L. ARTORIUS CASTUS AND THE MILITIS OF THE HISTORIA BRITTONUM

The famous chapter on Arthur in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM contains some important information which is to be found previously in that work.  I am referring, of course, to the following passage:

38 Et dixit Hencgistus ad Guorthigirnum: ego sum pater tuus et consiliator tui, et noli praeterire consilium umquam, quia non timebis te superari ab ullo homine neque ab ulla gente, quia gens mea valida est. invitabo filium meum cum fratueli suo, bellatores enim viri sunt, ut dimicent contra Scottos, et da illis regiones, quae sunt in aquilone iutxta murum, qui vocatur Guaul. et iussit ut invitaret eos et invitavit: Octha et Ebissa cum quadraginta ciulis. at ipsi cum navigarent circa Pictos, vastaverunt Orcades insulas et venerunt et occupaverunt regiones plurimas ultra mare Frenessicum usque ad confinum Pictorum. 

38. Hengist, after this, said to Vortigern, "I will be to you both a father and an adviser; despise not my counsels, and you shall have no reason to fear being conquered by any man or any nation whatever; for the people of my country are strong, warlike, and robust: if you approve, I will send for my son and his brother, both valiant men who at my invitation will fight against the Scots, and you can give them the countries in the north, near the wall called "Gual." The incautious sovereign having assented to this, Octa and Ebusa arrived with forty ships. In these they sailed round the country of the Picts, laid waste the Orkneys, and took possession of many regions, even to the Pictish confines.

Unfortunately, a great many amateur Arthurian scholars have taken this statement at face value.  In doing so, they make a number of errors.  To begin with, they must buy into the notion that Vortigern, the superbus tyrannus of Gildas, was a high king of sub-Roman Britain whose power extended over the whole of the island.  This is an absurd notion - yet one that is still current in Arthurian circles (outside of academia).  Instead, there is every reason to hold to the view that Vortigern's very name (one found in several early Irish contexts, and preserved in a small kingdom in central Wales) provided the clerics recording the period's history with a scapegoat - a stock villain, if you will.  Rather than offer to posterity the shameful picture of a Britain defeated by the Saxon invasion, it was far easier and more palatable to accept that a single evil man was responsible for inviting in the enemy.  And that is what we have in Vortigern of the HB.

Needless to say, the real Vortigern (who seems to have been Hiberno-British) did not have any control of the northern part of the island.  Even the Romans under Severus failed in the attempt to bring Highland Scotland under their sway.  It is entirely possible that Scotland and the islands north of it (if these last had any inhabitants worth bothering with!) were subjected to independent Saxon raids.  We might compare such with the later Viking incursions and the Norse colonization of the Orkneys and parts of Scotland.  But these raiders were not mercenaries hired by a high-king of the British based in Wales.  

Still, the story of Saxons at the Antonine Wall and in Highland Scotland is interesting in an Arthurian context, as that is exactly where Severus and his forces concentrated their efforts.  

Which brings us to:

56 In illo tempore Saxones invalescebant in multitudine et crescebant in Brittannia. mortuo autem Hengisto Octha filius eius transivit de sinistrali parte Britanniae ad regnum Cantorum et de ipso orti sunt reges Cantorum. tunc Arthur pugnabat contra illos in illis diebus cum regibus Brittonum, sed ipse erat dux bellorum.

56. At that time, the Saxons grew strong by virtue of their large number and increased in power in Britain. Hengist having died, however, his son Octha crossed from the northern part of Britain to the kingdom of Kent and from him are descended the kings of Kent. Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander [also "dux erat bellorum"]. 

The language here is ambiguous.  Just what Saxons did Arthur fight?  The ones in the North?  The Kentish ones?  Or just Saxons in general?  I received two slightly diverging opinions on this question, one from an expert in medieval Latin and the other who specializes in Classical Latin:

"Strictly-speaking from the structure of the Latin I don't believe it is possible to be sure whether 'contra illos' refers back to 'reges Cantorum' (kings of Kent) or further back to the 'Saxones'."

Professor Rosalind Love, FBA

Elrington and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon

Head of Department, Department of ASNC

"In strict grammar ILLOS could be taken to refer to its immediate antecedent, REGES CANTORVM. But it would be odd for Arthur to be fighting a series of 'kings of Kent', one after another. The reference to Octha founding this dynasty is surely parenthetical. There is no explicit references to the 'Saxons of Kent' here, and I would take the grammatical antecedent of ILLOS to be the SAXONES who head the paragraph, now 'growing in strength'.

In other words, the passage should be taken to mean that Arthur led the fight against the growing strength of the Saxons, not against the Saxons specifically in Kent."

Dr Roger Tomlin

Emeritus Lecturer in Late Roman History

Faculty of History

Univeristy of Oxford

But what happens if we look at Chapter 56 in the light of an Arthur who is a distant echo of L. Artorius Castus?

Well, we would then have an Arthur fighting enemies in the North, at the Wall and in Scotland, where the HB puts the Saxon mercenaries of Vortigern.  

The HB also never calls Arthur a king.  As has been pointed out many times, he is instead called merely a soldier.  The term is used twice of the hero in the MIRABILIA:

73 Est aliud mirabile in regione quae dicitur Buelt. Est ibi cumulus lapidum, et unus lapis superpositus super congestum cum uestigio canis in eo. Quando venatus est porcum Troynt, impressit Cabal, qui erat canis Arturi militis, vestigium in lapidi, et Arthur postea congregauit congestum lapidum sub lapide in quo erat vestigium canis et uocatur Carn Cabal. Et veniunt homines uero et tollunt lapidem in un manibus suis per spatium diei et noctis, et in crastino die inuenitur super congestum suum.

There is another marvel in the region which is called Buelt. There is a mound of stones there and one stone placed above the pile with the pawprint of a dog in it. When Cabal, who was the dog of Arthur the soldier, was hunting the boar Troynt, he impressed his print in the stone, and afterwards Arthur assembled a stone mound under the stone with the print of his dog, and it is called the Carn Cabal. And men come and remove the stone in their hands for the length of a day and a night; and on the next day it is found on top of its mound.

Est aliud miraculum in region quae vocatur Ercing. habetur ibi sepulcrum iuxta fontem, qui cognominatur Licat Anir, et viri nomen, qui sepultus est in tumulo, sic vocabatur Anir: filius Arthuri militis erat et ipse occidit eum ibidem et sepelivit. et veniunt homines ad mensurandum tumulum in longitudine aliquando sex pedes, aliquando novem, aliquando duodecim, aliquando quidecim. in qua mensura metieris eum in ista vice, iterum non invenies eum in una mensura, et ego solus probavi.

There is another wonder in the region which is called Ercing. A tomb is located there next to a spring which is called Licat Amr; and the name of the man who is buried in the tomb was called thus: Amr. He was the son of Arthur the soldier, and Arthur himself killed and buried him in that very place. And men come to measure the grave and find it sometimes six feet in length, sometimes nine, sometimes twelve, sometimes fifteen. At whatever length you might measure it at one time, a second time you will not find it to have the same length--and I myself have put this to the test.

The early date of the HB precludes us from being able to interpret militis as meaning "knight" in the later sense.  

From https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100040307:

"KNIGHT

In continental Europe from the 10th cent. onwards, the term miles (knight) was applied to a mounted warrior usually dependent on a greater lord. Domesday evidence suggests that this definition is appropriate for the knights of Norman England. Over the next two centuries, knights were enfeoffed with land, becoming more fully involved in landed society. Although the term never lost its military connotation, it had become by the late 14th cent. a social rank below the nobility, but above the squirearchy." 

What we have, then, in the militis of the HB, is just a soldier.  And that is exactly what L. Artorius Castus was.  Even once he had attained his rank of prefect of the Sixth Legion and then was given a temporary military command as a dux, he was still only a soldier.  Not a king.  

I find this to be rather sobering evidence that the later great king of Arthurian story, whether he be viewed as an over-king like Vortigern or simply a king allied with other kings of equal power, is most certainly a fiction.

