Duci legionum trium Britan(n)ici{an}arum adversus Armenios
Leader/Conductor [Dux] of (vexillations/detachments of) the three “Brittannician” legions against the Armenians
Why is it that all the top Latin epigraphers and Roman military historians have no problem accepting implied vexillations in the Lucius Artorius Castus inscription? We find this expressed everywhere.
Here is a good example...
From Vol. 1 of Dobson:
"L. Artorius Castus was appointed dux of vexillations from three legions after being
prefect of one of them."
From a personal communication by Professor Doctor Lukas de Blois:
"This dux Castus certainly was the equivalent of a praepositus vexillationum. I was thinking of wars on the continent, for example under Valerian and Gallienus, who used vexillationes from Britannia. Within Britannia there were several possibilities. To make war in Scotland governors or emperors such as Septimius Severus might have used at least the entire legion from York plus vexillationes from elsewhere, even from neighbouring provinces. In the attachment you will find some praepositi vexillationum.
PRAEPOSITI VEXILLATIONUM
ILS 8870, Oinoanda, the 250s, Valerius Statilius Castus, praepositus
vexillationum. An interesting case. He also mentions himself ally of the Caesars.
Pflaum 1960 II, p. 598-601, nr 225, CIL X 6657 = ILS 1387, Antium, M.
Aquilius Felix. Period of Septimius Severus. Cf. AE 1945, 80. See HA, Didius
Iulianus 5.8; Niger 2.6; Sev 5.8, cf Cassius DIO 73.17.1. He was: ad census eqq
R, pr.classis praetoriae Ravennatis, procuratos patrimonii bis,
proc.hereditatium patrimonii privati, proc.operum publicorum,
praepos.vexillationum, primus pilus leg.XI Claudiae, centurio frumentarius,
patronus of colonia Antium.
Ulpius Victor, CIL III 1464 = ILS 1370, period of Septimius Severus +
Caracalla, Dacia. He was: proc.Aug.prov.Daciae Apulensis agens v.p.item
proc.prov.Porolissensis, subpraefectus annonae sacrae urbis, praepositus
leg.VII Geminae Antoninianae item proc.stationis privatae per Tusciam et
Picenum item proc.ad bona Plautiani, trib.mil.leg.II Parthicae Antoninianae,
praepositus vexillationis auxiliariorum Pannoniae Inf., praef.coh.VII
Breucorum
Helvius Pertinax, Pflaum I, 1960, 451-4, nr 179; in 171 AD he was praepositus
vexillationum.
Pflaum 1960 I nr 181bis, p. 476-494, plus III nr 181bis p.982, M. Valerius
Maximianus. AE 1956, 124: M.Valerius Maximianus. A long career. In AD
171 he was praepositus vexillationum."
And from Dr. Alfred Hirt:
"The title dux is suggestive of vexillations as the title does not otherwise have significance in military language up to Diocletian. As for vexillations and duces, I tend to customarily turn to Saxer, R. (1967): Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Diokletian. (Epigraphische Studien, Bd. I ). Köln."
From Professor Michael A. Speidel:
"I agree with Roger [Tomlin]. A dux legionum of the second century will have commanded a task force made up from detachments, not entire legions, and led them to their operation area."
"I agree with Roger [Tomlin]. A dux legionum of the second century will have commanded a task force made up from detachments, not entire legions, and led them to their operation area."
From "The military and administrative reforms of the emperor Gallienus", pp. 74-75 (http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7550/1/7550_4615.PDF by PD Britton, 1981, Durham University):
From R. E. Smith's 'Dux, Praepositus,' Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Bd. 36 (1979), pp. 263-278 (16 pages) (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20185810?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad05dd9b57b4f2ea93e9929f7823f5410&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents):
"Marcus Aurelius was confronted from the outset of his reign with military problems which required exceptional methods to death with... and this situation was, in fact, to become endemic in the third century. Two titles were used, legatus and praepositus, the first title not surprisingly confined to senators, the second almost entirely to equites... The first case need not delay us long, that of M. Valerius Lollianus, an eques, praepositus in Mesopotamia vexillationibus... If, as seem likely, this belongs to the reign of M. Aurelius, it should be dated to c. 163-6... [NOTE: Other more recent scholars have dated this praepositus to the reign of either Trajan or Hadrian; see David Kennedy's https://www.academia.edu/11331587/The_special_command_of_M._Valerius_Lollianus.]
