THE SIMPLE LOGIC BEHIND 'ARMENIOS' AS THE PROPER READING FOR THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION

"DUX OF THREE BRITISH [VEXILLATIONS] AGAINST ARMENIA"

Sometimes, when direct evidence is lacking, and even an abundance of indirect evidence is considered insufficient, an Arthurian researcher who is seeking an objective result must rely upon logical argument. In recent days, it has become obvious to me that as far as the LAC stone is concerned, I must fall back on the latter method.  Not because I remain unconvinced, and not because all scholars and most laymen remain unconvinced.  Rather, I must do so because there is a very vocal minority, holding to its own fanatical opinion (one that runs counter to common sense), who insists on both disparaging better theories and personally attacking the character and methodology of anyone who dares support such.

I tried for a long time to reason with the party in question, and to work with them on reaching a consensus.  This attempt was a mistake.  Only now do I realize I was doomed to fail from the outset.  Although I asked the "opposition" more than once that if they continued to behave abominably towards me and my ideas I would have to discontinue all interaction with them, they ignored my entreaty.  They continued the barrage of misinformation as well as sundry unpleasantries.  Because of this, I have decided I can no longer sustain any kind of relationship with them that even approximates something rational.  Communication with them has been terminated and will not resume in the future.  Being present in their so-called debates was eroding my own credibility.  In truth, I was warned I was beginning to "sound rabid" in my defiance of their nonsense, and even "desperate."  While it is important for me to defend good scholarship, whether mine or someone else's, it is also not my job to try to prove I'm right and everyone else is wrong.  I leave that to the those who have opted to subscribe to preconceived belief and rampant bias and who have no problem twisting and bending the academic process to suit their own needs. 

Members of the Arthurian community in good standing need to purge disruptive and unhealthy elements from our midst.  Bad scholarship, pseudo-scholarship, troll-like behavior - it can no longer be tolerated. All of that is ruining the field of study.  Already many are leaving it, and most actual scholars won't touch it with a ten-foot pole (unless they are participating in some esoteric literary study that manages to avoid any hint of a treatment of the historical Arthur). The only good way to rid ourselves of such harmful factions is to ignore them.  Don't shine light on them, don't engage with them.  Shut them out. Once they find themselves totally neglected and alone in the dark, we can hope that they will eventually dissolve and disappear.  

With that out of the way, I wish to here briefly recount my reasoning for supporting the proposed ARMENIOS reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S.  It should be enough to remind my readers that every single established, respected, professional Roman military historian and Latin epigrapher I have contacted or whose material I have read now hold to the view that the most probable reading for ARM[...]S is ARMENIOS.  Among these scholars are men of such caliber as Roger Tomlin and Anthony Birley (maligned through ignorance and arrogance by the party I have alluded to above).  The opposition cite only themselves (three in number), plus a man whose specialization is Sarmatian studies.  At least one other man, a well-known writer of a decidedly New Age/Neopagan/Neoshamanistic disposition, has proven to be another devotee of the Sarmatian Cause.  They claim they have support for their reading of ARMATOS, but when pressed to reveal that support they can only say that there are scholars in the East (China, Russia, etc.) who agree with them.  All these "scholars", of course, are also of the Sarmatian faction.  I have yet to receive the names of any of them, or citations for their studies.  If they exist - and they well might - their work is automatically suspect because they are operating from the standpoint of ethnic propaganda.  Some of these folks, for example, claim descent from the Caucasus Ossetians, themselves descendents of the Sarmatian Alans.

The Sarmation contingent (dare I say 'cult?) also consistently applies flawed and dishonest techniques to historical work.  They are not beyond conjuring scenarios for which no evidence exists at all in the literary, epigraphic or archaeological materials.  

I, on the other hand, have no axe to grind, whether religious, political, ethnic or otherwise.  Believe it or not, I am actually trying to find out the truth about these things.  And, to be perfectly frank, I don't care what the truth ends up being or how it effects others.  The truth is the truth, and should be valued for what it is.  In addition, I try very hard to adhere to proper scientific procedures.  I  may not always be successful, but when I make a mistake, I admit it - publicly.  I am also not afraid to change my mind - or even my theory - whenever I feel new evidence and/or a better argument demands I do so.  My opponents never admit their errors, and never, ever apologize for anything.  They remain intractable and obdurate, fixed forever in their blind faith. 

Let us now treat of the three proposed readings for the ARM[...]S of the LAC stone. 

1) ARMATOS

This is universally rejected because it is a neutral term, and is both excessively obvious and vague, nonspecific and ambiguous.  The best summation of the academic opinion on ARMATOS for ARM[...]S was stated (via private communication) by Professor Roger Tomlin, recognized as one of (if not THE) foremost British Latin epigrapher:

"Did any Roman officer ever boast instead of marching against INERMES [unarmed men]?" 

