Carnac Stones, Brittany
Dr. Linda A. Malcor and her colleagues, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani have sought to solve the problem of a prefect commanding all three legions by wrongly interpreting his dux rank as a reference to him being an equestrian governor. They then plug him into the gap in governors for the years 187-191. They have no evidence in support of either claim, of course, and I've found myself falling into the same trap when looking to support ARM.GENTES in the context of one of the two known Roman counter-offensives in the North during the time period we are considering (the first under Commodus, and the second under Severus).
The most recent assessment of the date of the Castus stone by Dr. Abigail Graham
(https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/02/the-most-recent-date-analysis-of-l.html) is quite convincing and agrees with the view put forth by Dr. Benet Salway. Both scholars see the stone as Severan. I feel that they are right and this date must be preferred over the Antonine one offered by Professor Roger Tomlin. ARMENIOS as a reading for the lacuna does not work, if this analysis of the stone is correct.
We could easily opt for ARMORICOS, if we could justify an outright rebellion of Armorica associated with the Deserters' War under Commodus. Professor John Drinkwater, an expert on Roman Gaul, has no problem accepting the existence of such a rebellion:
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2025/01/armorica-rises-professor-john.html. I've often noted that it does not seem like a coincidence that the 1500 spearmen who go to Rome during the Deserters' War happen to be comprised of a number that would exactly equate to 500 men each from each of the three legions - a force that sounds suspiciously like the vexillations led by Castus.
Occam's Razor also favors a reading of ARMORICOS, as this is simply more likely than ARM.GENTES. Furthermore, ARMORICOS (as I have rendered it on the stone) actually fits better than ARM.GENTES (which seems a bit cramped). Please compare the following two reconstructions.
It would seem that the only way to save ARM.GENTES would be to have Castus lead large detachments North against the British tribes. This did not happen under Severus. During those campaigns we are quite certain all three legions would have been employed in the North. They would not have been under the command of a prefect.
But what about the Marcellus campaign?
Well, what little evidence we have suggests that the Marcellus counter-offensive was handled strictly internally, i.e. there was no use of forces brought in from outside of Britain to assist in the effort. It is now believed (see Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERMENT OF BRITAIN) that the "general" killed on the Wall, an act which precipitated the Roman campaign, was probably the legate of the Sixth legion. If this happened when Castus was prefect, then until a senatorial replacement was found for the fallen legate, Castus would be in command of the Sixth.
Can we postulate that large detachments of the three British legions under Castus, probably accompanied by any number of auxiliaries, would have been satisfactory to at least launch a punitive expedition against the Northern tribes? And that Castus was appointed dux for that mission by Marcellus?
Highly doubtful. With a massive army, Severus was unable, ultimately, to accomplish his goals in the North. And the account we have of his campaign there suggests Roman casualties were significant (although exaggerated). My guess is that were mere detachments sent north these would have been annihilated.
Well, I put this question to Tomlin in long-form. Here is a copy of my email query to him, which concentrates on the 'entire three legions' problem:
"There has always been my problem with the 3 legion literal reading.
So here are a couple of related questions that I hope you will answer.
Here goes:
1)
For a prefect of the Sixth to be made dux of 3 entire legions, what conditions would have to apply?
Let's say Severus is going north. Simon Elliott plausibly suggests tge 3 legions go with Caracalla. Which means he's commanding that force. But even if Severus directly, in order for a mere prefect of the Sixth to claim to be commander of this force means the governor, the other legates and even the laticlavii tribunes were dead or missing. That makes no sense. Even less given that Severus had ample time and resources to backfill any vacant positions prior to his campaign.
Correct?
2) Even if we allow Castus to be an agens vice legati, i.e. acting legate of the Sixth (something not on his stone), we still have the governor above him, and equals in the other 2 SENATORIAL legionary legates, and the laticlavii and the Emperors also above him. Granted, a quasi-legate of the Sixth may well have been favored over other legionary legates for a campaign in the north, but how would Castus be justified in calling himself dux when surely this command belonged to any of the several superiors I just listed? If the legions were under Caracalla, for example, the emperor was commander, not Castus. At the most Castus agens vice legati would be commander only of his own Sixth Legion.
Correct?
3) Birley believed the general who was killed on the Wall under Commodus was probably legate of the Sixth, not the governor. If we go with this and we allow Castus to have temporarily replaced the slain legionary legate, the governor Marcellus would have commanded the legions on their push north. Castus would not be dux of the entire provincial complement in this instance, either.
