Since we’re talking about troops I might as well answer your past posts directly.
The two nearest legions to Judea were the 10th legion in Cyrrhus and the 12th legion in Raphanea. Barrabbas was an insurrectionist who had probably led a mass rebellion. I think a detachment from one of these legions was sent to clean this mess up
During the time of Jesus (the 20s-30s), or more specifically, during Pilate’s tenure (AD 26-36) AFAIK we don’t really hear of any mass uprising that caused or necessitated the legionaries in Syria to visit Judaea. At least, I haven’t read that sort of thing in Josephus. A scenario of that magnitude is more accurate for the time of the Jewish-Roman War (60s-70s), not the time of Jesus decades earlier.
You have to remember that situations could transform drastically in a matter of years or decades: just look at the Middle East. Ten years ago, who could imagine that stuff like the Arab Spring, ISIL and everything in between would happen? Thirty years ago, who would have thought that the Bamiyan Buddhas or Palmyra would be bombed by extremists?
IIRC the recorded fiascos Pilate was involved in - the standards/shields incident, the aqueduct riot, the Gerizim massacre - seem to have just involved his own troops, suggesting that while they’re serious, they’re not on the same scale as, say, the riots and the uprisings of the 60s - heck even the 40s or the 50s. They’re still sort of ‘manageable’.
Another thing is, we often imagine Barabbas as the leader of the
stasis, “the uprising” or “the sedition” he was supposedly involved in. But the gospels doesn’t necessarily say that. Even if one agrees with the traditional idea of Barabbas as a guilty ‘robber’ / Zealot / whatever, all one can infer from the texts was that he was a “notable prisoner,” (Matthew) that he was “jailed with the insurrectionists who in the insurrection committed murder,” (Mark) and is apparently convicted of insurrection and/or brigandry and murder himself (Luke, John) - all of which are not direct indications that he was
the ringleader, just that he was maybe (accused of being) a part of it.
Actually, the legate’s second in command was a senior tribune of equestrian rank. In this case, if the legate was absent, the senior tribune took command of the legion. This was the case in Egypt so that was what would have happened with Judea. Plus, Acts 21 states the commander of the Jerusalem garrison was a tribune. If the garrison was composed of auxiliaries then the commander would have been a prefect not a tribune.
First, Pontius Pilate
was a prefect. At least, that’s what his inscription says.
Pontius Pilatus praefectus Iudaeae.
Second, you’re talking of the Jerusalem garrison in Antonia Fortress. The prefect’s actual headquarters were in Caesarea Maritima, not Jerusalem. The Antonia was a barracks, a place where a detachment of Roman soldiers kept an eye on the Temple; contrary to medieval belief, it’s more likely that the prefect stayed in Herod the Great’s palace on western Jerusalem when they were in the city, not the Antonia.
Third, wrong time period (again). This was AD 58, not AD 30. This was after Rome resumed control of the province after Herod Agrippa and when the magnitude of disturbances were increasing. The early-to-mid 50s were also the time when Palestine first received an actual Roman colony: Ptolemais (modern Acre), which provided the Romans with a secure military base. Roman legions from Syria did provide the settlers to the colony. So while you could reasonably assume the presence of legionaries during the 50s, that does not necessarily hold true for twenty or so years before.
Josephus himself speaks of legionaries of the Jerusalem garrison up to the years leading up to the Jewish Revolt. Personally the 12th legion would have been a possible candidate since it was regarded as a Christian legion in the 3rd century A.D.
And again, the key words here are “the years leading up to the Jewish Revolt,”
not the time of the prefects thirty years before.
Actually Josephus himself speaks of the legionaries of the Jerusalem garrison as legionaries. Plus if they were auxiliaries their commander would be a prefect, not a tribune. In Acts 21 the commander of the Jerusalem garrison at the Fort of Antonia is a tribune. Plus the Italic Cohort in Acts 10 was attached to the 10th legion.
Acts does mention an “Italian cohort” (
cohors Italica) headed by Cornelius based in Caesarea, but this doesn’t have to be a reference to a legion. From Josephus, we know that the principal portion of the Roman army stationed at Caesarea were Syrian auxiliaries, so it’s more likely that the Italian cohort were auxiliaries, not legionaries. (What made them unique was that unlike most auxiliary units, they were made up of Italian volunteers rather than locals.)
)