Having just discussed the problem of the ARM- in the Lucius Artorius Castus inscription with Professor Anthony Birley, who is of the opinion (as is Professor John Wilkes and others) that this must represent Armorica and that it probably has to do with the Deserters' War during the reign of Commodus, I decided I needed to critically examine the three accounts of the execution of Perennis. These versions of his death may be found at the following links:
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/
Dio's account is the most interesting for our purposes because it mentions 1,500 British soldiers supposedly sent to Italy (and, yes, it is Italy in Dio's Greek). The story is rather bizarre and, indeed, inexplicable. For as Perennis was in charge of the military, we cannot in any way account for the fact that with much larger and, presumably, loyal forces at his disposal he would allow the Britons to come to Rome and demand his death.The number of these troops echoes a three-fold division of legionary vexillations that appears to be alluded to on the LAC memorial stone.
But if, as has been suggested by several major scholars (see, for example, Alföldi, G.
1989 ‘Bellum desertorum’, in idem, Die Krise des römischen Reiches. Geschichte,
Geschichtsschreibung und Geschichtsbetrachtung, Stuttgart, 69-80), these troops are to be identified with those of LAC, how do we explain their presence in Italy?
Well, I think that Dio's account is wrong. One of the other accounts merely has "soldiers" drag Perennis to his death. The British troops were inserted into the story because they had come over onto the Continent at the same time to battle Maternus.
If I'm right about this, then we must place LAC's action during the bellum desertorum. This war is dated 185/186 (Bandits in the Roman Empire: Myth and Reality by Thomas Grünewald Routledge, 2004).
Not being a Roman military historian or Latin epigrapher, I cannot say what exactly was going on in Britain when LAC was given his command of the three legionary vexillations brought to bear against the Deserters. If Malcor and her co-authors are correct (see Malcor, L.A., Trinchese, A., Faggiani, A., Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 47, no 3 & 4 Fall/Winter, 2019, pp. 415-437), he was acting in the capacity of de facto governor.
But the picture is clouded by the possible presence there of one other acting governor between Ulpius Marcellus (to 184) and Pertinax (185-187), viz. Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, whom Birley tentatively assigns to 185. The HISTORIA AUGUSTA tells us that "After Perennis had been put to death, Commodus made amends to Pertinax, and in a letter asked him to set out for Britain (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Pertinax*.html#3.5)." It is likely, therefore, that Marcus was replaced by Pertinax.
In Anthony Birley's words (from THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT BRITAIN),
"Dio does not make clear whether or not there was any appreciable interval
between Marcellus’ victory and his recall, but it is plausible to suppose that it
was the fall of Perennis, not to mention the mutinies, which led to Marcellus’
prosecution on his return. 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."
The iuridicus in question was Marcus:
"To Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, consul(?), proconsul of the province of Macedonia, quindecimvir sacris faciundis, iuridicus of Britain (and) acting-legate [vice leg(ati)], propraetorian legate of the province of . . . , curator of the commonwealth of the Marsi and Marruvini."
The real question, then, is where to fit LAC?
We may be helped by treating of the Priscus (again, see Birley on the governors and legionary legates for the time period in question) who is offered the purple by the British army in 184. This man was removed from office by Perennis prior to the latter's death in 185. He is thought to have been the legate for the Sixth Victrix, which is the legion LAC was prefect of according to his memorial stone.
Were LAC to have been appointed legionary legate in place of Priscus, this rank would certainly have been mentioned on his memorial stone. It was not.
However, such a thing was possible. According to the HISTORIA AUGUSTA, Perennis had "dismissed senators and put men of equestrian status in command of the soldiers in the British war". LAC was an equestrian. Still, being made a legate of the VI would have been a singular honor for an equestrian and there is simply no way LAC would have omitted mention of that being bestowed upon himself. If he had been acting governor, who would have, like Marcus, specified vice leg(ati).
I have this on the rank of dux from LATE ROMAN ARMY by Karen R. Dixon and Pat Southern (Routledge 2014):
Anthony Birley (in THE PEOPLE OF ROMAN BRITAIN) summarizes this by saying dux "before the late third century merely meant 'commander' on an ad hoc basis."