Correct?
If we answer "Correct" to the previous 3 questions, then our only possible reading for the inscription is that vexillations are implied. Robert Saxer lists over 40 examples of inscriptions with implied detachments. So precedence for this is not a problem.
Where those vexillations were deployed is wrapped up in ARM[...[S, and we don't have to go there again."
His reply:
"If three whole legions had been assembled, and their commander-in-chief (the legate of the province) was suddenly a casualty, then one of the legionary legates would have taken his place.
Three whole legions – i.e. the provincial garrison – would only be commanded by the provincial governor or his acting-deputy.
If there were a major campaign in the north, like Severus', then all three legions would have been used, which would be too big a command for the equestrian prefect of only one of them, even if it were the Sixth.
Castus was not dux of three 'entire' legions. This is not what the term means, as you have demonstrated from Saxer. He was commanding a force drawn from all three legions, i.e. vexillations brigaded together.
Plenty of instances before 200 of procurators and prefects pro legato. Castus would surely have said so, if he had ever commanded the legion. Instead, he commanded detachments drawn from three legions."
When we put everything together - both the Severan date of the stone and the fact that Castus had to be leading vexillations - the only good reading for ARM[...]S is ARMORICOS.
Connecting a force sent to the Continent to fight the deserters with the 1500 spearmen who marched to Rome to demand the death of Perennis is problematic, of course. Dio seems genuinely puzzled how this force could have reached Rome without encountering any resistance. And that Commodus was persuaded to hand over his Praetorian Prefect to be executed despite that fact that his own Praetorian Guard greatly outnumbered the British troops seems rather bizarre.
Various theories have been proposed to explain this oddity. One of the most detailed - and reasonable - is found in John S. McHugh's THE EMPEROR COMMODUS: GOD AND GLADIATOR. In his opinion the size of the force meant that it was a protective detail escorting the "cashiered" senatorial legates back to the capital through territory disrupted and made dangerous by the ongoing Deserters' War. The senators may have apologized to the Emperor for the British mutiny, but laid the blame for it on the policies of Perennis. Cited as chief of these was Perennis' removal of the senators themselves and their being replaced by equestrians (like Castus). But McHugh mentions other potential causes of the unrest, like insufficient donatives being offered to the troops after their victory against the Northern tribes. Dio blames Marcellus for being an over-strict disciplinarian. There may have been many factors that contributed to the rebellious state of the army in Britain.
Any assessement of the situation at this time must recognzie the complexity of events and the general chaos that seems to have been playing out. All of these different problems were overlapping and related, either directly or indirectly. To make matters worse, we have conflicting accounts in Dio and Herodian of the Deserters' War. What in our sources is real history and what is garbled, propagandist or even fictional history?
One thing we can say with certainty: the 1500 spearmen who came to Rome were not recognized as seditious or treasonous. Had they been so, they never would have reached Rome. They were an official delegation of some sort, and they had permission to go have an audience with the Emperor.
Certainly, I do not have any problem with Castus and British troops being part of the operations to rid the Empire of Maternus. The following paper
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351783693_Emperor_Commodus'_'Bellum_desertorum') nicely discusses the possibility:
"Therefore, in the following months of AD 185 and AD 186 coordinated
military activities aimed at Maternus and his ‘deserters’ were probably
taking place52, in which not only the soldiers of the VIII ‘Augusta’ legion,
commanded by Marcus Iuventius Caesianus (legatus legionis VIII
Augustae), but also legionaries from other units were partaking. For
participating in this operation Commodus would grant these legions the
right to titles which referred to: ‘Pia’ (pious) – ‘Fidelis’ (loyal) – Commoda(ae/
ianae) (of Commodus). Amongst these units was also the XXII ‘Primigenia’
legion which stationed in Mainz (Moguntiacum). It was commanded by
Quintus Aurelius Polus Terentianus (legatus legionis XXII Pr(imigeniae)
P(iae) F(idelis)). From this legion came Ianuarius [D]osenu(s), who has
already been mentioned, and who died at the hands of the ‘latrones’.
Amongst other soldiers and officers participating in the operation against
the ‘deserters’ were also T(itus) Fl(avius) Vitalis and Sextilius P[…]. They
both served as centurions. What is more, they could have been also joint
by the legionaries from the legion I ‘Minervia’ which stationed in Bonn
(Bonna). Amongst the soldiers of the latter unit one Vettius Rufinus (V[e]
ttius Rufi/nus), as a centurion, commanded a subdivision of the military
police (statores) from two legions. Melius Gervinus and Titus Glavius
Hospitalis who represented this unit were also of a rank of centurions.