And, indeed, the only option that I can see, if we still want to opt for a sub-Roman hero, is to assign him the role of a mercenary captain in the employ of different kings at different times.  It is not likely that such a mercenary "leader of battles" would be put at the head of a combined force provided by several kings (all of whom were doubtless antagonistic towards each other).  Instead, he would be going from job to job, so to speak, providing his services where and when they were needed.  To have someone of true federate status, as happened under the Romans, we would need a centralized authority that was capable of providing federates with land, probably along the limes, in exchange for protection of the border region. We have no evidence such a centralized authority existed once the Romans withdrew from the island.

Given the extant of Saxon settlement during the supposed floruit of the Dark Age Arthur (see range maps at the top of this blog), and having identified the Arthurian battles as I have (see that map above for those as well; note that Buxton, a possible Badon, is not displayed), the only possible place for the traditional hero is the North.  But the moment we try and situate such a chieftain there we run into problems.  We need to assume that he was fighting along a front that stretched from York (or Buxton, if we wish to re-insert Badon there) in the south all the way to Caledonia.  Yes, granted, there is the off-chance that the Celidon Wood should be placed in Lowland Scotland and I once made a case for that being at or near the Caddon Water for etymological and geographical reasons.  Yet even so, we would be envisioning a mercenary captain or a sort of relic of the Roman period Dux Britanniarum fighting throughout the joint territories of the Brigantes and the Votadini (Gododdin).  The battles at Dunipace (Bassas) and Queensferry (Tribruit), one might say (as in the PA GUR poem) at the 'border of Eidyn' or in Manau Gododdin, may be intrusions into the battle list, as one Irish source has Arthur son of Dalriada die fighting the Miathi.  Dunipace is directly between the two Miathi forts.

It goes without saying that in this scenario the frontier zone between the Britons to the west and the Saxons to the east was Dere Street, as all the battles run up and down that main Roman arterial.  Arthur, if he had any base at all, might find his home on the Wall (Birdoswald and Stanwix/"Arthuriburgum", which I have treated of at great length in my writings, are good candidates) or at York (where L. Artorius Castus was stationed, and adjacent to which there was probably a Dalmatian unit).

Uther Pendragon, whose tail I chased for many years, seems to have undergone several permutations in Welsh tradition prior to being recreated in the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth.  He has proven spectacularly unhelpful in being able to pin down Arthur - unless his being born on a litter through the North is a Severan motif (something I have discussed above) .  If we ignore the layers of tradition embedded in the Welsh sources and accept the possibility that the 'dragon' of Pendragon, while utilized in Welsh poetry as a metaphor for a warrior, originated in the Roman draco, then it is tempting to place Arthur's father at Birdoswald, home of the Dacian garrison.  I have theorized in the past that the Birdoswald fort was actually nicknamed the Aelian Dragon after its military unit.  The name Arthur from Artorius may have been preserved among the population of the nearby Carvoran fort with its Dalmatian garrison.  Finally, the River Irthing, a name possibly from a Cumbric word meaning 'Little Bear', could have been the home of the *Artenses or Bear-people, a northern tribe represented by the Welsh eponym Arthwys.

The question we need to ask ourselves is whether we think it more likely that an attested Roman general who may well have served under Severus in the greatest Roman invasion northern Britain had ever experienced is Arthur or whether we can safely propose instead an Arthur who is attested only in the HB and the AC and who, if I have the battles situated correctly, appears to mirror where L. Artorius Castus would have been active.

 

PUTTING AN END TO THE "THEORY" THAT L. ARTORIUS CASTUS WAS GOVERNOR OF BRITAIN

Equestrians Acting as Governors in Senatorial Provinces (AD 160-260)

[from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/history-of-the-roman-equestrian-order/E5B076C0898C69882AE04205F999ECC6]

Since 2019, Dr. Linda A. Malcor and her colleagues

(see https://www.academia.edu/124525794/Missing_Pieces_A_New_Reading_of_the_Main_Lucius_Artorius_Castus_Inscription) have insisted that the dux rank/descriptor found on the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone should be seen as, in effect, a synonym for an equestrian governor of the province of Britain.  And this is so despite universal rejection of the idea.  In the past, I and others have written a great many refutations of the Malcorian "theory", citing highly respected scholarly sources and personal testimony from the world's top Latin epigraphers and Roman military historians.  All have been ignored and merely said to be "wrong" by Dr. Malcor and her colleagues.

The gist of their argument is that dux, long known as a term for a commander of a temporary military action prior to Gallienus and, in some cases after Gallienus (and being later codified by Diocletian), as a term for an equestrian given command of a province's military forces, is an artificial distinction.  In their view, the later kind of dux existed much earlier - indeed, early enough so that Castus can be neatly inserted into the 187-191 AD gap in the British governors list.

While it would be a waste of my time and energy to repeat everything that has been said on this matter over the years, those who wish to consult my various blog articles on the subject are welcome to do so. In fact, I encourage my readers to do just that. For now, I will restrict myself to a sort of brief, rational treatment of the problem.

Point No. 1

There is no precedence for a non-senatorial governor of Britain.  All governors up to the division of Britain under Severus or Caracalla or later were senators.  We have a record of a iuridicus acting as governor on a temporary basis.  But the iuridicus was himself of the senatorial order.  Even under Commodus, whose reign is supposedly blessed with Castus the governor, all known governors of the province are senators.  Severus continued the practice.  In the entire stretch from Marcus Aurelius through Severus, there is not a single attested equestrian governor of the province.

Point No. 2:

From Malcor's "Missing Pieces":

"This is important because a Senator who ruled a province was called “legatus Augusti propraetore”, but sometimes the governor of a province could also be called "dux", as in the case of Sextus Cornelis Clemens, “dux trium Daciarum”, “governor of the three Dacias” in the years 170-172 CE, under Marcus Aurelius (Migliorati 2011:247)."

The inscription referred to is this one:

http://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_einzel.php?s_sprache=de&p_belegstelle=CIL%2008%2C%2009365&r_sortierung=Belegstelle&fbclid=IwAR0O98UYU0h7eiNqPUArStEscPyQalKJm1c1Q4zzzwPCg-_Fn6pqCj0Vtcs

The problem with this particular example?

Dated to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus' predecessor, it tells of a senator who styles himself 'consul and dux of the three Dacias.' I was puzzled as to how this inscription helped Alessandro Faggiani's argument.  He then explained that a) Commodus had replaced the legates in Britain with equestrians, allowing us to equate Castus with Sextus Cornelius Clemens and b) the use of dux here proved that the title could be used in the early period for governor. 

Needless to say, we know the governor of all three Dacias after Aurelius was a consul, while the individual provinces were governed by equestrians.  Dux of three Dacias here merely means in the context of a senatorial consul that he was also the supreme military commander of the Dacian military.

He then sent me  CIL 02, 04114, another consul and senator of the very late 2nd century who held the dux title as a special command against rebels and public enemies.

Once again, this man - Tiberius Claudius Candidus - is a senator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Claudius_Candidus

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1994-0122-2

In fact, Candidus is a governor of a province already when he is given his dux command, and as that command is against stated foes it is clearly a command of military forces for a specific purpose and not a term being used to designate him as a governor.

The "Missing Papers" then goes on to list other men who are meant to bolster the authors' dux-as-governor argument:

"Once more the dating of the inscription becomes

important. While “dux legg(ionum)” was used during Philip the

Arab’s reign (244-249 CE; CIL 016145), examples of

“dux…adversus” also date to Septimius Severus’s reign.25

25 An inscription about Quintus Mamilius Capitolinus (CIL 02, 02634) is from

the Severan period, and a third inscription, about Valerius Claudius Quintus

(CIL 03, 04855) dates to the last half of the third century. Tiberius Claudius

Candidus (CIL 2, 41414) and Caius Iulius Septimius Castinus were well-known

generals for Septimius Severus."