Roger Tomlin (personal correspondence) has assured me of the following:
"My impression, not that I have checked it, is that dux is an informal title until the late third century – an ad hoc commander of what we would call a 'task force'. I see no need for Castus to have been a legionary legate. I don't think Valerius Maximianus actually has the title of dux, but his extraordinary commands belong to his career before he became a legionary legate. As the Emperor's immediate deputy, a legate wouldn't have needed the extra title of dux, any more than Suetonius Paulinus did, when he defeated Boudica with the Fourteenth Legion and a detachment of the Twentieth. But if you want to check, you might browse through Saxer's book on Vexillations, to see what titles their commanders did have. My impression is that, even if they were duces, they would have been senior centurions, which is virtually what a praefectus legionis was anyway. No need for senatorial rank as well."
I've not been able to find any justification for assuming that LAC was in his capacity of dux also acting as a legate or a governor.
So LAC, a prefect of the VI Victrix based at York, who doubtless served under the governor Ulpius Marcellus in his reconquest of the North, and whose direct commander would have been the dismissed Priscus, was handed the command of the three vexillations sent to Armorica against Maternus by the acting governor/iuridicus Marcus in response to Commodus' command that the provinces contribute forces to battle the deserters.
Malcor and her co-authors point to LAC's rank of procurator centenarius of the province of Liburnia "with the power of the sword" as evidence that he must have been granted the rank of governor or acting governor while in Britain. But I've discussed this procurator status with Roger Tomlin. His remarks are as follows:
"So far as I know, he was the only procurator of Dalmatia who was responsible for a particular area (Liburnia) with the powers of a provincial governor ('iure gladii'). You might check in Wilkes' Dalmatia. Dalmatia was governed by a senatorial legate, and any senatorial province contained a semi-independent procurator (since he was directly responsible to the Emperor), but Castus' post, which anticipates 3rd-century equestrian governor, would have directly infringed the governor's prerogatives.
He was not actually elected into the senate, like Valerius Maximianus. Only that he gained much the same authority, and anticipates the 'reform' of Gallienus, when provinces were governed by equestrians 'in place of' senators.
I would have expected him to be acting-governor of Dalmatia, not of Liburnia. And senatorial legates are replaced in emergency by the next-most senior senator as 'pro legato' – a legionary legate (but Dalmatia no longer has them), or the quaestor, or a 'comes' (staff officer). Failing that, the procurator 'agens vice legati', but he would be appointed by the Emperor.
I can only guess that a special situation had arisen on the coast of Dalmatia, requiring close supervision by what was virtually a deputy governor. He would be reducing the senatorial governor's sphere of responsibility, which would likely be resented; and this is an attractive argument for the Perennis / Commodus date.
Dessau has two procurators 'alimentorum per Transpadum Histriam et Liburniam' (ILS 1347, 1396), which would suggest it was an area of procuratorial responsibility rather than a province as such. LAC's appointment sounds like a grander version of theirs, with higher powers."
In other words, LAC could have remained an equestrian and still have been appointed procurator of Liburnia. We simply have no reason for accepting the view that he had performed the role of acting-governor in Britain.
THE THREE BRITISH LEGIONS
In the words of Christopher Gwinn (http://christophergwinn.com/arthuriana/lac-sourcebook/):
THE THREE BRITISH LEGIONS
In the words of Christopher Gwinn (http://christophergwinn.com/arthuriana/lac-sourcebook/):
"Though the inscription does not specify that Artorius led detachments (as opposed to the entire legions), it can be inferred; there are no records of multiple legions being removed from Britain in the mid-late 2nd century."
But is this correct? Malcor insists we should read it as written, and that the three legions weren't taken anywhere. In other words, they operated within their usual spheres, perhaps overlapping to some extent and never left Britain. She takes this as evidence that Artorius had to be governor at the time.
I have put this question to some of the leading Roman military scholars. Here are their comments:
With one or two exceptions, e.g. V Macedonica transferred from Lower Moesia to Dacia in AD 167, entire legions were not moved from permanent bases after Hadrian, while there is considerable evidence in the 2nd and 3rd centuries for ad hoc commands of task forces drawn from several legions and their associated auxiliary units under tribunes or more senior figures. Look up Valerius Maximianus under Marcus Aurelius. - John Wilkes
Castus' career inscription is so detailed that it would have said whether he was legate or acting-governor. Besides, he never gained senatorial rank, although his last appointment – as an equestrian procurator of the second rank – was a quasi-senatorial governorship. The prefect of a legion might deputise for the legate, but (I think) would normally call himself 'praefectus pro legato'.
