ARTORIUS AND THE THREE BRITISH LEGIONS: DECIDING ON THE MOST PROBABLE READING FOR ARM- IN THE LAC INSCRIPTION

Roman Empire 180 A.D. (Showing Lugdunensis)

Over the past few weeks, I have wrestled with a problem that has defeated all Arthurian researchers - myself included.  I'm speaking, of course, about the fragmentary ARM- of the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial inscription.  

There are three candidates for ARM-:

1) Armoricos (with a C-O ligature)

2) Armenios (we need not accept a controversial M-E ligature; it could just as well have shown an N-I ligature)

3) Armatos (armed men/soldiers; this just recently proposed by Dr. Linda Malcor and colleagues)

The importance of this lost word concerns the dating of the stone.  Without knowledge of what ARM- represented, we are left with conflicting conjectures on the significance of the other ranks held by LAC.  I've now run up against several very respectable scholars who hold widely differing opinions on what ARM- should be, and what the implications are for these varying interpretations.  Now finding myself thoroughly confused - and being fired upon from all quarters for daring to discuss the alternatives - I find it necessary to systematically treat of the subject with an aim to arriving at some kind of consensus.  As we will probably never know with any degree of certainty what ARM-, when intact, originally stood for, we must rest content with determining the most probable scenario.

Three Legions or Vexillations of Three Legions?

Right off the bat, the researcher encounters a major difficulty in the LAC text's reference to the three British legions Artorius led against (ADVERSUS) ARM-.  Even though the text only specifies three legions, scholars uniformly (excepting Malcor, of course) state that vexillations are inferred.  This is simply because all three legions would never have been removed from Britain.  Malcor, on the other hand, has stood by the reading, denying the possibility that LAC was engaging in some hyperbole. In her mind, three legions means three legions.  And that means that the said legions must have been used internally, i.e. within Britain itself.

Malcor makes a good point here.  On a stone that is otherwise so precise, we would expect the inscription to include vexillations.  Truth is, entire legions were rarely moved.  Mostly they stayed in their respective bases and detachments were sent wherever they were needed.  These detachments then returned to their home forts when their missions were completed. The vacuum left by the removal of an entire legion was not something to be desired - unless the territory the legion first occupied was intentionally abandoned or the base was taken over by another legion.

Italian scholar Antonio Trinchese has kindly shared with me his own extensive research into this matter, and it is important to present his findings here.  Although I have his detailed notes, I asked him to summarize them and he graciously did so:

"I searched in the databases all the characters that had the title of "dux legionum": they are only 2 Castus and an anonymous in Dacia in the reign of Philip the Arab (244-249), as Loriot already claimed. I searched if there were any characters known from historiographic sources for leading detachments of troops, and remembered in the epigraphs only as "dux" or "praepositus", without "vexillationis" or "reliquationis", but I have not found any. My conclusion is that, in the absence of different evidence, the title of "dux legionum", as well as the previous one of "praepositus classis", refer to the whole units and not to detachments of the same. And, therefore, that this command, temporary and not formalized with a nomination as "Legatus Pro Praetore", but still official, so much so as to be reported in an epigraph, took place in Britain... I guess LAC was first appointed head of the VI Victrix legion (that's what the use of "Praefectus legionis tells us ", if it had been" praefectus castrorum would have written it), then, in the absence of the governor, from 187 to 191, acting as governor for military affairs, while civil and administrative affairs were entrusted to an "iuridicus".

So, as far as the stone considered in isolation goes, we are not justified in assuming that detachments of the three British legions are "inferred" in the LAC inscription.  And that forces us to address the possibility that the complete legions (or, as Roger Tomlin suggested to me via private correspondence, perhaps LAC's Sixth with vexillations from the other two British legions) were used against an enemy inside of Britain.

Armenia

This one can be dispensed with fairly easily. 

I once thought ARMENIOS a good candidate for the LAC ARM-.  But I've had to abandon it for two reasons.  One, LAC with detachments of three legions would not have left Britain with the governor Statius Priscus to fight in Armenia in 163.  Why?  Because we are told outright by the sources that Britain was on the verge of war at exactly this time.  Rather than taking troops out, it would have been bringing them in.  In recognition of this problem, Birley and others resort to much later expeditions in Armenia, namely those belonging to Caracalla in 215 (cf. Dio 77. 21) or Severus

Alexander.  These dates strike me as being too late.  In addition, there is no evidence troops from Britain were used by either of these emperors in Armenia.