Up to the end of the Antonine period the word [dux] had a certain currency as a general term which meant 'army commander' without its having a special or specific technical connotation. But from the time of Severus its use becomes more frequent, and this trend continues throughout the third century, until by the time of Diocletian it is established as the official title of certain army commanders."
We can go to several other sources and find the same thing. One of the most commonly accessed is this one by renowned scholar Tully, which concentrates on camp prefects as vexillation commanders:
GEOFFREY D. TULLY
THE STRATARXHS OF LEGIO VI FERRATA AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF CAMP PREFECTS AS VEXILLATION COMMANDERS[1]
aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 120 (1998) 226–232
© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn
[Note: I have removed the footnotes from the article to increase readability and avoid format problems.]
In November 66, during the early stages of the Jewish War, Cestius Gallus was taking the outer suburbs
of Jerusalem and would have captured the city forthwith, we are told, had he not been diverted from an
immediate attempt, primarily by Turranius Priscus, a stratopedãrxhw (praefectus castrorum) in his
army.2 Later attempts failed to take the city, and once Cestius had decided to withdraw, his army was
quickly set upon by the rebellious Judaeans and consequently suffered numerous casualties during the
retreat, one of whom Josephus says was ‘Priscus’ – this time, the ‘stratãrxhw of the Sixth Legion’.3
The two passages have often been overlooked,4 and the title stratãrxhw at BJ 2.544 has been translated
both as legatus legionis and praefectus castrorum.5 Because of the varied interpretations of
stratãrxhw, the above names, i.e. ‘Turannius Priscus’ and ‘Priscus’, have nearly always been dissociated as being those of different officers.6 However, an examination of the Bellum Judaicum and other
evidence reveals that Josephus did not use the term stratãrxhw as the technical equivalent of any
specific rank in the Roman army, but rather as a more general word for ‘commander’ or ‘leader’. The
picture which emerges is that Turranius Priscus and Priscus were one and the same person, and that
while this officer held the ‘rank’ of praefectus castrorum, (stratopedãrxhw) ‘his assignment’ at the
time of Cestius’s campaign was as the commander (stratãrxhw) of a vexillation from the Sixth Legion.
This is significant, as the notion that camp prefects could even command legionary vexillations on
campaign from as early as the first century has only recently been raised.
Unfortunately, we have no epigraphic or other literary evidence for the commanders of the Sixth
Legion between c. 19 and 70,7 which might otherwise confirm or disprove a translation of stratãrxhw
as meaning legatus legionis. Our dilemma, moreover, is not alleviated by the fact that Josephus uses the
term stratãrxhw on only one occasion, i.e. to describe the above Priscus. An appropriate starting point,
therefore, is to examine the language which Josephus uses to indicate the rank of legatus legionis.
Mason lists three words which are used by Greek writers for this rank, two of which appear in Josephus, i.e. êgvn and taj¤arxow.
8 While Josephus uses êgvn (leading) on a single occasion to indicate that Sextus Cerealis was the legate of the Fifth Legion,9 the word, in itself, is not the technical equivalent of legatus legionis, but instead relies solely on the context of the sentence to take on this meaning. Similarly, Josephus does not appear to use taj¤arxow as a term for this rank either, but rather as a term for ‘senior officers’ in general (e.g. ofl taj¤arxoi pãntew).10
Obviously Josephus employed another term for legatus legionis and this is ≤gem≈n.
