# The fate of Legio IX Hispana: the scholarly debate, position by position

Compiled from sources checked online (working copies of the downloads are not included in this folder) plus clearly flagged items recalled from memory.

Verification key used throughout:
- **[V]** = read directly online (full text, PDF, scan, or the page cited).
- **[P]** = partially verified: the work itself was not opened, but the wording/position is quoted or cited with page numbers in a source that *was* read ([V]) — the intermediary is named.
- **[R]** = recalled from memory; not checked. Treat with caution.

Working copies (not included in this folder): `chiron_ende_legio_ix.pdf/.txt` (Eck 1972), `britannia2025_what_happened_next.pdf/.txt` (Graafstal 2025), `ru_26331.pdf/.txt` (Bogaers & Haalebos 1975), `campbell2010_wb.pdf` + `campbell2010_aw.txt` (Campbell 2010), `birley1953.txt` (E. Birley 1948 reprint), `collingwood1936.txt`, `collingwood1924.txt`, `haverfield1924.txt`, `mommsen1886_de.txt`, `bbc_russell_2011.html`, `nar71.pdf` (van Enckevort 2021), `hodgson2021_cup.html` (abstract page), `blog_*.txt` (Campbell's blog), `gb/*.json` (Google Books snippets), `wiki_legio_ix.txt`.

---

## 0. The fixed points every position has to accommodate

| Datum | Reference | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Last dated record of the legion in Britain: the York (Eboracum) gate inscription of 10 Dec 107–9 Dec 108, *per leg(ionem) VIIII Hisp(anam)* | RIB 665 = CIL VII 241 | [V] quoted in Campbell 2010, 48; E. Birley 1948 |
| Tile stamps (three fragments), a mortarium stamp LGVIIIIHIS, and a harness pendant LEG HISP IX from the Nijmegen fortress/tilery and Ewijk | Brunsting & Steures 1997 no. 167; Bogaers 1967 pl. 5.4; AE 1996, 1107 (Sijpesteijn, ZPE 111 [1996] 281–2) | [P] via Graafstal 2025 n. 205; Campbell 2010, 52; Keppie 2000 addenda p. 321 |
| Altar to Apollo at Aachen by L. Latinius Macer, *p(rimus) p(ilus) leg(ionis) VIIII Hisp(anae), praef(ectus) castr(orum)* | AE 1968, 323 (Nesselhauf & von Petrikovits, BJ 167 [1967] 268 ff.) | [P] via Eck 1972, 460 n. 8; Graafstal 2025 n. 205 |
| >100 tile stamps VEX BRIT (*vexillatio Britannica*) at Nijmegen | Bogaers 1967, 66–8; Haalebos 2000, 472–6 | [P] via Graafstal 2025 nn. 209–10; van Enckevort 2021, 197 [V] |
| Officers whose careers cannot be squeezed before c. 120: L. Aemilius Karus (trib. lat. IX Hisp.; cos. March 144, ILS 1077 + Eck & Pangerl 2015); L. Novius Crispinus Martialis Saturninus (trib. lat.; cos. des. 149/cos. 150, ILS 1070); L. Aninius Sextius Florentinus (legate of IX Hisp.; procos. Narbonensis; governor of Arabia attested 2 Dec 127 in the Babatha/Nahal Hever papyri; tomb at Petra, CIL III 87 + 14148) | — | [V] Eck 1972, 459 nn. 4–5; Graafstal 2025, 37–8; E. Birley 1948 |
| Q. (Camurius) Numisius Iunior, trib. lat. IX Hisp. (CIL XI 5670); a Numisius Iunior was consul 8 Feb 161 (diploma published by Eck 1972) | CIL XI 5670–2 | [V] Eck 1972, 460–2; Keppie's objection (father/son) [P] Graafstal 2025 n. 19; Campbell 2010, 53 |
| Aelius Asclepiades, *natione Cilix, miles leg. IX* (CIL X 1769, Puteoli) — Hadrianic recruit in the East? or fleet transfer? | Bogaers 1967, 73; Keppie 1989, 251–3; Hodgson 2021, 18–19 | [V] Eck 1972 n. 7; Campbell 2010, 53 |
| M. Cocceius Severus, *praef. leg. X Geminae*, ex-*primus pilus* IX Hisp. (CIL V 7159) | E. Birley 1948, 26–7 | [V] |
| The legion is absent from the *nomina legionum* column set up in Rome c. 165 (ILS 2288 = CIL VI 3492) and from Dio 55.23–4 | — | [V] Eck 1972 n. 2; Campbell 2010, 49 |
| Literary hints of a Hadrianic British war: SHA *Hadr.* 5.2 (*Britanni teneri sub Romana dicione non poterant*); Fronto, *De bello Parthico* 2 (*Hadriano imperium obtinente quantum militum a Iudaeis, quantum a Britannis caesum*); Juvenal 14.196 (*castella Brigantum*) | — | [V] Mommsen 1885 n. 2; E. Birley 1948, 26; Graafstal 2025, 29 |
| *Expeditio Britannica*: T. Pontius Sabinus brought 3,000 legionaries from VII Gemina, VIII Augusta, XXII Primigenia (ILS 2726); M. Maenius Agrippa *missus in expeditionem Brittannicam* (ILS 2735) | — | [V] Graafstal 2025, 25, 29 |
| VI Victrix crossed *ex Germania in Brittaniam* with its tribune M. Pontius Laelianus (ILS 1094+1100), cos. 144/145 | — | [V] Campbell 2010, 49; Graafstal 2025, 38 |
| Tombstone of T. Annius, centurion of coh. I Tungrorum, *in bello … interfectus*, Vindolanda, first quarter of C2 | RIB 3364; A.R. Birley, Britannia 29 (1998) 299–306 | [P] via Graafstal 2025 n. 51 |
| The Silchester eagle (found 9 Oct 1866 by J.G. Joyce in the basilica; Reading Museum): not a legionary *aquila* but part of a statue (a god/emperor holding a globe) | Reading Museum leaflet | [V] rosemarysutcliff.net 2011 |

---

## 1. The annihilation tradition (1732–1955) and its popularisation

### 1.1 Horsley 1732 and Borghesi (1830s) [P]
John Horsley, *Britannia Romana* (1732) 77, could find no trace of the Ninth after Agricola and wrote that "it might possibly be broke … or incorporated with the legio sexta victrix" (quoted by E. Birley 1948, 27 [V] and Campbell 2010, 49 [V]). Bartolomeo Borghesi, working from the career of L. Barbuleius Ligarianus (ILS 1066, cos. 135, ex-tribune of IX Hispana) and the absence of the legion from ILS 2288, "proposed that the Ninth Legion had been overwhelmed in a rebellion and had been replaced by the Sixth" (Campbell 2010, 49 [V]). Campbell's point: annihilation was an *assumption* first made by Borghesi and then lent Mommsen's authority.

### 1.2 Theodor Mommsen, Römische Geschichte V (1885) = The Provinces of the Roman Empire (1886) [V German and English]
Original (BSB scan, archive.org id 11835671bsb, RG V, Berlin 1885/6, p. 171 with n. 2 — file `mommsen1886_de.txt`):

> "Unter Hadrian ist eine schwere Katastrophe hier eingetreten, allem Anschein nach ein Überfall des Lagers von Eburacum und die Vernichtung der dort stehenden Legion, derselben neunten, die im Boudiccakrieg so unglücklich gefochten hatte. Wahrscheinlich ist diese nicht durch feindlichen Einfall herbeigeführt, sondern durch den Abfall der nördlichen als reichsunterthänig geltenden Völkerschaften, insbesondere der Briganten."
>
> n. 2: "Der Hauptbeweis dafür liegt in dem unzweifelhaft bald nach dem J. 108 (C.I.L. VII, 241) eintretenden Verschwinden dieser Legion und ihrer Ersetzung durch die sechste victrix. Die beiden Notizen, welche auf dies Ereigniss hindeuten (Fronto p. 217 Naber: Hadriano imperium obtinente quantum militum a Britannis caesum? Vita 5: Britanni teneri sub Romana dicione non poterant) so wie die Anspielung bei Juvenal 14, 196: castella Brigantum führen auf einen Aufstand, nicht auf einen Einfall."

Campbell's translation (2010, 49): "Under Hadrian, there was a terrible catastrophe here, apparently an attack on the fortress at Eburacum and the annihilation of the legion stationed there, the very same Ninth that had fought so unluckily in the Boudican revolt"; disaster "undoubtedly soon after AD 108 … probably not caused by an enemy invasion, but rather by a revolt of the northern allied peoples, particularly the Brigantes". Dickson's authorised translation (1886, vol. I, ch. 5, p. 191; archive.org id provincesromane02mommgoog) [V]: "Under Hadrian a severe disaster occurred here, to all appearance a sudden attack on the camp of Eburacum, and the annihilation of the legion stationed there, the same 9th legion which had fought so unsuccessfully in the war with Boudicca. Probably this was occasioned, not by a hostile inroad, but by the revolt of the northern tribes that passed as subjects of the empire, especially of the Brigantes. With this we shall have to connect the fact that the wall of Hadrian presents …" (the marginal date given is "soon after 108"; Dickson's "annihilation" is the word that fixed the English tradition).