Armoricos vs. Armatos

Despite the lack of mention of legionary detachments on the LAC stone, it is troubling that in Cassius Dio we find during the time period (see fully quoted sources below) 1500 javelin men [1] being sent from Britain to Rome on a peculiar delegation.  Their goal is nothing short of the murder of Perennis.  Why troubling?  Because a standard legionary vexillation is 500 men, and 500 divides into 1500 three times.  That means that the 1500 spear men could well represent detachments from the three British legions.  And that sounds suspiciously what LAC commanded against ARM-.

Alfody actually proposed this solution to the ARM- problem, suggesting that these 1500 soldiers had been sent to the Continent first to deal with the Maternus Revolt or so-called Deserters' War (see also the sources provided below), and then had continued to Rome to kill Perennis.  Picard and others have also associated LAC with the Maternus Revolt.

I've pointed out before that Pescennius Niger was put in charge of dealing with the deserters, and his headquarters for this was Lugdunensis.  That province included within it Armorica.  And Commodus had sent out orders that the provinces were to send military aid to deal with the revolt.  Would it not make sense for LAC to have brought vexillations to Armorica for this reason?  Yes, we could say that LAC and his soldiers went against ARMATOS on the Continent, but all the scholars I've asked about this word for ARM- say that it is simply too vague, ambiguous and nonspecific.  We might be able to get away with using ARMATOS if LAC is fighting only in Britain.  But if he is in Lugdunensis, ARMORICOS must be strongly preferred.

The actual sequence of events during the revolt and Perennis' death are a bit hard to organize.  However, we could reconstruct them as follows: 

1) Perennis removes senatorial legates and replaces them with equestrians

2) Priscus, possibly the legate of LAC's Sixth Legion, is offered the purple by the outraged British troops.  He wisely refuses the honor. [Note that Birley reverses this; he has the legates dismissed in response to Priscus being offered the purple.  But that makes little sense, as Priscus had shown himself loyal to Commodus and, if anything, would have been rewarded for not becoming a usurper. It seems more likely that the troops rebelled as a reaction to Perennis' restructuring of the army.]

3) While this is happening, LAC and the legionary vexillations are dealing with the Maternus Rebellion in Armorica.

4) The British legates (perhaps prompted by Priscus) order LAC and his troops to go to Rome and dispense with Perennis.

The man in charge of Britain at this time was a civilian. In Anthony Birley's words (from THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT BRITAIN),

"Dio 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."

The iuridicus in question was Marcus:

"To Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, consul(?), proconsul of the province of Macedonia, quindecimvir sacris faciundis, iuridicus of Britain (and) acting-legate [vice leg(ati)], propraetorian legate of the province of . . . , curator of the commonwealth of the Marsi and Marruvini."

We might offer a slight variation on a theme as well.  We might have Priscus stripped of his command and replaced by LAC.  In answer to Commodus' call for aid against Maternus, LAC then takes legionary vexillations to Armorica.  At this point the army rebels, offers Priscus the purple, and then the outraged, betrayed legates - backed by the army - send LAC and his 1500 spear men to Rome.

While this seems quite attractive, there is a problem that must be addressed. For there are two other versions of the fall of Perennis (see below).  Neither mentions the British troops coming to Rome.  This casts some doubt on the account preserved in Cassius Dio.  Yet the discrepancies are not that serious.  In one, Perennis is given up to unidentified soldiers to be torn to pieces.  On the other, Commodus has him beheaded - by whom, we are not told.  So it could be that Dio merely preserves the fuller account of Perennis' demise.

Conclusion

Armenia does not work for ARM- of the LAC inscription.  Armatos will work if we confine ourselves to Britain and three entire legions - but we are left not knowing anything about LAC's opponents other than that they were 'armed men' or 'soldiers.'  As Tomlin pointed out:

"Possible, but most unlikely. 'armatos' is much too unspecific, and there are many inscriptions referring to the suppression of internal revolt, the language used being 'adversus rebelles', 'adversus defectores', 'adversus hostes publicos'. For example Dessau ILS 1140, Claudius Candidus, who was 'duci ... adversus rebelles'."

Malcor emphasizes that there may have been multiple opponents - British tribesmen, external invaders (Picts, Scots) and rebellious Roman troops to contend with.  In which case, ARMATOS may have been a sort of catchall phrase for this mixed enemy.

But, at exactly the right time, we have the equivalent of three legionary vexillations on the Continent, and quite possibly in Armorica of the Lugdunensis province. Can we afford to ignore this substantial British force?