11 Of the eleven instances in which Josephus refers to legionary legates by name, ≤gem≈n is used on ten occasions.12 But on most occasions (26 in all) Josephus simply refers to anonymous ‘≤gemÒnew’ under more senior commanders, such as Mark Antony, Vespasian, Mucianus and Titus.13 This use of the word is clearly meant to include the legionary commanders on most, if not all, occasions. Indeed, some of the best examples of the employment of ≤gem≈n for legatus legionis appear in Josephus’s description of the Roman army’s order of march into Galilee,14 and in his account of the organisation of the Jewish army along Roman lines.15 This aside, Josephus curiously uses the word ¶parxow – a term widely attested as the equivalent of praefectus16 – on a single occasion to describe Sex. Vettulenus Cerealis, the legate of V Macedonica.17
That Josephus is usually consistent in the terminology he employs for Roman army ranks is supported by the fact that he nearly always describes commanders above the rank of legionary legate, such
as Vespasian, by the term strathgÒw18 and those below the rank by terms such as ¶parxow (praefectus)19 and xil¤arxow (tribune).20 Thus, if Priscus had been a legionary legate, we would expect Josephus to have described him as the ≤gem≈n (or perhaps as the ¶parxow) of the Sixth Legion. That he is not so described suggests that Josephus was not implying this rank by the use of stratãrxhw. We are still left, therefore, with the problem of what Josephus meant by stratãrxhw.
stratãrxhw is not a commonly attested word, surviving in only 67 literary and one epigraphic
example,21 and an examination of its employment in a few of these cases will suffice to illustrate how
Josephus most likely intended stratãrxhw to be understood. Regrettably, our sole epigraphic example
is highly fragmentary and sheds little light on our understanding of the word:
- KasianÚw doÁj fisxu[rÚw? ------]
énØr stratãrxhw §n ----------------
flppas¤aiw krãtistow ---------------
deinow no . . ----------------------------22
The inscription gives Cassianus the title of doÊj (dux), which is attested from as early as the reign of
Domitian, and was originally used to denote the commander of an operation or the commander of
vexillations.23 The fact that both doÊj and stratãrxhw appear on the same inscription appears to argue
that they have quite different meanings, but just what the relationship is between the two is impossible
to say.24 All we can say is that Cassianus was a seemingly capable officer who is mentioned both as dux and stratãrxhw.
The surviving literary evidence of stratãrxhw, on the other hand, is far more helpful. Herodotus,
Philo and Zonaras each use stratãrxhw in the sense of a ‘general of an army’.25 This use of the word
appears to support Liddell and Scott’s suggested translation of stratãrxhw, i.e. ‘general of an army’,
and, in a Roman context, Mason’s translation as ‘legatus legionis’. But Philo elsewhere uses stratãrxhw as a word to describe God, or to denote a religious ‘leader’ of the people, such as Moses.26
Obviously a translation of ‘general’ in these circumstances is inappropriate, and consequently casts
doubt on the intended meaning of the earlier examples just cited, in which a translation of ‘commander’
or ‘leader’ fits equally well. However, it is Philo’s use of the word to describe the events leading up to
the arrest of A. Avilius Flaccus (prefect of Egypt c. AD 32–38), which perhaps gives us the greatest
insight into its use. Bassus, the centurion sent to effect the arrest, was anxious for military support upon
his arrival and ordered one of the soldiers on duty in Alexandria to show him the house of the
‘stratãrxhw’, here clearly standing for the praefectus castrorum Aegypti,27 which elsewhere is recorded in Greek as the stratopedãrxhw t«n épÚ ÉAlejandre¤aw dÊo tagmãtvn.28 Of central importance
is the fact that Philo came from a wealthy family in Alexandria and lived all of his life under Roman
rule.29 He, therefore, must have known the technical title of the military commander in Egypt.30 But it
may well be that the use of such a technical and specifically Roman term like stratopedãrxhw, with its
implication of a camp commander, would have been less relevant to his Greek readers,31 and so Philo
instead has Bassus refer to this officer as the stratãrxhw – clearly not meaning legatus legionis – but
something more like ‘the military commander’.
