantry cohorts were commanded by a praefectus, but the cohors mUliaria peditata was commanded by a tribune. The ala mUliaria commander outranked other auxiliary commanders. Centurions and optiones commanded individual centuries, and in the cavalry units a decurion commanded each turma, assisted by a duplicarius and sesquiplicarius, titles that merely mean ‘double pay’ and ‘one-and-a-half times pay’, respectively.
Other auxiliary troops are normally described as ‘irregular’ because they were hired on an ad-hoc basis in frontier areas, and did not enjoy integrated status. These men were not awarded with citizenship on discharge. Formed into loosely organized cavalry (cuneus, meaning ‘wedge’) and infantry (numerus) units, each had its own arrangements. They fought alongside mainstream auxiliaries, and served in a variety of capacities, such as the numerus Exploratorum Bremeniensium at High Rochester in the early 240s.16
Tacitus says that ‘allied provinces’ contributed ships ( triremes), as well as the other auxiliaries.17 For obvious reasons, once Roman power extended along the English Channel and around the Gaulish coastline, a fleet became a permanent necessity. The classis Britannica is known from its fort at Dover, recorded on roof-tiles stamped ‘CL. BR’. It also seems to have been involved with iron-working in southeastern England, for example at Beauport Park (Sussex), where similar tiles have been found. On Hadrian’s Wall at Benwell, a fleet vexillation built the granary under Hadrian, c. 12224.18 The fleet was commanded by a prefect who had already commanded land forces. Marcus Maenius Agrippa commanded the British fleet during the years c. 130-34, having previously commanded the First Cohort of Spaniards at Maryport (Northumberland).19 None of its ships have survived in any form.
THE ARMY IN BRITAIN, FIRST TO THIRD CENTURIES
The Legions
Roman historians rarely make references to specific legions, and even less frequently to specific auxiliaries. Only inscriptions can fill in the gaps. However, a tombstone of a soldier who was in a legion does not necessarily mean that his unit was present. Even when an inscription was made in the name of the unit, the whole legion or auxiliary cohort may not have been there at the time. Tracking movements of military units depends on accumulating data, but any sort of definitive account is beyond our reach.
The legionary garrison of Britain from 43 and throughout most of the first century consisted of four legions. Of these, II Augusta, IX Hispanaand XX Valeria Victrix were a constant feature [ 101]. By the end of the first century, they were stationed at Caerleon, York and Chester, respectively. The fourth legion was initially XIV Gemina Martia Victri:x but it had left by 70 to be replaced with II Adiutrix Pia Fidelis which started out at Lincoln before going west to Chester, until XX was pulled back from the north. II Adiutrix was withdrawn before 89, leaving Britain with three legions. The only further permanent change was the arrival of VI Victrix around 122 to replace IX Hispana, last heard of at York by 108. The IX legion then vanishes from the record, apart from a single possible appearance in Holland. From the time of the invasion, the army was reinforced as and when required by vexillations from other legions, such as VIII and XXII. The garrison of Britain also contributed vexillations to Continental campaigns, such as those of Gallienus (253-68). Only II and VI are mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum for the fourth century; XX is omitted either by accident or because by then it had ceased to exist. The Notitia places II at Richborough, a place far too small to accommodate it at its original strength. Presumably it was now seriously reduced in size as part of the military reorganization of the fourth century.
Individual legionaries were detached to an unlimited variety of duties in civilian contexts. The most conspicuous in Britain was the governor’s guard, but soldiers were also detached to serve the legionary legate or one of his tribunes. Centurions also served in various capacities, both military and civilian. When Hadrian addressed III Augusta in 128 in North Africa, he specifically referred to the fact that ‘many widely scattered posts separate you’.20 Marcus Censorius Cornelianus was a centurion with X Fretensis, a legion that so far as we know was never stationed in Britain, but at some point he commanded the First Cohort of Spaniards at Maryport.21 Normally an equestrian tribune would have commanded the cohort, so Censorius may have been installed as a stopgap leader. As his legion was stationed in
Judaea, his career shows just how far individual troops could be dispersed across the Roman world.
101. Benwell (Northumberland).
Building stone installed by IIAugusta, naming the unit and showing its mascots of a capricorn and winged horse, demonstrating that the legion had built at least part of this Hadrian’s Wall fort. About 122-30. (British Museum).
The Auxiliaries
Since far more auxiliary units were involved in garrisoning Britain, and their movements and nature far more variable, it is impossible to be sure how many were involved. One estimate, based on Britain’s inscriptions and forts, is that the number of auxiliaries may have been around double the maximum number of 20,000-odd legionaries when there were four legions.22 Inscriptions make it clear that, for example, while the legions built the Walls, it was auxiliary units that provided most of the permanent garrison along the frontiers [104].
Section of relief from Trajan’s Column depicting auxiliary soldiers of the early second century on campaign. Auxiliaries did most of the campaigning and fighting in the Roman army.
The First ala of Thracian cavalry illustrates the problem. An inscription on a tombstone from Colchester names a trooper called Longinus [105]. Since we can reasonably attribute the XX legion to Colchester, a legionary fortress between 43-49, this unit was probably attached to XX. The tombstone of another trooper, Sextus Valerius Genialis (see Chapter 9, ‘People and ethnicity in Roman Britain’), from Cirencester, belongs roughly to the middle of the first century, a time when the legion may have been nearby at Kingsholm, near Gloucester.23 However, a bronze skillet from Caerleon, the base of II Augusta, is stamped for the ala.24 The three inscriptions could easily be interpreted as evidence that the First Thracian cavalry wing was stationed with XX at Colchester, before being installed in an auxiliary fort at Cirencester, and then subsequently based at Caerleon with II Augusta.