All of them are totally meaningless in the context of Castus during the reign of Commodus.  Once again, most are senators, so we have a pathetic apples-and-oranges claim going on here.  

https://historia-hispanica.rah.es/biografias/27214-quintus-mamilius-capitolinus

http://www.kleindenkmaeler.at/detail/grabaltar_des_valerius_claudius_quintus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Claudius_Candidus (see above)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Iulius_Septimius_Castinus

Only Valereius Claudius Quintus is vaguely interesting, but he belongs to the reign of Gallienus:

From https://etheses.dur.ac.uk/8095/1/8095_5095-Vol1.PDF:

"The reign of Gallienus seems to represent an important

stage in the development of the titles praepositus and dux as as applied

to field army officers.  Assuming Pflaum's dating of the inscription

to be correct, Valerius Claudius Quintus in 253 is first dux legionis

III Italica , and then dux et praepositus legionis III Augustae. The

explanation seems to be that he was appointed to the first post during

a campaign against the Alamanni in Raetia.  After Valerian's successful

putsch, he was appointed praepositus commanding a vexillation of III

Augusta, and sent to Africa with the powers of a dux to quell a revolt

of the Mauri." 

Having failed with the preceding examples to demonstrate that dux in the Antonine or early Severan periods meant governor, I asked Dr. Malcor to supply me with more applicable inscriptions to work from. She had her colleague Alessandro Faggiani send the following inscriptions. I will list each with my discussion of them in order:

C(aio) Vallio | Maximiano | proc(uratori) provinciar(um) | Macedoniae Lusi|taniae Mauretan(iae) | Tingitanae fortis|simo duci | res p(ublica) Italicens(ium) ob|merita et quot | provinciam Baetic(am) | caesis hostibus | paci pristinae | restituerit | Dedicata anno | Licini Victoris et | Fabi Aeliani IIvirorum | pr(idie) Kal(endas) Ianuar(ias)

The "duci" of this inscription, paired with fortissimo, is not a rank or title, but an honorific. The relevant passage may be translated thusly:

A strong leader of the Italian republic, for his merits and for restoring the province of Baetica to its former peace after slaying its enemies.

C(aio) Velio Sal- | vi f(ilio) Rufo p(rimo) p(ilo) leg(ionis) XII | Fulm(inatae), praef(ecto) vexillari- | orum leg(ionum) VIIII: I Adiut(ricis), II Adiut(ricis), | II Aug(ustae), VIII Aug(ustae), VIIII Hisp(anae), XIIII Ge- | m(inae), XX Vic(tricis), XXI Rapac(is), trib(uno) co- | h(ortis) XIII urb(anae), duci exercitus Africi et | Mauretanici ad nationes quae | sunt in Mauretania conprimendas, do- | nis donato ab Imp(eratore) Vespasiano et Imp(eratore) | Tito bello Iudaico corona vallar(i) | torquibus, fa[le]r[is], armillis, item | donis donato corona murali | hastis duabus vexillis duobus et bel- | lo Marcommannorum Quadorum | Sarmatarum adversus quos expedi- | tionem fecit per regnum Decebali | regis Dacorum corona murali has- | tis duabus vexillis duobus, proc(uratori) Imp(eratoris) Cae- | saris Aug(usti) Germanici provinciae Panno- | niae et Dalmatiae, item proc(uratori) provinciae | Raetiae ius gla[d]i(i). hic missus in Parthiam Epipha- | nen et Callinicum regis Antiochi filios ad | Imp(eratorem) Vespasianum cum ampla manu tribu- | tariorum reduxit. M(arcus) Alfius M(arci) f(ilius) Fabia O- | lympiacus aquili[f]e[r] vet(eranus) leg(ionis) XV Apol[l]inar- | is.

tribune of cohors XIII Urbana, leader of an army created in Africa and Mauritania to suppress the nations that live in Mauretania, and was given rewards by Imperator Vespasian and Imperator Titus during the Judaean War – a wall crown, torques, phalerae, armillae – and also given rewards – a mural crown, two spears, two banners – and again given, during the war against the Marcomanni, Quadi, and Sarmati – against whom he conducted an operation across the realm of Decebalus, king of the Dacians – a crown of ramparts, two spears and two banners, and who acted as procurator of the emperor Caesar Augustus Domitian in the Pannonian and Dalmatian provinces, and as procurator and highest penal authority in Raetia.

This tribune was sent to Africa with an army, then later commanded a force in Dacia before holding procuratorships.

Duci does not here mean governor. Would we translate it as 

"governor of an army (exercitus) created in Africa and Mauritania to suppress the nations that live in Mauretani"?

To read the inscription that way would be absurd. Yet that is, apparently, how the Malcorians would have us translate duci in this context.

Point No. 3:

When Malcor speaks of the duci clause in the Castus inscription, she invariable refers to a truncated form of it: 

DVCI LEGG [………….]M BRITANICI

MIARVM 

To her, this plainly means that this prefect of the Sixth Legion (PRAEFF LEG VI VICTRICIS) is governor of the British legions, i.e. military governor of the British province. 

She gets away with this (in certain uneducated company) by first refusing to acknowledge the well-known and demonstrable fact that the rank of praefectus castrorum legionis was abbreviated to praefectus legionis in the 2nd century.  She does this so that she can claim Castus was something more than a camp prefect. This reading is not accepted by a single mainstream scholar I have consulted.

By omitting the second part of the clause -

ADVERSVS ARM[….]S 

- Malcor distracts from the fact that the duci command exists solely within the confines of Castus' leading of legionary troops AGAINST a specific enemy. By isolating the dux of three legions from the ADVERSUS ARM[...]S, she produces a phrase that reminds us of the Diocletian rank of Dux Britanniarum.

Castus role of dux was a special command given to a junior officer, an officer assigned a temporary military task.  Had Castus instead merely said 'dux of three legions', well, we might then be left scratching our heads and such a statement would definitely give us pause.  But he does not say that. He goes out of his way to tell us that he was leading the legionary force against someone - NOT THAT HE WAS GOVERNOR OF BRITAIN! Nor does he call himself dux Britanniarum, 'commander of Britain' (to borrow the later phrase). He does not employ pro legato or agens vice legati, as he most certainly would were he acting governor.

Point No. 4:

Dr. Malcor has on numerous occasions resorted to what I call a version of the "God of the Gaps" argument to support her contention that Castus was the governor of 187-191. Converted into a simple syllogism, her argument reads as follows:

1) We don't know who was governor of Britain for the period 187-191

2) Castus was dux (viz. "military governor") of Britain around this time

3) Therefore, it naturally follows that Castus was the governor of Britain in 187-191

I don't need to point out the logical fallacy of this syllogism - that is plain to see. But I should say something about Castus' prefect rank as it relates to the the other potential candidates for governor who would have been available in 187-191.

First, we had the senatorial legionary legates, whom scholars assume were restored to their posts after the execution of Perennis in 185. Then we have whatever other qualified senators from elsewhere who could have been drawn from. [Malcor claims without evidence that none were available for the job.] Of course, we also have the senatorial senior tribunes in each legion. We even have the senatorial provincial iuridicus. We know of one during the reign of Commodus (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/11/acting-governor-m-antius-crescens.html?m=1).

What that all means is that there were numerous candidates for the governor of Britain in 187-191 who were higher-ranking than Castus and would, presumably, have been chosen over an equestrian camp prefect.

Point No. 5:

To conclude this article, we need for a moment to treat of the dreaded ARMATOS, Malcor's proposed reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna in the Castus inscription.

Armatos means armed men or, sometimes, soldiers. It is marvelously vague. Malcor often proclaims that it is the only word that fits in the lacuna. This alone has convinced many of the uneducated that she is correct. 

But what that statement actually means is that it is the only reading that doesn't require abbreviation or the use of ligatures - methods of contraction that are commonly employed in Roman epigraphy and which are present aplenty in the Castus inscription itself. Look only at LIBURNIAE, truncated to LIB.

The use of armatos in the inscription tells us - indirectly - only one thing about Castus' adversary. As he does not state these armed men were outside of the province, we must assume that given there is no record of the Sixth legion or detachments from it ever having left Britain after it was fixed at York, that the foe was an internal one.

Otherwise, the vagueness of the term serves to allow Malcor and her colleagues to imaginatively construct any martial activity they wish for the historical gap of 187-191. At one time or another, they have made the armatos out to be various tribes and/or rebellious soldiers.  They insert these into the gap despite the fact that we have no record if indigenous unrest between Ulpius Marcellus and Severus. We are also told that Pertinax - the governor just before the gap - quelled the British troop rebellion.  Malcor will go on and on insisting he didn't, claiming without basis that he had to flee rebellious troops in the province. The actual account in Cassius Dio leaves no doubt that she is wrong about this:

"While Pertinax was still in Britain, after that great revolt which he quelled..."