**Basis of the claim:** (a) the York stone of 108 as *terminus post quem*; (b) the replacement by VI Victrix; (c) Fronto + SHA Hadr. 5.2 + Juvenal read as evidence of a Brigantian *revolt*. Mommsen gives no date beyond "under Hadrian … soon after 108". Verdict: stated as an apparent fact ("allem Anschein nach").

### 1.3 Wilhelm Weber (1907; CAH XI 1936, 313) [P]
Weber, *Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus* (1907), fixed the revolt as crushed by 119 (Campbell 2010, 50 [V]). CAH XI (1936) 313: "next came the crushing of the rebellious Britons, who had destroyed the legion IX Hispana in the camp of Eburacum, and the expeditio Britannica which ended in 119 with the pacification of the country, and was followed, on his visit in 122, by the construction of Hadrian's Wall" (quoted by E. Birley 1948 [V] = 1953, 25, and Campbell 2010, 50 [V]).

### 1.4 F. Haverfield, The Roman Occupation of Britain (Ford Lectures, ed. G. Macdonald, Oxford 1924) 119 [V]
archive.org id romanoccupationo0000fhav: "This occurred late in the reign of Trajan or early in that of Hadrian. A new generation of Britons had grown up, forgetful of their fathers' battles and defeats. The north rose and not in vain. The Ninth Legion, then stationed at York, was annihilated. The rising was, of course, crushed. Hadrian supplied another legion, the VI Victrix Pia Fidelis, and came over in person about A.D. 122." E. Birley (1948) called this "what may be termed the official view".

### 1.5 R.G. Collingwood [V]
- *Roman Britain* (Oxford 1923; 1924 printing, archive.org id b29827590), p. c. 24: "the reign of Trajan — about 115 — when a great rebellion broke out in Scotland and the north of England. Agricola's forts were swamped one by one, and the Ninth legion, moving up from York to face the insurgents, disappears from history, to be replaced under Hadrian by the 'Victorious' Sixth."
- Collingwood & Myres, *Roman Britain and the English Settlements* (Oxford History of England I, 1936; 2nd ed. 1937) 128–30 (DLI scan in.gov.ignca.16039, file `collingwood1936.txt`): "the only reason for imagining a disaster of any magnitude is the unexplained disappearance of the Ninth legion. The last dated record of its existence is the inscription of 108–9 … By about 122, when Hadrian's Wall was being built, it was replaced at York by another legion, the Sixth Victrix … and had ceased to exist as an effective corps." He connects the disappearance with the rising "in the first two or three years of the reign". The footnote (p. 129 n.) is the first English discussion of Ritterling's difficulty and the origin of the **"disgraced" variant**: Ritterling "asks, therefore, whether the annihilation of the legion might not have happened in a revolt at some later date in Hadrian's reign. To my mind, its absence from the inscriptions of the Wall, plus the fact that Hadrian brought the Sixth to Britain (surely to replace it), makes that impossible. In any case, the existence of these survivors is proof that the disappearance of the legion was not due to literal annihilation in the field. But a legion that had only suffered losses in action was normally brought up to strength by drafts from elsewhere; a suspicion therefore [arises] that the Ninth had not only been cut up, but had disgraced itself, which would account for its survivors' slow [promotion]." (OCR partly garbled; bracketed words restored.)

### 1.6 H.M.D. Parker (1928), H. Mattingly (BMC III, 1936), Kromayer–Veith (1928), Richmond (1955; 1963), Bengtson (1970) [P]
- Parker, *The Roman Legions* (1928): "the Roman legions were unable at first to cope successfully with the [British] revolt, and IX Hispana was destroyed not later than AD 122" (Campbell 2010, 51).
- Mattingly assigned the Britannia asses early in the reign as celebrating "the restoration of peace in the North after the revolt under Trajan, in which the ninth legion was destroyed" (Campbell 2010, 50).
- Kromayer–Veith 1928, 554 and Bengtson 1970, 342 still assumed destruction in Britain (Eck 1972, 459 n. 2, 460 n. 9 [V]).
- **I.A. Richmond, *Roman Britain* (Pelican 1955; 2nd ed. 1963, 40 f.)** created the **"cashiered in disgrace"** version: "[Trouble in Britain] is to be connected with the issue of victory coins in AD 119 and the fact that by AD 122 the Ninth Legion was replaced at York by the Sixth and disappeared from the army list thereafter. That the legion was cashiered, there is no doubt, and it seems evident that this fate, at the hands of the disciplinarian Hadrian, followed an ignominious defeat. But the unit was not annihilated. Some of its officers at least survived and nothing whatever is reported of the circumstances or place of the trouble" (quoted Campbell 2010, 51 [V], who calls it "fantastical" and notes the location in south-west Scotland is Richmond's guess). Eck 1972 n. 9 cites Richmond 1963, 40 f. as still holding the British end.

### 1.7 Rosemary Sutcliff, The Eagle of the Ninth (1954) and the Silchester eagle [V]
Foreword: "Sometime about the year AD 117, the Ninth Legion, which was stationed at Eburacum where York now stands, marched north to deal with a rising among the Caledonian tribes, and was never heard of again. During the excavations at Silchester nearly eighteen hundred years later, there was dug up … a wingless Roman Eagle, a cast of which can be seen to this day in Reading Museum … no one knows what happened to the Ninth Legion after it marched into the northern mists" (quoted Campbell 2010, 51; rosemarysutcliff.net). Campbell (2010, 51) argues her source was probably CAH XI, not Richmond. Reading Museum's current position: the bronze eagle (found 9 October 1866 in the basilica) "is not a legionary eagle"; the claws once gripped a globe and it "was probably held in the hand of a statue of an emperor or a god". Russell (BBC 2011) credits Sutcliff with giving "the legend of the Ninth" its form; the 2011 films *Centurion* (2010) and *The Eagle* (2011) revived it.

---

## 2. Emil Ritterling, RE XII 2 (1925) s.v. Legio, cols 1664–1670 (IX Hispana), esp. 1668–9 [P]
Not read directly (the RE XII,2 scans on archive.org, item PaulyWissowa2130, are image-only; de.wikisource has not transcribed the *Legio* article). Position reconstructed from four independent readers: Collingwood 1937, 129 n. [V]; E. Birley 1948, 26 [V]; Eck 1972, 459 with n. 3 [V]; Campbell 2010, 50–1 [V]; Graafstal 2025, 26 with n. 11 [V].
- Ritterling accepted that the legion perished in Britain under Hadrian ("hielt am Untergang der Einheit auf der britischen Insel zur Zeit Hadrians fest", Eck), but was the first to point out, from the careers of the *tribuni laticlavii* Aemilius Karus ("only after AD 120") and Novius Crispinus (service "could not reasonably have fallen before AD 123"), that the end must be *later* than 119/120.
- His summary as translated by Campbell: "The transfer of VI Victrix to Britain had been caused by a dangerous uprising; it is now clear that the fighting was in AD 119 … Whether VIIII Hispana had already met its end, or only several years later, around AD 125, remains unknown"; and "we should reckon on the possibility that a second British revolt broke out towards the middle or in the second half of the AD 120s, to which the legion fell victim."
- Verdict/confidence: destruction in Britain, but date uncertain, possibly c. 125; explicitly hedged. Graafstal (2025, 26) calls it "the groundbreaking paper" that "made it clear that the unit was still in existence in the early 120s".

---

## 3. Eric Birley

### 3.1 "Britain after Agricola and the end of the Ninth Legion", Durham University Journal June 1948, 78–83 = Roman Britain and the Roman Army (Kendal 1953) 20–30 [V, DLI scan in.gov.ignca.2625]
- Adds CIL V 7159 (M. Cocceius Severus, enlisted c. 96–98, later *primus pilus* of IX Hisp. and prefect of X Gemina — a date "nearer 140" for his primipilate) to Ritterling's two tribunes: "the careers to which we have referred do not permit us to accept the traditional view of a disaster to IX Hispana in the early years of Hadrian."
- Lists the options: (a) transferred from Britain under Trajan for the Parthian war ("on balance … the least likely explanation"); (b) VI Victrix came in 122 "not to replace IX Hispana, but to add to the available force of skilled legionary craftsmen" for the Wall — the Ninth perhaps building the western (turf) sector from Carlisle, where its stamped tiles occur; (c) "the legion may still have been moved from Britain to an eastern province on the completion of the building programme … a suitable occasion might be found in the transfer of Sextus Julius Severus from Britain to take command against the Jewish insurgents in or shortly after 132"; or "IX Hispana's end may have come in or about 130" in a second British rising.
- Verdict: "we have been unable to reach a firm conclusion as to the fate of the legion … the one thing that is reasonably clear is that the traditional view of the disaster to it in the year or two before 120 cannot be maintained." He also proposes the *expeditio Britannica* c. 130 rather than 119. This is the origin of the **Bar Kokhba transfer** idea (via Iulius Severus). Eck (1972, 459–60) credits Birley as the first to argue the legion need not have perished in Britain.

### 3.2 E. Birley 1953, 37–9 (Roman Britain and the Roman Army) [P]
Cited by Graafstal 2025 n. 12 as the paper in which "the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–35, and Hadrian's call upon Britain's governor Iulius Severus to suppress it, seemed a fitting context for the transfer, and the loss, of the Ninth."