stratãrxhw, therefore, should not be translated as a technical term which equates to a specific
Roman military rank, such as legatus legionis or praefectus castrorum, but with a more general meaning, such as ‘commander’ or ‘leader’, and this is what Josephus has done in relation to Priscus. Shortly after informing us that Turranius Priscus held the rank of stratopedãrxhw (praefectus castrorum), Josephus gives us the additional information that he (Priscus) had fallen during the retreat from Jerusalem and emphasises the importance of this loss by telling us that Priscus was, at that time, the stratãrxhw (‘commander’ or ‘leader’) of the Sixth Legion. In this regard, it is important to remember that the whole of Legio VI Ferrata did not accompany Cestius on the campaign.
In preparation for the expedition, Josephus informs us that Cestius assembled the whole of Legio
XII Fulminata and 2,000 vexillation-soldiers (§p¤lektoi) from each of his other legions, in addition to
numerous auxiliaries. The identity of the other legions which provided troops is regrettably still somewhat uncertain, but it is generally accepted that a vexillation of VI Ferrata did participate.32 Thus, when Josephus describes Priscus as the ‘commander of the Sixth Legion (stratãrxhw tãgmatow ßktou), what he really meant was that Priscus was the commander [of the vexillarii] of the Sixth Legion (stratãrxhw [§pil°ktvn] tãgmatow ßktou).33
Although we have a reasonable amount of evidence for the commanders of what could loosely be
termed ‘legionary vexillation-groups’ (i.e. two or more vexillations under the one commander),34 we
have very little information on the men who actually commanded individual legionary vexillations on
campaign.35 Until quite recently, the accepted theory was that, prior to the Marcommanic Wars, only
senatorial officers could lead these detachments, i.e the commander of the legion (the legatus legionis)
and his second in command (the tribunus laticlavius).36 However, the career of M. Clodius, an equestrian tribune placed in command of vexillarii from Legio V Macedonica at some time under Claudius or Nero, clearly shows that equestrians were also considered suitable for these commands.37 Since Clodius and other tribuni angusticlavii like him were on the fourth level of seniority in the legionary chain of command, we should not be surprised to find that the third in command of a legion38 was also eligible for the command of vexillarii on campaign.
In a recent paper, Saddington has noted that camp prefects could be assigned to the command of
vexillations (plural) on campaign during the first century.39 But although his conclusion, in the view of
the present writer, is quite correct, his statement is based on the example of Aeternius Fronto, the stratopedãrxhw t«n épÚ ÉAlejandre¤aw dÊo tagmãtvn, who commanded the detachments drawn from
Egypt for Titus’s campaign in Judaea.40 This office was clearly far more senior than the average post of
praefectus castrorum in the legions outside Egypt,41 and cannot be used as evidence that all camp
prefects were eligible for the command of vexillations.42 Indeed Dobson pointed out some twenty years ago that camp prefects were employed as the commanders of vexillations.43 His statement is based on three epigraphic examples, two dating from the latter half of the second century and the other from the late third. However, the identification of Turranius Priscus in this role shows that camp prefects from the legions outside of Egypt were commanding war-vexillations in the first century. This is further supported, moreover, by other literary evidence, which is given here for clarity’s sake, along with the epigraphic evidence cited by Dobson. The provinces and dates listed indicate where and when the detachments were operating.
