Hadrian's Wall
I. THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS STONE INSCRIPTION
First off, what the inscription does - and does not - say.
It does not say that LAC was camp prefect more than once. The PRAEFF has, by all authorities I've checked with, been easily accounted for as a correction of a stone-cutting error.
Prefect in this context is also not more than what it says. We know that because we have a stone in which prefect is used without castrorum and is listed together with another officer, the actual legate of the same unit. We can be sure, then, that he was Prefect of the Sixth - as stated. This does not amount to an abbreviation, as a prefect of the Sixth cannot be anything other than that, whether we add castrorum or not.
The VI after proc centenario does not designate 6 years. It is part of the following VVS. Again, I have this from all authorities. When years are mentioned on a stone, they represent the sum total years a soldier has served before retirement or death. The stone does not say he was procurator of Liburnia six times or for six years.
And the 'dux of three British legions' bit? Well, it has been customary to read into that an implied vexillations. But I have argued that there is nowhere another stone with such an implied meaning for a dux leggionum. Xavier Loriot, “Un mythe historiographique : l’expédition d’Artorius Castus contre les Armoricains” (Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, 1997), Pg. 85-86, pointed out
that CIL inscription 06 1645 was the first dated mention of a dux legg (ionum) (under Philip the Arab (244-249).
CIL 06, 01645 (p 854, 3163, 3811, 4725) = D 02773 = IDRE-01, 00019 =
EAOR-01, 00026 = AE 1965, +00223
Province: Roma
Locat:ion Roma
praef(ecto)]
veh[icul(orum) proc(uratori)]
lud(i) ma[gni proc(uratori)]
Lusit(aniae) trib(uno) p[raet(orianorum)]
Philipporum A[ugg(ustorum)]
p(rimo) p(ilo) duci legg(ionum) Dac(iae)
|(centurioni) corn(iculario) praeff(ectorum) pr(aetorio)
But this inscription does not allow us to assume vexillations are meant. By the mid-third century, dux had taken on the quality of an actual rank. It no longer designated merely an officer of lesser rank who had been granted ad hoc command on a temporary basis for a special, limited military purpose.
I have remarked at length how strange it would be, given the available space on the stone and the ability to abbreviate vexillations any number of ways, that a man who proclaimed he was alive when his stone was made (and could thus personally vouch for its accuracy) would intentionally leave out that information.
The only way I can account for the lack of vexillations on the stone is to propose the following scenario: LAC had assumed command of the Sixth after its legate was killed and a significant portion of it destroyed. This is exactly what we would expect a camp prefect to do in the event the senior officers of the Legion were lost in battle. And we know this exact thing happened in the early 180s under Commodus, when several tribes breached the Wall and killed a 'strategos' (Dio) and his troops. While the argument continues to rage as to whether this strategos should be considered a legate (doubtless of the Sixth) or a governor, Birley opted for the former. Were the strategos the governor, and the legate of the Sixth were still alive, there would be no need for the legionary prefect to take over.
A depleted Sixth may have been reinforced with generous vexillations from the other two British legions. In this sense, then, LAC would be justified in writing 'dux of three British legions.' The space required to write that he was dux of the Sixth (or dux "of the same", as he had just declared himself prefect of that legion) plus commander of vexillations from the other two British legions (which might have had to be named) was excessive. So he simply said commander of three British legions.
ARM[...]S of the inscription continues to bedevil us. The formula 'procurator centenarius' is first found in the reign of Commodus. [1] While pay grades are mentioned in inscriptions before that time, and are certainly found in earlier literary sources, if we accept the late Antonine and Severan periods for the stone's date range, then ARMENIOS (a reference to Statius Priscus' campaign there in the early 160s) is out. We could still opt for AR[E]MORICOS, an unprovable reference to the Deserters' War under Commodus, except for one obvious problem: we would have to have a prefect of the Sixth, based in the North of England, heading up three legionary vexillations to the Continent. Not only does it make little sense to send a camp prefect of the legion responsible for guarding northern Britain to the Continent, we are once again forced to accept the implied presence of vexillations on the stone.