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/74*.html

The HISTORIA AUGUSTA provides more details:

"And certainly he did suppress a mutiny against himself in Britain, but in so doing he came into great danger; for in a mutiny of a legion he was almost killed, and indeed was left among the slain.  This mutiny Pertinax punished very severely. Later on, however, he petitioned to be excused from his governor­ship, saying that the legions were hostile to him because he had been strict in his discipline. After he had been relieved of his post..."

It is clear from this account that not only was the mutiny ended, but that Pertinax was relieved of his post via the usual process and that he would have been replaced with another man of senatorial rank who could establish a better rapport with the troops.

Armatos, then, is the perfect servant to the Castus = Governor theory. As there is no evidence whatsover for an equestrian prefect becoming governor in 187-191, so is there an utter lack of evidence for any kind of military action during that period. Armatos allows its creator complete freedom in conjuring imaginary events for a purely imaginary governor.

Point No. 6:

The existence of the "governor gap" is itself a rather flimsy a priori argument. As Birley makes clear in his THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN:

"He was probably not the direct successor of Pertinax, whose tenure terminated abruptly, at his own request, hardly later than 187. Otherwise, Albinus would have been in Britain for over five years by the time of Commodus’ death: not impossible, but it is a priori likelier that he was appointed in one of the years 190–2."

I would merely comment on the length of the reign of Ulpius Marcellus, also from Birley:

"The diplomas now show that Ulpius Marcellus was already governor under

Marcus and Commodus, in March 178—and had probably been appointed

the previous year. Hence there is no obstacle to his being the governor

under two emperors of the Benwell altar. It cannot be excluded that he was appointed in 177 but had been replaced, perhaps soon after Commodus’ accession as sole ruler in 180—and then sent back again after the disaster incurred by the unnamed ‘general’, who would then be his successor as well as his predecessor.¹³⁷ This would be almost unparalleled, but there is the case of

Corbulo, legate of Cappadocia from 54/55 to 60, then moved to Syria, but in 63 sent back to Cappadocia, after the debâcle incurred by his successor

there.¹³⁸ It is no doubt safer to concede that it was only a legionary legate that lost his life, presumably of VI Victrix, the legion nearest to the wall—which wall is not specified in the Dio passage, but it was no doubt that of Hadrian, since the Antonine Wall had evidently been out of commission for over twenty years (see under Gov. 27).

Of course, if he had really served uninterruptedly from 177 to 185, his governorship would have exceeded even that of Julius Agricola (Gov. 11), exactly a century earlier. The replacement of the legionary

legates by equestrian commanders would have meant that for a time the only senatorial official in the province was the iuridicus, who was made acting-governor."

Now, if 8 years for Marcellus is not impossible, even if divided into two separated terms of service, why do people balk at 5 for Albinus?

3-5 years was a normal term for a governor of an imperial province. The following is from https://www.britannica.com/topic/province-ancient-Roman-government:

"Under the empire (from 27 bc), provinces were divided into two classes: senatorial provinces were governed by former consuls and former praetors, both called proconsuls, whose term was annual; imperial provinces were governed by representatives of the emperor (called propraetorian legates), who served indefinitely."

In other words, the placement of a hypothetical governor in the supposed gap of 187-191 may be an exercise in futility, for the said gap may not, in reality, exist at all.

Point No. 7:

Dr. Malcor has recently informed me that her colleague Alessandro Faggiani has built a case for using Junius Severus of the HISTORIA AUGUSTA'S life of Clodius Albinus as proof that the equestrian Castus was made governor in 187-191.

This approach, unfortunately, is ill-founded. Faggiani assumes Junius to be of the equestrian class. This is not stated in the account, where this man is merely referred to as the contubernalis of Commodus. A contubernalis could be any number of things, including a young trainee from the senatorial class or even a consular colleague.

For an example of the word contubernalis used of a high ranking individual, see

Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir) 

https://share.google/PWIlKKrMEUhqDZn5b

"The secondary education of a Roman male of the governing classes typically required a stint as a contubernalis (literally a "tentmate", a sort of military intern or apprentice) following the assumption of the toga virilis around the age of 15 and before assuming formal military duties."

https://www.academia.edu/43154476/About_the_concept_of_soldier_in_the_Latin_inscriptions_from_Dacia

"As a contubernalis, the sons of senators were accompanying the magistrates in the provinces. Contubernalis could be simply a colleague, for instance a consular colleague. Thus, in wider sense the word designates the notion of “companion” or “colleague”."

 

Thus it is probable that Iunius Severus - if he existed (as the HA life of Albinus is considered mainly fiction by many, including Birley) - was of the senatorial class. And, indeed, if Commodus was trying to replace Albinus with an equestrian, he would have been attempting to repeat the slain Perennis' mistake on a larger scale. That seems ridiculous to me.

However, it is possible that this Iunius Severus can be traced to the lineage of earlier namesakes, one of whom has a strong British connection and the other, a close relation, was suffect consul.  Assuming, of course, that one if these personages was not borrowed from the time of Antoninus Pius and planted during the reign of Commodus, who also bore the name Antoninus.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Iunius_Severus_(Konsul_154)

Titus Iunius Severus (Consul 154)

Roman suffect consul (154)

Titus Junius Severus was a Roman politician who lived in the 2nd century AD .

Two military diplomas , [ 1 ] dated 3 November and 28 December 154, attest that Junius Severus was suffect consul in 154 together with Gaius Julius Statius Severus ; the two held this office from 1 November until the end of the year. [ 2 ] His name is also partially preserved in the Fasti Ostienses . [ 3 ]

His father was possibly Titus Junius Severus . [ 4 ]

Titus Junius Severus (Prefect)

A member of the Roman equestrian order (Eques) living in the 1st or 2nd century AD

Titus Junius Severus (full name Titus Junius Titi filio Galeria Severus ) was a member of the Roman equestrian order ( Eques ) who lived in the 1st or 2nd century AD .

The inscription ( CIL 2, 3583 )

An inscription [ 1 ] found at Dianium , modern-day Dénia , and dated to 101/200, confirms that Severus was prefect of the Cohors IIII Dalmatarum . [ 2 ] The inscription also indicates that he was subsequently tribunus legionis in the Legio XX Valeria Victrix .

https://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi_url.php?s_sprache=de&p_publication=CIL+02%2C+03583&r_sortierung=Belegstelle

https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/org/5363

https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/search?qv=Legio+XX+valeria+victrix&submit=

Severus was possibly the father of the suffect consul of the same name in 154, Titus Junius Severus . [ 3 ] He was registered in the tribe of Galeria . The inscription was erected by Lucius Sempronius Enipeus .

https://www.academia.edu/8966177/Die_Fasti_consulares_der_Regierungszeit_des_Antoninus_Pius_Eine_Bestandsaufnahme_seit_G%C3%A9za_Alf%C3%B6ldys_Konsulat_und_Senatorenstand

So... IF we choose to believe the story, Commodus tried and failed to install a man who may have been an equestrian as governor of Britain. We don't know if he was that because even under Marcus Aurelius equestrians were being raised to the senate. But let's suppose he was still just an equestrian.

The Malcorians are going to say, "See, this proves that Commodus appointed the equestrian prefect Castus as governor between Pertinax and Albinus." They will say that because that's how they roll.

I would ask them, in this case, whether Iunius Severus, were he to have become governor, have written on his memorial stone "dux of the three British legions against X"?

However, in remains true that they have not proven anything in regards to Castus as governor. 

In each and every inscription example the Malcorians have supplied me with as precedents, I (and others!) have shown why these examples are not, in fact, precedents at all. The Malcorians have not been able to address my refutations because it is obvious those are correct and can be confirmed as such by any number of other scholars.

A prefect given command of legionary troops against an enemy is no more a governor than a tribune given a dux command over an army against enemies in Africa (to cite just one of the Malcorian examples; see above). 

The Malcorians are still stuck with a chronology that does not permit the later kind of dux to exist yet and they are burdened with the lack of pro legato or agens vice legati or any other kind of descriptor that Castus absolutely would have used on his stone to designate his governorship.