1. Pannonia AD 14
Interea manipuli, ante coeptam seditionem Nauportum missi ob itinera et pontes et alios
usus, postquam turbatum in castris accepere, vexilla convellunt . . . praecipua in Aufidienum Rufum praefectum castrorum ira . . .44
2. Germania AD 14
at in Chaucis coeptavere seditionem praesidium agitantes vexillarii discordium legionum, et
praesenti duorum militum supplicio paulum repressi sunt. Iusserat id M. Ennius castrorum
praefectus . . .45
3. Britain AD 51
praefectum castrorum et legionarias cohortes exstruendis apud Siluras praesidiis relictas
circumfundunt.46
4. Armenia AD 58
. . . Corbulo, ne inritum bellum traheretur utque Armenios ad sua defendenda cogeret,
excindere parat castella, sibique quod validissimum in ea praefectura, cognomento Volandum, sumit; minora Cornelio Flacco legato et Insteio Capitoni castrorum praefecto
mandat.47
5. Judaea AD 66
Turranius Priscus – stratãrxhw [§pil°ktvn] tãgmatow ßktou (see above).
6. Italy (?), Raetia and Noricum c. AD 167–180?
. . . praeposit(us) v[exillationum | per Ital(iam)?] et Raet(iam) et Noric(um) [bello | Germanico?, pra]ef(ectus) kastr(orum) Leg(ionis) II Tra[ianae Fortis, primo pilo . . . ] . . . 48
7. Lower Germany c. AD 190
[I(ovi) O(ptimo)] M(aximo) et Gen[io vexil(lationis) Leg(ionis) I M(inerviae) P(iae) F(idelis) . . . pro sal(ute)] | im[p(eratoris)] M(arci) Aur(elii) Com[modi] Aug(usti) sub | Cla[ud(io)] Apollin[are l]eg(ato) Leg(ionis) I M(inerviae) | 5et Sa[bi]nio Nep[otian]o pr(a)ef(ecto)
vexil(lationis) | sub c[ura] M(arci) C[laudii(?) Va]lentis sig(niferi) | Leg(ionis) I [M(inerviae)] I[mp(eratore) Commodo VI et Sep]t(imiano) co(n)s(ulibus).49
8. Gallia Lugdunensis late third century
. . . L(ucius) Artori[us Ca]stus . . . [pr]aef(ecto) Leg(ionis) VI Victricis, duci leg(ionum)
[duaru]m Britanicianarum adversus Arm[oricano]s . . . 50
[BLOG AUTHOR'S NOTE: LAC BELONGS TO THE LATE SECOND CENTURY, AND ARMORICANOS SHOULD HERE BE REPLACED BY ARMENIOS.]
The evidence as a whole is not abundant, but it does show that camp prefects were commanding detached forces on campaign from as early as AD 14. [Emphasis here supplied by the blog author.] Promotion to the rank of praefectus castrorum was considered an additional distinction to those who had already reached the primipilate,51 and men of such seniority and experience are not likely to have been overlooked for such responsible positions. Indeed, when it came to the choice of which officer a legionary legate (perhaps aged in his early 40s) might choose to command a vexillation for a campaign, it is important to remember that many of his junior officers, i.e. the senatorial tribune and perhaps many of the equestrian tribunes, were aged somewhere between 18 and 24, and that at this age they were not always responsible individuals.52 By contrast, the camp prefect was probably aged in his 40s or older and possessed a great deal of experience,53 and in many instances was likely to have been the better choice, despite any humble origins. Moreover, when a legion was called upon to supply two or even three separate war-vexillations at more or less the same time,54 it is only logical that the third-in-command of the legion must at least have been considered for the command of one of these detachments, provided he could be spared from his usual responsibilities.