I don't think so.  And if we do so, it is at our peril.  I've already been told LAC couldn't have been responsible for commanding the 1500 spear men.  The reason given is because Priscus (still wrongly identified with Caunius; Birley in his THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN now refers to another man) must have led the 1500.  But this is assuming he was still the legate of the Sixth.  In the very plausible scenario I have sketched out above, he was removed by Perennis from his office, leaving the way open for LAC to be given commend of the expedition to Armorica.  Or Perennis appointed the junior officer (prefect) as dux and himself remained behind with the bulk of the legion.  In either case, we may be able to allow for LAC's involvement in Armorica and even in the Perennis affair.

Thus I have to hold to the notion that ARM- should be for ARMORICOS.  I feel that, lacking other evidence and faced with a plethora of unsupportable opinions, this solution to the problem has the highest probability of being correct.

Summary

If LAC were involved with what happened in Rome, he would not have said on his stone that he went against ARMORICOS. He would have to be calling someone else on the Continent ARMATOS, and that could not refer to the Praetorians in Rome. It could refer to the deserters' in Gaul, although why they wouldn't be called deserters I couldn't tell you, as it was the bellum desertorum. What it comes down to is this: if these 1500 are LAC's men, then they were his when he went to Armorica. From there he would have been sent to Rome.

That's the best I can do and I have nothing else to add.

[1]

The word used for 'javelin' is Greek akontis, 'javelin, dart, throwing spear'.  Akontistai are 'javelin throwers.'

[2α] ὅτι οἱ ἐν βρεττανίᾳ στρατιῶται Πρίσκον ὑποστράτηγον εἵλοντο αὐτοκράτορα: ὁ δὲ παρῃτήσατο εἰπὼν ὅτι ‘τοιοῦτος ἐγώ εἰμι αὐτοκράτωρ οἷοι ὑμεῖς στρατιῶταί ἐστε.’” Petr. Patr. exc. Vat. 122 (p. 224 Mai.=p. 208, 8-11 Dind.). “ [2.2] καὶ οἱ ἐν Βρεττανίᾳ τοίνυν ὑπάρχοντες, ἐπειδή τι καὶ ἐπετιμήθησαν ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἐστασίαζον ῾οὐ γὰρ πρὶν ἡσύχασαν ἢ αὐτοὺς τὸν Περτίνακα παῦσαἰ, χιλίους καὶ πεντακοσίους ἀκοντιστὰς ἀπὸ σφῶν ἀπολέξαντες ἐς τὴν Ἰταλίαν ἔπεμψαν. [3]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=73&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0593

Malcor has shared with me her idea that akontis may here be the 11th century epitomator Joannes Xiphilinus' error for kontos, the term used to describe the very long, two-handed lance of Sarmatian cavalrymen.  It does make more sense to see LAC's 1500 soldiers as cavalry, rather than infantry, especially if we take seriously their traveling to Rome.  It is not at all inconceivable that 500 Sarmatian cataphracts were drawn from each of the three British legions and sent to Armorica to battle the deserters.  After all, in 175 A.D. 5,500 Sarmatians had been sent to serve in the British army.  By the time of the Maternus Revolt they had been on the island a decade. 

Furthermore, LAC had served in the Legio V Macedonica prior to being in Britain.  And there is a very strong likelihood that he was with the unit under Emperor Marcus Aurelius when the latter defeated the Sarmatians and shipped 5,500 of them off the Britain. 

[Dio 71.16.2]

16 The Iazyges were defeated and came to terms, Zanticus himself appearing as a suppliant before Antoninus. Previously they had imprisoned Banadaspus, their second king, for making overtures to him; but now all the chief men came with Zanticus and made the same compact as that to which the Quadi and the Marcomani had agreed, except that they were required to dwell twice as far away from  p37 the Ister as those tribes. Indeed, the emperor had wished to exterminate them utterly. For that they were still strong at this time and had done the Romans great harm was evident from the fact that they returned a hundred thousand captives that were still in their hands even after the many who had been sold, had died, or had escaped, and that they promptly furnished as their contribution to the alliance eight thousand cavalry, fifty-five hundred of whom he sent to Britain.

