Talk:Legio IX Hispana

WikiProject Military history

(Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC – c. 500 AD)

Why?

Why isn't the idea of the Ninth falling at the hands of Pretanic peoples now accepted? It seems a rather bold statement.

Because some research found that the IX was still active after her journey in Britain.90.9.28.237 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

VIIII

Maybe I missed something but should this be "Legio IX Hispana"? --Looper5920 12:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

--- I agree, it should be moved to Legio IX Hispana 194.17.229.129 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

VIIII / IX

Both are possible. Both are used in inscriptions, for example on tombstones from legionaries of the legion. Roy 15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a related note in our article on Roman numerals. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

yes true both are valid but IX is more common and widely known also.....do you not see that it looks quite weird? [guest] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.106.238.55 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Or own article in wikipedia [[1]] say the most common form was VIIII. Is this the scholar consesus? Should we not change the name of the Legio IX? There is a reference in the already cited article (Boyne (1968). A manual of Roman coins. p. 13.) that I don´t have how to consult. Anyone have a reliable source to settle this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarikcwb (talk • contribs) 18:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Symbol unknown

it says the symbol for the leigon was unknown, yet on the internet i have seen this.. it is part horse part fish(?) but not a seahorse because it has front legs.[2]--SalvoCalcio 07:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Move

I have gone ahead and moved this, and the other similar legions. Articles should be given the most accessible name, and the one most likely to make linking easy. (If someone really wants to move them back, please discuss; but at least the redirects are made.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

As this is the English language Wikipedia, not the Latin Wikipedia, I suggest that it should be title "Ninth Legion", as the name by which this unit is most commonly known in English. PatGallacher (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Repetition

The article starts "Legio IX Hispana ..., sometimes known as Legio IX Hispana..." Something wrong there. Languagehat (talk) 00:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture

A strange reference but, it might be worthy of note should this storyline actually be developed into a full scale video game. Who knows.

Legio IX Hispania is currently making an appearance in a MySpace application, "Nightfall: Bloodlines." In the storyline for the application (or minigame or beta test or whatever the hell these things are supposed to be) the Legio IX's history is summed up to York and beyond. ODDLY, it is given the additional nickname Striges. And supposedly was composed of vampires and was nearly annihilated, by... wait for it... Pictish werewolves. Thus explaining its post York history on the fringes of Roman military history.

The unit symbol listed in the game is, obviously, a bat. It also misidentifies the raising of the legion as being done under Caesar.

The Egoist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.86.251 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

An appearance in a Myspace application isn't notable. Should it ever be developed into a full scale game (which is a big step from a myspace application), it might be worth mentioning, but we don't have to worry about that now. Nev1 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the entire first sentence of my post where I actually said, "it might be worthy of note should this storyline actually be developed into a full scale video game."

It is a strange and humorous reference. People interested in the Roman military or in British history, you know, the people who edit this page, might find it funny that Roman military archana has infiltrated something as pop culture as MySpace. I never suggested it be added unless it was developed into a fullscale game.

Although, I'm not sure how notable you have to be on this. Any reference in any format reaching more than 100,000 people would be notable for a topic this obscure. This page is dealing with hardcore archana, even the notable references are hardly notable.

In fact, other than their participation in the founding of York, Legion IX, is of interest to a few Roman Military scholars and a handful of British historians and sci-fi writers. Meaning it's not really all that notable itself.

The Egoist —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.86.251 (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hispaniensis vs Hispana

Just wondering. According to my (rudimentary) dictionary, 'Hispaniensis' means Hispanic; so does Hispana.

According to the article, "The 9th was withdrawn to Spain in 49 BC where it earned the title “Hispaniensis”", and "Their surname Hispana likely dates from this event and was probably earned for distinction in fighting."

What's the distinction / difference between Hispaniensis and Hispana in this context? Not a major thing, but I'm afraid I don't know any Latin scholars to ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.3.43 (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Later evidence

What evidence is there for the legion's existence after 117 AD ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is some doubt because some officers serving into the IX Hispana were still active in Syria after 117 AD. That's a few but... And there are too those two stamped tiles found around Nijmegen... Trouble is, hard to know when there were made before or after its journey in Britain ? In another way, there is no pure evidence this legion was destroyed in Britain too... 92.157.232.73 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Map

In view of the fact that there is debate about the legion's movements, or even existence, after 117 AD, what is the justification for including them there in 125 AD ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reenactment groups

Several reenactment groups were listed under "External links" and deleted They might be mentioned in the text, so I put them here for reference:

• Reenactment website
• Legio IX Hispana, USA re-enactment group
• LEG VIIII HSPA,

Australian re-enactment group

• Legio IX Hisp, Roman unit in 'The Vicus' re-enactment group.

