Lanciarii on the left side of the pedestal of the Antoninus Pius’ column.
(161 A.D.)
THE LANCIARII
Quite some time ago, I wrote a rambling and inconclusive piece of the 1500 spearmen sent from Britain to seize and execute Perennis, the second-in-command under Emperor Commodus:
At the time I had a rather poor understanding of the event and its possible cause. I would like to remedy that deficiency in this new post.
The crux of the matter concerning Lucius Artorius Castus and his three legionary detachments is where those detachments were sent or, rather, against whom. Three rival readings of the fragmentary ARM[...]S on his memorial stone have been proposed: 1) ARMORICOS 2) ARMENIOS and 3) ARMATOS.
Armoricos has fallen out of favor for reasons that I do not have to revisit. Armenios is quite good, as we know that Statius Priscus, a governor of Britain, was sent there in the early 160s. It is a reasonable conjecture to suppose that he took with him LAC and the legionary detachments. However, there is no record of this happening. Dr. Linda Malcor and her colleagues would have these armed men be a mix of enemies in Britain itself. But, again, there is no record of three detachments being employed in this way.
Amazingly, we do possess an account of detachments from the three British legions being sent against Perennis at Rome. Fifteen hundred spearmen (lanciarii) represent 500 men, the usual size of a vexillation, from each of the three British legions. We are told that although Commodus had a great many Praetorians he could have brought against the British soldiers, he instead gave up Perennis. ARMATOS, if seen in this context, may have been intentionally vague, as it referred to the guard of the Emperor. Dio tells us:
"He [commodus] 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."
"He [commodus] 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."
The problem has always been explaining why this force was sent and, more importantly, by whom. It is sometimes associated with the so-called Deserters' War of the time, although the version of the story we have specifically states they were ordered to Rome for the purpose of dealing with Perennis. There is no mention of their already being on the Continent fighting against Maternus (although see below).
The confusion over who sent these men has been explained to me by Professor Roger Tomlin (via private communication):
"Your difficulty is that you are getting Dio [Cassius] second-hand, from his two Byzantine epitomators. Peter the Patrician expressly says that 'the soldiers in Britain' tried to make Priscus emperor. But Xiphilinus, who may or may not be alluding to the same incident, uses a different term, υπαρχοντεϲ, which may have much the same meaning ('those present'), but has been translated by the Loeb as if the same as υπαρχοι ('deputy officers', especially legates).
So you needn't conclude that the 1,500 men were chosen and sent by the legionary legates, which seems improbable in itself."
In other words, for detachments from all three legions to have been sent to Rome, the man ordering such a "deputation" should have been the governor or acting-governor of Britain. It would be hard to explain how the legates of the different legions were able to take it upon themselves to send the 1500 spearmen to Rome. Yet it may be that someone else entirely was responsible, as we will see in a moment.
Roger Tomlin (p. 170 BRITANNIA ROMANA) nicely summarizes Birley's outline of what might have been transpiring in Britain at this time, and how that led to the execution of Perennis:
"Soldiers in Britain were mutinous, we are told: they resented the replacement of senatorial officers by equestrians, which had been ordered by Commodus' chief minister Perennis, the prefect of the Guard
and himself an equestrian; he may have been responding to their failed attempt to proclaim one of the legionary legates Emperor. The British army sent a powerful deputation to Rome... 1500 men whom Commodus pacified by surredning Perennis to them. They lynched him, and his policies were reversed."
The legionary legate mentioned in this passage was named Priscus. Nothing else is known about him. There are two candidates for his identification, both discussed in "Un nuovo senatore dell'età di Commodo?" by Gian Luca Gregori, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik , Bd. 106 (1995), pp. 269-279.
Caunus or Junius stone (CIL vi 41127)
Whichever man we choose, Birley's discussion of the text of the stone (pasted below in its entirety) is important:
c.184? VI Victrix?, [ . . . J]unius [?Pris]cus Gar[gilius? . . .