### 3.3 "The fate of the Ninth Legion", in R.M. Butler (ed.), Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire (Leicester 1971) 71–80 [P]
Not opened. Content as reported by Eck 1972 (459 n. 1, n. 4 [p. 79 on Karus and Florentinus, "der etwa 123 n. Chr. prätorischer Legat der legio IX Hispana gewesen sein muß"], n. 5 [77 f. on Crispinus], n. 8 [75 f. against Nesselhauf's reconstruction], n. 21 [78: the Elegeia suggestion]) and Graafstal 2025, 26 with n. 14 (pp. 76–7): with VI Victrix arriving with Hadrian in 122, Birley "proposed a temporary base for IX Hispana in the Carlisle area, based on a small regional scatter of tile stamps; and with the Wall supposedly completed by c. 126, the Ninth might have then moved to Nijmegen, and been taken further east a few years later by Iulius Severus, to perish in the Judaean revolt or in 161 at Elegeia, against the Parthians." Eck (1972, 462 n. 21) identifies E. Birley apud Bogaers 1967, 75 and Birley 1971, 78 as the source of the **Elegeia 161** hypothesis (accepted also by A.R. Birley, *Mark Aurel* 1968, 219). Campbell (2010, 52) adds Birley's view that "the praefectus castrorum could not have been serving with a mere vexillation" — i.e. the whole legion was at Nijmegen. **Suggested end: transferred out of Britain under Hadrian, lost in the East (Judaea 132–5 or Elegeia 161); no firm choice.**

---

## 4. The Nijmegen evidence: Bogaers, Haalebos, and their successors

### 4.1 J.E. Bogaers 1965 (Numaga 12, 10–37); 1967, "Die Besatzungstruppen des Legionslagers von Nijmegen im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr.", Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms (BJ Beih. 19) 54–76 [P]
Bogaers published the 1959 tile and the Holdeurn mortarium; he "made it very probable that this unit must have belonged to the garrison of Germania Inferior probably in the second decade of the second century" (Eck 1972, 460 with n. 7, paraphrase of pp. 54 ff.); pp. 73–6 discuss CIL X 1769 (Asclepiades as a possible Hadrianic recruit in the East) and (p. 74) already contemplated the Jewish-war end (Eck n. 19). Graafstal 2025, 26 n. 13: Bogaers "published a few stamps and inscriptions showing the Ninth, or part of it, to have been based at Nijmegen, in the 120s he suggested, including the unit's expectant camp prefect." Campbell 2010, 52: Bogaers reasoned that a *vexillatio Britannica* would not stamp tiles in the legion's name, so "the Ninth Legion took up residence in the Hunerberg fortress after the vexillation had returned to Britain", the VIIII spelling linking Scalesceugh (Carlisle) and Holdeurn production.

### 4.2 Bogaers & Haalebos, "Romeins Nijmegen: de Nijmeegse legioensvestingen vanaf 70 na Chr.", Numaga 22 (1975) 1–20 [V, Radboud repository hdl 2066/26331]
pp. 1–2: after X Gemina left c. 104, "Van ca. 104 tot 121 was er de Vexillatio Britannica gelegerd, een detachement dat was samengesteld uit manschappen van in Britannia gestationeerde hulptroepen. Daarna, vermoedelijk van ongeveer 121 tot 130, de Legio IX Hispana. De militaire bezetting zou verder nog tot omstreeks 175 gecontinueerd zijn, wellicht door een detachement van de Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix." p. 17: the IX Hispana tile stamps amount to "tot nu toe niet meer dan twee fragmenten"; between c. 120 and 175 only maintenance work is evident in the fortress.

### 4.3 Bogaers & Haalebos, "Die Nijmegener Legionslager seit 70 nach Christus", Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms II (BJ Beih. 38, 1977) 93–108, at 107 [P]
"Bogaers suggested that only part of the legion could have been based there in the 120s" (Graafstal 2025, 26 n. 16). Keppie 2000 (Legions and Veterans p. 214) records that whether the *vexillatio Britannica* "also encompassed men from legio VIIII or other British legions has been doubted; Bogaers and Haalebos 1977 …".

### 4.4 J.K. Haalebos, "Römische Truppen in Nijmegen", in Y. Le Bohec & C. Wolff (eds), Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire (Lyon 2000) 465–89, at 472–6 [P; repository record hdl 2066/124815 exists but no open PDF]
Haalebos "returned to the tile-stamp evidence, arguing that the detachment stayed at Nijmegen earlier, between c. 104 and 120, as part of the vexillatio Britannica, attested by over 100 stamps" (Graafstal 2025, 26 n. 17); "the strong likelihood is that a detachment of IX Hispana … was part, and in charge, of that vexillatio" (Haalebos 2000, 472); Macer perhaps only *praefectus castrorum* designate (472); the fortress archaeology "does not support the presence of a complete legion after c. 104" (472, 476). Campbell 2010, 53 recommends Haalebos 2000 as the best summary. **This redating (104–120, detachment) is the hinge on which Hodgson 2021 turns.**

### 4.5 Brunsting & Steures 1997; Willems & van Enckevort 2009; van Enckevort 2021
- Brunsting & Steures (1997, 323, fig. 6.1 no. 167) put the VEX BRIT stamps in the 90s — "rightful criticism" in Haalebos 2000, 476 (Graafstal n. 209) [P].
- W.J.H. Willems & H. van Enckevort, *Ulpia Noviomagus. Roman Nijmegen: the Batavian capital at the imperial frontier* (JRA Suppl. 73, Portsmouth RI 2009) 56 [P, cited only via Wikipedia]: elements of IX Hispana at Noviomagus after 104, replaced by a detachment of XXX Ulpia Victrix not long after 120; a *vexillatio Britannica* also attested.
- H. van Enckevort, "The Roman military complex at Nijmegen (19 BC–475 AD)", in *Romans on the Waterfront* (NAR 71, Amersfoort 2021) 185–202, at 197 [V, open-access PDF]: after X Gemina's departure "new units were stationed in the castra, probably until well into the third quarter of the second century AD. Tile stamps of the Vexillatio Britannica and a unit of the Legio VIIII Hispana show that the new residents came over from Britain, to replace the original garrison … Around AD 120, a detachment of the Legio XXX Ulpia Victrix was transferred to the castra … Although the layout of the castra remained unchanged, it must have been too big to accommodate the smaller units after AD 103–104." (A summary table elsewhere in the same volume, p. 85, still lists "Legio IX Hispana AD 104/106–AD 130 temporarily at Nijmegen after transfer from Britannia. Later to Danube" — an inconsistency within NAR 71.) **The current excavators' view: a unit/detachment, not the whole legion, c. 104–c. 120.**

---

## 5. Jarrett & Mann 1970; Werner Eck 1972; Jarrett 1976
- M.G. Jarrett & J.C. Mann, "Britain from Agricola to Gallienus", BJ 170 (1970) 178 ff., esp. 183 ff. [P, cited by Eck 1972 n. 1, 7]: sceptical of the eastern recruit argument from CIL X 1769 (p. 185).
- **W. Eck, "Zum Ende der legio IX Hispana", Chiron 2 (1972) 459–62** [V, DAI open access]: "Seit dem Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts war es die feste Meinung der Forschung, die Legion sei zu Beginn der Regierungszeit Hadrians von den aufständischen Britanniern vernichtet worden." Bogaers' finds and the Aachen altar mean "Damit ist es völlig unwahrscheinlich geworden, daß die Legion in der Provinz Britannien ihr Ende gefunden hat." The new Upper Moesian diploma dates the consulship of Q. Numisius Iunior to 8 Feb 161; on normal career intervals he was tribune of IX Hispana "nicht vor etwa 140/141 … Damit hat die Legion aber zu Beginn der Regierungszeit dieses Kaisers [Pius] noch existiert und kann nicht etwa im Judenkrieg Hadrians vernichtet worden sein." Pius' reign offers no lost-legion war, "So bleibt als die wahrscheinlichste und nunmehr noch mehr gesicherte Lösung der Vorschlag E. Birleys, die legio IX Hispana sei vielleicht mit der Legion identisch, die nach dem Zeugnis des Cassius Dio (71,2,1) unmittelbar zu Beginn der Regierungszeit Mark Aurels von dem Partherkönig Vologaeses in Elegeia am Euphrat mit allen Offizieren und dem Statthalter von Kappadokien, Sedatius Severianus, vernichtet worden war." **Verdict: Elegeia, 161 — "most probable".** Weakness identified later: Keppie 1989, 251–2 — the consul of 161 may be the *son* of the tribune; Graafstal 2025, 26 n. 19.
- M.G. Jarrett, "An unnecessary war", Britannia 7 (1976) 145–51 [P via Graafstal n. 6, 231]: the *expeditio Britannica* belongs with Hadrian's visit of 122, not a war of 117–19; VI Victrix as a replacement for IX (147).