It is now clear, therefore, that all of the legionary officers above the primuspilus, i.e. the tribuni angusticlavii, the praefectus castrorum and the tribunus laticlavius were utilised by legionary legates as the commanders of war-vexillations from early on in the first century.55
In conclusion, there is no longer any reason to view ‘Turranius Priscus’ and ‘Priscus’ as separate
persons, simply because of the use of the term stratãrxhw. The evidence from Philo and others shows
that this word was not used as the technical equivalent for any particular rank in the Roman army, but
rather as a more general word for ‘commander’ or ‘leader’. It is therefore attested both for an officer in
charge of two legions (i.e. A. Avilius Flaccus) as well as for one in charge of only a portion of a legion
(i.e. Turranius Priscus). Although our extant sources provide only a limited number of examples of nonsenatorial officers in command of legionary vexillations on campaign, there is enough evidence to
suggest that camp prefects could be assigned as the commanders of war-vexillations if the situation
justified it, and indeed the extensive wars and campaigns of the first century may even have necessitated their employment.
An appendix on the evolution of the role of dux is found at the end of Tully's study, and Professor Lawrence Keppie is sending that to me via snail-mail. I will make it available here on my blog site once I have it in hand and have scanned it.
Another interesting piece by Tully is his "Did Centurions Lead Detachments of Their Legions in Wartime?", viewable here:
Only just the other day I had yet another discussion with Professor Roger Tomlin on this topic. I had asked him about an unusual inscription involving a centurion who had led legionary forces as a dux:
publication: CIL 06, 01645 (p 854, 3163, 3811, 4725) = D 02773 = IDRE-01, 00019 = EAOR-01, 00026 = AE 1965, +00223
dating: 247 to 249 EDCS-ID: EDCS-18100446
province: Roma place: 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)
Tomlin's response was illuminating, as always:
"It's an odd phrase, but I take it to mean that after service in the Praetorian Guard (to which he returned) he was senior centurion of one of the legions in Dacia – not specified – and at one point commanded detachments of them all.
I still think a 'dux legionum' will be commanding detachments, not whole legions, if only because two or three whole legions would be commanded by the legate of the province; if he was dead and unavailable, then by one of the legionary legates acting 'pro legato'. For a centurion to replace them all, even the laticlave tribunes available, seems impossible to me.
I have been wondering if you have looked at the career of Velius Rufus (ILS 9200), one of Vespasian's generals. He is 'primus pilus' of XII Fulminata, who does all the things that LAC did a century later: 'prefect' of a whole string of legionary vexillations (the legions named), procurator with 'ius gladii', etc. Kennedy wrote an article about him in Britannia 14 (1983), but it's long since I read it.
I think Loriot [in his piece on LAC] may be over-insistent on dated inscriptions. After all, LAC isn't 'dated'; and Velius Rufus is doing these things under a different title."
I had not yet explored the career of Velius Rufus. Fortunately, while the Britannia piece is available through subsciption to the journal only, I was able to find the following very respectable Web page devoted to the subject that cited Kennedy's study as a primary source:
https://www.livius.org/articles/person/velius-rufus/
https://www.livius.org/articles/person/velius-rufus/
Velius served as primus pilus (the highest ranking centurio) in XII Fulminata, and immediately after, he was made commander (tribunus) of the Thirteenth Urban Cohort, which was based in Carthage. In c.85-87, he was the "leader [prefect] of the army of Africans and Mauritanians that suppressed the nations that live in Mauretania", and received his second set of decorations: another mural crown, two spears, and two banners.
This was his first independent command, and the emperor, Domitian, must have known about him, and must have asked him to come to the north, to the Danube, where a large war had started against the Dacian king Decebalus. After a couple of setbacks, the Romans defeated their main enemy, and an expedition was sent out across Dacia, to the Sarmati, Quadi, and Marcomanni beyond the Dacians. Velius was the commander [dux] of a vexillatio of nine legions, which means that he was in charge of a force made up of subunits from other legions.
Here is a complication, because the inscription mentions only eight units, all from Britain and Germania Superior.
There's one legion missing, XI Claudia.
The numeral VIIII is wrong and there were only eight legions involved.
It is common to accept the first option.
I could continue dredging up more and more examples to support the universally held belief that vexillations on the LAC stone are implied, but have reached the point where I consider further efforts to be a waste of time and energy. It is, therefore, with great relief that I am suspending my search.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.