The Legions of Rome

This huge and heavy book about the legions of Rome is written by Stephen Dando-Collins, who is the author of several books about Roman history, including the following:

* (2002) Caesar’s Legion

* (2005) Nero’s Killing Machine

* (2006) Cleopatra’s Kidnappers

* (2007) Mark Antony’s Heroes

* (2008) Blood of the Caesars

The main text (which runs to almost 600 pages) is divided into three parts. Here is a brief overview:

* PART I

* THE MEN

* 29 chapters which explore several topics

* PART II
* THE LEGIONS
* 23 chapters which present the imperial legions, one by one)

* PART III
* THE BATTLES
* 76 chapters which follow a chronological line from 29 BC to AD 410)

This structure means there are many repetitions. Many events are mentioned twice: first in part II in the context of the legions, and later in part III in the context of the battles.

At the end of the book we find a bibliography and an index. References to ancient sources and/or modern works are not given as footnotes or endnotes, but in square brackets in the main text. I am not sure I like this system, but it seems the author (or the publisher?) is very fond of it. A list of abbreviations used for the references is given on pp. 580-581.

What about illustrations?

Throughout the book there are more than one hundred photos, drawings, maps and battle plans. Unfortunately, they are all in black-and-white, and the quality of the black-and-white photos is not very high.

In the middle of the book there are 16 pages with colour illustrations. Some of the black-and-white photos appear again, this time in colour. On pages 1-4 we have the emblems of all the imperial legions. On the remaining pages we have pictures of other objects. The captions on pp. 5-16 include cross references to the main text, which is a good idea.

Part III is the most interesting part of the book. I am happy to see there is a chapter about the North African rebel Tacfarinas, who fought the Romans for several years during the reign of Tiberius.

Dando-Collins is an experienced author. But even for an experienced author something can go wrong. There are several mistakes and misunderstandings in this book. Here are some examples (for reasons of speace I will only mention the most important here):

(1) The southern part of the Holy Land is called “Judea.” But the Latin (or Roman) name of this area is “Judaea.” This word appears again and again, and it is misspelled every time (e.g. pp. 43, 66, 120, 136, 160, 179, 315, and 419).

(2) On page 54 he says “Commodus introduced universal citizenship” in AD 212. But Commodus ruled 180-192. The universal citizenship was introduced in 212 by Caracalla, who ruled 211-217.

(3) The chart on page 98 mentions “Marcus Aurelius’ Parthian Campaign, AD 114-166.” But Marcus Aurelius was not even born in 114. He was born in 121 and became emperor in 161. The dates should be 161-166.

[The correct dates appear on page 108.]

(4) On page 119 we hear about Legio III Augusta:

“In AD 75, the legion was transferred by Vespasian to Tebessa, known today as Timgad, where the men of the legion then built a handsome town astride the roads to their old base at Lambaesis.”

Dando-Collins is confused. Here are the facts: Originally the legion was based in Ammaedara, modern Haidra, in present-day Tunisia (as the author says on page 272). In AD 75, under Vespasian, it was moved to Theveste, modern Tébessa, in present-day Algeria. In AD 81, under Titus, it was moved to Lambaesis, modern Tazoult-Lambèze, also in present-day Algeria. In AD 100 Trajan decided to establish a new town about 38 km east of the military base: Thamugadi, modern Timgad, was built by soldiers from the third legion, and veterans from the legion were some of the first to settle down there.

[The same mistake – claiming Tebessa is today’s Timgad - appears in the caption to the illustration on page 495.]

(5) The chart on page 133 says the fifth legion lost its eagle “to the Germans in 16 BC.” But the text, written in italics, claims the legion “would lose its eagle on the Rhine in 15 BC.” So when was it? The answer is 16 BC. This date is given on page 135 and again on pp. 223-224.

(6) On page 161 the charts mentions “Trajan’s First Dacian War, AD 101-103.” But the First Dacian War was 101-102.

[The correct dates are given on pp. 145 & 167.]

(7) There is something wrong with his description of the modern German monument to Arminius on page 241:

(a) He calls it the “Hermann-Denkmal.” But the German name is “Hermannsdenkmal.”

