Talk:List of Roman legions

Table of early Empire legions

Revisiting this table and section several months after completing it, I feel it is too long-winded and not especially reader-friendly. I have revised it to include all the information in the table itself, thus dispensing with the long list of notes. I was pleased I could still keep it to one line per legion, whilst still retaining all the important data. I have also split it into 3 sections, each compact enough to fit comfortably on one computer screen. As for the second table I devised, I have erased it, as I don't think it is very useful and makes the article excessively long. I hope readers will find it easier to use. EraNavigator 1 December 2007.

Please add

XXVth Legio participated in Battle of Soissons (486) in North Gaul in 486 under command of Syagrius and was defeated[1]. --Dojarca (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Dating and Nomenclature: Some Important Issues

It should be noted that although many of the legionary origins and lineages referred to in the article represent the hypotheses of major scholars in the field (Parker, Keppie inter alia), they are by no means as firmly attested as the article suggests. The authors are very firm on the speculative natures of many of their conclusions. As an example, it is in no way provable that Caesar's Leg X Equestris is the organizational ancestor of the Augustan Leg X Fretensis. It is merely a reasonable speculation. It is also speculation that the legions named Gemina ('twinned') are Augustan/Antonian fusions post-Actium. Although this hypothesis has legs based in the political situation and on the fact that all the Geminas are Augustan, it is again not ultimately verifiable.

Speculative dates of origin, where given, need to be substantiated by citation. In the article, many Late Imperial units seem to be attributed to the years 296-297 without source.

Nomenclature raises issues of translation. Although names like 'Augusta', 'Gallica', 'Illyricorum', 'Deiotariana' are straightforward enough, others are less so. (XX "Valeria Victrix" was long thought to mean 'Conquering Valerian', (a family name, cf Graves 'Claudius the God'), but mainstream opinion now holds that it means Valiant and Victorious, paired with its sister XIV 'Martial and Victorious' and awarded simultaneously for their joint victory over Boudicca.

The Late Imperial series 'Flavia Constantia' is here translated as 'reliable Flavian' and attributed to the year of origin 296 0r 297 and the Emperor Diocletian. However 'Flavius' is the gentile name of the House of Constantine, so it is far more probably that the name refers either to Flavius Constantius (Chlorus) which at least makes 297-298 credible, or else - more likely in my view - the whole series were new foundations by his son Constantine the Great after - possibly well after - 305. 74.12.75.53 (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Eric Morse

Legio X1

You have written that the X1th legion was reformed as X1 Claudia Pia Fidelis by Augustus. It could not have been. It must have been Claudius surely, as the title means "faithful to Claudius"

Translations of titles

I think that this is a wonderful article, but some of the translations of the Latin are a little too free for my taste. Scythica may well, from the context, mean 'Scythian-conquering', but that is not what the Latin says. 'Scythian' would be a better translation. By the same token, Minervia would be better rendered as 'Minervan', not 'Minerva-revering'. I would also prefer 'Ulpian' for Ulpia, not 'Trajan's', even though the reference is almost certainly to Trajan.

I notice that the name Valeria in the title of Legio XX Valeria Victrix is explained as a reference to Valerius Messalla. I'd always thought that it was conferred by the emperor Claudius in compliment to his wife Valeria Messalina, before he executed her after discovering that she was sleeping with half Rome. Is there a source for this attribution?

Djwilms (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I've just absorbed Eric Morse's comments above, and agree entirely with them. Note that he suggests yet another possible origin for Valeria.

A further point. Does adiutrix really mean 'rescuer'? Surely 'auxiliary' or 'helper-out' would be a better translation of the Latin. The two legions that bore the name adiutrix both seem to have been recruited from marines or sailors, so the sense 'auxiliary' works very well in that context.

Djwilms (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There never was a XXIV Nikopolic Fortis Legion and it should be deleted from the list of Roman legions Philipjelley (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Legio VII contradictions

The table of legions has "Legio VII Claudia Pia Fidelis: 51 BC–44 BC"

Elsewhere in [[2]]

"In 58 BC, ... Caesar had initially four veteran legions under his direct command: Legio VII, Legio VIII, Legio IX Hispana, and Legio X. "

Suggesting the Seventh Legion must have been founded by 58BC.

Again [[3]] has "The Seventh, the Sixth, the Eighth and the Ninth were all founded by Pompey in Spain in 65 BC."

Kevin Blackburn 80.177.14.38 (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nero never raised a new Legio XVIII

That's the typical Stephen Dando-Collins's reverie. Dando's new Neronian XVIII is in fact the XXII Deioteriana, based at the time in Alexandria along with the III Cyrenaica. Tacitus's duoetvicensimani tertianosque means soldiers from the 22nd and the 3rd, not soldiers from the 18th and the 3rd, as Dando believes by mistake. Dando's error is easy to understand when he points out that half of his Neronian new XVIII was in Alexandria...and the other half was in Germania under Gaius Dillius Vocula. Vocula was the commander of the XXII Primigeneia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.115.59 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This is Dando-Collins's text: Augustus retired the numbers of the 3 destroyed legions [in AD 9] and never replaced them. But in the reign of Nero, a curious thing happened. Apparently, for one of his planned campaigns in Parthia or Ethiopia, Nero raised a new 18th legion. Why he gave it the number 18, which must have been considered unlucky by Roman soldiers after what happened to the original 18th in the Teutoburg Forest, is a mystery. In both his 'Annals' and 'Histories', Tacitus makes numerous references to this new 18th legion, which in AD 69 was one of the 4 legions of the army of the Upper Rhine [...] only 6 of its cohorts were on the Rhine; the remaining 4 were in the East. Tacitus wrote that along with several cohorts of the 3rd Cyrenaica legion, troops of the 18th Legion were withdrawn from Alexandria by Titus, for his siege of Jerusalem[...]. As mentioned before, Dando-Collins is wrong. Tacitus refers to the duoetvicensimani tertianosque from Alexandria, which means soldiers from the 22nd and the 3rd (that is, the XXII Deioterana and the III Cyrenaica). Same for Germania: Dando's alleged new XVIII on the Rhine under the command of Didius Vocula is in fact the XXII Primigenia. From time to time on this article there's an edition based on Dando's wrong assertions. It's rather tiring. Enough.

Simplification of text

Much of the introductory text is redundant and is covered in Roman Legion, so should be condensed with the focus on the list.

The list in the section "Late Republican legions" starting "The legions included in the following list had a long enough history to be somehow remarkable" is rather arbitrary, incomplete and sometimes wrong. So this should be removed as the main list is the focus.Rjdeadly (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507205724/http://web.utk.edu/~cohprima/ to http://web.utk.edu/~cohprima/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Different Styles of Listing the Legions

The List of Late Republican Legions and the Late Empire legions are categorized in bullet points. The Early Empire legions are categorized using a table. This should be corrected. Each list should be in the same style. Ewf9h-bg (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)