?Qui]ntil[i]anus (cos. c.190)
G. Gregori, ZPE 106 (1995), 269–79=AE 1995. 231=G. Alföldy, CIL vi. 41127, Rome:
[ . . . I]unio, [ . . . f(ilio), . . . , Pris(?)]co |G.
ar[gilio(?) | . . . Qui(?)]ntil[i]an[o, co(n)s(uli), 4| sodal]i. Titiali
Fla[viali, | leg(ato) Au]g(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) leg(ionis) II I. [talic(ae), | praep]o. sito vexill(ationum)
[leg(ionum) III (trium)? | Brita]Nnicar(um)(?), legato l.[eg(ionis) V 8| Macedo]nic(ae), leg(ato) leg(ionis) [VI
| Victr(icis)(?) pi]ae fidel(is), cur[atori | rei pub]lic(ae) Cirtens[ium, | iuridic]o per Aemil[iam, 12|
Liguri(?)]am, praetor[i, trib(uno) | pl(ebis)?, qua]est(ori), triumvi[ro | c]apitali. | [Huic s]enatus, auc.[tore 16|
Imp(eratore) Cae]s(are) L(ucio) Aelio Aur[elio | Comm]odo Pio Feli[ce Aug(usto, | statua]m i.n te.mpl.[o . . . |
. . . ponendam censuit (?)].
To . . . Junius, son of . . . , . . . , Priscus? Gargilius? . . . Quintilianus?, consul, sodalis Titialis
Flavialis, propraetorian legate of the Emperor of the Second Legion Italica, commander of
vexillations of the three? British? legions, legate of the Fifth Legion Macedonica, legate of the
Sixth? Legion Victrix? Pia Fidelis, curator of the commonwealth of the Cirtensians, iuridicus in
Aemilia and ?Liguria, praetor, tribune of the plebs?, quaestor, triumvir capitalis. The senate, on
the motion of the Emperor Caesar Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus Pius Felix Augustus,
decreed the setting up of a statue? to this man in the temple of . . .
This unusual career can be dated by Commodus’ names, a style first assumed
in 191.¹⁴¹ The restoration of VI Victrix as one of the legions which the honorand
commanded depends on Alföldy’s conjecture that he is identical with the
legate Priscus (LL 35). A summary may be offered of Alföldy’s discussion. This
legate was no doubt a novus homo, to judge from his start as capitalis. Without
being military tribune, he went on to the three usual urban magistracies. After
the praetorship he was iuridicus in North Italy, then curator of Cirta in N.
Africa, before his first legionary command, of a legion with the title pia fidelis,
perhaps VI Victrix. If this is right, and he was the Priscus whom the legionaries
tried to make emperor, he was removed from this post by Perennis. He
Legionary Legates 261
¹⁴¹ G. A(lföldy) on CIL vi. 41127, citing D. Kienast, Kaisertabelle2 (1996), 148; cf. PIR2 Q 18.
certainly went on to command another legion, V Macedonica, in Dacia: a
second legionary command indicates trouble where the second one was based
and there was warfare in Dacia under Commodus (HA Comm. 13. 5). There
followed command over detachments of several legions, restored as [Brita]nnicarum.
Alföldy convincingly proposes that this force was assigned to deal with
the so-called ‘deserters’ war’ and can be identified with the ‘1,500 javelin-men’
from the British army who lynched Perennis near Rome in 185 (Dio 72(73). 9.
22–4) (cf. under Gov. 33). His final appointment—before the consulship,
restored, but very probable¹⁴²—was as legate of yet another legion, II Italica,
exceptionally described as ‘propraetorian legate’. II Italica was by then
normally commanded by the governor of Noricum. As he is not called legate
of Noricum, the legion must have been operating outside the province, even
beyond the frontier in Commodus’ ‘third German expedition’, perhaps
datable to 188.¹⁴³ His names include [J]unius, then a cognomen ending [ ]cus,
which could of course be for example, [Atti]cus, [Flac]cus, [Fus]cus, [Tus]cus,
[Urbi]cus, to mention some of the many names of the right length, as well as
[Pris]cus.¹⁴⁴ His next name began Gar[ ], probably Gar[gilius], followed by
one ending [ ]ntil[i]anus, for which [Qui]ntilianus is more plausible than
[De]ntilianus. Alföldy infers from the name Gar[gilius] and the post as
curator of Cirta that the man may have come from North Africa.
We immediately notice that this man was probably legate of the Sixth Legion. This was the British legion of the prefect Lucius Artorius Castus. We are told that he later as praepositus led British vexillations of an unknown number from all three legions, and Alfoldy's assertion that this was against Maternus in the Deserters' War is quite brilliant, for Commodus had made the call for governors in provinces in the affected areas to send troops to quell the rebellion.
At this point, something happened. According to Birley, the 1500 spearmen were sent because Perennis reacted to the attempt of the British soldiers to make Priscus the emperor by removing senators and replacing them with equestrians. Priscus had wisely refused the honor his troops tried to bestow upon him. But that doesn't mean Perennis would not have sought to remove him from office. After all, Priscus was now a threat, a potential rival emperor.
