THE NINTH LEGION 'S REAL DEFEAT !
Why would the ninth Legion march past an unconquered part of Britain less than 50 miles to the north of there base in York, ie the never conquered Tees basin or Cleveland hills, to fight scots behind a well defended wall ? This area of North east England was never conquered by Rome yet we are to believe there greatest legion marched passed it and its people to be destroyed in what is now Scotland .
There can be no other explanation other than a roman defeat, that stopped them utilising the Cleveland hills and Tees inlet as a Roman strong hold ! There is no evidence of Rome gaining any type of a hold on the area we now know as Cleveland , to any military strategist this would point to only one thing a fear by the Romans to attempt to attack the area !
I have found no evidence of actual Roman occupation in the ancient area of Cleveland, there have been a few isolated villas found but these were of so called Romano British origin, again no evidence of any Roman military occupation, ie the skills to build these villas would be readily available at the time of the partial occupation of Britain. everything in this area regarding the Romans points towards a Roman defeat or reluctance to tackle the occupiers in direct confrontation .
As ive stated before my blog is just a note of my finds and thoughts, since i wrote this ive found reason to believe the Angles occupied the Cleveland area before Rome arrived and controlled it before turning on the romans and probably had a hand in the loss of the ninth legion that left Eborcum never arriving in the large camp at Piercbridge on the Tees, the Roman propaganda writers certainly never mentioned our area ! I wonder why ?
The boundary as I see it , i.e. the Romans appear
to have stopped here ! with this view of ancient
Cleveland in front of them !
The only reference I can find of Roman activity on the banks of the river Tees is at
Piercebridge Roman Fort - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This location is to the west of Cleveland , again to me this points to the Romans avoiding the area we now know as Cleveland , also there is no references I can find of Roman writings about the area .
These three maps seem again to point to an avoidance of what would be a very important strategic location to any army
Note the total lack of Roman road building and activity in Ancient Cleveland ?
Middlesbrough on the map below is now the centre of the area I talk refer to.
Middesbrough is the modern City now in the centre of the area I refer to.
For those unfamiliar with Cleveland, the large conurbation of Teesside with Middlesbrough as its centre now covers a lot of the area .
The area of what is now ancient Cleveland, is said to have been part of the Roman stated Brigantes ruled area of northern Britain , yet I've never came across any evidence for this , the closest known Roman reference is a Brigantes fort at Stanwick St John close to what is now Darlington so given the total lack of Roman place names, settlements , military posts, in what is now Cleveland, I believe they never had any influence on the occupiers of this area throughout the Roman occupation of other areas of North east England and as all historians know of the Brigantes was written by Romans , I find it hard to believe an area like Cleveland would have just been overlooked and left with no Roman reference I can find ! so this leads me to believe they did not want a record of the area or what might of occurred there !
A rising of the Brigantes has often been posited as the explanation for the disappearance of the
Ninth Legion, stationed at York is it just coincidence that York lays just to the south of the Cleveland hills, and Tees basin, that was never conquered or wrote about by Rome ! ?
. According to the eminent 19th-century German classicist
Theodor Mommsen, "under Hadrian there was a terrible catastrophe here, apparently an attack on the fortress of Eboracum [York] and the annihilation of the legion stationed there, the very same Ninth that had fought so unluckily in the Boudican revolt."
[11] He suggested that a revolt of the
Brigantes soon after 108 was the most likely explanation.
The above all supports my theory that Rome never conquered the area we now know as Cleveland , and in all probability the area was a Briton strong hold. Another possibility is that Angles controlled the area, before and after Rome's arrival, the Angles as so called mercenaries of Rome controlled the North East of England and Scotland, their platform and landing ground could well of been Cleveland and its inlets and high ground.
Reports regarding records of the Legion being in Holland after there disappearance in Britain seem light weight ie no sign of a Legion just the fragments of one that you would expect after such a defeat.