I cannot think that an army was formed of all three legions of the province, and placed under the command of the (virtual) deputy-commander of one legion. Where was the provincial governor? And where the legates of the other legions?
We have to assume that they were legionary vexillations – and, as I said, you might check through Saxer's Vexillationen for the usage of dux as their commander. It is possible that such a force was formed for a special campaign within Britain, even that it was Legion VI and detachments of the other two (anticipating the situation sometimes in the third century, after the division of the province), but then of course you still have the problem of ARM[...]. - Roger Tomlin
ARMATUS FOR ARM- IN THE LAC INSCRIPTION
Latin forms of Armenia aren't any better than Armoricos in terms of fitting on the stone, actually. I've looked at the space available very carefully and have come to the conclusion that the ARMATUS reading proposed by Malcor and her colleagues is correct.
So... if armed men/soldiers are whom LAC and his legionary detachments went against, the question is who and where. This does happen to perfectly fit the description of the deserters and those they gathered about them.
One thing all the Roman military experts are sure about: the inscription of LAC does not show anything other than an equestrian taking a fairly typical dux/command and then continuing as an equestrian in a Commodus period procurator 'deputy' governor position at the end of his career. There is no evidence at all of him being either a governor or a legate. It's not there on the stone. Otherwise, it would be. Neither I nor anyone else can budge from this judgment. I've now looked at dozens of stones and legate, vice legate, etc., are all clearly displayed. They were high honors/ranks and would not be dropped from a memorial inscription under any situation.
And as has been made abundantly clear, LAC's stone is nicely detailed. It would not left off such titles of distinction. So, we must accept what he was - an equestrian.
If ARMATUS can stand for the deserters and their mix of supporters (freed prisoners, slaves, robbers and the like) in the Maternus Revolt, and the action assigned to LAC was restricted to Veneti territory in Armorica, then my theory presented above regarding the 1,500 British javelin men may be allowed to stand. Granted, this is still just guesswork. But it also happens to represent the only known movement of the right amount of British troops in the time period we are considering. For that reason alone, I feel the idea should be seriously considered.
CONCLUSION
I think the 1,500 British troops were the force Artorius commanded. BUT, as I have explained before, there's no way this force would have been allowed to reach Rome - not with Perennis in charge of the military. There are two other versions of the end of Perennis. In one it is just "soldiers" who drag him to his death. The account Dio used seems to have grabbed onto the three legionary detachments commanded by Artorius against 'armed men/soldiers.' I have pinpointed the timing of this, and it fits quite precisely during the time the iuridicus Marcus was acting governor. That is, after Ulpius's term and before that of Pertinax. Priscus was leader of the Sixth Legion - maybe, if the restored inscription readings are correct. As a legate he was dismissed. Somewhere in that mix is LAC, a prefect of the Sixth. If we go with ARMATOS, then this can't have been anyone LAC was going against at Rome itself with the 1,500 spearmen. The timing fits only the Deserters' Rebellion. I have detailed the chronology drawing on Birley and others in this blog piece.
I would put forward as a very tentative argument that LAC took the 1,500 drawn from the three British legions to fight the Deserters on the Continent. Where? Well, wherever he was sent, I suppose, and as the Deserters themselves were highly mobile, it would not be surprising if he didn't have a precise geographical designation on his stone. That's the best I can do WITH THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. Anything else is empty speculation, I'm afraid.
SUMMARY
But is this correct? Malcor insists we should read it as written, and that the three legions weren't taken anywhere. In other words, they operated within their usual spheres, perhaps overlapping to some extent and never left Britain. She takes this as evidence that Artorius had to be governor at the time.
