THE ABSURDITY OF L. ARTORIUS CASTUS AS COMMANDER (DUX) OF THREE ENTIRE BRITISH LEGIONS: MY FINAL SAY ON THE SUBJECT

Sad to say, recent communication with one of the authors of the article "Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription”, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 47, 2019, pp. 415-437, has led to me once again bash my head against the brick wall - or, perhaps I should say, against the stone inscription!

The crux of the craziness lies in the interpretation being foisted onto these connected, partial lines:

AEFF LEG VI

VICTRICIS DVCI LEGG [………….]M BRITANICI

MIARVM

Now, there isn't an epigrapher or Roman military historian in the world who has a problem with this inscription.  We start with PRAEFF for prefect.  The second F may be an error, or may refer to LAC continuing to be a prefect of the Sixth Legion when performing his dux command.  It is unlikely to refer to him being given the position again after he fulfills his dux command.  The consensus is that the second F is an error, and one easily explained (Tomlin and Keppie are both in agreement on this one).

So, we have a man who is prefect of the Sixth Legion.

We next discover him being made dux or commander over three British detachments.  The authors of the 'Missing Pieces' article are still claiming this means a prefect of the Sixth was put in command of three entire legions.  They are also claiming that he was a prefect acting in the capacity of a legatus in regards to the Sixth legion.  Most instead prefer to view him as a camp prefect.

Here is the problem with what they want LAC to be (and we are not going to go into what a dux was or was not and when - that has been thrashed to death already)...

For LAC to have military command of the Sixth Legion, both the legate of the legion and his second in command, the tribunus laticlavius, would have to be indisposed or dead.  Now, for such a man to also be put into command of both the other entire legions, we must presume that their legates, tribunes and camp prefects were also indisposed or dead.  Apparently, in this scenario the only other high-ranking officer in all of Britain (other than the various tribuni angusticlavii, of which there were five belonging to each legion) was, well, the governor of the province himself.  But wait - there's more!  Because the authors of  'Missing Pieces' go so far as to imply that Castus also became a sort of interim governor.  Which means there was no real governor or vice-governor to be had. Castus "ruled" all of Britain, just like the legendary King Arthur.  

All of this is independent of whom the adversary ARM[...]S happens to be.  

Now, there is one possible way out of this mess - sort of.  We can say that LAC, an equestrian, was made commander of the Sixth legion when the senatorial legate was dismissed by Perennis.  But this still doesn't help with how and why the new commander of one legion suddenly assumes the command of all three!  It is possible he led the Sixth with detachments from the other two legions against an internal enemy, but this still does not justify his claiming to have commanded three legions.  He, therefore, either meant to imply three detachments in order to save space on the stone or he was intentionally exaggerating the nature of his command.  

Roger Tomlin has stated quite bluntly that the whole legionary complement of Britain (which had the largest military complement of any single province) was never going to be moved against anyone, anywhere, and certainly not by one man.  This is mere common sense.  A substantial portion of one legion might be brought to bear against an enemy, but even then its legionary base would have to be left manned with a sufficient defensive force, or the base would have to be protected by another force brought in for that purpose.  The idea that three legionary fortresses were emptied of their legions and led ADVERSUS/"against" someone under LAC is simply not a tenable position to hold.  

The truth of the matter is that he led detachments of the three legions, while being camp prefect of the Sixth.  And this means that his superiors were alive, and that he was given his command - his temporary role as dux - by the legates.  If the commanders of the other two legions were also (thanks to Perennis' decree) now equestrians, presumably prefects of their respective legions, why would they give command of their own legions over to LAC?

I won't be giving the 'theory' proposed in the text of  'Missing Pieces' additional consideration.  I will wait for what is supposed to be a new paper being written by the same authors in defense of their earlier theory.  When that comes out, I will treat of it as objectively as I am able, and post the results of my analysis here.  

As it stands right now, the 'Missing Pieces' theory reads more like a vintage Superman comic book than it does a valid historical reconstruction.