Furthermore, soldiers from the XXX legion ‘Ulpia Victrix’ stationing in
Xanten could probably also have participated in fighting Maternus and his
‘deserters’. Importantly, it cannot be ruled out that these 1500 legionaries
from Britannia who came over to Italy in order to deal with Perennis could
also be sent to the operation of suppressing the rebellion of Maternus’
‘deserters’. Finally, the task of fighting against them (or quite literally:
capturing them) in the territories of Gaul (Lugdunensis, Aquitania) was
also given to Caius Pescennius Niger, whom Commodus had appointed
(the turn of AD 186 and AD 187) as an independent commander (legatus
contra rebelles) of this operation. More importantly, as it turned out, he
succeeded in fulfilling his task. Perhaps Tertius mentioned before, who
was killed by the ‘latrones’ near Lyon, could have been somehow linked
as a soldier with the operation commanded by Perscennius Niger53.
Supervision over war operation against Maternus’ deserters in Upper
Germania – but perhaps also in Raetia – was held by Marcus Helvius [Cle]
mens Dextrianus (legatus Augusti pro praetorae provinciae Germaniae
superioris). On the other hand, a unit assigned from the legion VII ‘Gemina
Felix’, stationing in León, could have operated in the Iberian Peninsula,
in the strip of the Pyrenees, fighting the ‘deserters’. This subdivision was
commanded by a centurion, Iunius Victor54.And thus, a mass offensive of the Roman troops, carried out
simultaneously in the territories of a few provinces, let to encircling and
breaking up the largest groups of the deserters. The heaviest fights could
perhaps end already in August of AD 186. In the following months that
same year, practically until spring of AD 187, the Romans will pursue
Maternus and his remaining companions. In the case of the ‘deserters’
who had been taken prisoners, their sentencing started already in August
AD 186. For a proper conduct of judicature, is was a key matter to separate
the authentic ‘deserters’ from people who had been arrested randomly
by soldiers. And then in the group of the ‘deserters’, it was important
to separate the Romans from all those who did not have the Roman
citizenship. The task of verifying the socio-judicial status of the prisoners
could most likely be given to the officers of lower ranks, deployed by the
supervisors who had the right to condemn people to death (ius gladii). After
making the division into the so-called ‘nostri’, i.e. the Roman citizens, and
‘reliqui’ – ‘peregrine’, and ‘dediticii’, who came from the provinces, the
courts of law could be started, during which the Romans were judged in
accordance with ‘lex de rapina’, i.e. regulations regarding plunder with
the use of force (rapina) and robbery/banditry (latrocinium). In relation to
people of a different status – exempting, of course, those who were proven
to be actively involved in violence – financial penalties were imposed55.
As Herodian emphasised, Maternus realised that a fight with the
regular Roman army – which was sent against him on such a large scale
– did not promise even the slightest chances of success. Therefore, he
decided to leave his people behind in the provincial territories and carry
out an attack on Commodus in Rome. In order to avoid the pursuit of
the Roman soldiers who hunted down the ‘deserters’, Maternus set off
with only a small detachment of companions. Heading south, he travelled
through sparsely populated territories, using rarely frequented routes
and trails. Having reached the strip of the Alps and having crossed them,
Maternus entered Italy – which took place probably at the beginning of AD 187 – and realising that the guard by Commodus was held by the
praetorians protecting the emperor in this way from assassination, he
decided that the most favourable day to attack him was the so-called ‘day
of rejoicing/joy’ (Hilaria), which took place each year on the 25th of March
as one of the ceremonies in honour of goddess Magna Mater and Attis.