---

## 6. The Bar Kokhba hypothesis and its critics: Mor 1986/2016; Eck 1999/2012
- Origin: E. Birley 1948 (c) and 1953, 37–9 (Iulius Severus' transfer to Judaea, 132/3) [V/P]; Bogaers 1967, 74 (Eck n. 19); G.R. Watson, *The Roman Soldier* (1969): "the loss of IX Hispana … probably during the Jewish War of AD 132–5 … or even in Armenia in 161" (Campbell 2010, 53 [V]; Open Library snippet [V]).
- **M. Mor, "Two legions – the same fate? (The disappearance of the legions IX Hispana and XXII Deiotariana)", ZPE 62 (1986) 267–78** [P]: "The Jewish revolt was known to have cost many Roman lives, but nothing pointed to IX Hispana having been involved" (Graafstal 2025, 26 n. 18); Mor 1986, 269 cites Keppie's (then unpublished) father/son argument (Keppie, Legions and Veterans 177 [V snippet]).
- **M. Mor, The Second Jewish Revolt: The Bar Kokhba War, 132–136 CE (Leiden 2016)** [V, Google Books snippets]: p. 198 on the last attestations of XXII Deiotariana (119, Nicopolis) and IX Hispana; p. 308: "IX Hispana, XXII Deiotariana: The attempt to argue that these two legions participated in the Bar Kokhba revolt is unfounded, and the valid evidence hints at quite the opposite conclusion."
- W. Eck, "The Bar Kokhba revolt: the Roman point of view", JRS 89 (1999) 76–89 [P, abstract page]: argues the revolt was a major military crisis and that XXII Deiotariana was probably lost; on IX Hispana he is non-committal. Eck 2012 (in Urso ed., *Iudaea socia – Iudaea capta*, 249–65) cited by Graafstal n. 64. CIL VI 3505 (*missus a divo Hadriano in expeditione Iudaica ad vexillationes ducendas*) shows detachments, not whole legions, being drafted (Graafstal n. 67, with Mor 2016, 306).
- **Net: no proponent of the Judaean end has produced Judaean evidence; the specialist literature on the revolt (Mor) rejects it.**

---

## 7. Lawrence Keppie
- **"The fate of the Ninth Legion: a problem for the eastern provinces?", in D.H. French & C.S. Lightfoot (eds), The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire (BAR Int. Ser. 553, Oxford 1989) 247–55** = Legions and Veterans: Roman Army Papers 1971–2000 (Mavors 12, Stuttgart 2000) 173–9 [P; Google Books snippets pp. 173, 177–8]. NB: not in D. Kennedy (ed.), *The Roman Army in the East* (JRA Suppl. 18, 1996) — the paper is in the 1989 BAR volume. Opening (p. 173): the fate of the Ninth "has been a subject debated for many years, without any very satisfactory or agreed solution being arrived at (Birley 1949; Frere 19…)"; the consul Numisius Iunior "was promptly equated with a known tribune of the Ninth Legion, so bringing its lifespan securely forward into the reign of Antoninus (Eck 1972; see Birley 1981: 219, 254ff; Mor 1986). However, even if I can …"; p. 177: Keppie's unpublished paper distinguishing "Numisius the consul of 161 [from] Numisius the tribune of the Ninth" had been "cited, and sometimes scorned, by other scholars (Roxan 1978: 79 n. 4; Birley 1981: 255; Mor 1986: 269)"; p. 178: Q. Camurius Numisius Iunior, tribune, and the procurator C. Camurius Clemens (ILS 2728). Graafstal 2025, 26 n. 19: Keppie "critically reviewed the evidence for a continued existence of the Ninth in the east, including the new diploma, but could find nothing conclusive"; the consul of 161 "may well have been the son of the tribune … who may then have served a generation before c. 140". Campbell 2010, 53: Keppie "has also doubted that Aelius Asclepiades was recruited to the legion while in his native Cilicia, preferring to see him transferred from the Italian fleet at Misenum."
- **"Legio VIIII in Britain: the beginning and the end", in R.J. Brewer (ed.), Roman Fortresses and their Legions (London 2000) 83–100** = Legions and Veterans 201–24 (with addenda p. 321) [P; snippets pp. 212, 214, 321]: p. 212: the Nijmegen presence "could belong either to the period AD 101–6, at the time of the Dacian Wars, or AD 114–17 at the time of the Parthian Wars. The archaeological evidence from Nijmegen itself is unclear and does not allow a definite …"; p. 214: the VEX BRIT stamps "certainly included detachments from auxiliary regiments. Whether it also encompassed men from legio VIIII or other British legions has been doubted"; p. 321 (addendum): the Ewijk pendant LEG HISP/IX "has no precise provenance". Wikipedia (citing this chapter) paraphrases: "no inscriptions recording the building activities of the legion or the lives and careers of its members have come from the East"; the tiles "cannot be securely dated" but may date from c. 105 "during a temporary absence of the legion from Britain".
- **Keppie's favoured end:** he does not choose a battlefield. He (i) dismantles the *positive* eastern evidence (Numisius, Asclepiades), (ii) relocates the Nijmegen material to a Trajanic detachment, and (iii) leaves the legion vanishing soon after its last attestations c. 120–5, place unknown. Graafstal 2025, 27 reads Hodgson 2021 as having "confirmed and amplified Keppie's findings: Legio IX Hispana vanished from the epigraphical radar after the early 120s." Wikipedia's claim that Keppie "does not support the theory that the legion met its end in Britain" and that he had it "withdrawn from York around 117 to take part in the war in Parthia" is a loose paraphrase of the 114–17 option for the *detachment* and should not be relied on.

---

## 8. Sheppard Frere and the textbook consensus of 1967–2000
- **S. Frere, Britannia (1967, 3rd ed. 1987, 124; 4th ed. 1999)** [V, Open Library search-inside snippets of the 1967, 1978 and 1987 editions]: cites "a tile-stamp and a mortarium-stamp of Legio IX at Nijmegen in Holland. This site had been the fortress [of X Gemina] … Legio IX may have replaced this force at Nijmegen about 121, or even as late as 126, and may have …" ; "[108 is] the last date known for its presence at York, and perhaps from about 126 [1967: 'about 121']. Further evidence is needed before more can be said." Frere 2000 ("M. Maenius Agrippa, the expeditio Britannica and Maryport", Britannia 31, 23–8) put the *expeditio* in the later 120s and insisted *expeditio* means real fighting (Graafstal 2025, 27–8). **Verdict: transferred to Nijmegen c. 121/126; agnostic on the end.**
- G. Webster, *The Roman Imperial Army* (1969 and later eds) [V snippet]: "Evidence from Nijmegen, based on tile stamps, indicates that the legion, or part of it …" was there; refers to E. Birley 1948.
- A.R. Burn, *The Romans in Britain* (1969) has a chapter "The Crisis of 117 and the Mystery of the Ninth Legion" [V snippet only].
- P. Salway, *Roman Britain* (1981) [R]: accepts transfer to the Continent — not checked.
- D.J. Breeze & B. Dobson, *Hadrian's Wall* (4th ed. 2000) 22–3 [P via Graafstal n. 212]: the stone rebuilding of all three fortresses c. 100–110 implies the legionary disposition was regarded as definitive.

---

## 9. Anthony R. Birley
- *The Fasti of Roman Britain* (Oxford 1981) 219, 254 ff. [P via Keppie 1989/2000 snippets]: discusses Numisius Iunior and the tribunes; treats the Ninth as surviving into Pius' reign (Keppie: Birley 1981: 255 "scorned" his father/son solution).
- *Hadrian: The Restless Emperor* (London 1997) 123 [P via Graafstal n. 6]: places the *expeditio Britannica* in the run-up to the visit of 122; 273–4 on the Jewish war; the fate of the Ninth located outside Britain [R for the exact wording].
- **The Roman Government of Britain (Oxford 2005) 118, 228–9, 244, 285–7, 308** [P; all quotations via Graafstal 2025, 37–8, who calls it "the disinterested judgment of the late Antony Birley"]: Florentinus (governor of Arabia on 2 Dec 127; proconsul of Narbonensis 123–4 or 124–5) "is unlikely to have left the legion much before 124" (228); Karus' career shows imperial favour, so no long gap after his tribunate c. 124 (228, 286); Crispinus' praetorship c. 135, so "Crispinus can hardly have been tribune earlier than the mid-120s" (228, 287); p. 229: the Ninth (or part) at Nijmegen from the departure of X Gemina c. 104 and repatriated when trouble broke out (with Birley 2013, 132); p. 285: VI Victrix "surely" came with Hadrian in 122. Graafstal n. 119: "For Birley, the loss of the Ninth was extraneous to the fortunes of Hadrianic Britain." **Verdict: the legion existed to c. 124/mid-120s; left Britain; lost elsewhere later (place undetermined; Judaea or the East recalled [R]).**
- A.R. Birley 2013 ("Britain under Trajan and Hadrian", in Opper ed., *Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy*, BM Research Publ. 175), 132; 2014 ("Two governors of Dacia Superior and Britain", 247–53): the *expeditio Britannica* = 122 with heavy losses — the reading followed by Hodgson 2021 and Symonds 2021 (Graafstal n. 84) [P]. Also Birley, "A new tombstone from Vindolanda", Britannia 29 (1998) 299–306 on RIB 3364 [P].