What the Malcorians have in Iunius Severus is a maybe-equestrian in a highly suspect HA biography whom Commodus failed to make governor of Britain.

They don't have a governor in Castus because, once agaun, IT'S NOT ON HIS STONE.

AND IF CASTUS AS EQUESTRIAN GOVERNOR WAS SO GREAT, WHY APPOINT ALBINUS THE SENATOR AFTER HIM? For it was Commodus who appointed the senator Albinus to the post.

[Note that the Malcorians are also trying to further distort history by intimating that Iunius Severus was appointed Castus's successor by Commodus. This is not true, as the HA account makes quite obvious:

"After Commodus had bestowed upon him the name of Caesar, and while by the Emperor's orders he was in command of the troops in Britain, false tidings were brought that Commodus had been slain..."

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Clodius_Albinus*.html

They also try to claim that the senate chose Albinus, not Commodus. This is, of course, absurd. Commodus chose all the governors of Britain who held their offices during his reign and there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary. Britain was an imperial province. The Emperor always chose the governors for such provinces and those governors served at the Emperor's discretion. While it is true that Cassius Dio tells us that Perennis the Praetorian Prefect "was compelled to manage not only the military affairs, but everything else as well, and to stand at the head of the State", we are not justified in assuming he exercised the Emperor's chief prerogatives.

HA Clod. Alb. 13. 4: cum Brittannicos exercitus regeret iussu Commodi...

13. 4: When by order of Commodus he [Albinus] was commanding the British armies...

And from Birley (The Roman Government of Britain, p. 177):

"The HA specifically states in the biography of Pertinax (Pert. 12. 8) that he did not replace any of those ‘whom Commodus had placed in charge of affairs’, so it may be taken that Albinus was already in Britain in 192. This confirms the garbled remarks in Victor, as well as in the vita Albini, that he was appointed by Commodus."]

We are told only that Junius was sent to replace Albinus, whom Commodus had previously made governor. But Junius never did successfully assume the post, for the Emperor was assassinated before he could do so. Albinus held onto his office.

From this dubious episode Faggiani somehow extrapolates that his equestrian Governor Castus was likewise appointed to his office by Commodus after Pertinax was relieved of his command.

This is a clumsy and ineffective argument at best, and a desperate one at worst.

The most important thing to acknowledge is this: do we really think Albinus would be stupid enough to write his anti-Commodus letter to the senate before he had personally confirmed that Commodus was actually dead? Hence why this HA account is considered fiction. 

To pin one's theory on such a ridiculous story seems quite foolish to me.

Dr. Malcor and her colleagues continue to go far down the same path of writing their own Galfridian-like pseudo-history as Malcor and John Matthews did in their joint book ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR. In that title the authors freely create an entirely fictitious account of Governor Castus' activities in Britain, as well as a, frankly, bizarre post-procuratorial career for our hero in Gaul during the Severus-Albinus civil war. [Remember the procurator post is the last one listed on Castus' memorial stone.]

The Malcorians have decided to so corrupt the historical record as to ignore or distort or deny any account that does not further their agenda. They defend their approach with a sort of magical thinking, where anything they can or want to imagine is believed to be true and so can be presented to an unwary public as historical fact.

One can hope (probably in vain!) that someday they will abandon the academically dishonest methodology they have adopted and continue to employ. But until that happens, I've opted to safely distance myself from them.

LET NOT ANYONE ESCAPE FROM SHEER DESTRUCTION

https://a.co/d/hxOdggk

GEOFFREY D. TULLY ON VEXILLATIONS OF THE LEGIO VI VICTRIX IN BRITAIN AND ELSEWHERE

The Arm[...]s lacuna as Armoricos or Armenios

The Arm[...]s lacuna as armed tribes (Arthurian battles)

Oddly enough, when considering whether or not L. Artorius Castus led his legions or legionary vexillations inside or outside of Britain, to my knowledge no one has bothered to check whether or not we have a record of such detachments being used externally.

When I posed this question to Lawrence Keppie (Professor Emeritus of Roman History and Archaeology and retired Senior Curator of Archaeology, History, and Ethnography at the Hunterian Museum, University of Glasgow, author of Understanding Roman Inscriptions and The Legacy of Rome: Scotland’s Roman Remains), he kindly referred me to the standard work on Roman vexillations by Geoffrey D. Tully:

Vexillatio : temporary units and special commands of the Roman army 211 BC-AD 268 (University of Queensland, 2002)

Although this work was not available to me, I was able to write to Tully.  When I asked him whether we knew of vexillations from the Legio VI Victrix being sent outside the province, he responded as follows:

"I've just done a search of my catalogue of evidence for vexillations (last updated in 2004!). This is work which I did not submit, owing to time constraints as it would have made my PhD thesis two volumes. Alas, I can find no example of vexillations of VI Victrix outside Britain after AD 119.  All fifteen examples I could find relate to Britain; most from the Antonine Wall.

That might seem disappointing, but it does support the frequently expressed notion that the legion was stationed to cover the North, and presumably its men could not be spared for duties elsewhere. That would make perfect sense."

Now, I would remind my readers that the Sixth Legion was permanently stationed at York in AD 122.

Thus, any argument that insists L. Artorius Castus led three legionary detachments either to Armorica or Armenia must grapple with the fact that we have no evidence whatsoever - aside from what we may ascribe hypothetically to the Castus inscription itself, of course - that any detachments from the Sixth were sent anywhere other than to Hadrian's Wall and to points farther north.

It has often been remarked that the 1500 spearmen who went to Rome during the reign of Commodus may have been composed of three 500 men detachments drawn from each of the British legions.  But according to Dio's account, this force never saw action.  It is probable (as detailed in John S. McHugh's THE EMPEROR COMMODUS) that the spearmen were merely a protective escort for removed senatorial legates heading back to Rome.  The size of the escort may have been required because the Continent was currently in the grips of the Deserters' War.  We also have no idea which legion or legions the 1500 spearmen were drawn from (if, indeed, they were legionary troops; they could just as well have been auxiliaries).

In balance, I think Tully's observation lends support to the idea that Castus led his legionary force into northern Britain, and not to some destination outside of the province.

ARMATAS GENTES, GENTIUM PEREGRINARUM: MORE SUPPORT FOR MY PROPOSED READING OF THE CASTUS STONE

I've recently run across an inscription whose reading lends support to the possibility that the ARM[...]S lacuna of the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone can be reconstructed ARM(ATAS) GENTES.

The inscription in question concerns one L. Valerius Valerianus.  A fair amount of literature has been devoted to the career of this man.  See 

https://edh.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/edh/inschrift/HD006228

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Valerius_Valerianus

https://www.jstor.org/stable/269617?read-now=1&seq=5#page_scan_tab_contents

Transcription:

L(ucio) Valerio Valeriano p[roc(uratori) provin(ciae)] / Syr(iae) Palaest(inae) provin(ciae) [---] / praeposito summ(a)e [feliciss(imae) exped(itionis)] / Mesopotamenae adv[ersus Arabes] / praepos(ito) vexil(lationis) feliciss(imae) [expedit(ionis)] / urbic(ae) itemq(ue) Asianae [adversus] / hostes publicos pr[aep(osito) eq(uitum) gentium] / peregrinarum adver[sus ---] / proc(uratori) Cypri praef(ecto) a[lae I Hispan(orum)] / Campagonum in Dac[ia trib(uno) c(o)hort(is) I] / miliariae Hemese[norum c(ivium) R(omanorum) in] / Pannonia praef(ecto) c(o)ho[rt(is) --- in] / Pannonia / Mevius Romanus |(centurio) [leg(ionis) VI ferr(atae)] / f(idelis) c(onstantis) Antoninianae [strator] / eius viro i[ncompara]/bili // Imp(eratori) [Cae]s(ari) C(aio) Valerio / D[io]cletiano / [P(io) F(elici)] Invic(to) Aug(usto) / [---] Cleme(n)s v(ir) p(erfectissimus) / [p]roc(urator) d(evotus) n(umini) m(aiestati)q(ue) e(ius)

Majuscle:

L VALERIO VALERIANO P[ ]

SYR PALAEST PROVIN [ ]

PRAEPOSITO SVMME [ ]

MESOPOTAMENAE ADV[ ]

PRAEPOS VEXIL FELICISS [ ]

VRBIC ITEMQ ASIANAE [ ]

HOSTES PVBLICOS PR[ ]

PEREGRINARVM ADVER[ ]

PROC CYPRI PRAEF A[ ]

CAMPAGONVM IN DAC[ ]

MILIARIAE HEMESE[ ]

PANNONIA PRAEF CHO[ ]

PANNONIA

MEVIVS ROMANVS | [ ]

F C ANTONINIANAE [ ]

EIVS VIRO I[ ]

BILI

IMP [ ]S C VALERIO

D[ ]CLETIANO

[ ] INVIC AVG

[ ] CLEMES V P

[ ]ROC D N MQ E

Chronological Data:

212 AD – 220 AD

The most recent and best treatment is by the noted Roman military scholar Michael A. Speidel.  He concluded as follows concerning an unusual passage in this inscription:

Other difficulties of Valerianus' inscription also vanish with our new reading.