I have put this question to some of the leading Roman military scholars. Here are their comments:
With one or two exceptions, e.g. V Macedonica transferred from Lower Moesia to Dacia in AD 167, entire legions were not moved from permanent bases after Hadrian, while there is considerable evidence in the 2nd and 3rd centuries for ad hoc commands of task forces drawn from several legions and their associated auxiliary units under tribunes or more senior figures. Look up Valerius Maximianus under Marcus Aurelius. - John Wilkes
Castus' career inscription is so detailed that it would have said whether he was legate or acting-governor. Besides, he never gained senatorial rank, although his last appointment – as an equestrian procurator of the second rank – was a quasi-senatorial governorship. The prefect of a legion might deputise for the legate, but (I think) would normally call himself 'praefectus pro legato'.
I cannot think that an army was formed of all three legions of the province, and placed under the command of the (virtual) deputy-commander of one legion. Where was the provincial governor? And where the legates of the other legions?
We have to assume that they were legionary vexillations – and, as I said, you might check through Saxer's Vexillationen for the usage of dux as their commander. It is possible that such a force was formed for a special campaign within Britain, even that it was Legion VI and detachments of the other two (anticipating the situation sometimes in the third century, after the division of the province), but then of course you still have the problem of ARM[...]. - Roger Tomlin
ARMATUS FOR ARM- IN THE LAC INSCRIPTION
Latin forms of Armenia aren't any better than Armoricos in terms of fitting on the stone, actually. I've looked at the space available very carefully and have come to the conclusion that the ARMATUS reading proposed by Malcor and her colleagues is correct.
So... if armed men/soldiers are whom LAC and his legionary detachments went against, the question is who and where. This does happen to perfectly fit the description of the deserters and those they gathered about them.
One thing all the Roman military experts are sure about: the inscription of LAC does not show anything other than an equestrian taking a fairly typical dux/command and then continuing as an equestrian in a Commodus period procurator 'deputy' governor position at the end of his career. There is no evidence at all of him being either a governor or a legate. It's not there on the stone. Otherwise, it would be. Neither I nor anyone else can budge from this judgment. I've now looked at dozens of stones and legate, vice legate, etc., are all clearly displayed. They were high honors/ranks and would not be dropped from a memorial inscription under any situation.
And as has been made abundantly clear, LAC's stone is nicely detailed. It would not left off such titles of distinction. So, we must accept what he was - an equestrian.
If ARMATUS can stand for the deserters and their mix of supporters (freed prisoners, slaves, robbers and the like) in the Maternus Revolt, and the action assigned to LAC was restricted to Veneti territory in Armorica, then my theory presented above regarding the 1,500 British javelin men may be allowed to stand. Granted, this is still just guesswork. But it also happens to represent the only known movement of the right amount of British troops in the time period we are considering. For that reason alone, I feel the idea should be seriously considered.
CONCLUSION
I think the 1,500 British troops were the force Artorius commanded. BUT, as I have explained before, there's no way this force would have been allowed to reach Rome - not with Perennis in charge of the military. There are two other versions of the end of Perennis. In one it is just "soldiers" who drag him to his death. The account Dio used seems to have grabbed onto the three legionary detachments commanded by Artorius against 'armed men/soldiers.' I have pinpointed the timing of this, and it fits quite precisely during the time the iuridicus Marcus was acting governor. That is, after Ulpius's term and before that of Pertinax. Priscus was leader of the Sixth Legion - maybe, if the restored inscription readings are correct. As a legate he was dismissed. Somewhere in that mix is LAC, a prefect of the Sixth. If we go with ARMATOS, then this can't have been anyone LAC was going against at Rome itself with the 1,500 spearmen. The timing fits only the Deserters' Rebellion. I have detailed the chronology drawing on Birley and others in this blog piece.
I would put forward as a very tentative argument that LAC took the 1,500 drawn from the three British legions to fight the Deserters on the Continent. Where? Well, wherever he was sent, I suppose, and as the Deserters themselves were highly mobile, it would not be surprising if he didn't have a precise geographical designation on his stone. That's the best I can do WITH THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. Anything else is empty speculation, I'm afraid.
SUMMARY
If LAC belonged to the reign of Commodus - and I think he did - and I am right about the name Arthur being preserved in the North (to reappear during the 6th century in that region), then we should connect him with the great victory of Ulpius Marcellus. I am here going to quote from Anthony Birley again on the period in question:
"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 acting governor 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"
The Crescens alluded to here was a iuridicus. It is likely the Priscus who refused the purple during this period was a legate, and possibly legate of the Sixth Legion. This is again from Birley's most recent work (note he no longer identifies Priscus with Caunius). Priscus and the other legates in Britain were removed from office by Perennis and replaced by equestrians. LAC was such an equestrian who started off in Britain as prefect of the Sixth. Thus he may have served under Priscus.