ARM[...]S of the inscription continues to bedevil us. The formula 'procurator centenarius' is first found in the reign of Commodus. [1] While pay grades are mentioned in inscriptions before that time, and are certainly found in earlier literary sources, if we accept the late Antonine and Severan periods for the stone's date range, then ARMENIOS (a reference to Statius Priscus' campaign there in the early 160s) is out. We could still opt for AR[E]MORICOS, an unprovable reference to the Deserters' War under Commodus, except for one obvious problem: we would have to have a prefect of the Sixth, based in the North of England, heading up three legionary vexillations to the Continent. Not only does it make little sense to send a camp prefect of the legion responsible for guarding northern Britain to the Continent, we are once again forced to accept the implied presence of vexillations on the stone.
Not to mention the fact that the war in Britain under the governor Ulpius Marcellus was not over until 184. Maternus is believed to have first rebelled c. 180, with the heaviest fighting of the Deserters' War happening in 186 and Maternus' death in 187 (https://journals.umcs.pl/rh/article/viewFile/9556/8305). The British army after Marcellus' victory was in mutiny. It continued in a mutinous state up through the governorship of Pertinax (185-187, according to Birley). Birley thinks that one of the ways the mutinous British troops may have been dealt with was to ship a bunch of them to the Continent to fight in the Deserters' War.
We have three remaining complicating factors in all this. One concerns the why Marcellus, after winning the war in Britain, was almost executed by Commodus "thanks to his peculiar excellence" (https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/73*.html). The second concerns the Priscus who was offered the purple by the British troops, and who may have led British troops after leaving the Sixth and serving with the Macedonian legion. The third had to do with the 1500 spearmen sent to Rome to execute Perennis. I will attempt to deal with each of these, one at a time.
Dio's account makes it sound like Marcellus was condemened to death, and later pardoned, for no other reason than Commodus was jealous of him - or perhaps feared him as the governor in charge of the British garrison. Birley thought that Marcellus got himself into trouble for causing the mutiny following the successful British war, and that the Perennis affair may also have had something to do with it.
But we need to look to Priscus as well. As Birley points out, the HISTORIA AUGUSTA tells us that Commodus was declared Britannicus at the same time the British troops wanted to make one of their own Emperor. So, quite literally, the British soldiers tried to raise up Priscus immediately upon the completion of the war.
Why did the soldiers mutiny?
The account of Dio is pretty straight-forward:
The account of Dio is pretty straight-forward:
"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, — 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."
The Augustan History adds an interesting detail:
"Yet 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."
"Yet 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."
Tomlin thinks this substitution of equestrians for legates has been exaggerated, as we know of equestrians before Commodus (including during the reign of his father, Marcus Aurelius) who assumed positions normally reserved for senators. I think it should be taken into account, of course, when combined with the general discontent that found its focus, rightly or wrongly, in the person of Perennis.
It is also difficult to tell the exact sequence of events in terms of cause and effect. For instance, did the British troops try to make Priscus (almost certainly legate of the Sixth at the completion of the war) emperor because equestrians were replacing legates, or were legates replaced by equestrians as a result of their insubordination? For if you are worried about someone of senatorial class becoming emperor, you need only put in his place someone of the equestrian class, who cannot become emperor.