---

## 10. Duncan B. Campbell
- **"The fate of the Ninth: the curious disappearance of Legio VIIII Hispana", Ancient Warfare 4.5 (2010) 48–53** [V, Wayback copy of the publisher's PDF, file `campbell2010_aw.txt`]. A historiographical dismantling: Horsley → Borghesi → Mommsen → Weber/Mattingly → Ritterling → Parker → Birley → Richmond → Sutcliff → Bogaers → Eck. Key sentences: "there was never any direct linkage between the disappearance of the Ninth Legion and Hadrian's 'British campaign'. Nor, indeed, was there any compelling evidence to date the campaign to AD 119" (50); on Richmond: "The extent to which theory had become fact in his account is astonishing" (51); on the Aachen altar: "it would have been odd for the primus pilus to receive a promotion while absent in charge of a vexillation" (52); "the destruction of the Ninth Legion in a British war at the beginning of Hadrian's reign is a very weak theory. There is no direct evidence for any of the required elements. And yet, the idea has exerted such a hold on the popular imagination that it is difficult to dispel the myth" (53); conclusion: "Clearly this is a debate which is destined to rumble on. Whether the Ninth Legion met its end in Hadrian's Jewish War, or with the ill-fated Severianus at Elegeia in 161, or somewhere entirely different, we can only hope that further epigraphic discoveries will bring clarity" (53). He dates the Nijmegen episode "broadly 'early second century'", after the *vexillatio Britannica* had gone home (following Bogaers), i.e. c. 120s, and treats Numisius (cos. 161) as prolonging the legion to c. 140 while noting Keppie's objection.
- **The Fate of the Ninth: The Curious Disappearance of One of Rome's Legions (Bocca della Verità, Glasgow 2018; 155/167 pp., ISBN 978-1-7917-6833-1)** [P: publisher blurb, author's blog page "Books", Goodreads/Amazon reviews, Classics for All review by Adrian Spooner, Graafstal n. 10 "an exhaustive historiography"]. Blurb: the legion "may have been sent east to fight in the Jewish revolt of AD 132–5, but the Ninth was not listed on the Nomina Legionum … set up in Rome shortly before AD 165. Campbell is certain that the Ninth was not disbanded in disgrace, the fate suggested by I.A. Richmond." Reviewers: Spooner — "it seems far easier to show what didn't happen than what did"; Goodreads readers — the legion "most likely lasted past 118–120 AD and left Britain to disappear in the East, possibly Israel or in Armenia", no fixed conclusion. Endorsement printed by the author from N. Hodgson: "An engaging and indispensable guide to the fugitive traces of the famous Ninth legion" (before Hodgson's 2021 paper). Blog (ninth-legion.blogspot.com, 15 July 2019, "The Lost Legion"): "I wrote The Fate of the Ninth in order to try and explain where this idea came from. And also why, in my opinion, it's 'a bad idea'. I've also suggested a different scenario to explain the curious disappearance of the Ninth Legion." His blog contains no post responding to Hodgson 2021, Elliott 2021 or Graafstal 2025 (searched 14 Sept 2026); his 2019 post "A tribune of the Triumphant Ninth" and 2025 "Fours and nines and Roman numerals" concern the legion's early history and the VIIII/IX spelling.
- **Campbell's exact conclusion:** the legion survived well beyond 120, was on the Continent (Nijmegen, Aachen) in the 120s, and was lost *somewhere in the East* — Judaea 132–5 or Elegeia 161 — with the choice left open; destruction in Britain is "a very weak theory", Richmond's disgrace/cashiering "fantastical". Critics: Graafstal 2025 n. 207 ("For historiography: Hodgson 2021, 3. Recently e.g. Campbell 2010, 52") cites Campbell 2010 as a recent example of assuming that the whole legion came over to Nijmegen; Hodgson's own bibliography engages Campbell 2018, not the 2010 article.

---

## 11. Miles Russell
- **Bloodline: The Celtic Kings of Roman Britain (Amberley 2010) 180–5** [P via Wikipedia]; **"What happened to Britain's lost Roman legion?", BBC History Magazine 12.5 (May 2011) 40–6** [P; citation verified on his Bournemouth staff page; quotation via Wikipedia]: "by far the most plausible answer to the question 'what happened to the Ninth' is that they fought and died in Britain, disappearing in the late 110s or early 120s when the province was in disarray"; "there is no evidence that the Ninth were ever taken out of Britain."
- **"The Roman Ninth Legion's mysterious loss", BBC News Magazine, 16 March 2011** [V, file `bbc_russell_2011.html`]: "there is not one shred of evidence that the Ninth were ever taken out of Britain. It's just a guess which, over time, has taken on a sheen of cast iron certainty. Three stamped tiles bearing the unit number of the Ninth found at Nijmegen … have been used to support the idea of transfer from Britain. But these all seem to date to the 80s AD, when detachments of the Ninth were indeed on the Rhine fighting Germanic tribes. They do not prove that the Ninth left Britain for good." Evidence: the York stone of 108 as "the last certain piece of evidence"; Fronto ("large numbers of Roman soldiers were killed by the British"); SHA Hadr. 5.2; "a tombstone recovered from Ferentinum" (Pontius Sabinus, ILS 2726) — "emergency reinforcements of over 3,000 men … early in Hadrian's reign"; Hadrian's visit of 122 "bringing with him a new legion, the Sixth"; "The fact that they took up residence in the legionary fortress of York suggests that the 'great losses' of personnel, alluded to by Fronto, had occurred within the ranks of the Ninth. It would seem that Sutcliff was right after all." Verdict: "It was the Ninth … that had borne the brunt of the uprising, ending their days fighting insurgents in the turmoil of early 2nd Century Britain"; the Wall as the legion's "ultimate legacy". **Handling of Nijmegen: redates all three tiles to the 80s (a claim no Nijmegen specialist supports — the stamps come from the post-104 fortress phase and the Holdeurn tilery; the VEX BRIT and XXX Ulpia stamps bracket them).** He does not discuss the officer careers, Florentinus, the Aachen altar or the pendant.
- Later statements: History Hit audio/video "The Ninth Legion" (5 and 20 May 2021) [V listing on staff page]; the Stanwick/North Yorkshire ambush idea is reported in popular summaries [P, unverified source]. The "2018 York debate 'Whatever happened to the Ninth Legion?'" **could not be verified**: the Eboracum Roman Festival 2018 programme (York Museums Trust page) lists no such event and no Russell/Campbell/Elliott/Hodgson talk.

---

## 12. Other views: Dando-Collins, Elliott, Cowan, Olly, de la Bédoyère, Lendering
- **S. Dando-Collins, Legions of Rome (2010; section "Disappearance of the 9th", c. p. 422)** [V snippets via Open Library search-inside]: notes Karus "around AD 119" and "Lucius Norvius [sic] Crispinus"; argues "that the 9th Hispana was the legion which Dio describes being wiped out by the Parthians at Elegeia in Armenia" in 161, alongside "The Rock of Egypt shattered in Armenia" (XXII Deiotariana). Unreliable on detail (e.g., names, the double loss); no engagement with Keppie or Mor.
- **S. Elliott, Roman Britain's Missing Legion: What Really Happened to IX Hispana? (Pen & Sword 2021)** [V: HistoryNet interview 18 June 2021; Aspects of History essay; Malton Museum lecture notice May 2021]: four hypotheses — lost in northern Britain (Brigantian revolt or beyond the Wall), lost in southern Britain (Perring's "Hadrianic war" and the London fire), lost on the Rhine/Danube, lost in the East (Trajan's campaigns, Jewish revolts, Elegeia). Conclusion: "the most likely hypothesis regarding the loss of legio IX Hispana is with it being lost in some dramatic event in the north of Britain"; "The available hard dates fit with the legion being lost in the north of Britain. It is last mentioned in contemporary history in AD 82 … last mentioned in epigraphy in York in 108 … and then replaced in 122 in York by another legion." He does not deal with the officer careers or Nijmegen in the interview; the Ancient Warfare blog review (Karwansaray, 2021; Cloudflare-blocked, seen only in search excerpts) objected that the British destruction "has been debunked by leading Roman army scholars" and that the legion "is known to have survived at least until the AD 140s" [P].
- R. Cowan, *For the Glory of Rome* (2007), chapter on the Ninth with a section "Destruction at Elegeia?" [V snippet]: considers the Elegeia solution.
- M. Olly, *The Disappearing Ninth Legion: A Popular History* (2011) [V snippet]: popular; transfer to Nijmegen and refit.
- G. de la Bédoyère (*Roman Britain: A New History*, 2006/2013; *Gladius*, 2020) [R]: follows the transfer-to-Nijmegen/lost-elsewhere consensus — not checked.
- J. Lendering, Livius.org, "Legio VIIII Hispana" [V]: "a subunit of the Ninth Legion was for a brief period after 121 at Nijmegen"; the officers "cannot have served earlier than 122"; three possibilities — Judaea 132–6, Cappadocia 161, a Danube revolt 162; certain only that the legion was gone before ILS 2288.

