I've been researching, and given the horrible shape the army was in at the end of Pertinax's term as governor, and given that Albinus was able to be declared emperor and use his British army in the civil war against Severus, it is clear that he had resolved the problems in Britain himself and won the troops over to his side.
And, indeed, when one reads Birley, the possibility that he was governor immediately after Pertinax is not denied, but is actually offered as a possibility:
From Birley (THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN):
"Dio says Albinus is governor of Britain immediately after the murder of Pertinax in March 193."
Now, Birley goes on to say this:
"The HA specifically states in the biography of Pertinax (Pert. 12. ) that he
did not replace any of those ‘whom Commodus had placed in charge of
affairs’, so it may be taken that Albinus was already in Britain in 192. This
confirms the garbled remarks in Victor, as well as in the vita Albini, that he was
appointed by Commodus. He was probably not the direct successor of
Pertinax, whose tenure terminated abruptly, at his own request, hardly later
than 187. Otherwise, Albinus would have been in Britain for over five years by
the time of Commodus’ death: not impossible, but it is a priori likelier that he
was appointed in one of the years 190–2."
"However this may be, Albinus was in Britain at latest in 192."
Yes, 5+ years was a long time to be governor. But we have several known instances of governors seving longer than this. The infamous Pontius Pilate, for example, was governor of Judea for 10 years! As we know the British army was in terrible disarray, and still making trouble even upon Pertinax's departure, it makes sense to have made Albinus governor immediately. And he may have been so effective as to be kept on in that post. Truth be told, the situation on the ground may have required his continued presence in the province.
He had made himself quite famous in his earlier career and was just the kind of man Britain needed at the time. What Britain didn't need is an upstart equestrian commander of one of the disaffected legions (if the legates were actually replaced - which I don't think they were!) being made acting governor. Yet this is the theory proposed by Dr. Linda Malcor and her colleagues.
Thus the case for LAC as the "unknown governor" is extremely weak, and it is much wiser to go with Albinus, merely allowing for him to be the successor Pertinax himself had requested so he could be excused and go back to Rome. The very successor we are told he "accepted", i.e. approved of. It is scarcely credible that anyone in Rome who was familiar with the sad state of affairs in Britain would have appointed a high-ranking military officer of one of the British legions to replace Pertinax.
NOTE:
I am checking with experts on Roman provincial governors and will add their feedback here, as their responses come in. So far, I have heard from Prof. Christopher Fuhrmann:
"During the Republic, terms were supposed to be one year, but the senate often needed to keep governors out there an additional year or two. That system remained for several provinces under the Empire whose governors were still appointed by the senate (typically internal, peaceful provinces like Sicily, Africa, Achaea, Asia…). The emperor hand-picked the governors of frontier provinces and these guys tended to stay out there longer. I’d guess two or three years was the average. It’s complicated because as you know, some were left in power much longer – this was a big part of the problem under the late Julio-Claudians, helping lead up to the Jewish Revolt and civil war of 68-69. In short, I think Nero was just extremely negligent. Commodus certainly has negligence in common with Nero!"
***
***
Prof. Roger Tomlin:
"Ulpius Marcellus enjoyed an unusually long tenure at about the time you are talking about.
I cannot see Artorius Castus as acting-governor: he was only dux, i.e. commander of detachments drawn from legions. If he had served as pro legato [acting in place of the Emperor's legate], praefectus of the province, or whatever, he would have said so. And it would have been an extraordinary – unparalleled? – appointment.
It's difficult to imagine a praefectus castrorum ever being an acting-governor, since this post would have gone first to the procurator or a legionary legate. Which puts four men at least ahead of him. The likeliest term he would use would be pro legato.
An equestrian dux of three (whole) legions would be a rare fish, for the same reason. I would be surprised to find one before Gallienus.
Praefecti pro legato
"equestrian prefects given charge of legionary forces, often equivalent to provincial commands"
For more on the pro legato and the praefectus pro legato, see
Professor Davide Faoro, who has published on pro legato and similar designations, agrees that LAC was most certainly NOT acting governor of Britain. But he holds to the view that had LAC been so, he would have had a different title:
"If he had been an interim governor of equestrian rank, his title would have been agens vice praesidis in II cent. AD."
"If he had been an interim governor of equestrian rank, his title would have been agens vice praesidis in II cent. AD."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.