ARMATOS STILL DEEMED UNACCEPTABLE

LAC Memorial Stone Showing ARM[...]S

The verdict on the use of ARMATOS in the LAC inscription as a reference to the leading of British troops against Perennis at Rome has not been well received by the top Latin epigraphers and Roman historians.  In fact, I have failed to garnish support from even one of these scholars.  My idea was that armatos might in the context of the LAC stone represent an intentionally vague or oblique, perhaps even diplomatic effort at referring to the action that led to the execution of Perennis.

No one bought this.  If Commodus gave up his Praetorian Prefect, either being convinced of the conspiracy charges levied at Perennis or as a means of appeasing the British army, the man who had removed such a man would have declared one of two things: either he would have named the man or he would have used 'hostis publicus' or similar.  This is especially true if LAC had been rewarded for the killing of Perennis with the Procuratorship of Liburnia.  In short, we cannot reconcile his wanting to

both claim the successful mission on his stone and a need or desire to avoid naming or directly implicating Perennis.  

And we still have the same problem with ARMATOS that we've had all along: its nonspecific nature.  Yes, sure, we find the phrase ADVERSUS ARMATOS in Tacitus.  But it is found in a context that allows us to know exactly what armed men are being referred to, as well as where the armed men are to be found and who they are fighting for  Here is the relevant passage in the original Latin and in English translation.  I have highlighted the relevant passage:

TACITUS, ANNALS, I.59:

59. Fama dediti benigneque excepti Segestis vulgata, ut quibusque bellum invitis aut cupientibus erat, spe vel dolore accipitur. Arminium super insitam violentiam rapta uxor, subiectus servitio uxoris uterus vaecordem agebant, volitabatque per Cheruscos, arma in Segestem, arma in Caesarem poscens. neque probris temperabat: egregium patrem, magnum imperatorem, fortem exercitum, quorum tot manus unam mulierculam avexerint. sibi tres legiones, totidem legatos procubuisse; non enim se proditione neque adversus feminas gravidas, sed palam adversus armatos bellum tractare.

59. The report of the surrender and kind reception of Segestes, when generally known, was heard with hope or grief according as men shrank from war or desired it. Arminius, with his naturally furious temper, was driven to frenzy by the seizure of his wife and the foredooming to slavery of his wife's unborn child. He flew hither and thither among the Cherusci, demanding "war against Segestes, war against Caesar." And he refrained not from taunts. "Noble the father," he would say, "mighty the general, brave the army which, with such strength, has carried off one weak woman. Before me, three legions, three commanders have fallen. Not by treachery, not against pregnant women, but openly against armed men do I wage war. 

Armatos is so disliked by scholars that I have had Tomlin recently remark, "Did any Roman officer ever boast instead of marching against INERMES [unarmed men]?"  The problem has to do with the fact that it would have been assumed an enemy being fought against was armed and so quite unnecessary to describe one's enemy that way.

For now, I find myself in a quandary: the sub-Roman Arthur does seen to have been born at Ribchester, where the Sarmatian veterans were settled in the Roman period.  That suggests that the name Artorius had been preserved by the descendants of those settlers.  And that would have happened only if Lucius Artorius Castus had somehow been seen by the Sarmatians in Britain as a notable figure and one who was involved with them in some special way.  The possibility that the 1500 British spearmen who went against Perennis might well be Sarmatian cavalry would provide us with that connection.  

But if all this is so, what to make of ARM[...]S?  The only candidate available would appear to be ARMORICOS, and that is not entirely satisfactory, for reasons which have been discussed before.

It is possible I am wrong about the Eliwlad-Ailithir equation, of course.  And that would leave open ARMENIOS, placing LAC in Britain before the Sarmatians were sent there.  We could then not propose any association of LAC with Sarmatians.  The 1500 sent against Perennis would have been commanded by someone else - perhaps the Priscus I have discussed before in great detail.

Over the next week or so, I will be taking yet another look at ARM[...]S.  There may be other possibilities we have missed.  For example, an inscription from Dalmatia to the god Armatus reads on the first line ARMAVG S for Armatus Augustus.  Although ARM[...]S can only have a few letters missing, they could be, conceivably, letters of another abbreviated word, with ARM being separate from them.  

Stay tuned... I will post any new finding or eventual conclusion.