---

## 13. The 2021–2026 turn: Hodgson, Bidwell, Symonds, Graafstal, Breeze

### 13.1 N. Hodgson, "The End of the Ninth Legion, War in Britain and the Building of Hadrian's Wall", Britannia 52 (2021) 97–118, DOI 10.1017/S0068113X21000015 (published online 13 April 2021) [V abstract; body [P] via Graafstal 2025 and Bidwell 2022]
Abstract (verbatim): "It is often stated that the Ninth Legion was transferred from Britain and continued to exist until the 130s or beyond. The evidence is reviewed, and it is concluded that: (1) no more than a detachment of the legion went abroad, and that only for the period c. 105 to c. 120; (2) there is no prosopographical or other evidence which proves that the legion existed after the early 120s. Given that war, heavy Roman losses and an interruption in the building of Hadrian's Wall are directly attested in Britain, probably occurring in 122 or shortly after, it is argued that it is most likely that the legion was defeated and disbanded in connection with those events." Keywords: Ninth Legion; Britain; Nijmegen; Hadrian's Wall; Hadrian; expeditio Britannica; vexillatio Britannica.
- Officer careers (Hodgson 2021, 6): "the[se] careers rule out the traditional loss of the legion in 117–19 but are compatible with loss or disbanding at some point in the 120s" (quoted Graafstal 2025, 37–8); pp. 16–17 allow that a career may have been retarded; pp. 18–19 dispose of Asclepiades (and, with Keppie, Numisius) as evidence for an eastern posting.
- Nijmegen (pp. 3–4, 16): follows Haalebos 2000 — a detachment within the *vexillatio Britannica* c. 105–120, repatriated; the historiography of assuming the full legion (p. 3); "Since the 1970s, the possibility that the Ninth was in Britain when it ceased to exist has disappeared so thoroughly from the educated public consciousness that many believe its departure from the island to be a matter of fact" (p. 16).
- Fronto/SHA/expeditio (pp. 8, 11, 14): Sabinus' 3,000 men came "following heavy losses" (14); expeditio = Hadrian's presence in 122, following A.R. Birley 2014 (Graafstal n. 84); the interruption of Wall-building (11); diploma RIB 2401.6 of 124 (9–10); n. 51 on alternative expansions of Maur(…) in AE 1960, 28.
- Earlier statement of the same idea: Hodgson, *Hadrian's Wall: Archaeology and History at the Limit of Rome's Empire* (Ramsbury 2017) 41, 66 (IX Hispana possibly at work on the Turf Wall) [P via Graafstal nn. 20, 228]. Public lecture: Joan Pye Lecture 2022, "The Ninth Legion" (YouTube, Tyne & Wear/Newcastle) [V listing only].
- **Bibliography of the article (65 items, verified from the Cambridge Core reference list, file `papers/hodgson2021_full.txt`):** it cites E. Birley 1948 and 1971; A.R. Birley 2005, 2013, 2014; Bogaers 1967; Bogaers & Haalebos 1977; Haalebos 2000; Brunsting & Steures 1997; Willems & van Enckevort 2009; Sijpesteijn ZPE 111; Keppie 1989 and 2000; Campbell 2018; Ritterling 1925; Jarrett 1976; Frere 2000; Breeze 2003; Breeze, Dobson & Maxfield 2012; Graafstal 2012 and 2018; Hodgson 2017; Holder 2003; Eck, Holder & Pangerl 2016 (ZPE, the constitution of 152/3 for Lower Moesian and British troops seconded to Mauretania Tingitana — i.e. legionary/auxiliary vexillations as a model for the Nijmegen detachment); Casey forthcoming ("Ancient Elegeia: battlefield or Roman outpost?"); Swan 2002, 2008, 2009 (York pottery and supply); Tomlin 2018; Dobson 1978; Alföldy 1969, 1977; Salway 1981; D. Mattingly 2006. **Not cited:** Eck 1972, Mor 1986/2016, Campbell 2010, Russell 2010/2011, Dando-Collins 2010, Collingwood, Richmond, Mommsen. Hodgson thus argues the eastern question through Keppie and the prosopographical handbooks rather than through a direct engagement with Eck or Mor, and does not answer Russell at all.
- **Verdict: defeated in Britain and disbanded (not necessarily annihilated), 122 or shortly after; "most likely", not certain.**

### 13.2 Responses 2022–2026
- **P. Bidwell, "Hadrian's Frontiers in Northern Britain", Britannia 53 (2022) 99–124** [V abstract]: cites Hodgson 2021; sees the Wall's modifications as reflecting "shifting focuses of loyalty, resistance and outright warfare"; no separate treatment of the Ninth visible.
- **M.F.A. Symonds, Hadrian's Wall: Creating Division (London 2021) 55–7, 67** [P via Graafstal nn. 6, 26, 48, 84, 238]: follows A.R. Birley 2014 in coupling the *expeditio* with 122, but flags that "Resourcing such an initiative seems a distraction during the throes of a desperate struggle" (56).
- **E.P. Graafstal, "What Happened Next? Hadrian's Wall, the expeditio Britannica and the Fate of the Ninth Legion", Britannia 56 (2025) 25–55, DOI 10.1017/S0068113X2510038X (open access)** [V full text]: "Building on two recent contributions" (Hodgson 2021; Bidwell 2022). Independently narrows the date ranges: Florentinus' departure "not much before 124"; Karus' tribunate c. 124; Crispinus' "not earlier than the mid-120s"; Laelianus/VI Victrix "broadly around 123"; Birdoswald coin hoards closing c. 120–1 and 123–5; the Spanish levy of 123 (SHA *Hadr.* 12.4); the EXPED AVG coinage; the Hadrianic fire of London (Perring 2022); cessation of work at several Wall forts. "The year that surfaces from this whole exercise clearly is A.D. 123" (50). On Nijmegen: "the archaeology of the legionary fortress does not support the presence of a complete legion after c. 104"; the IX detachment was "part, and in charge, of that vexillatio", a temporary arrangement; "With IX Hispana still in existence in the early 120s, the normal course of events would have the ill-fated legion in the north, ready to take up its part in the [Wall] megaproject" (48); "so why cannot the third legion [building miles 7–22] be IX Hispana?" (49). Conclusion: "if the careers of Karus and Saturninus mean that the Ninth still existed in the early 120s, and Laelianus came over with the Sixth broadly around 124, simple economy prompts us to consider whether VI Victrix can have been shunted to Britain as a one-on-one replacement for IX Hispana. If so … the legion may have been lost, or dishonourably disbanded, somewhere in the early days of the Wall project" (49); "a serious security crisis ravaging Britain in the wake of the imperial visit, possibly involving the loss of one of Rome's legions, was not something to be broadly publicised" (52). **Verdict: Britain, early 123, lost or dishonourably disbanded; offered as a scenario "to keep all our options on the table".**
- **D.J. Breeze**: thanked by Graafstal "for support and discussion during the long gestation of this follow-up paper"; Breeze 2003 ("Warfare in Britain and the building of Hadrian's Wall", AA5 32, 13–16) had already argued that a war interrupted the Wall; Breeze, Dobson & Maxfield 2012 ("Maenius Agrippa: a chronological conundrum", *Acta Classica* 55, 17–30) put the *expeditio* in the run-up to 122 and doubted a war so fierce "in the presence of the emperor" would go unmentioned (Breeze et al. 2012, 20); Breeze & Graafstal 2022; Graafstal & Breeze 2023 ("Why did Hadrian's Wall take so long to build?", AA6 2) attribute the slow progress mainly to scale and changes of plan [P]. Breeze has not, to my knowledge, published a dedicated verdict on the Ninth [R].
- R. Brickstock 2024 ("A coin of Hadrian", in Breeze ed., *Hadrian's Wall in Our Time*, 48–9): the Britannia issue reflects "not … a defeat but rather … a hard-fought and successful campaign" [P via Graafstal n. 48].
- **No published rebuttal of Hodgson 2021 by Campbell, Keppie or anyone else was found** (Semantic Scholar lists only Bidwell 2022 and Graafstal 2025 as citing it; Crossref 2019–2026 shows no other article on the legion; Campbell's blog is silent).

---

## 14. Genealogy of the four hypotheses

| Hypothesis | First proposed | Principal proponents | Principal critics / weaknesses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annihilated in Britain (Brigantes/Caledonians), 108–120 | Borghesi 1830s; Mommsen 1885 | Weber 1907/1936; Haverfield 1924; Collingwood 1923–37; Parker 1928; Mattingly 1936; Sutcliff 1954; Russell 2010–11; Elliott 2021 (north of Britain) | Ritterling 1925 & E. Birley 1948: the tribunes' careers forbid a date before c. 120–5; Bogaers 1967/Eck 1972: the legion is on the Rhine; Campbell 2010: "no direct evidence for any of the required elements"; Russell's redating of the Nijmegen tiles to the 80s has no support |
| Defeated and disbanded/cashiered in Britain, 120s | Collingwood & Myres 1936 n. ("cut up, but had disgraced itself"); Richmond 1955 ("cashiered … followed an ignominious defeat") | Hodgson 2021 (122 or shortly after); Graafstal 2025 ("lost, or dishonourably disbanded", early 123); Elliott 2021 as a variant | Campbell 2010/2018: Richmond's version "fantastical"; Eck 1999: "there is no other example for disbanding a legion in this form" (said of XXII Deiotariana); Symonds 2021, 56 and Breeze et al. 2012, 20 on the improbability of an unmentioned disaster in the emperor's presence; Graafstal himself concedes a retarded career could break the chronology |
| Transferred to Nijmegen (whole legion) and lost in the Bar Kokhba war 132–5 | E. Birley 1948 option (c)/1953; Bogaers 1967, 74 | Watson 1969; popular literature; Campbell 2010 (one of two options); Wikipedia | Eck 1972 (Numisius → legion alive c. 140); Mor 1986, 2016 ("unfounded … quite the opposite conclusion"); Keppie 1989 (no eastern epigraphy); Haalebos 2000/van Enckevort 2021 (only a detachment at Nijmegen, 104–120) |
| Transferred east and destroyed at Elegeia, 161 (Dio 71.2.1) | E. Birley apud Bogaers 1967, 75; Birley 1971, 78; A.R. Birley 1968 | Eck 1972 ("most probable"); Watson 1969 (alternative); Dando-Collins 2010; Lendering (option) | Keppie 1989/2000: Numisius cos. 161 probably the tribune's son; no trace of the legion in Cappadocia; Hodgson 2021: nothing after the early 120s; Eck himself required a three-legion Cappadocia for which there is no evidence |
| Transferred under Trajan (Parthian war), never returned | E. Birley 1948 option (a) ("least likely") | Keppie 2000 (detachment 114–17 as one option) | Nobody defends it for the whole legion; the York stone of 108 and the careers of the 120s tell against it |