***

SOURCES

PERENNIS

HISTORIA AUGUSTA

6 1  About this time the victories in Sarmatia won by other generals were attributed by Perennis to his own son.45 2 Yet in spite of his great power, suddenly, because in the war in Britain46 he had dismissed certain senators and had put men of the equestrian order in command of the soldiers,47 this same Perennis was declared an enemy to the state, when the matter was reported by the legates in command of the army, and was thereupon delivered up to the soldiers to be torn to pieces.48

HERODIAN

Conspiracy of Perennis

[1.9.1] [185] After he had removed the men whom Commodus had reason to fear, those who showed him good will for his father's sake, and those who were concerned for the emperor's safety, Perennis, now a powerful figure, began to plot for the empire. Commodus was persuaded to put the prefect's sons in command of the army of Illyricum, though they were still young men; the prefect himself amassed a huge sum of money for lavish gifts in order to incite the army to revolt. His sons quietly increased their forces, so that they might seize the empire after Perennis had disposed of Commodus.

[1.9.2] This plot came to light in a curious fashion. The Romans celebrate a sacred festival in honor of Jupiter Capitolinus, and all the stage shows and athletic exhibitions are sent to take part in this festival in the capital. The emperor is both spectator and judge, together with the rest of the priests, who are summoned in rotation for this duty.

[1.9.3] Upon his arrival for the performance of the famous actors, Commodus took his seat in the imperial chair; an orderly crowd filled the theater, quietly occupying the assigned seats. Before any action took place on the stage, however, a man dressed as a philosopher (half-naked, carrying a staff in his hand and a leather bag on his shoulder) ran out and took his stand in the center of the stage. Silencing the audience with a sweep of his hand, he said:

[1.9.4] "Commodus, this is no time to celebrate festivals and devote yourself to shows and entertainments. The sword of Perennis is at your throat. Unless you guard yourself from a danger not threatening but already upon you, you shall not escape death. Perennis himself is raising money and an army to oppose you, and his sons are winning over the army of Illyricum. Unless you act first, you shall die."

[1.9.5] Whether he said this by divine inspiration, or whether, obscure and unknown before, he was making an effort to gain fame, or hoped to receive a generous reward from the emperor - whatever the reason, Commodus was thunderstruck. Everyone was suspicious of the man's words, and no one believed him. Perennis ordered the philosopher to be seized and burned for making insane and lying accusations.

[1.9.6] Such was the penalty that the beggar paid for his ill-timed outspokenness. The emperor's intimate friends, however, who had long been secretly hostile to Perennis (for the prefect was harsh and unbearable in his insolence and arrogance), believed that the time had come and began to bring charges against him. As a result, Commodus escaped the plot, and Perennis and his sons perished miserably.

[1.9.7] For not much later, some soldiers visited Perennis' son in secret and carried off coins bearing the prefect's portrait. And, without the knowledge of Perennis, the praetorian prefect, they took the coins directly to Commodus and revealed to him the secret details of the plot. They were richly rewarded for their service.

[1.9.8] While Perennis was still ignorant of these developments and anticipated nothing of the sort, the emperor sent for him at night and had him beheaded. And he dispatched men to Perennis' son by the fastest route, so that they might reach him before he knew what had happened. These men were to take a route shorter than the one by which news was regularly carried; in this way they would be able to come to the youth before he was aware of events at Rome. Commodus wrote the youth a friendly letter, telling him that he was recalling him to greater expectations, and ordering him to come to Rome.

[1.9.9] Perennis' son knew nothing of the reception awaiting him and was unaware of his father's fate. When the messengers informed him that his father had given these same orders orally but, satisfied with the emperor's letter, had not written a separate note, the youth was convinced, although he was concerned about leaving the plot unfinished. Nevertheless, relying on his father's power as if that power still existed, he left Illyricum.

[1.9.10] On the way to Italy the youth was killed by the emperor's men. Such was the fate of Perennis and his son. Thereafter Commodus regularly appointed two praetorian prefects, believing that it was safer not to place too much authority in the hands of one man; he hoped that this division of authority would discourage any desire to seize the imperial power.

CASSIUS DIO

9 Perennis,6 who commanded the Pretorians after Paternus, met his death as the result of a mutiny of the soldiers. For, inasmuch as Commodus had given himself up to chariot-racing and licentiousness and performed scarcely any of the duties pertaining to his office, Perennis was compelled to manage not only the military affairs, but everything else as well, and to stand at the head of the State. 21 The soldiers, accordingly, whenever any matter did not turn out to their satisfaction, laid the blame upon Perennis and were angry with him.