Tombstone of the auxiliary cavalryman, Longinus, who served in a Thracian regiment, and probably served in the invasion force of 43. Probably erected c. 43-49. (Colchester Museums).
It is impossible to be certain about any of this, even though it fits with the picture painted by Tacitus and Josephus. All we have available to us is a very general perception of how auxiliaries were used. The unit of ‘Celts’ described by Dio in the first battle of the invasion of 43 shows how auxiliaries, because they were disposable, were placed in the forefront of any fighting. Ostorius Scapula, governor from 47-51, used auxiliaries against an insurrection of the Iceni.25 The battle against Boudica seems to have been a more actively cooperative effort. Legionaries with auxiliary cavalry and infantry fought together. After the war was over, all were Correspondingly reinforced.26 At the Battle of Mons Graupius in 83 or 84, Agricola had all, or most, of the IX and XX legions with him. Tacitus says that he also had 8,000 auxiliary infantry and 3,000 auxiliary cavalry who formed the main battle line, while the legionaries were placed in reserve. 27 This is very useful information. Not only do we have approximately 11,000 legionaries alongside a corresponding 11,000 auxiliaries, but the auxiliaries were the only soldiers in the front line of the battle. The auxiliary cavalry proved decisive at the height of the engagement, and it was never necessary to order the legionaries to take part.
By the time of the Vindolanda writing tablets in the 90s, auxiliary units were dispersed along the straggling line we know as the Stanegate. The Vindolandan strength report shows that the First Cohort of Tungrians were doing more than simply filling out their time at a fort. Forty-six soldiers had been allocated to the governor’s staff, and were serving in the office of Julius Ferox, probably the legate commanding IX Hispana at York. A few others were at Corbridge and London. Since this is a single instance of the garrison at a single auxiliary fort, we need to be careful. But it is all we have, and it helps to make sense of why some forts have inscriptions from several different units. Once this was thought to represent different garrisons at different times. Even if a fort had a nominal main garrison, on any one day it might be accommodating sections from different units. The arrangements were in constant flux.28
The pattern of evidence recording the auxiliary forces in Britain is unbalanced. In the first century, we have almost nothing except references by historians, such as Tacitus, who never specify the full name of the unit. A few contemporary inscriptions, such as a letter from Carlisle, survive, but in general the period for the years 43 to 103 is a blank. For the second century, one of our principal sources is the ‘diploma’, a tabular record of auxiliary veterans discharged on a specific day. Some soldiers invested in engraved bronze copies of the official record, and it is these that sometimes survive, though they are rarely complete. One of the better preserved was found at Malpas (Cheshire) in 1812, and was dated 19 January 103 in the reign of Trajan.29 It only records units from which veterans had been discharged, rather than a full list of units, but it does say that the units named were ‘stationed in Britain under [the governor] Lucius Neratius Marcellus. So on that day the auxiliary garrison of Britain included the units listed on the diploma, which were four cavalry wings and a mixture of infantry cohorts. There are several other diplomas known from Britain throughout the second century, and while they provide invaluable information, the one thing they do not do is tell us is where the units were stationed.
The only means of knowing where auxiliary units were based is when inscriptions naming the units turn up at forts, preferably in some quantity and with datable information on them.30 The ala Gallorum Sebosiana illustrates the problem. In around 78-84, the unit was mentioned by one of its number, then attached to the staff of the governor Agricola, on a writing tablet found at Carlisle.31 Several diplomas, including the Malpas diploma, refer to its continued presence in Britain up to 178. Just one inscription thereafter places the unit at Lancaster in 262-66, during the reign of the Gallic emperor, Postumus.32 Another inscription from Bollihope Common (Durham) records that the unit’s commanding officer was on a hunting trip, while lead seals suggest activity at Lancaster and Brough-under-Stainmore.33 None of the seals are dated, but we know that creating such inscriptions was particularly popular in the first half of the third century. That is the best we can do. This cavalry wing of Gauls evidently was at Lancaster in the third quarter of the third century, but there is no reason to assume it had always been there.
At the Hadrian’s Wall fort of Birdoswald, numerous inscriptions name cohors I Aelia Dacorum mUliaria, the ‘1,000-strong First Aelian Cohort of Dacians’. Several carry enough information to date them to the third century. Between 235 and 238, for example, the tribune Flavius Maximian commanded the unit at Birdoswald.34 For the second century, all we have are three diplomas showing that it was in Britain in 127, 145-46, and 158, but nothing to place it at Birdoswald. One more inscription, again undated, seems to suggest that the unit contributed to digging out the Vallum. 35 Since this can be reasonably dated to the mid-120s, it seems plain enough that the Aelian Dacians spent most of the second and third centuries on Hadrian’s Wall, and that their base was probably Birdoswald throughout most of that time.36 In direct contrast to this we have cohors I Alpinorum, which was recorded in Britain in 103 on the Malpas diploma, but for which there is no other reference. We thus have absolutely no idea where it was based, or how long it spent in Britain.
World History