In any case, Priscus refused the dubious honor. What happened then? Birley claims he would have been removed from office. But we really know nothing else about this man unless we rely upon some very shaky reconstructive work of several verey fragmentary inscriptions. As Tomlin has noted, we don't even know if the relevant inscriptions even refer to the same man. But the inscriptions do seem to show us a man who was legate of the Sixth at the right time. For details, see Gregori's article here:
I'm taking the liberty of offering here a very poor translation of a key portion of that article:
"Probably around 184, when ours could have held his first legation of legion, there was a military uprising in Britain, following which some of the soldiers acclaim their legate as emperor, of which only the surname Priscus is known... Our senator was at a certain point in his career in charge of detachments drawn from the probably British legions. Since the senators in command of legionary vexillations were often chosen from among the former legions of one of the legions involved and considering that the first legion to which ours was bound bears the appellations of pia fidelis, it does not seem impossible that he had exercised command of VI Victrix, honored with those titles since the time of Domitian and stationed in Eburacum... enough space to integrate the epithet Victrix, abbreviated to the first three or four letters. While acknowledging that Priscus a very common surname, then I wonder if it is too risky to identify our senator with the contemporary Priscus protagonist of the episode mentioned by Cassius Dio."
I've already mentioned that between his posting as legate of the Sixth Legion and his commanding British vexillations, his is found serving in the Macedonian legion. We have no idea how much time he spent with that second legion, but it has been surmised the British detachments were being used in the Deserters' War.
Gregori concludes with the following statement:
"The office of [praep] ositus vexill. [leg. Ill Brita] nnicarum could be framed in the years 185-186, at the time of the bellum desertorum, also for comparison with Dio 72, 9, 2-4 (in 185 the 1500 soldiers of the British troops arrived in Italy to ask for Perennis' death)."
"The office of [praep] ositus vexill. [leg. Ill Brita] nnicarum could be framed in the years 185-186, at the time of the bellum desertorum, also for comparison with Dio 72, 9, 2-4 (in 185 the 1500 soldiers of the British troops arrived in Italy to ask for Perennis' death)."
In a footnote to https://journals.umcs.pl/rh/article/viewFile/9556/8305, the author states:
"Several hundred soldiers chosen from each of the three legions (l. II Augusta – Isca, l. VI Victrix – Eburacum, l. XX Valeria Victrix – Deva), which had stationed in Britannia, could have been delegated to these 1500 soldiers. Leaving for the continental part of the Roman state, they formed separate subunits (vexillationes), which is clearly presented by the inscription of Titus Caunius Priscus (Gargilius Quintilianus?), legatu legionis legio VI Victrix pia Fidelis / legatus Augusti. Cf. AE 1995, 231 (Roma) AD 191–192: ‘[praep]osito vexill(ationum) [leg(ionum) III?] [Brita]nnicar(um)?’; G. Gregori, Un nuovo senatore dell’età di Commodo?, ‘Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik’ 1995, 106, pp. 270, 273–274, 277; G. Migliorati, op. cit., pp. 201–206."
Birley has a wonderful discussion of Priscus in his THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN. I am pasting it here entire:
"This unusual career can be dated by Commodus’ names, a style first assumed
in 191.¹⁴¹ The restoration of VI Victrix as one of the legions which the honorand
commanded depends on Alföldy’s conjecture that he is identical with the
legate Priscus (LL 35). A summary may be offered of Alföldy’s discussion. This
legate was no doubt a novus homo, to judge from his start as capitalis. Without
being military tribune, he went on to the three usual urban magistracies. After
the praetorship he was iuridicus in North Italy, then curator of Cirta in N.
Africa, before his first legionary command, of a legion with the title pia fidelis,
perhaps VI Victrix. If this is right, and he was the Priscus whom the legionaries
tried to make emperor, he was removed from this post by Perennis. He
certainly went on to command another legion, V Macedonica, in Dacia: a
second legionary command indicates trouble where the second one was based
and there was warfare in Dacia under Commodus (HA Comm. 13. 5). There
followed command over detachments of several legions, restored as [Brita]nnicarum.
Alföldy convincingly proposes that this force was assigned to deal with
the so-called ‘deserters’ war’ and can be identified with the ‘1,500 javelin-men’
from the British army who lynched Perennis near Rome in 185 (Dio 72(73). 9.