2a The soldiers in Britain chose Priscus, a lieutenant, emperor; but he declined, saying: I am no more an emperor than you are soldiers"

The lieutenants in Britain, accordingly, having been rebuked for their insubordination, — they did not become quiet, in fact, until Pertinax quelled them, — now chose out of their number fifteen hundred javelin men and sent them into Italy. 3 These men had already drawn near to Rome without encountering any resistance, when Commodus met them and asked: "What is the meaning of this, soldiers? What is your purpose in coming?" And when they  p91 answered, "We are here because Perennis is plotting against you and plans to make his son emperor," Commodus believed them, especially as Cleander insisted; for this man had often been prevented by Perennis from doing all that he desired, and consequently he hated him bitterly. 4 He accordingly delivered up the prefect to very soldiers whose commander he was, and had not the courage to scorn fifteen hundred men, though he had many times that number of Pretorians. 10 So Perennis was maltreated and struck down by those men, and his wife, his sister, and two sons were also killed. Thus Perennis was slain...

MATERNUS

HISTORIA AUGUSTA

Before the war of the deserters120

120 An outbreak in Gaul in 186, headed by a soldier named Maternus, who gathered a band of fellow-soldiers and desperadoes and plundered the country. The Roman troops under Pescennius Niger defeated and scattered them; whereupon, Maternus himself fled to Italy and attempted to assassinate Commodus, but was caught and beheaded; see Herodian, I.10, and Pesc. Nig. iii.4.

HISTORIA AUGUSTA

3 Now Pescennius was on very friendly terms with Severus at the time that the latter was governor of the province of Lugdunensis.12 4 For he was sent to apprehend a body of deserters who were then ravaging Gaul in great numbers,13 5 and because he conducted himself in this task with credit, he gained the esteem of Severus, so much so, in fact, that the latter wrote to Commodus about him, and averred that he was a man indispensable to the state. 6

HERODIAN

Insurrection of Maternus

[1.10.1] [187] But before long another plot was organized against Commodus. It involved a former soldier named Maternus, who had committed many frightful crimes.note He deserted from the army, persuading others to flee with him, and soon collected a huge mob of desperadoes. At first they attacked and plundered villages and farms, but when Maternus had amassed a sizable sum of money, he gathered an even larger band of cutthroats by offering the prospect of generous booty and a fair share of the loot. As a result, his men no longer appeared to be brigands but rather enemy troops.

[1.10.2] They now attacked the largest cities and released all the prisoners, no matter what the reasons for their imprisonment. By promising these men their freedom, he persuaded them to join his band in gratitude for favors received. The bandits roamed over all Gaul and Spain, attacking the largest cities; a few of these they burned, but the rest they abandoned after sacking them.

[1.10.3] When he was informed of these developments, Commodus, in a towering rage, sent threatening dispatches to the governors of the provinces involved, charging them with negligence and ordering them to raise an army to oppose the bandits. When the brigands learned that an army was being raised against them, they left the regions which they had been ravaging and slipped unnoticed, a few at a time, into Italy, by a quick but difficult route. And now Maternus was plotting for the empire, for larger stakes indeed. Since everything he had attempted had succeeded beyond his fondest hopes, he concluded that if he were to undertake something really important it was bound to succeed; having committed himself to a hazard from which it was impossible to withdraw, he would, at least, not die obscure and unknown.

[1.10.4] But when he reflected that he did not have an army sufficiently powerful to resist Commodus on equal terms and in open opposition (for it was thought that the majority of the Roman people were still well disposed toward Commodus, and he also had the support of the Praetorian Guard), Maternus hoped to balance this inequality of forces by guile and cunning. This is the way he undertook to accomplish it.

[1.10.5] Every year, on a set day at the beginning of spring, the Romans celebrate a festival in honor of the mother of the gods [Cybele]. All the valuable trappings of each deity, the imperial treasures, and marvelous objects of all kinds, both natural and man-made, are carried in procession before this goddess. Free license for every kind of revelry is granted, and each man assumes the disguise of his choice. No office is so important or so sacrosanct that permission is refused anyone to put on its distinctive uniform and join in the revelry, concealing his true identity; consequently, it is not easy to distinguish the true from the false.

[1.10.6] This seemed to Maternus an ideal time to launch his plot undetected. [March 187] By donning the uniform of a praetorian soldier and outfitting his companions in the same way, he hoped to mingle with the true praetorians and, after watching part of the parade, to attack Commodus and kill him while no one was on guard.

[1.10.7] But the plan was betrayed when some of those who had accompanied him into the city revealed the plot. (Jealousy led them to disclose it, since they preferred to be ruled by the emperor rather than by a bandit chief.) Before he arrived at the scene of the festivities, Maternus was seized and beheaded, and his companions suffered the punishment they deserved. After sacrificing to the goddess and making thank offerings, Commodus completed the festivities and did honor to the goddess, rejoicing at his escape. The people continued to celebrate their emperor's deliverance after the festival came to an end.