Above all, the events appear now to be recorded in the correct chronological

order. Since Valerianus' function in the Mesopotamian campaign is already

described, he would have been praepositus equitum gentium peregrinarum in

another war, perhaps not too long before A.D. 193.

[Valerius Valerianus in Charge of Septimius Severus' Mesopotamian Campaign

M. P. Speidel

Classical Philology, Vol. 80, No. 4 (Oct., 1985), pp. 321-326]

It's this praepositus equitum gentium peregrinarum that we need to take a look at more closely. The phrase concludes with adver[sus ---], giving us "commander of cavalry against foreign nations."

"Peregrinorum" is the genitive plural form of the Latin adjective "peregrinus," meaning "foreign," "strange," or "alien". It is used to describe something "of the foreigners" or "of the strangers".  We may liken this to the adjective + noun formation ARMATAS GENTES, 'armed nations/peoples/tribes.'

The phrase gentium peregrinarum is a vague designation.  Not as vague, it is true, as the ARMATOS proposed by Dr. Linda A. Malcor for the ARM[...]S lacuna.  After all, we do know he is fighting against foreign nations.  Not just nations.  I suppose if we were to amend ARMATOS by calling them foreign armed men/soldiers we might be able to get away with that.  At least then we know that they aren't our soldiers.  

But I do think that if we can have a commander of cavalry against foreign nations, then we can allow for a dux (also commander) of three British legions (or large legionary vexillations, or the entire Sixth Legion plus generous detachments from the other two) against armed tribes.

And, indeed, the context of the L. Valerius Valerianus praepositus is a great deal more ambiguous than that of the dux of a prefect of the Sixth in northern England who is utilizing purely British legionaries.

More Epigraphers on a Severan Date for the Castus Stone

As I get more opinions coming in, I will add them to this post...

The following scholars were asked if the PRAEFF and LEGG abbreviations in the L. Artorius Castus memorial inscription indicated that it was likely carved in the Severan period:

"Yes, that seems correct. The doubling of letters to indicate plurality (as later AUGGGG = 4 Augusti) perhaps first shows up in late 2nd c., but only fully takes form in the early 3rd. -- i.e. Severan."

John Bodel

W. Duncan MacMillan II Professor of Classics, Professor of History

https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jbodel

"Searching for LEGG in the EDCS gives only 15 results, which isn’t much of a sample, though there are a reasonable number of PRAEFF stones. It’s also worth checking the text of the EDCS entries carefully, as more of them can be dated than is encoded in the dating field. These do all look likely to be third century or later."

Dr. Hugh Elton, Ancient Greek and Roman Studies

Lady Eaton College, Trent University, 1600 Westbank Drive, Peterborough, ON, K9L 0G2, CANADA

THE MISSING GOVERNOR AND L. ARTORIUS CASTUS

Pertinax

                        

According to Dr. Linda A. Malcor, the equestrian prefect of the Sixth Legion, Lucius Artorius Castus, became the de facto (or ad hoc?) governor of Britain after Pertinax was relieved of his post. 

While scholars unanimously do not accept her claim that the dux command of legions (or legionary detachments) granted to prefect Castus has the meaning she assigns to it, I thought it might be useful to examine just what we know - and what we don't - about the period of the "missing" governor of 187-192.

We may begin with the HISTORIA AUGUSTA's account of the British governship of Pertinax:

5 After Perennis had been put to death, Commodus made amends to Pertinax, and in a letter asked him to set out for Britain.⁠23 6 After his arrival there he kept the soldiers from any revolt, for they wished to set up some other man as emperor, preferably Pertinax himself. 7 And now Pertinax acquired an evil character for enviousness, for he was said to have laid before Commodus the charge that Antistius Burrus and Arrius Antoninus were aspiring to the throne.⁠24 8 And certainly he did suppress a mutiny against himself in Britain, but in so doing he came into great danger; for in a mutiny of a legion he was almost killed, and indeed was left among the slain. 9 This mutiny Pertinax punished very severely. 10 Later on, however, he petitioned to be excused from his governor­ship, saying that the legions were hostile to him because he had been strict in his discipline. After he had been relieved of his post...

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Pertinax*.html#3.8

The only information we glean from Cassius Dio runs as follows:

4 While Pertinax was still in Britain, after that great revolt which he quelled, and was being accounted worthy of praise on all sides...

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/thayer/e/roman/texts/cassius_dio/74*.html

The soldiers in Britain chose Priscus, a lieutenant, emperor; but he declined, saying: I am no more an emperor than you are soldiers"

The lieutenants in Britain, accordingly, having been rebuked for their insubordination, — they did not become quiet, in fact, until Pertinax quelled them...

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/73*.html

After these events in Britain, we have utter silence until we arrive at the tenure of the governor Albinus, the successor of the unknown governor. I'm providing extracts from The Roman Government of Britain by Anthony R. Birley (Oxford University Press, 2005) on Pertinax and his predecessor:

34. 185? Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus (cos. a. inc.),

acting-governor

CIL vi. 1336=ILS 1151, Rome: M(arco) An[tio . . . ] | Crescent[i] Calpurniano, [cos. ?,] 4|

proc[o](n)s(uli) prov(inciae) M[aced(oniae)], | XVvi[ro s(acris)] f(aciundis), iurid(ico) Brit(anniae) | vice

leg(ati), leg(ato) pr(o) pr(aetore) | prov(inciae) [ . . . , cur(atori)] r(ei) p(ublicae) 8| Marsorum Marruvior(um),

pr[aet(ori) . . . ].

To Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, consul(?), proconsul of the province of Macedonia,

quindecimvir sacris faciundis, iuridicus of Britain (and) acting-legate, propraetorian legate of the

province of . . . , curator of the commonwealth of the Marsi and Marruvini.

The acting-governorship of this man is known only from this fragmentary

inscription. An approximate chronology may be obtained, for he is also

named on three other, dated, inscriptions. Two at Ostia show his presence

there as pontifex Volcani in 194 and 203; the third, the Acta of the Saecular

Games of 204, attests his participation as a quindecimvir.¹⁴⁹ His tenure of that

priesthood is registered on his cursus inscription in what seems to be chronological

order. This led to the conclusion that his service in Britain, mentioned

next, must have come not long before 204. Early 203 was excluded, since he

was at Ostia on 24 March in that year, and it was assumed that he was actinggovernor

c.200 on the death or sudden departure of Virius Lupus (Gov. 37).¹⁵⁰

But nothing whatever is known about the end of Lupus’ governorship, so this

dating lacks any basis. Crescens was elected to the college after service in

Britain and before the proconsulship of Macedonia. But it does not follow that

he held these posts just before the games of 204. If he was praetor at the

normal age, 29, his service in Britain probably came when he was in his midthirties

(the cura of an Italian community and the legateship in a proconsular

province would not occupy more than three years or so). Hence he probably

became a quindecimvir at about 38. He could have remained an active member

for at least another twenty years.