22–4) (cf. under Gov. 33)."
The problem here, as pointed out by Tomlin, is that LAC's dux command and the praepositus command of Priscus are two separate commands. We can't have LAC in Armorica fighting deserters with British vexillations as dux and Priscus being commander of the same troops.
Who was it that sent the 1500 spearmen to Rome? Well, a mistranslation has led many to believe that it was 'lieutenants', i.e. senior officers, who were responsible. But as Brunt has shown in his study "The Fall of Perennis: Dio-Xiphilinus 72. 9. 2" (https://www.jstor.org/stable/638138?seq=1), it was actually the soldiers themselves. If this were the case, it is difficult to understand how 1500 soldiers who were not sent on the authority of the British governor would be allowed to cross the Continent and meet with the Emperor. Never mind demand Perennis be handed over to be slain! Note that the Augustan History instead implicates the legates in command of the army.
How, then, do we make sense of all this?
Here is what I think may have happened...
LAC becomes ad hoc commander of British legions in the Northern war. He is eventually replaced by Priscus, who is probably installed by Marcellus. The war is won, but the troops mutiny. They try to raise Priscus to the purple, but he refuses. He is transferred to a posting with the Macedonian. But the Deserters' War heats up, and reinforcement are sent for from Britain. Among them is LAC, but these troops are put under the command of Priscus.
The one-time legate of the Sixth finds himself saddled with still-mutinous troops. In order to get them under control, he decides to dispatch 1500 Sarmatian heavy cavalry to Rome under LAC. LAC had proven himself in the British war and would certainly have been known to the man who became legate over the Sixth. Priscus had previously proven his loyalty to the Emperor by refusing the purple, and he aim was to lay the blame for everything - including a conspiracy - at the feet of Perennis. With Perennis gone, policies would be reversed and the British troops would at least for a time be mollified.
The question remains as to why LAC would not have referred to the Rome delegation on his stone. We can only assume that the praepositus Priscus was thought to be responsible for this act. In other words, it fell under his command of the British units.
For LAC as dux [2] to be de facto governor, as some claim he was, we are supposed to assume that the governor was dead. But before a prefect of the Sixth would become the de facto governor of the province, literally EVERYONE who was senior to him - ALL THE LEGATES, ALL THE TRIB. LATICLAVII, FROM ALL THE LEGIONS, AND EVEN ANY VICE-GOVERNOR, ETC., WOULD HAVE TO BE DEAD. So if we are going to continue to push this position, we need for account for that. I don't believe we can, and for that reason I think the idea rather absurd.
A similar objection must be raised to the argument which seeks to associate Perennis' policy of replacing senators with equestrians with LAC's being made governor. An equestrian prefect of the Sixth might be made legate of the Sixth - but not until he wa admitted into the senatorial class. For this we can see the stone of Marcus Valerius Maximianus in the time of Marcus Aurelius (http://rimskelegie.olw.cz/pages/articles/legincz/mvaleriusmaximianus_en.html). Governors also had to be members of the senatorial class. If LAC has been raised to the senate and become a legate or governor, he would have put it on his stone. And, as Tomlin and others have remarked, the insistence on claiming that Perennis' trouble lay in his replacement of senators with equestrians was the only reason for his being killed is wrong. There is good evidence for this being done before. While used as an excuse for the anger felt against Perennis, it is far more likely he was blamed for failed policies and other troubles, and may even have been a scapegoat offered up by Commodus. Perennis was also accused of conspiracy against the emperor. So the notion that because we are told Perennis replaced senators with equestrians we can extrapolate that LAC the equestrian was made governor is ridiculous. This is an ill-founded theory and must be abandoned.
It is very tempting to say that ARM[...]S does, indeed, stand for AR[E]MORICOS - despite the fact that the regional name only can be made to fit with difficulty on the stone and is not found on any other inscription. [ARMENIOS, incidentally, is also not found on any other stone.] But, again, if Priscus did command British vexillations, he and LAC could not have been commanders of the same force at the same time. It also does not make sense for LAC to have his own detachments and Priscus to have his at the same time. We would be talking about way too many troops having been removed from Britain right after a major war and during a mutiny.