In my opinion, Priscus was understandably upset and probably felt as if he had been betrayed by Commodus' second-in-command. Rather than relinquish his control of the British forces fighting in the Deserters' War, he hand-picked 1500 spearmen and sent them to Rome under the command of LAC, whom he knew well from their service together in the Sixth Legion. LAC was prefect, but would have been (in Roger Tomlin's words) "a prefect 'acting' for the legate, agens vice legati. These become legionary commanders in the second half of the third century, and in Egypt the legions were always commanded by equestrian prefects."
This to me makes eminent sense. And we can retain ARMATOS as the reading of the LAC memorial stone. It would be a reference to the Guard of Perennis. Although no fighting occurred, saying that he was sent "against armed men" would not be an inaccurate way of describing the deputation to Rome, and it may also have been a rather diplomatic way of referring to the conflict with Perennis.
Anthony Birley (in his THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN) has this on Priscus:
"There followed command [by Priscus] over detachments of several legions, restored as [Brita]nnicarum. Alföldy convincingly proposes that this force was assigned to deal with the so-called ‘deserters’ war’ and can be identified with the ‘1,500 javelin-men’from the British army who lynched Perennis near Rome in 185 (Dio 72(73). 9.22–4) (cf. under Gov. 33)."
As Priscus had been a legate a few times, and then praepositus over the British troops, he would outrank LAC as prefect. And, indeed, Birley refers to Priscus as a novus homo, a term used for a man who was the first in his family to serve in the Roman Senate or, more specifically, to be elected as consul. So Priscus was of the senatorial class, while LAC, being an equestrian, was not. According to Roger Tomlin, "Priscus would have been superior in rank."
We could see Priscus in a different light, I suppose. His men might have been responding to his threatened removal by Perennis when they offered him the purple. He refused and instead sent the 1500 spearmen to Rome. If Perennis the equestrian was intent on removing senators from posts in order to prevent the creation of usurpers (as only members of the patrician class could become emperors), and this had become common or official policy and not something resorted to only in emergency situations, a man like Priscus might well take umbrage.
If we take PRAEFF on LAC's stone as a plural rather than an error, he was prefect twice. That fits perfectly with him being prefect the first time when Priscus was legate of the Sixth. The second time was when he was pulled with other troops by Priscus to fight on the Continent in the Deserters' War. The date of the killing of Perennis is well-fixed. So I really don't see any reason to adopt an artificial timeline that favors some other interpretatio.
Dr. Malcor prefers to see LAC as acting governor during this period. However, Birley and others have Lucius Ulpius Marcellus and Marcus Antius Crescens Calpunianius (acting-governor) spanning these years, followed by Pertinax. If LAC was in on the Deserters' War with Priscus, then he was certainly not a governor. His use of the dux title is normal and expected, as before the mid-3rd century this was not an actual rank, but simply designated a junior officer who had been given a special mission leading troops.
Had LAC been governor, believe me, it would have been on his memorial stone - whether he was an equestrian governor or not! At the very least he would have referred to himself as acting-governor, a very high honor known as vice legati. This is the rank claimed by Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, whom Birley assigns to Britain in 185.
We have no record of an equestrian becoming a provincial governor before or during the Antonine period. If we have no precendent, then we can't have LAC be a governor. As for the gap in the governor list for Britain... Well, we have gaps in that list for the entire period of Roman Britain! But simply because there are breaks in the historical record doesn't justify our willy-nilly placing someone in the gap just because we want him to be there. A gap is a gap, and you can't argue from lack of evidence.
My readers will note that I entitled this section 'THE LANCIARII.' Well, Dio Cassius actually uses the Greek word ἀκοντιστάς , noun pl masc acc for ἀκοντιστής darter, javelin-man, from κοντός pole, punting-pole, Latin contus. Dr. Linda Malcor has pointed out to me that the Sarmatian lance was called the contus, contus sarmaticus, and we find in Greek the kontophoros or 'contus-bearer.' It is possible, therefore, that these 1500 spearmen were, in fact, Sarmatians brought from Britain.
Sarmatian warrior with contus
THE EAGLE
Only the other day I announced that I might well be deciding on the 'Ailithir' etymology for Eliwlad son of Madog son of Uther:
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/can-identification-of-historical-arthur.html
https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/can-identification-of-historical-arthur.html
Because I can now also account for LAC as dux historically, and in a time period that would allow him to have had contact with Sarmatians in Britain, I can finally put forward as my favored theory that the Dark Age British Arthur was the son of Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester.