Acting-governorships were the product of special circumstances, in most

cases (before the third century) the sudden death of the governor. Sometimes

an imperial procurator assumed the role, but there are several cases where a

legionary legate took over. One precedent in Britain is from the year 69, when

the legionary legates governed the province jointly after the flight of the

governor Trebellius Maximus (Gov. 7, cf. LL 8). Under Domitian a legionary

legate called Ferox (LL 12) may have been acting-governor after the death of

Sallustius Lucullus (Gov. 12). In 184 or soon after, when Ulpius Marcellus was

recalled, there were no legionary legates, as they had been replaced by

equestrians (see under Gov. 33). Hence it is plausible that Crescens was actinggovernor

for several months—as the only senator left in the province. He

presumably remained in post, the army still being mutinous, until the arrival

of Pertinax in 185.¹⁵¹

A quindecimvir died c.185, C. Aufidius Victorinus (cos. II ord. 183) (Dio 72. 11.

1).¹⁵² Calpurnianus could have replaced him—as a reward for meritorious

service in Britain. That might also explain his relatively rapid progress to the

consulship, after only one further post, as proconsul of Macedonia. By contrast,

Sabucius Major (iurid. 5), after being iuridicus of Britain not long before

Crescens, went on to be prefect of the military treasury, governor of Belgica,

and proconsul of Achaia, before becoming consul in 186.

It is unknown whether Crescens held further posts after his consulship. It

would not be surprising if he preferred to devote himself to private or local

concerns, for example at Ostia, presumably his home. The times were precarious,

although there is no reason to believe that he was related to M.

Antonius Antius Lupus, one of Commodus’ many victims.¹⁵³ No certain relatives

or descendants are on record, but M. Antius Grat[il]lianus, quaestor of

Sicily in 213, could be his son.¹⁵⁴

35. 185–187 Publius Helvius Pertinax (cos. 175, II ord. 192)

Dio (Xiphilinus) 72(73). 9. 22: Those [sc. the soldiers]¹⁵⁵ in Britain then, when they had been

rebuked for their mutinous conduct (for they did not in fact quieten down until Pertinax quelled

them) now chose out of their number one thousand five hundred javelin-men and sent them to

Italy.

73 (74). 4. 1: While he [sc. Pertinax] was still in Britain, after that great mutiny which he quelled,

and was being thought worthy of praise from all, a horse called Pertinax won a race at

Rome.

HA Pert. 3. 5–4. 1: occiso sane Perenni Commodus Pertinaci satisfecit eumque petit per litteras, ut ad

Brittanniam profisceretur. 6. profectusque milites ab omni seditione deterruit, cum illi quemcumque imperatorem

vellent habere et ipsum specialiter Pertinacem . . . . 8. et seditiones quidem contra Commodum ipse conpescuit in

Brittannia, verum ingens periculum adit seditione legionis paene occisus, certe inter occisos relictus. 9. quam

quidem rem Pertinax acerrime vindicavit. 10. denique postea veniam legationis petit, dicens sibi ob defensam

disciplinam infestas esse legiones. 4. 1. accepto successore alimentorum ei cura mandata est.

3. 5: To be sure, when Perennis had been killed, Commodus made amends to Pertinax and

asked him by letter to set out for Britain. 6. On his arrival, he deterred the soldiers from all their

mutiny, although they wanted to make any man whatever [sc. other than Commodus] emperor and

especially Pertinax himself . . . . 8. And he did indeed suppress the mutinies against Commodus

in Britain, but came into huge danger, being almost killed in a mutiny of a legion—at any rate

he was left among the dead. 9. This affair, of course, Pertinax punished very severely. 10.

Finally, after this he sought to be excused from his legateship, saying that the legions were

hostile to him because of his having upheld discipline. 4. 1. When he had been given a successor,

the supervision of the alimenta was entrusted to him.

The career of Pertinax is one of the most remarkable in the principate. He is

also exceptional, if not unique, among governors of Britain in being the subject

of an ancient biography, a distinction owed to his brief reign as emperor.

The vita in the HA, although not free from contamination, is one of the more

factual in that work; the details of his career which it supplies have been

authenticated by a number of inscriptions. These include one from Brühl,

near Cologne in Lower Germany, recording most of his career before he

entered the senate.¹⁵⁶ Further confirmation of some items, not least of his

British governorship, is supplied by Dio.

He was born on 1 August 126 at his mother’s villa at Alba Pompeia in

Liguria, his father being a freedman named Helvius Successus (HA Pert. 1. 1–2;

cf. Dio 73(74). 3. 1). Initially he became a schoolmaster, in the footsteps of his

own teacher Sulpicius Apollinaris (HA Pert. 1. 4). Finding this insufficiently

lucrative, he applied for a centurion’s commission, using the good offices of his

father’s patron Lollianus Avitus (cos. ord. 144). This application was evidently

unsuccessful (HA Pert. 1. 5) and he had to be content with the less permanent,

if more honorific, status of equestrian officer, gained through another patron,

Ti. Claudius Pompeianus (cos. II ord. 173) (Dio 73. 3. 1, HA Pert. 1. 6). He took

command of the cohors VII Gallorum equitata in Syria, before the death of

Antoninus Pius. After distinguishing himself in the Parthian war, which broke

out soon afterwards, he was promoted to a tribunate in the British legion VI

Victrix. This was followed by another post in the militia secunda in Britain and

then the command of an ala ‘in Moesia’ (Pert. 2. 1–2). His posting to Britain

may have been on the recommendation of Julius Verus (Gov. 27), governor of

Syria c.163, while the transfer from Britain to the Danube may reflect the

career of Calpurnius Agricola (30), who probably made this move himself

c.166, and may have taken Pertinax with him.

Pertinax now began a procuratorial career, in charge of the alimenta along

the via Aemilia, an important region c.168, when there were major concentrations

of troops there for the German war. He then became prefect of the

classis Germanica (Pert. 2. 2), and was soon promoted to a procuratorship in

Dacia, before 170 (2. 4). He was dismissed as the result of an intrigue; but

shortly afterwards was recalled, to assist Pompeianus—now son-in-law of M.

Aurelius—in the task of clearing the German invaders out of Italy (2. 4, Dio

71(72). 3. 2). His conduct won him adlection to senatorial rank, followed by

promotion to the rank of ex-praetor and the command of the First Legion

(Adiutrix) (2. 5–6). In this post he achieved a remarkable victory in barbarian

territory, c.172.¹⁵⁷ He probably then held a special command over an army

corps, obtaining the consulship, held in absentia, in 175. He accompanied M.

Aurelius to the East as comes Augusti in 175–6 and went on to govern Lower

Moesia, Upper Moesia, and the III Daciae (attested there on 1 April 179).¹⁵⁸

He was probably appointed to govern Syria after M. Aurelius’ death, in

180,¹⁵⁹ returning to Rome c.182 to enter the senate-house for the first time after

governing four consular provinces, as the HA records (3. 2). The guard prefect

Perennis, then dominant, compelled Pertinax to retire to his father’s estate in

Liguria (3. 3). For three years he engaged in business there (3. 4), and it was

only after Perennis’ death in 185 that Commodus asked him to assume the

governorship of Britain (3. 5, quoted above), where the army was still

mutinous. Dio (Xiphilinus) twice records that Pertinax finally suppressed the

mutiny. The HA adds details: apparently the troops still wanted another

emperor, preferably Pertinax himself, but he managed to repress them with

difficulty, and nearly lost his life in a riot at the hands of one legion. He then

requested the emperor to send a replacement, since the legions resented his

restoration of discipline.

On his return to Rome, probably in 187, perhaps sooner, he was was made

prefect of the alimenta (Pert. 4. 1), followed by a year as proconsul of Africa, at

latest 188–9 (4. 2).¹⁶⁰ Soon after this he reached the pinnacle of the senatorial

career with the prefecture of Rome, in addition to which—as was customary

for city prefects—he was given a second consulship, as ordinarius for the year

192, with Commodus as his colleague (HA Pert. 4. 2–3).¹⁶¹ At latest during 192,

a conspiracy was hatched by the guard prefect Q. Aemilius Laetus, in which

Pertinax was probably involved. It led to the murder of Commodus and the

proclamation of Pertinax as his successor on the last day of the year.¹⁶² But his

reign lasted only until 28 March 193, when he himself was murdered.¹⁶³

His career had been truly astonishing. In this context it must be noted that

his governorship of Britain was the product of very exceptional circumstances.