Also at this time occurs the bizarre story of the sending of 1500 javelin men from Britain to Rome. These men are given Perernnis by Commodus and they execute him, supposedly for his bad policies as head of the military. Chief among these policies was his decision to remove the senatorial legates from Britain.
I am others have suggested that the 1500 soldiers represent three vexillations of 500 each from the three British legions. These men have been associated with the Maternus Revolt or so-called Deserters' War in Gaul and Spain. Most Roman military historians INFER that the three legions leg by LAC were actually detachments - although this is NOT what the LAC memorial inscription says. We have plenty of inscriptions (see CIL) were vexillations are specified. Given the detail of the ranks held by LAC on the stone in general, it is difficult to understand why vexillations would have been left off the inscription.
If we go with three complete legions, then the explanation offered to me via private correspondence by Professor Roger Tomlin makes sense:
"It is possible that such a force was formed for a special campaign within Britain, even that it was Legion VI and detachments of the other two (anticipating the situation sometimes in the third century, after the division of the province)."
This is the position held by Malcor and her co-authors. In other words, LAC was given a military command of the British legions against an internal foe. But as Tomlin points out, "but then of course you still have the problem of ARM[...]."
In my mind, the presence in the historical record of the 1,500 spearmen from Britain who came to the Continent is difficult to separate from what we know of LAC as commander of three (detachments of) legions. These events seem to have happened at the same time and we have no other reference to a military action like what is found on LAC's stone. ARMATOS or armed men could refer to an enemy anywhere, including the mixed armed forces of Maternus (deserters, released prisoners, slaves, etc., who had all taken up arms in favor of Maternus' cause).
What I have not figured out to my satisfaction is what to do with the Perennis story. For we have two other versions of how Perennis died, and neither mentions the British soldiers. I will be working on this problem over the next few weeks.
ADDENDUM
Okay, what follows is the best I can do on LAC.
First, I am going with ARMATOS, and second, for the sake of argument, I am going with three legions. And by three I mean in the sense described by Roger Tomlin. That is, the Sixth and probably detachments from the other two.
The action, if so, must have been internal to Britain.
So when we this?
What follows is a cobbled together selection from Dio Cassius and the Historia Augusta. The important HA passage provides the reason for why the 1,500 British spearmen were sent as a delegation to Rome.
The most important phrase has to do with the claim that Perennis removed certain senatorial legates and replaced them with senators IN THE WAR IN BRITAIN. As the footnote here makes clear, this was the major action performed by Ulpius Marcellus in the North to deal with barbarians who had broken through the Wall. If this statement is correct, equestrians like LAC were being put into command roles - like a dux of legions - DURING the Northern campaign.
Priscus, who may have been the senatorial legate of the Sixth Legion, where LAC was prefect, was dismissed. The mutiny that offered this Priscus the purple is thought to have been brought about by the harsh methods of Ulpius Marcellus. In the words of Birley:
"Dio does not make clear whether or not there was any appreciable interval between Marcellus’ victory and his recall, but it is plausible to suppose that it was the fall of Perennis, not to mention the mutinies, which led to Marcellus’ prosecution on his return."
Historians have a fondness for sequencing. We like to see a clearly discernible pattern, an arrangement of events A through Z. But sometimes things occur synchronically. What I would propose happened is this:
Marcellus is fighting in the North of Britain. While the war is going well, his methods give rise to a mutiny. The troops offer Priscus, legate of the Sixth Legion, the purple. Priscus wisely declines the honor. Commodus immediately, WHILE THE WAR IS STILL IN PROGRESS, reacts to the mutiny by stripping all legates of their office. LAC suddenly finds himself in charge of the Sixth Legion - the very legion which is spearheading the Northern campaign.
Enter the iuridicus of Marcellus, Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus. Birley tells us:
"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 acting governor 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"
But Birley also says this of the rank of iuridicus:
"...the iuridicus [an official of praetorian rank], whose responsibilities were clearly restricted to the civilian
sphere. Since the number of known holders of the office is very limited, it may be inferred that iuridici were only appointed when the governor was heavily engaged in military activity at considerable distance from the pacified
part of the province."