---

## 15. Compact table: author, year, favoured end, key evidence, key weakness as identified by others

| Author | Year | Favoured end (place, date) | Key evidence | Key weakness (per others) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Horsley | 1732 | "broke" or merged with VI Victrix; place unstated | absence from the record | based on a misread tile (Campbell) |
| Mommsen | 1885 | annihilated at Eburacum, Brigantian revolt, "soon after 108" under Hadrian | RIB 665 + VI Victrix + Fronto/SHA/Juvenal | careers of the tribunes (Ritterling, E. Birley); Nijmegen (Eck) |
| Weber | 1907/1936 | destroyed in camp at Eburacum, war ended 119 | Britannia coins, expeditio Britannica | coin dating subjective (Campbell); careers |
| Haverfield | 1924 | annihilated at York, late Trajan/early Hadrian | as Mommsen | as above |
| Ritterling | 1925 | destroyed in Britain, but after 120, perhaps c. 125 (second revolt) | Karus, Crispinus careers | Collingwood: no Wall inscriptions, VI Victrix replaced it; later: Nijmegen |
| Collingwood (& Myres) | 1923/1936 | disappeared c. 115–19 in a northern rising; n.: cut up and "disgraced itself" | absence from Wall inscriptions; VI Victrix | E. Birley 1948; Eck 1972 |
| E. Birley | 1948 | no firm conclusion; options: still in Britain to c. 126–30 then east (Iulius Severus, 132) or lost in Britain c. 130 | Karus, Crispinus, Cocceius Severus; Carlisle tiles | Keppie: no eastern evidence; Haalebos: Nijmegen detachment earlier |
| Richmond | 1955/63 | cashiered in disgrace after defeat (SW Scotland), by 122 | victory coins 119; replacement by VI | "fantastical", "theory had become fact" (Campbell) |
| Sutcliff | 1954 | marched north c. 117, never heard of again (fiction) | CAH XI | not history; Silchester eagle not an aquila |
| Bogaers | 1967 | whole legion at Nijmegen in the 120s; possibly lost in the Jewish war | tile, mortarium; Aachen altar; CIL X 1769 | Bogaers & Haalebos 1977 and Haalebos 2000 retreat to a detachment |
| E. Birley | 1971 | Carlisle base → Nijmegen c. 126 → east with Iulius Severus; lost in Judaea or at Elegeia 161 | careers; praefectus castrorum at Aachen | Keppie; Haalebos; Hodgson |
| Eck | 1972 | Elegeia, Armenia, 161 ("most probable") | Numisius Iunior cos. 8 Feb 161 → tribune c. 140 | Keppie 1989: father/son; no legion attested in Cappadocia |
| Bogaers & Haalebos | 1975 | at Nijmegen c. 121–130 (whole legion), then gone | stamps, altar | own 1977 revision: part only |
| Frere | 1967/1987 | to Nijmegen c. 121 or c. 126; "further evidence is needed" | Bogaers | none (deliberately agnostic) |
| Mor | 1986/2016 | not lost in Judaea | absence of any Judaean evidence for IX (and XXII) | — |
| Keppie | 1989/2000 | no eastern fate demonstrable; Nijmegen = Trajanic detachment (101–6 or 114–17); legion vanishes after early 120s, place open | re-examination of Numisius, Asclepiades, stamps | Birley 1981 and Mor 1986 rejected the father/son split |
| Haalebos | 2000 | detachment of IX within the vexillatio Britannica at Nijmegen c. 104–120 | >100 VEX BRIT stamps; fortress archaeology | Campbell 2010: a primus pilus/praefectus castrorum implies the legion |
| A.R. Birley | 1981/1997/2005 | legion alive to c. 124–mid-120s; loss "extraneous" to Britain (east, undetermined) | Florentinus (127), Karus (cos. 144), Crispinus (cos. 150) | Hodgson/Graafstal accept his dates but relocate the end to Britain |
| Campbell | 2010/2018 | left Britain by the 120s (Nijmegen); lost in the East — Judaea 132–5 or Elegeia 161 — undecided; British destruction "a very weak theory" | historiography; officers; Aachen altar | assumes the full legion at Nijmegen (Hodgson, Graafstal) |
| Russell | 2010/2011 | fought and died in Britain, late 110s/early 120s | Fronto, SHA, Pontius Sabinus, VI Victrix at York; tiles "all seem to date to the 80s" | tile redating unsupported; ignores officer careers and Aachen altar (Campbell; Hodgson) |
| Dando-Collins | 2010 | wiped out at Elegeia 161 (with XXII Deiotariana) | Dio 71.2.1 | no engagement with Keppie/Mor; XXII last attested 119 in Egypt |
| Willems & van Enckevort; van Enckevort | 2009/2021 | elements of IX at Nijmegen after 104, replaced by XXX Ulpia c. 120 | stamps, fortress size | — |
| Elliott | 2021 | lost in the north of Britain (dramatic event), between 108 and 122 | last mention 82; York 108; VI Victrix 122; absence from Wall; ILS 2288 | reviewers: ignores survival into the 120s/140s; Perring's "Hadrianic war" speculative |
| Hodgson | 2021 | defeated and disbanded in Britain, 122 or shortly after ("most likely") | Haalebos' 104–120 detachment; careers end c. 124; Fronto; expeditio (Sabinus' 3,000); RIB 3364; interruption of Wall building | Symonds/Breeze et al.: a disaster in the emperor's presence unmentioned; careers could be retarded (conceded) |
| Graafstal | 2025 | lost or dishonourably disbanded in Britain, early 123, after Hadrian's visit | convergence of careers, coin hoards, Spanish levy 123, London fire, halted fort building | offered as scenario; depends on "normally expected" career intervals |

---

## 16. Caveats
1. Ritterling 1925, E. Birley 1971, Bogaers 1967, Haalebos 2000, Keppie 1989/2000 (beyond snippets), A.R. Birley 1981/1997/2005 (beyond the Graafstal quotations), Willems & van Enckevort 2009, Russell 2010 and Hodgson 2021 (beyond the abstract and the reference list) were **not read in full**; their positions are reconstructed from the quotations and citations in sources that were read (named in each entry).
2. The "2018 York debate" and any statement that Russell, Campbell and others debated at the Yorkshire Museum could not be verified; the 2018 Eboracum festival programme contains no such event.
3. de la Bédoyère and Salway are included from memory only.
4. No 2022–2026 rebuttal of Hodgson 2021 was found in Britannia, Ancient Warfare, JRA, Bonner Jahrbücher or Campbell's blog; the only published follow-ups are Bidwell 2022 (cites) and Graafstal 2025 (supports and refines).

