THE ARGUMENT AGAINST CASTUS IN 160S ARMENIA

"At this time, moreover, came the Parthian war, which Vologaesus planned under Pius⁠ and declared under Marcus and Verus, after the rout of Attidius Cornelianus, than governor of Syria.⁠ And besides this, war was threatening in Britain, and the Chatti⁠ had burst into Germany and Raetia.  Against the Britons Calpurnius Agricola⁠ was sent..."

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Marcus_Aurelius/1*.html

The argument for L. Artorius Castus, prefect of the Sixth Legion at York, leading British legionary vexillations to Armenia in the 160s can be summarized as follows:

1) The British governor Priscus is sent to Armenia to command the army there.

2) ARMENIOS does fit in the lacuna on Castus' memorial stone.

3) The preferred date of the stone allows for the early Severan period (although barely).

4) Shortly after the victory in Armenia, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus militarily reorganize Dalmatia as a buffer zone between Italy and the invading Marcomanni. This reorganization could account for the formation of Castus' province of Liburnia.

I once thought this a very strong case in support of the Armenian theory. But I no longer hold to that view. Many of the reasons why I changed my mind have been expressed elsewhere. In this piece I wish to concentrate on one overlooked fact: the condition of Roman Britain just before and right after Priscus's brief tenure as governor of the province.

The British governors during the period in question are as follows (from A. Birley's THE ROMAN GIVERNMENT OF BRITAIN):

JULIUS VERUS 

"His governorship of Britain is datable to 158 by the Ravenglass diploma and

the inscription from Birrens, north of the western end of Hadrian’s Wall. As

the diploma was issued in February, he must have arrived in Britain at latest in the previous year. But it could well have been even earlier. The inscription from Newcastle reveals the arrival, under Julius Verus, of soldiers from each of the three British legions, who had been ‘contributed to the two German armies’. Coins of 155 show ‘Britannia subdued’, suggesting that there had been military problems there.⁴⁸ What they were is not clear, but it is surely preferable to discount supposed evidence in Pausanias (8. 43) for hostile action by the Brigantes involving an attack on the (otherwise unknown) ‘Genunian district’.⁴⁹ At any rate, it seems likely that Verus, as governor of Lower Germany, was well placed to bring back to Britain men who who had been serving in Germany, perhaps to use their skills at frontier construction at a time when the limes in Upper Germany was being extended to the outer line.⁵⁰ He may have been appointed to deal with the trouble after only a short stay in

the Rhineland. The epigraphic record of his activity extends from the southern Pennines, at Brough-on-Noe, to the outpost fort at Birrens, north of the western end of Hadrian’s Wall. He was also active at Corbridge. Another inscription, not mentioning his name, is dated by the consuls of 158 to his governorship, and records rebuilding work on Hadrian’s Wall itself.⁵¹ The archaeological evidence from the Antonine Wall indicates that it was evacuated at about this time—for good: the second Roman occupation of Scotland had thus lasted at

the most for some eighteen years. Verus’ successor may have completed the withdrawal and one or two outposts may have been retained.⁵² One of his legionary legates, of VI Victrix, was probably Q. Camurius Numisius Junior, who took up the post after commanding another legion, which can be interpreted as an appointment to deal with a crisis (LL 28). Measures taken by Verus or his immediate succcessors may have included the following, all datable to the ‘mid-Antonine period’: the abandonment of all or most of the

Cumbrian system of towers and milefortlets; further replacement of the western, turf part of Hadrian’s Wall in stone; the construction of the ‘Military Way’ as a lateral road just south of the Wall, with a new bridge across the North Tyne at Chesters (Cilurnum); and perhaps also over the Irthing at Willowford; a new fort on the wall at Newcastle (Pons Aelius); the rebuilding of that at South Shields at the mouth of the Tyne; a bridge over the Tyne at Corbridge (Coria); and perhaps new forts at Chester-le-Street (Concangis) and Lanchester (Longovicium). There was no doubt further rebuilding at other forts

as well.⁵³ Quite when Verus was replaced is difficult to establish; his successor is slightly tenuous (28). He disappears from sight for a few years, but reappears in the early 160s, after dramatic developments at the other end of the empire."