It was on that day, on the occasion of Attis’ rebirth that the procession was
organised, in which objects symbolising wealth were carried in front of the
goddess’ statue. Participants of the parade dressed up, putting masks on
their faces. As Herodian emphasised, they could pretent to be people they
were not in reality. Maternus decided that on the day of this celebration
he would dress up for the procession as one of the praetorians. And then,
together with his companions, after mingled with the crown ‘hastiferi’,
he could not only mislead the praetorian guards but, getting closer to
Commodus by surprise, kill him. The plan of this assassination was,
however, revealed. Maternus was betrayed by a few of his companions
who did not want their commander to become the ruler of the Roman state
after Commodus’ overthrow. A few days before the commencement of the
celebrations in honour of Magna Mater, Maternus and his people were
arrested. It was on the 25th of March AD 187 when the celebration for the
‘day of joy’ (Hilaria) started that Maternus was probably beheaded and
his companions were to be deservedly punished. After making sacrifices
to the goddess and vowing the votive gifts, Commodus, in turn, led the
procession in her honour in a joyful mood. And the people of Rome
who participated in the celebration were eagerly rejoicing at the ruler’s
rescue. In turn, the text of the Athenian inscription dated to AD 187 has
an annotation about Commodus’ military victory, and more precisely –
as is suggested by James H. Oliver – about the final victory in ‘bellum
desertorum’ in Gaul. Information on this event could reach Athens in May
or June AD 187. The concluding end to operations against the ‘deserters’
could have taken place perhaps at the beginning of AD 18856."
Now, most have seen in the story of Maternus in Rome a literary creation of Herodian. But it is interesting that during the period of the Deserters' War both the chief of the deserters and the 1500 spearmen from Britain who may have been sent to fight him in Armorica find themselves in Rome.
To Dio's account, I would like to add here Birley's treatment of Ulpius Marcellus' "fall from grace", which pretty much coincided with the murder of Perennis:
"By the time of Marcellus’ victory, perhaps in reaction to his harsh methods,
there was a mutiny, recorded in a fragment of Dio (72(73). 9. 2a)¹⁴³: ‘The sol-diers in Britain chose Priscus, a legionary legate (Ëpostr3thgon) as emperor;
but he declined, saying: “I am no more emperor than you are soldiers”.’ The
dating is supplied by the HA: ‘Commodus was called Britannicus by flatterers
when the Britons even wanted to choose another emperor in opposition to
him’ (Comm. 8. 4). Priscus was clearly removed from his post (see LL 35), as
were, apparently, the other legionary legates. Again, the HA supplies some
information: ‘but this same Perennis [the guard prefect], although so powerful,
because he had dismissed senators and put men of equestrian status in
command of the soldiers in the British war, when this was made known by
representatives of the army (per legatos exercitus), was suddenly declared a public
enemy and given to the soldiers to be lynched’ (Comm. 6. 2). Perennis fell in
185, for ‘when [Commodus] had killed Perennis he was called Felix’ (Comm. 8.
1): Felix first appears in his titulature in that year.¹⁴⁴ As well as the legionary
legate Priscus, a iuridicus can be identified who served under Marcellus, Antius
Crescens, later acting-governor (Gov. 34). His appointment at a time when
the governor was heavily occupied in the north fits the theory that the British
iuridicus was not a regular official.
Yet another sign of the mutinous spirit of the army of Britain is Dio’s
account (72(73). 22–4, in Xiphilinus’ epitome) of Perennis’ fate: ‘Those [sc. the
soldiers]¹⁴⁵ in Britain then, when they had been rebuked for their mutinous
conduct (for they did not in fact quieten down until Pertinax quelled them)
now chose out of their number one thousand five hundred javelin-men and
sent them to Italy’; Commodus met them outside Rome, where they
denounced Perennis, alleging that he was plotting to make his son emperor.
Commodus, influenced by Cleander, handed Perennis over to them to be
killed. Other sources have different versions of Perennis’ fall; and it remains a
mystery what 1,500 soldiers from the British army were doing outside Rome.
One possibility is that they were part of a task force rounding up deserters,
whose activities had reached alarming proportions in Gaul and Spain, and
perhaps even had got as far as Rome. Their inclusion in such a force may have
seemed a good way of dealing with them after the mutiny.¹⁴⁶Dio does not make clear whether or not there was any appreciable interval
between Marcellus’ victory and his recall, but it is plausible to suppose that it
was the fall of Perennis, not to mention the mutinies, which led to Marcellus’
prosecution on his return. Of course, if he had really served uninterruptedly
from 177 to 185, his governorship would have exceeded even that of Julius
Agricola (Gov. 11), exactly a century earlier. The replacement of the legionary
legates by equestrian commanders would have meant that for a time the only
senatorial official in the province was the iuridicus, who was made acting governor."
Here is my very tentative outline of what might have actually transpired and how Castus and his legionary detachments could best be made to fit into this picture:
In 180, a general on the Wall is killed by the northern tribes. This was probably the legate of the Sixth. The laticlave tribune of the legion, being senatorial, would have taken command until a replacement for the fallen legate was found.