Tomlin then went on to list any number of terms that could have been used that would have passed along information deemed necessary on the inscription.

LAC simply would not have said that he took three British legions (or vexillations of three British legions) against 'armed men.' The suggestion, really, is ludicrous. 

Tomlin's final assessment of ARMATOS is worth quoting again in full:

"I think ARMATOS would have been used adjectivally, and a Roman writer would have specified who had taken up arms. There are many such terms, which could have been used on their own – REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES, DEFECTORES, DESERTORES ...

If it were a matter of internal security, I would have expected a term such as this. That they were 'armed' would not need to be stated."

If we opt for LAC's legionary forces having fought inside Britain, as the Sarmatian contingent insists they did, Tomlin had the following to offer:

"REBELLES would be a possibility, if it was assumed that the invading tribes were in a treaty relationship and had broken it. It has been argued that Roman outward pressure caused some tribes to coalesce, e.g. CALEDONIOS. And later, the 'Picts' are an example – as in the dice box tower (AE 1989, 562) which reads: PICTOS | VICTOS | HOSTIS | DELETA (etc.).

HOSTES PVBLICOS, possibly. 

He might have said something like HOSTES P.R., but I still go for the name of a tribe. 'Armed men' is much too vague for his audience in Croatia, and the rest of his epitaph is severely factual."

2) ARMORICOS

I was the first person to demonstrate that ARMORICOS could, actually, be fit on the stone.  The reading was abandoned by the Sarmatian contingent after they had defended it for decades.  Why?  Because they thought it wouldn't fit on the stone.  They found themselves needing something other than ARMENIOS, the only other good option.  If they were forced to accept ARMENIOS, then they had to say goodbye to their precious Sarmatian connection.  But I showed incontrovertibly that ARMORICOS could fit with a couple of quite allowable ligatures - ones that could be shown from precedent-setting inscriptions found in Dalmatia at the same time of LAC.  

We do know that there were problems in Gaul under Commodus.  Specifically, we may point to the so-called Deserters' War under a certain Maternus.  

My reasons for shying away from ARMORICOS are few, but significant.  First, we have no record of any force being sent to Armorica in the time period we are referring to.  Second, we would expect LAC to have written not ADVERSUS ARMORICOS, but instead 'against Maternus' or 'against deserters', etc.  There is no evidence that the Armoricans themselves, or rather the tribes living in Armorica, were the enemy.  Third, we have not a single additional stone mentioning Armorica.  Not one.  Fourth, an observation by Roger Tomlin:

"ARMENIOS I think more likely than ARMORICOS, both because it fits more easily (but, I repeat, the other will also fit) and because my guess is that 9 out of 10 Liburnians would have heard of 'Armenia', but only 1 out of 10 'Armorica'. That is bare assertion, of course, but I can't help feeling that LAC was expecting his readers to know what he was referring to."

3) ARMENIOS

The argument in favor of Armenia is circumstantial, but still compelling.  

We may begin with the sending of the Roman governor of Britain, Statius Priscus, to Armenia to command the war there.  This Priscus may well have been born in Dalmatia, as is true of Iulius Severus, (who hand-picked him),  as well as Lucius Artorius Castus.  Tomlin was the first to propose (and others, including the late Anthony Birley, subsequently agreed with him) that it was reasonable to assume some legionary detachments were brought with Priscus to Armenia.  While Britain is very far away from Armenia (pretty much on the other side of the Empire!), we know that a legion stationed at Bonn, Germany, on the Rhine was sent to Armenia, as were Danubian detachments.  Both Tomlin and Birley say the most likely route to be taken by Priscus involved going quickly up the Rhine and then down along the Danube.  In any event, the objection to troops going from Britain to Armenia because of distance is moot: obviously, Priscus himself had no trouble going there.  

Second, the most likely foundation date for the province of Liburnia (and, hence, the appointment of LAC to the procuratorship of the new province) is c. 168.  This military reorganization of Dalmatia was performed by the joint emperors, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at the outset of the Marcomannic Wars.  No other reorganization of Dalmatia is known, and all the scholars I have consulted have agreed that it makes no sense to look for the creation of Liburnia at the end of the Marcomannic Wars, or to have LAC appointed to a special office that may have only been held by him. 

Third, if we permit the 'proc cent' of the LAC inscription to be a formula only adopted in the time of Commodus (something I found at first occurring independently on another stone c. 190), we can have that carved on LAC's stone when he was retired and anywhere between his early 70s and early 80s.  This career time-line was devised and approved by Roger Tomlin, who says there is no reason LAC could not have been commissioned directly into the centuriate.  Of course, Tomlin warns us not to make too much of the proc cent, as just because we don't have other extant stones with this formula before 190 doesn't mean such didn't, at one time, exist.  In addition, we know of these ranks and payment levels from stones and other sources during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and much earlier.  But if we are to be generous and allow the formula to be a determining factor in the dating of the stone, the resulting date does not preclude LAC from having gone to Armenia under Priscus.