[The caption to the illustration on page 251 has the correct spelling.]

(b) He claims the monument is built on a hill “outside Dortmold.” But the name of the German town is Detmold.

(8) There is something wrong with the map of the Holy Land on page 316:

(a) Jotapata (where Titus Flavius Josephus was captured in AD 67) is placed on the coast of Judaea, but this town is in Galilee, about half way between the coast and Lake Gennesaret (which Dando-Collins calls the Sea of Galilee).

(b) Tarichaeae is placed at the southern end of the lake, but this town is on the western shore of the lake, 5-6 km north of Tiberias.

[The mistake about the location of Tarichaeae appears in the text on page 318.]

(9) The caption to the illustration on page 482 reads as follows: 

“A family portrait of Septimius Severus, his wife Julia Domna, and one of his children.”

In fact this painting showed both his children, Caracalla and Geta. The face of Geta has been erased, but we can still see where it was. This is a case of damnatio memoriae. When Caracalla murdered Geta in 212, he also tried to erase him from history.

(10) On page 485 the author claims Septimius Severus died in Eburacum (present-day York) on 4 February 210. But this emperor died on 4 February 211.

(11) The caption to the illustration on page 494 claims the central figure in the upper register of the “Ludovisi Sarcophagus” is Emperor Maximinus. Not everybody will agree with this. The British scholar Paul Stephenson says it is Emperor Gallienus: See his book Constantine (2009) page 75. The sarcophagus is on display in Palazzo Altemps in Rome, and the label in the museum identifies the central figure as Hostilianus (a son of Emperor Decius) who died in AD 252. So who is it? For the modern scholar the only safe option is to say we are not quite sure.

(12) The caption to the illustration on page 498 begins with these words:

“A Persian relief shows Roman emperor Valerian on bended knee as he surrenders to Persian emperor Shapur I.”

This is not true. There are two persons in front of Shapur. One is kneeling, the other is standing. The kneeling figure is Marcus Julius Philippus (also known as Philip the Arab) who was emperor 244-249, and (maybe) was captured by Shapur. He paid a high ransom for his freedom. The standing figure is Valerian who was captured in AD 260. He holds out both arms towards Shapur as a sign of surrender. The two Roman emperors were not prisoners at the same time. The famous relief combines two separate situations into one scene.

(13) On page 500 there is a black-and-white photo from the Syrian town Palmyra. The same photo appears on page 14 of the colour section. Both captions begin like this:

“The Temple of Bel in the heart of the city-state of Palmyra.”

This photo does not show the Temple of Bel, which is in the eastern part of town. What does it show? On the left side, in the background, on top of the mountain, northwest of the town, we have the Arab castle which was built around 1230. In the centre we have the tetrapylon (a four-way arch with sixteen columns), which stands in the heart of Palmyra. On the right side we have the western corner of the theatre and a short section of the colonnade which runs from the monumental arch to the tetrapylon.

Who is to blame for a false caption like this? Perhaps Elaine Willis, who is in charge of picture research? But ultimately, the responsibility lies with Dando-Collins because his name appears on the cover of the book.

(14) Masada, the famous desert-fortress south of Jerusalem and west of the Dead Sea, is mentioned several times (pp. 160, 316, & 354-356). When did Masada fall? The traditional date is AD 73. But new evidence regarding the Roman commander Lucius Flavius Silva has been discovered, and some scholars now prefer the following year, i.e. AD 74. For references to the modern debate about this question see Maurice Sartre, The Middle East under Rome (2005) page 428 (note 204).

What does Dando-Collins say about this? He simply gives the traditional date, AD 73. He does not refer to – and does not even mention - the modern debate about this question. Maybe he does not know about it, but he should.

[There is a black-and-white photo of Masada on page 355. The same photo appears on page 9 in the colour section. Both captions give the traditional date.]

My conclusion: This is, in many ways, an interesting book, but as you can see there are some serious flaws. Therefore I can only give it three out of five stars.

* * *

Stephen Dando-Collins,

The Legions of Rome:

The Definitive History of Every Imperial Roman Legion,

Quercus, 2010, 608 pages

 

* * *