Thus while Crescens was acting-governor, who was not a military man. He would not have been made a dux of three legions being brought against armed men. LAC, on the other hand, was perfectly positioned to be made dux and continue the war in the North with the Sixth and detachments from the other two British legions.
This could not have happened while Ulpius Marcellus was still governor.
The 1,500 spearmen would have been sent to Rome by the disgruntled legates, who had been removed from the posts. Perhaps by Priscus himself.
If, on the other hand, the war in the North had been completed before Marcellus was recalled, we must assume the armed men LAC faced with three legions were rebellious Roman soldiers. Birley does state that the army remained mutinous under Crescens and until the arrival of Pertinax. But if three legions, led by LAC of the Sixth, were loyal, who would be leftover to oppose them with such strength that three entire legions were needed to suppress them?
It is even more difficult to place LAC in the time of Pertinax, despite the efforts of the latter to quell mutiny in Britain:
"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." [Birley]
We can, as Malcor and colleagues do, opt to place LAC after Pertinax and before Albinus, as we may have a couple year gap between known governors. By the time we get to Albinus...
"Albinus crossed into Gaul, with, no doubt, a large part of the British garrison, and was proclaimed emperor there.
It may be that before Albinus left Britain he exacted from the northern peoples beyond Hadrian’s Wall promises that they would keep the peace, ‘the promises’ that they did not keep, which Dio refers to in connection with Virius Lupus’ first actions as new governor in 197 (74(75)." [Birley]
Needless to say, for Albinus to be able to leave Britain for Gaul, the unrest in his province must have been settled. We might presume that LAC had been the party who accomplished this deed. While Marcellus had dealt with the North, it is possible LAC did later, before Albinus arrived on the scene. If so, he would have both put down rebellion and pacified the North.
So how do we decide if LAC belonged between the governorships of Marcellus and Pertinax or between those of Pertinax and Albinus?
We can't, really. In my mind, the acting-governorship of the civilian iuridicus Crescens, combined with the dismissal of the Sixth Legion's legate Priscus, would have provided an officer such as LAC the perfect opportunity to shine.
On the other hand, if we opt for the gap between Pertinax and Albinus, we must argue on the basis of a notable change in the conditions prevailing in Britain, i.e. a transition from the overwhelming rebellion Pertinax faced to a Britain that could suffer the loss of its forces in service of an Imperial usurper.
***
DIO CASSIUS -
Perennis,6 who commanded the Pretorians after Paternus, met his death as the result of a mutiny of the soldiers. For, inasmuch as Commodus had given himself up to chariot-racing and licentiousness and performed scarcely any of the duties pertaining to his office, Perennis was compelled to manage not only the military affairs, but everything else as well, and to stand at the head of the State. 21 The soldiers, accordingly, whenever any matter did not turn out to their satisfaction, laid the blame upon Perennis and were angry with him.
2a 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,
[HISTORIA AUGUSTA - 6 2Yet in spite of his great power, suddenly, because in the war in Britain46 he had dismissed certain senators and had put men of the equestrian order in command of the soldiers,47 this same Perennis was declared an enemy to the state, when the matter was reported by the legates in command of the army, and was thereupon delivered up to the soldiers to be torn to pieces.48]
— they did not become quiet, in fact, until Pertinax quelled them, — now chose out of their number fifteen hundred javelin men and sent them into Italy. 3 These men had already drawn near to Rome without encountering any resistance, when Commodus met them and asked: "What is the meaning of this, soldiers? What is your purpose in coming?" And when they p91 answered, "We are here because Perennis is plotting against you and plans to make his son emperor," Commodus believed them, especially as Cleander insisted; for this man had often been prevented by Perennis from doing all that he desired, and consequently he hated him bitterly. 4 He accordingly delivered up the prefect to very soldiers whose commander he was, and had not the courage to scorn fifteen hundred men, though he had many times that number of Pretorians. 10 So Perennis was maltreated and struck down by those men, and his wife, his sister, and two sons were also killed. Thus Perennis was slain, though he deserved a far different fate, both on his own account and in the interest of the entire Roman empire, — except in so far as his ambition for office had made him chiefly responsible for the ruin of his colleague Paternus. For privately he never strove in the least for either fame or wealth, but lived a most incorruptible and temperate life; and as for Commodus and his imperial office, he guarded them in complete security.