His wife was Flavia Titiana, daughter of T. Flavius Sulpicianus, appointed

city prefect to succeed Pertinax himself, unsuccessful candidate for the throne

against Didius Julianus, and probably the same man as the ‘Claudius

Sulpicianus’ put to death by Severus.¹⁶⁴ Their son, also called P. Helvius

Pertinax, and daughter both survived him; the son was murdered by

Caracalla in 212.¹⁶⁵

It is probable that an unknown governor was Pertinax’s immediate successor.

36. 192–197 Decimus Clodius (Septimius) Albinus

(cos. a. inc., II ord. 194)

Etc. 

By the time we reach Albinus, everything in Britain seems to be in order.  So much so that Severus, in Herodian's words -

"...was anxious about the army in Britain, which was large in numbers and very powerful with very warlike men. The commander of this whole force was Albinus..."

To try and satisfy Albinus' imperial ambition, were he to have it, Severus makes him Caeser.  Of course, we all know how that turned out!  But it is important to note that there is no indication whatsoever that Albinus was dealing with disaffected British troops.

And this is where Dr. Malcor would have Castus set foot upon the stage.  Although Pertinax is said to have quelled the post-Marcellus rebellion, the methods he employed to do so were so severe as to make him unpopular.  He wisely requested to be replaced. 

To begin, there is no reason to think that at this stage an equestrian would be made governor.  If we are to allow this to have happened, the mechanism by which it did must be explained.  It is assumed by historians that once the Praetorian Prefect Perennis had been killed at the insistence of the British soldiers, his policy of removing legionary legates and replacing them with equestrians had been reversed. It is also true that a legion's equestrian prefect had over him more than just a senatorial legate.  There was the senatorial tribunus laticlavius:

"The prefect of a legion might be its acting commander if the legate and the tribunus laticlavius were not available. That was the usual succession. Military tribunes of senatorial family ('laticlavius') could temporarily replace the commander (legate) of their legion." [Roger Tomlin]

So at a time when senators were once more in charge of the legions, and senatorial tribunes were second-in-commands, how are we to get a equestrian prefect raised over both of these leaders to the level of legatus Augusti pro praetore, the governor of an entire province, especially one as large as Britain?

Okay, let us create a scenario in which both of the Sixth Legion's senior officers are dead.  That would allow Castus to take over as commander of the legion, at least temporarily. But unless all the other legionary legates and senior tribunes were also dead, and he is either the last prefect standing or considered the best of the three, and the governor and anyone who would naturally have become acting governor (like the iuridicus listed above) were also out of action for whatever reason, there is simply no way that Castus could have suddenly found himself governor. 

Malcor's claim that he was made governor because there weren't any senators available is baseless, not only because that is a highly improbable statement, but an unprovable one as well.

Now, once again, Dr. Malcor and her colleagues try to avoid this whole difficulty by interpreting Castus' dux rank as something other than what it is - a temporary command of a military force.  Despite the academic world being united against their interpretation (as Professor Werner Eck, perhaps the expert on the Roman praefectus rank recently reinforced, the kind of dux Dr. Malcor wants "only existed in the second half of the 3rd century"), they continue to promote it.  

We might have a better chance of accepting their reading of dux in the Castus inscription if it was put differently.  For instance, if what we had was merely "duci legg(ionum) [triu]m Britan(n)ici-

–{an}arum", we might scratch our heads and wonder about what was being said.  "Commander of Three British Legions"?  Huh?  But this is not what we have on the Castus stone.  We have instead -

"[pr]aef{f}(ecto) leg(ionis) VI Victricis duci legg(ionum) [triu]m Britan(n)ici{an}arum adversus Arm[...]s"

In other words, we are not permitted to read only that he was commander of three British legions (or three legionary vexillations; see Robert Saxer, where over 40 such inscriptions listing legions are recognized as implied vexillations).  No! We must accept that he was a prefect of the Sixth Legion who was granted a temporary military command of legionary forces against a specific enemy. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THAT PHRASE ABOUT CASTUS BEING GOVERNOR OF BRITAIN.

As Professor Roger Tomlin and others have emphasized, Castus would have written praefectus vice legati, a known pre-Gallienus title for a prefect replacing a legate.  He would, in essence,  be acting as his 'deputy' until another legate is appointed. We might also have seen agens vice legati or, for a legion, 

praefectus agens vice legati legionis. We even find titles like agens vice praesidis, a praesides being a governor. In Tomlin's words:

"There are some procurators who are governors of their province, pro legato. Plenty of 'prefects' of legions, but (by implication) not their commanders except in Egypt – until Gallienus, when all legions are commanded by prefects. But note Licinius Hierocles in the reign of Alexander Severus, who is prefect of Leg II Parthicae vice legati (CIL viii 20996). Castus would surely have added vice legati, if he had been.

LAC was never a senator, and never legate of VI Victrix. His inscription would have said so. He was only the legion's prefect – as you say, ranking after the legate and the tribunus laticlavius, but vastly more experienced than either – and he might serve as its acting-commander: pro legato or agens vice legati."

I've written a great deal on this subject on my blog over the years and will not spend more time on it in this post.  I just wanted to make sure my readers understood the nature of the massive mistake Dr. Malcor and her colleagues are making in interpreting Castus' dux rank as being the equivalent of a provincial governor.  

Back to our missing British governor of 187-192...

Dr. Malcor uses her vague, nonspecific, ambiguous, opaque and indeterminate reading "armatos" (armed men or, in some contexts, soldiers) for the ARM[...]S lacuna of the Castus stone. She insists it is the only reading that "fits" in the gap in the broken stone. But readers need to understand that what she actually means is that ARMATOS fits the space without having to resort to ligatures. However, as the inscription itself is replete with ligatures, and it is extremely common in general to employ ligatures in inscriptions, this statement is actually quite meaningless.

What ARMATOS allows its originators to do is conjure any martial activity they wish for the 187-192 period - a period which in the extant sources shows no activity at all. Dr. Malcor and her colleagues go into great detail with a purely imaginary construct (this is even more true in Malcor's book ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR) of just what their governor Castus was up. 

It is not my intention here to atomistically analyze their many unsubstantiable claims regarding the military actions carried out by Castus in 187-192. Only one thing needs to be said: when called upon to provide textual or archaeological evidence to support what is plainly sheer speculation, they are unable to produce anything.

So, whether intentional or otherwise, Dr. Malcor has found a convenient historical void in which to insert her governor and a lacuna reading that allows for a completely open-ended identification of his foes. This is all neatly tied together by an erroneous interpretation of Castus' dux rank, which does not indicate that he was ever a provincial governor. 

The sources make it plain that Pertinax quelled the mutiny in Britain. While the severity with which he did that made him unpopular with his troops, and he wisely requested to be replaced by a new governor for whom the soldiers did not bear such animosity, had the rebellion continued and someone else had to put it down, then surely that someone else, rather than Pertinax, would have been credited with quelling the mutiny.

Hence Malcor's claim that the mutiny continued after Pertinax and was put down by her governor Castus (her ARMATOS, in this context, at least, being the rebelling Roman soldiers in Britain) canot be squared with the sources. One might also ask what garrison(s) or auxiliaries in Britain would be foolish enough to go against all three British legions (assuming these were full legions and not legionary vexillations - something Malcor insists upon). 

Of course, Malcor has also numbered among her ARMATOS British tribes in various locations, including the south (the Iceni, even!), despite the fact that we have no account of trouble with the tribes between Pertinax and Albinus. The sources state only that Marcellus defeated the northern tribes and that they did not stir again until after Albinus had withdrawn the troops from Britain for his civil war with Severus.

As we are pointedly told that Pertinax was relieved of his post, there is no reason to believe that a good senatorial candidate could not have been found to replace him. This would be in keeping with the usual practice. What we can't do is explain why a prefect of the Sixth Legion would have been chosen as his successor.

In summary, Dr. Malcor and her colleagues have concocted a "theory" for L. Artorius Castus that is totally unsupported by the facts. As such, it is without merit. Castus was not the governor of 187-192. And the martial activity assigned to him for that period is a fiction.

A gap in knowledge is called that for a reason.