It is for these reasons that I must side with ARMENIOS as the most probable reading of the ARM[...]S of the LAC stone.  Should future evidence materialize that runs counter to this position, I will immediately taken it into consideration should I need to revise my thinking on the subject.  

A NOTE ON THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM: IMPLIED VEXILLATIONS OR COMPLETE LEGIONS?

All along, the academic community has insisted that 'vexillations', missing from the LAC memorial stone inscription, is implied.  I have, for the most part, agreed with this assessment.  When one uses this as a baseline for exploration of the ARM[...]S of the inscription, two candidates emerge for the fragmentary word : Armenia and Armorica.  For the former we have a well-known recorded event, while for the latter we possess no independent record of conflict (other than the possibility that the so-called Deserters' War seems to have involved Gaul). 

However, an extensive search on my part has failed to produce another single example of a stone where vexillations is implied.  While it is true that Castus, from the standpoint of vanity, may simply have been exaggerating his status as duke by choosing to leave out any mention of vexillations, this is not a very satisfactory solution to the problem.  Anyone who knew him or who knew of him would immediately recognize that he was lying in the context of a perpetual monument.  Such an intentional omission seems, for that reason, to be highly unlikely.  At least in the opinion of this writer.

Professor Roger Tomlin told me several months ago that all three legions would never have been removed entire and simultaneously from their bases and brought against anyone, whether in country or without.  However, as LAC was prefect of the Sixth, he could well have led his own legion (assuming the legate and senior tribune were adsent or dead) plus generous vexillations drawn from the other two British legions during an action in-country.  In this sense, he might have felt justified in proclaiming on his stone that he was dux (temporary military commander) of three British legions.

Tomlin wished to emphasize this point, because it meant that whether LAC was leading troops inside or outside of Britain, a minimum of two vexillations from the other two British legions would be implied.  

I think the solution to this problem is not anywhere near as difficult as the Sarmatian contingent would have us believe it is.  Anyone reading that LAC had led three British legions to Armenia or Armorica would recognize immediately that vexillations were intended, for the entire legionary complement of the large British province would never have been sent to either place.  Sure, such a statement might have been seen as somewhat of a lazy one or might even have been taken by some "not in the know" as a rather glaring carving error. But it did serve to get the message across in less space and with less effort on the part of the carver. 

Professor Roger Tomlin himself holds this same view, telling me that

"He [the carver] may have been saving space – we know he was pressed for it – and no one would think an entire legionary garrison would be taken out of a province for service elsewhere. He was quite capable of error: BRITANICIMIARVM certainly, and [PR]AEFF."

I would add that the shift from nominative to dative case in the inscription is probably also simply due to an error on the carver's part.  [An alternative explanation for the case problem is proposed here:  https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/709592.Some_Problems_Concerning_the_Reading_of_the_CIL_3_12813.pdf.]

 

The Sarmatian contingent has a different take on this, of course.  For them, LAC is de facto governor of Britain, and as such he is commander of the entire legionary complement of the province.  They will not retract this falsehood, despite the overwhelming body of evidence that supports the accepted scholarly view that dux did not have the meaning they are trying to assign it during LAC's floruit.  Nor have they been able to provide any real evidence in support of their contention.  

During the 2nd century, a dux was a junior officer who was given a special, temporary command assignment.  As Tomlin makes clear, LAC would have reverted to prefect status when his mission was completed.  In the case of the expedition against Armenia, he was appointed commander of the legionary detachments that accompanied Priscus to the East.  

I would advise my readers to discount their claim that LAC was de factor governor of Britain.  Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that he was just that, we are forced to answer a difficult question: how did he become de facto governor?  For that to have happened, not only would the governor of Britain have to be dead or left unappointed, but any vice-governor would also have to be dead or somehow indisposed, and every single senior officer of all three legions would have to be dead or absent (meaning all legates and senior tribunes).  Although much is made of Commodus' replacement of senatorial legates with equestrians, the point is exaggerated in the Classical texts for the usual political reasons.  The fact of the matter is, as Tomlin has demonstrated with examples, equestrians had been given posts traditionally reserved for senators prior to the reign of Commodus. Equestrians were even officially raised to the senatorship.  It happened, for instance, under Marcus Aurelius.  Bear in mind that we also have nothing on LAC's stone about him holding the rank of legate.

To suggest, as the Sarmatian contingent does, that a prefect of the Sixth Legion became effective governor of Britain is, therefore, preposterous.