❦
46 In 184. According to Dio, LXXII.8, the Britons living north of the boundary-wall invaded the province and annihilated a detachment of Roman soldiers. They were finally defeated by Ulpius Marcellus, and Commodus was acclaimed Imperator for the seventh time and assumed the title Britannicus; see c. viii.4 and coins with the legend Vict(oria) Brit(annica), Cohen III2 p349, no. 945.
❦
47 An innovation which became general in the third century, when senatorial commanders throughout the empire were gradually replaced by equestrian.
❦
48 According to Dio, LXXII.9, it was at the demand of a delegation of 1500 soldiers of the army of Britain, whom Perennis had censured for mutinous conduct (cf. c. viii.4). (p279)The mutiny was finally quelled by Pertinax; see Pert. iii.5‑8.
ADDENDUM
Okay, what follows is the best I can do on LAC.
First, I am going with ARMATOS, and second, for the sake of argument, I am going with three legions. And by three I mean in the sense described by Roger Tomlin. That is, the Sixth and probably detachments from the other two.
The action, if so, must have been internal to Britain.
So when we this?
What follows is a cobbled together selection from Dio Cassius and the Historia Augusta. The important HA passage provides the reason for why the 1,500 British spearmen were sent as a delegation to Rome.
The most important phrase has to do with the claim that Perennis removed certain senatorial legates and replaced them with senators IN THE WAR IN BRITAIN. As the footnote here makes clear, this was the major action performed by Ulpius Marcellus in the North to deal with barbarians who had broken through the Wall. If this statement is correct, equestrians like LAC were being put into command roles - like a dux of legions - DURING the Northern campaign.
Priscus, who may have been the senatorial legate of the Sixth Legion, where LAC was prefect, was dismissed. The mutiny that offered this Priscus the purple is thought to have been brought about by the harsh methods of Ulpius Marcellus. In the words of Birley:
"Dio does not make clear whether or not there was any appreciable interval between Marcellus’ victory and his recall, but it is plausible to suppose that it was the fall of Perennis, not to mention the mutinies, which led to Marcellus’ prosecution on his return."
Historians have a fondness for sequencing. We like to see a clearly discernible pattern, an arrangement of events A through Z. But sometimes things occur synchronically. What I would propose happened is this:
Marcellus is fighting in the North of Britain. While the war is going well, his methods give rise to a mutiny. The troops offer Priscus, legate of the Sixth Legion, the purple. Priscus wisely declines the honor. Commodus immediately, WHILE THE WAR IS STILL IN PROGRESS, reacts to the mutiny by stripping all legates of their office. LAC suddenly finds himself in charge of the Sixth Legion - the very legion which is spearheading the Northern campaign.
Enter the iuridicus of Marcellus, Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus. Birley tells us:
"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 acting governor 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"
But Birley also says this of the rank of iuridicus:
"...the iuridicus [an official of praetorian rank], whose responsibilities were clearly restricted to the civilian
sphere. Since the number of known holders of the office is very limited, it may be inferred that iuridici were only appointed when the governor was heavily engaged in military activity at considerable distance from the pacified
part of the province."
Thus while Crescens was acting-governor, who was not a military man. He would not have been made a dux of three legions being brought against armed men. LAC, on the other hand, was perfectly positioned to be made dux and continue the war in the North with the Sixth and detachments from the other two British legions.
This could not have happened while Ulpius Marcellus was still governor.
The 1,500 spearmen would have been sent to Rome by the disgruntled legates, who had been removed from the posts. Perhaps by Priscus himself.
If, on the other hand, the war in the North had been completed before Marcellus was recalled, we must assume the armed men LAC faced with three legions were rebellious Roman soldiers. Birley does state that the army remained mutinous under Crescens and until the arrival of Pertinax. But if three legions, led by LAC of the Sixth, were loyal, who would be leftover to oppose them with such strength that three entire legions were needed to suppress them?