The replacement legate is thought to have been Priscus, who was offered the purple during the mutinous period following the Roman victory under Marcellus in the North. Although he wisely refuses the purple, he is removed and sent to a new position on the Continent (to later end up commanding some German detachments, mistakenly interpreted at one point in time for British units). In reaction to this threat, Perennis removes the British legionary legates and replaces them with equestrian officers. Equestrians, after all, could not become emperors.
At this point Castus would become praefectus pro legato of the Sixth legion. This appears to be reflected in the PRAEFF of his inscription, usually thought to be a carving error. I would see "prefects" in this context as compression for two different ranks, praefectus castrorum and praefectus pro legato. [1]
I would see the sending of troops to Armorica as perhaps Marcellus' last major act as governor. Commodus had made his call for all provinces threatened by the deserters to send troops, and as Gaul was involved, Britain would itself have been adversely affected. Castus, who had replaced Priscus as commander of the Sixth, is given three legionary vexillations and sent across the Channel. This act on Marcellus' part would demonstrate that he still had control over the province and was able and willing to obey the Emperor's commands.
Operations in Armorica get under way, but mutiny in Britain continued. It became untenable for Marcellus to remain as governor there, and so he crosses to Armorica where Castus' force is mopping up. The governor then commandeers the spearmen as an escort to Rome through areas still suffering from the rampage of the deserters. [Note that the removed senators may have accompanied him; they lacked the authority themselves to lead the delegation.] Once in Rome he faces serious charges stemming from the conditions prevalent in Britain, but the blame is successfully shifted to Perennis, perhaps aided by charges of conspiracy being planned against Commodus (as per Herodian's account). Marcellus is exonerated, while Perennis is handed over for execution. Essentially, Perennis is made to play the scapegoat while appeasing the British army. The victorious governor was spared and found his way back into the favor of the Emperor.
For his role in all of this, Castus is awarded the procuratorship of Liburnia.
We may allow Castus to have been made procurator in or shortly after 185, the date of the killing of Perennis. He probably remained in that role until Severus succeeded Commodus in 193. With a few years in retirement and then having his memorial stone carved while he yet lived, we have our perfect Severan date for the inscription.
ARMORICOS would seem to be the winner of the Castus Sweepstakes. At least, after 5 years of study on the subject, this is the best that I personally can come up with. While it was not my favorite candidate, I did have difficulty discounting the 1500 spearman (always in the back of my mind, pretty much haunting me!) and was the first one to demonstrate that the regional name would actually fit in the space allowed for the lacuna.
Professor Tomlin's response to this proposed scenario was succinct, but encouraging:
"I have no real objection to your reconstruction."
And Professor John Drinkwater's take on it:
"Yes, I can see where you are coming from here in terms of sewing together our (poor) textual and epigraphic information. It makes a good story and connects events in Armorica with those in Rome."
[1]
From Roger Tomlin on this idea:
"It's a good idea, and quite possible that he progressed from being Camp Prefect to deputising for the legionary legate (dead or temporarily absent or removed). But I would like to see an inscription which spelt out this progression.
I am not happy with PRAEFF meaning 'prefect twice' [as proposed by Malcor et al]. I think this would be spelt out with 'bis' or 'iterum'. So far as I know, PRAEFF is only used of an officer who is on the staff of the prefects (plural), especially the (two) Praetorian Prefects. I don't think it is even used of an officer who proceeds from being prefect of one unit to being prefect of another. You would have to find examples even of this. Centurions, for example, who transfer from one legion to another simply repeat the term. He doesn't call himself 'centurions' (followed by a list of legions).
And I would expect you to find me an instance of AVGG meaning 'Emperor twice'!
There is an equally bad error only two lines below, in BRITANICI|MIARVM. It's easy to miss a typo when you are reading what you expect to read.
It's even possible that the offending F was plugged with plaster which has since been lost. But I don't think so. Instead it would be a mistake which goes back to the original layout (in charcoal?), when PRAEF was drafted like PRAEP immediately above. But then the stone-cutter, who knew that PRAEF was intended, mistakenly attached an E to A, mis-reading the next letter (E) as the final F?
A mistake – essential a muddle between E and F in the draft, by the stone-cutter mis-reading the cartoon someone else had prepared for him – is easier to suppose than a unique instance of PRAEFF meaning 'prefect twice'."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.