> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> > There was a "warrior queen" named Boadicea in Roman age
IIRC
> no legions were lost although several smaller units and their forts
No, by division he probably means some other sort of detachment - IIRC
almost half of the 9th legion was ambushed and bloodily defeated while
marching from south from Eboracum in the early part of the revolt. I've seen
some figures talking about 2000 men lost, which would've been a pretty bad
defeat for the Romans.
> She ruled Palmyra. Odenathus, her predessor,
Um... husband.
Regards,
> On 14 Sep 98, at 2:02, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
> Sounds about right. Once academics used to say that the 9th was
If the 9th had been destroyed wouldn't they have reformed it from scratch
again anyway?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> At 18:50 12/09/98 +0200, you wrote:
Sounds about right. Once academics used to say that the 9th was destroyed in
the revolt but it turns up in Dalmatia and later Judea during the Bar
Kochba revolt of 131-132AD when it again gets mauled (1500 to 2000 lost
if I calculated correctly). The Romans took heavily losses in Britain but not
castastrophic.
> She ruled Palmyra. Odenathus, her predessor,
Umm, you could be right here. I check my sources again (which I haven't read
for years) in about a month after my thesis is due. If you are right then
deffinately rule out Zenobia as a combat leader, Odenathus knew his stuff.
Tony.
> Usually the Romans write off the name and number and start
1) this isn't in the least bit list relevant any more. Could you take it
private please.
2) Using the present tense when referring to the organisation of roman
legions. nice.
TTFN
Jon
> At 02:01 14/09/98 +0100, you wrote:
Usually the Romans write off the name and number and start again. Even if the
legion disgraces itself in battle they disband the whole thing and it never
gets mentioned again.