It is even more difficult to place LAC in the time of Pertinax, despite the efforts of the latter to quell mutiny in Britain:
"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." [Birley]
We can, as Malcor and colleagues do, opt to place LAC after Pertinax and before Albinus, as we may have a couple year gap between known governors. By the time we get to Albinus...
"Albinus crossed into Gaul, with, no doubt, a large part of the British garrison, and was proclaimed emperor there.
It may be that before Albinus left Britain he exacted from the northern peoples beyond Hadrian’s Wall promises that they would keep the peace, ‘the promises’ that they did not keep, which Dio refers to in connection with Virius Lupus’ first actions as new governor in 197 (74(75)." [Birley]
Needless to say, for Albinus to be able to leave Britain for Gaul, the unrest in his province must have been settled. We might presume that LAC had been the party who accomplished this deed. While Marcellus had dealt with the North, it is possible LAC did later, before Albinus arrived on the scene. If so, he would have both put down rebellion and pacified the North.
So how do we decide if LAC belonged between the governorships of Marcellus and Pertinax or between those of Pertinax and Albinus?
We can't, really. In my mind, the acting-governorship of the civilian iuridicus Crescens, combined with the dismissal of the Sixth Legion's legate Priscus, would have provided an officer such as LAC the perfect opportunity to shine.
On the other hand, if we opt for the gap between Pertinax and Albinus, we must argue on the basis of a notable change in the conditions prevailing in Britain, i.e. a transition from the overwhelming rebellion Pertinax faced to a Britain that could suffer the loss of its forces in service of an Imperial usurper.
***
DIO CASSIUS -
Perennis,6 who commanded the Pretorians after Paternus, met his death as the result of a mutiny of the soldiers. For, inasmuch as Commodus had given himself up to chariot-racing and licentiousness and performed scarcely any of the duties pertaining to his office, Perennis was compelled to manage not only the military affairs, but everything else as well, and to stand at the head of the State. 21 The soldiers, accordingly, whenever any matter did not turn out to their satisfaction, laid the blame upon Perennis and were angry with him.
2a 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,
[HISTORIA AUGUSTA - 6 2Yet in spite of his great power, suddenly, because in the war in Britain46 he had dismissed certain senators and had put men of the equestrian order in command of the soldiers,47 this same Perennis was declared an enemy to the state, when the matter was reported by the legates in command of the army, and was thereupon delivered up to the soldiers to be torn to pieces.48]
— they did not become quiet, in fact, until Pertinax quelled them, — now chose out of their number fifteen hundred javelin men and sent them into Italy. 3 These men had already drawn near to Rome without encountering any resistance, when Commodus met them and asked: "What is the meaning of this, soldiers? What is your purpose in coming?" And when they p91 answered, "We are here because Perennis is plotting against you and plans to make his son emperor," Commodus believed them, especially as Cleander insisted; for this man had often been prevented by Perennis from doing all that he desired, and consequently he hated him bitterly. 4 He accordingly delivered up the prefect to very soldiers whose commander he was, and had not the courage to scorn fifteen hundred men, though he had many times that number of Pretorians. 10 So Perennis was maltreated and struck down by those men, and his wife, his sister, and two sons were also killed. Thus Perennis was slain, though he deserved a far different fate, both on his own account and in the interest of the entire Roman empire, — except in so far as his ambition for office had made him chiefly responsible for the ruin of his colleague Paternus. For privately he never strove in the least for either fame or wealth, but lived a most incorruptible and temperate life; and as for Commodus and his imperial office, he guarded them in complete security.
❦
46 In 184. According to Dio, LXXII.8, the Britons living north of the boundary-wall invaded the province and annihilated a detachment of Roman soldiers. They were finally defeated by Ulpius Marcellus, and Commodus was acclaimed Imperator for the seventh time and assumed the title Britannicus; see c. viii.4 and coins with the legend Vict(oria) Brit(annica), Cohen III2 p349, no. 945.
❦
47 An innovation which became general in the third century, when senatorial commanders throughout the empire were gradually replaced by equestrian.
❦
48 According to Dio, LXXII.9, it was at the demand of a delegation of 1500 soldiers of the army of Britain, whom Perennis had censured for mutinous conduct (cf. c. viii.4). (p279)The mutiny was finally quelled by Pertinax; see Pert. iii.5‑8.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.