On the significance of the Newcastle inscription from The Chattan War, the Brigantian Revolt and the Loss of the Antonine Wall, M. P. Speidel, Britannia , 1987, Vol. 18 1987, pp. 233-237:

"The fact that in the years from 151 to 155 expeditionary armies had come to Germany is of great interest in assessing the move there to the outer limes. The Chatti must have posed a major threat to both German provinces and their allies, and indeed, six years later, in a large-scale attack, they invaded Upper Germany as well as Raetia. In the great second-century drama of the European nations hurling themselves against the frontiers of the Empire, the Chattan war, or threat of war, of 151-155 is thus revealed as the first act. The second act was played in Britain. A part of Pedo's field army had come from Britain, while other British forces had gone to Lower Germany, as the Newcastle inscription shows. Just how large these forces were is, of course, not known but one may argue that with most troops having fixed duties even a draft of two thousand men might be a large part of those in the British army who were actually free to take to the field. Their absence, no doubt, enticed the Brigantes to revolt, thus bringing about the first loss of the Antonine Wall. Then, under Julius Verus the British expeditionary force came back, and a succession of Rome's best generals restored the Antonine Wall in the years 158 to 161. Yet things did not end there. The marshals that were sent to Britain to restore the Wall had brought with them German and Raetian troops as shown by the Ribchester inscription and by an altar set up by Raetian troops at Birrens. From what we know of the strategy of the High Empire, withdrawal of troops from a frontier sector for campaigning elsewhere laid that sector open to attack. Indeed, just then, in 161/2, the Chatti invaded both Upper Germany and Raetia, weakened by the absence of field troops. This, no doubt, brought about the speedy return of most of the German and Raetian troops to their home frontiers and ruled out further reinforcements for Britain, thus leading to the second loss of the Antonine Wall around 163."

STATIUS PRISCUS

"Statius Priscus’ governorship was very brief, not more than a year at most, starting in summer 161. But his career throws a good deal of light on the workings of the military system. The name Statius is fairly common, and the other items in his nomenclature are also too indistinctive to indicate his origin, except for the tribe Claudia, found more frequently than elsewhere in regio X of Italy and in certain communities of the northern provinces.⁶⁸ Northern Italy, where a good many Statii are attested, or one of the cities of the Dalmatian coast look likely areas for his home.⁶⁹ Colchester (Camulodunum) is also just possible: a first-century legionary named Statius, with the tribe Claudia, derived from there,⁷⁰ and Priscus’ first appointment, as prefect of the Fourth Cohort of Lingones, stationed in Britain, would suit such an origin.⁷¹ Equally, the governor who probably gave him his commission, Julius Severus (Gov. 21), was himself from Dalmatia and perhaps offered him the post because he was a fellow-countryman. He was no doubt taken from Britain to the Jewish war, for service in which he received a decoration, by Severus. There is no need to suppose that Priscus took his cohort to Judaea. More likely Severus promoted him to be tribune in the Syrian legion III Gallica, which participated in the war; he probably went on to serve as tribune in a detachment of the Upper Pannonian legion X Gemina, also participating in the Jewish war. Since a third tribunate followed, in another legion of Upper Pannonia, it may be conjectured that he returned to that province with X Gemina and was retained there, as tribune of I Adiutrix.⁷² After this he finally entered the third militia, as prefect of an ala in Cappadocia; and then moved to the procuratorial career with a rather lowly post as sexagenarius, in charge of the vicesima hereditatium, the 5 per cent inheritance tax, in two Gallic provinces.⁷³ Thereafter he changed course markedly by entering the senate. It must be inferred that Antoninus Pius granted him the latus clavus. Priscus may have owed his advance to the patronage of Lollius Urbicus (Gov. 24), whose influence in the 140s was no doubt considerable. But he did not receive any remission (except that he was excused the vigintivirate), unlike many who transferred from the equestrian career to the senate at other periods, such as the reign of Vespasian or during the Marcomannic Wars. This reflects the conservatism of the reign. Priscus must have been well over 30 when he entered the senate as quaestor, and well over 50 when he became consul. Still, once he had held the compulsory Republican magistracies, he had the type of career enjoyed by men like Julius Agricola (Gov. 11), Julius Severus (21), and Lollius Urbicus (24): only two posts, the first a legionary command, between praetorship and consulship. His governorship of Upper Dacia, immediately preceding his consulship, is dated closely by diplomas, to 13 December 156 and 8 July 158, and a dedication he made at Apulum as consul designate can be assigned to autumn 158.⁷⁴ Before that he had commanded the Carnuntum legion XIV Gemina, perhaps when Claudius Maximus, the friend of M. Aurelius, was governing Upper Pannonia (he is attested there in 150 and 154). Priscus’ consulship as ordinarius for 159 was a remarkable honour for a novus homo—only one other man of comparable background, the jurist Salvius Julianus, received similar distinction during this reign. One reason in Priscus’ case was no doubt his military success in Dacia, revealed by inscriptions from that province.⁷⁵ After his consulship he had a brief spell as curator of the Tiber, but before the end of 160 must have become governor of Upper Moesia, where he is attested in office on 8 February 161.⁷⁶ He was still there, not surprisingly, after the death of Pius the following month, as shown by his dedication in honour of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, set up after he had been appointed to Britain. It may have been the sudden death of a recently appointed governor of Britain (Gov. 28), or perhaps just the difficult military situation in the north of the province, that led the emperors to transfer Priscus there soon after their accession. As stated by the HA: ‘a British war was also threatening’ in 161 (M. Ant. Phil. 8. 7) and had to be dealt with by Priscus’ successor (Gov. 30).⁷⁷ Priscus can only have spent some months in Britain when a more serious crisis occurred in the East: the defeat and death of the governor of Cappadocia and the invasion of Syria by the Parthians.⁷⁸ Priscus was chosen to deal with this crisis, and won a major victory, capturing the Armenian capital Artaxata (HA M. Ant. Phil. 9. 1, cf. Verus 7. 1) and founding a new one, which he garrisoned (Dio 71. 3. 1¹). These successes allowed L. Verus to assume the title Armeniacus in 163.⁷⁹ The satirist Lucian alleges that a contemporary historian described ‘how Priscus the general merely shouted out and twenty-seven of the enemy dropped dead’ (How to Write History 20). Hardly serious evidence, but perhaps Priscus had an aggressive style of leadership. The choice of Priscus to be recalled from Britain to deal with a crisis in the East exactly parallels the sending of Julius Severus (Gov. 21) to Judaea thirty years earlier. Severus was described as ‘the foremost of Hadrian’s leading generals’ in that connection (Dio 69. 13. 3, see Gov. 21). Priscus, after his success in Dacia in the late 150s, was no doubt equally highly rated. These two cases underline the high military status of Britain and its governors. He is not heard of again, and may have died soon afterwards. No children are recorded, but M. Statius Longinus, governor of Moesia Inferior under Macrinus, might be a descendant.⁸⁰"