So... here we are again. What is ARM[...]S? Must we resort to ARMATOS, 'armed men, soldiers, troops', as proposed by Dr. Linda A. Malcor and associates, an apparent reference to a mix of native enemies and rebellious soldiers? While the stone's 'dux of three British legions against' would seem to suggest conflict against the tribes that broke through the Wall, it does not carry with it any indication that the entire Sixth legion and large detachments from the other two British legions were being brough to bear against fellow Roman soldiers in the province. If LAC did fight on the Continent in the Deserters' War, it was under the praepositus Priscus; he would not still have been dux. Nor would he have been dux had Priscus sent him on the delegation to Rome.
My own suspicion is that ARM[...]S may refer to a tribal or regional name in Britain, or even a personal name, that we otherwise have no knowledge of. This is a disappointing, frustrating and uncomfortable position to take, but I don't feel that I can honestly do otherwise. We do know of some Ar- place and personal names in Britain, such as Arfon (Ar-mona), Arfynydd (Ar-monid/minid; associated with Rheged, so in the North), Argoet (Ar-ceto) and Arnemetia ('She who is in front of the sacred grove'). There are a good number of Continental Celtic place-names of this formation (see http://docshare02.docshare.tips/files/28516/285161581.pdf), like Ar[e]morica, and even tribal names (like that of the Arverni, 'they who are in front of the alder'; the fact that their main city was called Augustonemetum proves that the alder was their sacred tree).
We might even be justified in concocting a name from, say, the Maeatae, a known federation of tribes in the North that show up during the reign of Septimius Severus. According to Rivet and Smith, the base of the name is probably something like British maios and it designated either the larger people or, more likely, those of the larger part. A maios or Maeatae derived place-name fronted by Ar- would refer to a geographical region that was adjacent to this tribal federation's territory.
Unfortunately, engaging in that kind of speculation is purely imaginative and no scholar worth his salt would be willing to consider it. I mention it only because it reinforces our awareness of the fact that we have very few British place-names or tribal names - and almost no personal names - preserved in the Classical sources. We can safely assume there are a great many names and place-names that have been lost.
One such may have been referred to on the memorial stone of Lucius Artorius Castus.
Still, as LAC is referring to legionary forces being brought to bear against an enemy in Britain, and this enemy may have been composed of disparate elements, we might provisionally accept ARMATOS. It does not seem entirely satisfactory, but it may, in fact, be the answer to the riddle of the fragmentary ARM[…]S.
[1]
C. Annius Flavianus. Ergänzungen zu AE 1980, 959
Gabriele Wesch-Klein
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Bd. 77 (1989), pp. 151-154 (5 pages)
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH
Procurator c at 190 A.D. He is twice described as PROC C, and the second C has a tilde over it, indicating abbreviation, i.e. c(entenario).
We do have evidence for pay grades on inscriptions and in literary sources prior to Commodus, but no instance of procurator centenarius on a stone.
[2]
I am distressed that no matter how many times I myself or others (including top Latin epigraphers and Roman military historians) insist on trying to correct the miconceptions being promulgated regarding the role of the dux in the Romam army, those continue to be regurgitated. There is a stubborn resistance to acknowledging errors and the conclusions that derive from those errors.
To address this point, I have scoured the literature again. The best treatment of dux I could find is from this article, one I have confirmed as valid:
Dux, Praepositus
R. E. Smith
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Bd. 36 (1979), pp. 263-278 (16 pages)
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH
The relevant passages on dux occur on pp. 273-274. Hopefully, this material will serve to at least partially alleviate the confusion over the nature and significance of the role played by a Roman dux in the Antonine and Severan periods.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.