Barsoomian (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Destroyed in Britain and Miles Russell x 4

We've now used him as a source for this argument citing his book, a BBC news magazine article, and a BBC history magazine article (as those two are around the same time they may well be virtually the same thing. Tell a lie, we've used him 4 times, ref 11 is a review of a film. The only other reference is a Daily Mail article which probably isn't a reliable source in any case. I don't think we have enough to say 'some' - I suggest we just have on sentence attributing the claim to Russell (whose claim doesn't seem to be discussed anywhere in the literature yet in any case) with one cite to him. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

CE/BCE or AD/ BC

There are periodic edit wars about the date format, AD/BC or CE/BCE. There seem to be several (or perhaps one) IP editors who turn up and change the format to BC/AD, often doing it incompletely and messing up other things in the process. I've reverted the last couple of such changes. I think that modern archaeological use tends to CE/BCE. Any reason not to follow this? Barsoomian (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The relevant guideline here is WP:ERA, which is pretty vague but encourages us not to change the style without good reason. In this edit summary one of the IPs points out that the original version of the article used BC/AD. Favonian (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have to be bound by whatever the first person to post wrote in 2003. I checked the history of the article, and all of the editors changing (or reverting if you prefer) to AD/BC are IP accounts making driveby edits. Regardless of how it got there, at the moment it's all CE and I propose we stick to that. Barsoomian (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERA It is very clear on this matter. If someone wishes to change the date style from the original, they MUST follow the criteria listed at WP:ERA. Until that happens, the original style should not be changed. To say we should "stick with what is there now" is not acceptable as "what is there now" has been changed back and forth. Since a consensus has not be reached to change from the original and a valid reason for the change has not been given, the original style shall remain. Again, if there is a valid reason (preference is not a valid reason as WP:ERA stated there is no preference on wikipedia's part) So, follow the proper procedures for these edits if that is what you wish, but do not engage in an edit war. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

When I started editing this article, the style was mixed, I made it consistent. I wasn't changing an established style. Obviously many contributors had made additions using both styles, with a preponderance of BCE. That indicates the preference and consensus here, more than comments by editors who flit from article to article and hammer this one issue. Barsoomian (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The IP is almost a single-purpose editor whose edits are mainly changing BCE/CE to BC/AD but never the other way around. We can change it, and I agree it should be CE/BCE. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, glad to get some input here. Reviewing the IP's edits, many of them he changed the style despite the creating edit using BCE, (e.g. (creation, IP edit); (creation, IP edit), (creation, IP edit -- disingenuously described as "fix typo"). So he clearly is enforcing his own preference, just making driveby edits when he can get away with it. Barsoomian (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting enough, WP:ERA now says nothing about 'creating edits' or original style, just "Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." I think we have a valid reason for this article being BCE/CE. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

In the lead para of that article it does say "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." And I think the discussion here has satisfied that. It isn't locked down from the first edit. Barsoomian (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on date style

In order to avoid edit wars, we should follow the rules as they are written at WP:ERA. The original date style of this article is BC/AD. There are contributors to this article who would like it to be changed to BCE/CE. Both date styles are acceptable per WP:ERA and preference should not be a reason. Can anyone provide a valid reason this article should be change from its original style BC/AD to BCE/CE. Again, keep in mind that both are acceptable and preference is not a valid reason 99.101.160.126 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All discussed above. Barsoomian (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The above section all relates to preference. What is the valid reason for the change from the original style? Also, the above section had two people supporting BC/AD and two supporting BCE/CE. WP:ERA states four key points: 1)"No preference is given to either style." 2)"Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article." (This is what took place when the original style was changed.)3)"a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason." 4)"establish a consensus for change at the talk page." How does the above section meet the criteria laid out at WP:ERA? Unless the criteria is met, this article needs to be reverted to the original date style. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All discussed above. Barsoomian (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

According to the mediator/clerk at DRN Legio IX Hispana my edits were justified. With that being said, this article will be reverted to the original date style. I will wait a couple days to allow others to weigh in. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No such determination was made. Barsoomian (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)