---

## Bibliography (with URLs where available)

- Bidwell, P. 2022. "Hadrian's Frontiers in Northern Britain", *Britannia* 53, 99–124. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X2200023X [V abstract]
- Birley, A.R. 1981. *The Fasti of Roman Britain*, Oxford, 219, 254 ff. [P]
- Birley, A.R. 1997. *Hadrian: The Restless Emperor*, London, 123, 273–4. https://archive.org/details/hadrianrestlesse0000birl [P]
- Birley, A.R. 1998. "A new tombstone from Vindolanda", *Britannia* 29, 299–306. [P]
- Birley, A.R. 2005. *The Roman Government of Britain*, Oxford, 118, 228–9, 244, 285–7, 308. Google Books id qkkVDAAAQBAJ [P]
- Birley, A.R. 2013. "Britain under Trajan and Hadrian", in T. Opper (ed.), *Hadrian: Art, Politics and Economy*, London, 132. [P]
- Birley, A.R. 2014. "Two governors of Dacia Superior and Britain", in V. Iliescu et al. (eds), *Graecia, Roma, Barbaricum*, 247–53. [P]
- Birley, E. 1948. "Britain after Agricola, and the end of the Ninth Legion", *Durham University Journal* June 1948, 78–83 = *Roman Britain and the Roman Army* (Kendal 1953) 20–30. https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.2625 [V]
- Birley, E. 1971. "The fate of the Ninth Legion", in R.M. Butler (ed.), *Soldier and Civilian in Roman Yorkshire*, Leicester, 71–80. [P]
- Bogaers, J.E. 1965. "De bezettingstroepen van de Nijmeegse legioensvesting in de 2de eeuw na Chr.", *Numaga* 12, 10–37. [P]
- Bogaers, J.E. 1967. "Die Besatzungstruppen des Legionslagers von Nijmegen im 2. Jahrhundert nach Christus", in *Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms* (BJ Beih. 19), Köln–Graz, 54–76. [P]
- Bogaers, J.E. & Haalebos, J.K. 1975. "Romeins Nijmegen: de Nijmeegse legioensvestingen vanaf 70 na Chr.", *Numaga* 22, 1–20. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/26331 [V]
- Bogaers, J.E. & Haalebos, J.K. 1977. "Die Nijmegener Legionslager seit 70 nach Christus", in *Studien zu den Militärgrenzen Roms* II (BJ Beih. 38), 93–108. [P]
- Breeze, D.J. 2003. "Warfare in Britain and the building of Hadrian's Wall", *Archaeologia Aeliana* 5.32, 13–16. [P]
- Breeze, D.J., Dobson, B. & Maxfield, V. 2012. "Maenius Agrippa: a chronological conundrum", *Acta Classica* 55, 17–30. [P; reference verified in the bibliographies of Hodgson 2021 and Graafstal 2025]
- Campbell, D.B. 2010. "The fate of the Ninth: the curious disappearance of Legio VIIII Hispana", *Ancient Warfare* 4.5, 48–53. Publisher PDF (Wayback copy): https://web.archive.org/web/2020/https://blogfiles.karwansaraypublishers.com/uploads/Ancient-Warfare/fateoftheninth.pdf [V]
- Campbell, D.B. 2018. *The Fate of the Ninth: The Curious Disappearance of One of Rome's Legions*, Glasgow (Bocca della Verità). Author's page: https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/p/books.html ; review: https://classicsforall.org.uk/reading-room/book-reviews/fate-ninth-curious-disappearance-legio-viiii-hispana ; blog post 15 July 2019: https://ninth-legion.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lost-legion-sometimes-theories-and.html [P/V]
- Collingwood, R.G. 1923 (1924 printing). *Roman Britain*, Oxford. https://archive.org/details/b29827590 [V]
- Collingwood, R.G. & Myres, J.N.L. 1936 (2nd ed. 1937). *Roman Britain and the English Settlements*, Oxford, 128–30. https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.16039 [V]
- Cowan, R. 2007. *For the Glory of Rome*, London (chapter on the Ninth). [P]
- Dando-Collins, S. 2010. *Legions of Rome*, London, c. 422 ff. https://archive.org/details/legionsofromedef0000dand [V snippets]
- Eck, W. 1972. "Zum Ende der legio IX Hispana", *Chiron* 2, 459–62. https://publications.dainst.org/journals/chiron/332/4940 [V]
- Eck, W. 1999. "The Bar Kokhba revolt: the Roman point of view", *JRS* 89, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/300735 [P]
- Eck, W. & Pangerl, A. 2015. *ZPE* 193, 253–60 (Karus cos. 19 March 144). [P]
- Elliott, S. 2021. *Roman Britain's Missing Legion: What Really Happened to IX Hispana?*, Barnsley. Interview: https://historynet.com/simon-elliott-seeking-the-lost-legion/ ; essay: https://aspectsofhistory.com/roman-britains-lost-ninth-legion/ ; Malton Museum lecture notice: https://www.maltonmuseum.co.uk/2021/05/15/the-fate-of-the-ninth-legion/ [V]
- Enckevort, H. van 2021. "The Roman military complex at Nijmegen (19 BC–475 AD)", in W.A.M. Hessing et al. (eds), *Romans on the Waterfront* (NAR 71), Amersfoort, 185–202. https://cultureelerfgoed.info/download/pdf/NAR071_Limes.pdf [V]
- Frere, S.S. 1967/1978/1987. *Britannia: A History of Roman Britain*, London (3rd ed. 1987, 124). https://archive.org/details/britanniahistory0000frer_g6r4 [V snippets]
- Frere, S.S. 2000. "M. Maenius Agrippa, the expeditio Britannica and Maryport", *Britannia* 31, 23–8. [P]
- Graafstal, E.P. 2025. "What Happened Next? Hadrian's Wall, the expeditio Britannica and the Fate of the Ninth Legion", *Britannia* 56, 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X2510038X (open access PDF: https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/2939F9DCC38AC465ED8D2D3B13A3A044/S0068113X2510038Xa.pdf) [V]
- Haalebos, J.K. 2000. "Römische Truppen in Nijmegen", in Y. Le Bohec & C. Wolff (eds), *Les légions de Rome sous le Haut-Empire*, Lyon, 465–89. https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/124815 [P]
- Haverfield, F. 1924. *The Roman Occupation of Britain* (ed. G. Macdonald), Oxford, 119. https://archive.org/details/romanoccupationo0000fhav [V]
- Hodgson, N. 2017. *Hadrian's Wall: Archaeology and History at the Limit of Rome's Empire*, Ramsbury, 41, 66. [P]
- Hodgson, N. 2021. "The End of the Ninth Legion, War in Britain and the Building of Hadrian's Wall", *Britannia* 52, 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068113X21000015 ; Joan Pye Lecture 2022: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8wo-3A_SYo [V abstract]
- Jarrett, M.G. 1976. "An unnecessary war", *Britannia* 7, 145–51. [P]
- Jarrett, M.G. & Mann, J.C. 1970. "Britain from Agricola to Gallienus", *Bonner Jahrbücher* 170, 178–210. [P]
- Keppie, L. 1989. "The fate of the Ninth Legion: a problem for the eastern provinces?", in D.H. French & C.S. Lightfoot (eds), *The Eastern Frontier of the Roman Empire* (BAR Int. Ser. 553), Oxford, 247–55 = *Legions and Veterans* (Mavors 12, Stuttgart 2000) 173–9. Google Books id TLDvWqjSfP8C [P snippets]
- Keppie, L. 2000. "Legio VIIII in Britain: the beginning and the end", in R.J. Brewer (ed.), *Roman Fortresses and their Legions*, London, 83–100 = *Legions and Veterans* 201–24, 321. [P snippets]
- Lendering, J. "Legio VIIII Hispana", Livius.org. https://www.livius.org/articles/legion/legio-viiii-hispana/ [V]
- Mommsen, T. 1885. *Römische Geschichte* V: *Die Provinzen von Caesar bis Diocletian*, Berlin, 171 with n. 2 (BSB copy of the 1886 printing: https://archive.org/details/11835671bsb) = *The Provinces of the Roman Empire* (tr. W.P. Dickson, London 1886) I, ch. 5, p. 191 (https://archive.org/details/provincesromane02mommgoog). [V German and English]
- Mor, M. 1986. "Two legions – the same fate? (The disappearance of the legions IX Hispana and XXII Deiotariana)", *ZPE* 62, 267–78. [P]
- Mor, M. 2016. *The Second Jewish Revolt: The Bar Kokhba War, 132–136 CE*, Leiden–Boston, 198, 267, 306, 308. Google Books id T8wJDAAAQBAJ [V snippets]
- Nesselhauf, H. & von Petrikovits, H. 1967. "Ein Weihaltar für Apollo aus Aachen-Burtscheid", *BJ* 167, 268 ff. [P]
- Richmond, I.A. 1955 (2nd ed. 1963). *Roman Britain* (Pelican), 40 f. [P]
- Ritterling, E. 1925. "Legio", *RE* XII 2, 1329–1829, at 1664–70 (IX Hispana), 1668–9. [P]
- Russell, M. 2010. *Bloodline: The Celtic Kings of Roman Britain*, Stroud, 180–5. [P]
- Russell, M. 2011a. "What happened to Britain's lost Roman legion?", *BBC History Magazine* 12.5 (May 2011) 40–6. [P]
- Russell, M. 2011b. "The Roman Ninth Legion's mysterious loss", BBC News Magazine, 16 March 2011. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12752497 [V]
- Sijpesteijn, P.J. 1996. "Die legio nona Hispana in Nimwegen", *ZPE* 111, 281–2 (= AE 1996, 1107; listed as "1997" in Hodgson 2021's bibliography). [P]
- Sutcliff, R. 1954. *The Eagle of the Ninth*, Oxford (foreword). Silchester eagle: https://rosemarysutcliff.net/2011/02/25/is-the-eagle-from-silchester-inspiration-for-rosemary-sutcliffs-the-eagle-of-the-ninth-the-eagle-standard-of-the-ninth-legion/ [V]
- Symonds, M.F.A. 2021. *Hadrian's Wall: Creating Division*, London, 55–7, 67. [P]
- Watson, G.R. 1969. *The Roman Soldier*, London. [P]
- Weber, W. 1936. *CAH* XI, 313. [P]
- Willems, W.J.H. & Enckevort, H. van 2009. *Ulpia Noviomagus: Roman Nijmegen* (JRA Suppl. 73), Portsmouth RI, 56. [P]
- Wikipedia, "Legio IX Hispana" (rev. consulted 14 Sept 2026). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legio_IX_Hispana [V]