SEXTUS CALPURNIUS AGRICOLA

"The context of the sentence in
the HA which refers to his dispatch ‘against the Britons’ suggests that he wasreplaced in Germany by Aufidius Victorinus and transferred to Britain in
autumn 161 or early 162 at the very latest.⁸⁶ It indicates that there were hostilities in progress in Britain (already referred to in HA M. Ant. Phil. 8. 7, quoted under Gov. 29).⁸⁷ A mention in Polyaenus’ Strategica (6, pr.) of ‘the Britons being defeated’ may refer to this war, since the work was dedicated to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in 162. From the inscription at Ribchester it can be
inferred that he took some extra cavalry from Germany with him—unless they had been sent under one of his predecessors. The dedication at Corbridge firmly dates his governorship to the year 163 and has already disposed of the possibility that he was the predecessor of Priscus, rather than his successor.⁸⁸ The distribution of his inscriptions, at
Carvoran on Hadrian’s Wall, and Vindolanda, just south of the wall, as well as at Corbridge, also at Ribchester, and perhaps at Hardknott, in north-west England, indicates that Hadrian’s Wall and the Pennines were occupied at the time. It now seems clear that the Antonine Wall had been given up under Julius Verus several years earlier (see under Gov. 27)."

And the Ribchester inscription as discussed by M. P. Speidel, once again from his The Chattan War, the Brigantian Revolt and the Loss of the Antonine Wall, Britannia , 1987, Vol. 18 1987, pp. 233-237:

"The armies of Germany were nearest to Britain, and so often did drafts of them cross the Channel4 that the 'upper province' of our text surely must mean that of Germany rather than of Pannonia, Dacia or Moesia, none of which is known to have sent provincial drafts to Britain. One will not go far wrong, then, in assuming that horsemen from Upper Germany were stationed at Ribchester.5 The date of the inscription is given by the joint reign of the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus from 161 to 169; hence our text is likely to mention the name of Sextus Calpurnius Agricola..."

It seems reasonable to me to present the following scenario and then ask an obvious question:

War is threatening in Britain at the outset of the Armenian War. This was when Priscus was recalled from Britain and sent to the East. His predecessor was only in Britain a very short time - and was perhaps killed there. Before that Julius Verus had brought troops from the Continent when the Antonine Wall was lost. It is reasonable to assume Priscus, sent to Britain in an emergency capacity, had also taken troops with him. And his successor Agricola probably also took troops.

Given all of the above, can we justify proposing that Priscus is at all likely to have removed three legionary detachments under the command of a prefect of the Sixth Legion and sent them to Armenia? In other words, does it make sense to consider a major troop withdrawal headed by an officer belonging to a legion that was responsible for defending the North at a time when the North was in constant turmoil and was regularly receiving reinforcements from the Continent?

I feel the only proper answer is plainly "No."