The cumulative scholarly support for the identification of Eliwlad son of Madog as Matoc Ailithir son of Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester can now be set forth as follows. Please bear in mind that two or three more professors have indicated they will respond as time permits. I will add their comments to the list as soon as I receive them.
"Your proposal to understand Eliwlad as a W 'translation' of Ir Ailithir looks quite attactive. Eli- might well stand for Ir ail(e), and tir is correctly translated as 'gwlad'. The respective range of meaning of both words is, of course, not identical.
If 'pilgrim' really is the "primary meaning" of ailithir, then this word is beyond any doubt a bahuvrîhi compound, designing somebody 'who is characterized by another [foreign] land', obviously in the sense that (s)he has visited a [remarkably] foreign land, is acquainted with it, etc.
We have to remind an alternative, however, viz. that the 'other land' referred to might be the 'Otherworld' , so that the bearer of the epithet may have been named so for assumed / desired magical qualities. Note that Rachel Bromwich, in her invaluable Trioedd Ynys Prydein (3rd ed., p. 428) has a Madawc m. Run y Kynnedvau. By the way, I trust that you have made already ample use of that magnificent book and the references found therein.
The whole story of the red Welsh Dragon (and its mischievous counterpart), including the epithet 'Uther Pendragon', may well be based on post-Roman misunderstandings of reminiscences of the Roman, originally perhaps Sarmatian, standard. But one should not overstress the Sarmatian-Alanian theory in discussing Arthurian matters. In case you read German, you may have seen what I wrote about in 'Die keltischen Wurzeln der Arthussage' (Winter: Heidelberg 2000)."
Professor Stefan Zimmer
"Irish aili- does not have a diphthong ai in the first syllable but a fronted low simple vowel [ae] (approximately as in Engl. back) followed by a palatalized -l´-. I find it quite plausible that this would have been borrowed immediately as W eli-."
Professor Doctor Peter Schrijver
“I don’t disagree with anything Zimmer or Schrijver say.”
Dr. Simon Rodway
"Given the context and manuscript tradition behind that, Eliwlad can be plausibly associated with Ailithir."
Dr. Alexander Falileyev
“I think that -wlad cannot be anything else but gwlad 'country', and your idea that Eliwlad is a reinterpretation of Ailithir seems plausible to me. If Eliwlad developed directly from the British, we would expect *Eilwlad."
Professor Ranko Matasovic
"I see no philological objection to the proposal that the two names are probably similar in formation and may have an overlapping semantic range, though I think it's important to recognise the uncertainty as to whether either refers to one who is 'from' another land, or has travelled 'to' such a land."
Alan G. James, The Brittonic Language in the Old North
"I can see no reason to dispute any of this. For example, it looks perfectly possible to me that Eliwlad represents British *Aljowlatos 'other land'. Eliwlad/t is a plausible rendering of Eilwlad. One certainly finds occasional <e> for <ei> in MW, and metathesis is always possible. If it’s not from *aljo-, I have no idea.”
Professor Richard Coates
"If it is OK with Peter Schrijver, it is OK with me."
Associate Professor Emeritus Daniel F. Melia
"It is possible that Eliwlad REFLECTS ailithir, but it is no translation, but looks like a deliberately playful misinterpretation."
Professor David Stifter
“First it appears to me that you must be right in identifying gwlad as the second element. This is indeed the regular cognate of flaith in Irish, but the latter, a feminine i-stem, originally also had an abstract meaning ‘lordship, sovereignty’, and its application to a person is a secondary process in Irish (retaining the feminine gender!) for which there are several parallels, such as techt meaning not only ‘going’ but also ‘messenger’, cerd both ‘craft’ and ‘craftsman’, etc.
Your proposed adaptation of aili- to eli-, on the other hand, would have to have been purely formal, since Irish and British continue two different variants of the same word ‘other’, Ir. aile (also 'second') < *aljo- and e.g. Middle Welsh. all < *allo-. British ail, 'second', is from *aljo-.
But apart from this formal misgiving, I do admit that your derivation would make for a nice contextual fit!“
Professor Jurgen Uhlich
Purely formally, the proposed derivation (more correctly, pace Uhlich, an "adaptation") would indeed appear to work.
Professor Doctor Alderik Blom
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.