NOTE: Since writing this piece, I have revisited the problem of fitting ARMORICOS on the LAC stone. The problem is that the required C-O ligature appears to be quite rare. According to Alessandro Faggiani, he has found only a couple instances so far. This fact combined with the otherwise quite normal lettering of the inscription leds doubt to the notion that ARMORICOS should be the intended reading - which, of course, is why Dr. Linda Malcor and associated have preferred ARMATOS.
Tomlin told me (via private communication):
"I would agree that ligature doesn't suit the style of the stone. I don't know how rare it actually is, but I would have expected it to be later, Severan at least."
And:
"There is some use of ligature, but like you, I am not happy with 'o' within 'C'. But I don't think ARMORICOS can be abbreviated, quite apart from the embarrassment that the term was properly – as you, a Celticist would know – AREMORICOS. I think if the stone-cutter was saving space, he wouldn't have used ADVERSVS. CONTRA would have saved him two letters. The use of ADVERSVS rather suggests that he wasn't using abbreviation here."
I will be continuing to work on this problem over the next few weeks. For now, I consider the ARM[...]S question unresolved.
ARMORICA
LAC Stone with ARMORICOS
(courtesy Alessandro Faggiani)
It has become unfashionable to consider ARMORICOS as the proper reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the LAC inscription. This is simply because ARMENIOS is preferred - something I wrote about at length. At one time I favored the ARMENIOS reading. This changed when I realized I could not divest myself of the Eliwlad-Ailithir equation, something that demonstrated a connection between the sub-Roman Arthur and the Sarmatian veterans who had settled at Ribchester in the Roman period. And so I took it upon myself to seriously consider ARMATOS, a new reading proposed by Dr. Linda Malcor and her colleagues.
Alas, after a lengthy analysis and having checked with all the best epigraphers and historians, ARMATOS simply doesn't seem to work.
What does that mean for our understanding of LAC's military career?
Well, if I'm right and he does belong to a time when the Sarmatian troops were in Britain, the only other possible alternative is ARMORICOS.
Well, if I'm right and he does belong to a time when the Sarmatian troops were in Britain, the only other possible alternative is ARMORICOS.
To see if such a reading made any sense in light of current research, I consulted a fairly new book by Thomas Grunewald - Bandits in the Roman Empire Myth and Reality (Routledge, 2008). This volume contained a good summary of research that had been done on Maternus and the Deserters' War and its localization, at least in part, in Armorica. I here quote from the most important discussion of the geographical evidence:
Crucial for deciding on the plausibility of a link between Maternus and
the Bagaudae is the question as to whether Maternus’ movement really,
as Herodian claims, covered wide parts of Gaul, the Germanies and Spain.
Scholars, deeply sceptical about what Herodian says, have long regarded
the extension of the revolt as controversial; and indeed, Herodian is not
above having inordinately exaggerated its dimensions.153 In the end, he had
to make out Maternus to be a serious challenger to Commodus. G. Alföldy
has, on the basis of epigraphical evidence, located the centre of the uprising
in Upper Germany and the dependent territory of the Agri Decumates.
Reference has already been made to the inscription honouring C. Vesnius
Vindex who, as tribune of Legio VIII, survived a ‘recent siege’. Added to this
can be the wax writing tablet from Rottweil, also already touched upon in
relationship with Maternus’ rebellion.154 This mentions sentences under
martial law (of deserters?) by M. Iuventius Caesianus, legate of Legio VIII.
Beyond the region of the upper Rhine there was, at least according to
Alföldy, no unrest connected with Maternus.155 A revolt confined to Upper
Germany can scarcely be seen as the expression of a protest movement across
Gaul and even beyond.
Meanwhile, archaeological finds have continued to stimulate discussion.
As early as 1956, S. Szádeczky-Kardoss, on the basis of coin hoards, pointed
to destruction at Juliobona, at the mouth of the Seine, previously dated to
the reign of Marcus Aurelius, as an indication of the Bellum Desertorum.
156 In 1982, G. Mangard published his reconstruction of the building inscription
of a temple in Bois l’Abbé (Eu, Haute-Normandie), probably constructed
during the Severan period. The dedicator, L. Cerialius Rectus, cites in the
enumeration of his municipal positions that of ‘officer in charge of controlling
banditry’ (pra[efectus latro]cinio [arcendo]).157 Contrary to what Mangard
proposes, this post has nothing in particular to do with Maternus. It describes those
local Gallic officials charged as a matter of course to act against
latrones. This has already been seen in Chapter 1.158 Mangard further points
to a remarkable concentration of regional coin hoards dating to late in
Commodus’ reign.159 Independent of this, on the basis of an accumulation
of archaeological evidence for serious damage in the territory of the Pictones
(south of the Loire mouth, modern Poitou), G. Ch. Picard was able to
identify a destruction horizon stratigraphically dated to the period spanning
Marcus Aurelius’ Marcommanic wars and the reign of Commodus.160 Among
other sites, the civitas-capital, Limonum (Poitiers), had suffered harm so
severe as to be explicable only as the result of war. North of the mouth of
the Loire, and so north of Pictonian territory, comes Aremorica, which
then runs along the Channel coast to the mouth of the Seine, and includes
Juliobona. Into association with the destruction sites among the Pictones G.
Ch. Picard brings possible contemporary military activity action in Aremorica
as evidenced by the funerary inscription of a certain L. Artorius Castus.161
An officer who had proved himself in a number of postings, in his personal
account of his own achievements he made much of the fact that he had led
two British legions together with auxiliaries ‘against the Aremoricans’.162
On the basis of chronological indicators in the history of the Roman army in
Britain, Castus’ command is dated after 181.
Given the close chronological and geographical proximity of the unrest in
Aremorica and Maternus’ rebellion, A.R. Birley had, indeed, before Picard,
already suggested a connection between the two.163 Picard adopts this
approach, and links all locations designated as having thrown up evidence
typical of military activity – such as destruction, coin hoards and inscriptions –
to form a theatre of war in which a single integrated conflict might
have taken place: the revolt of Maternus.
In the current state of our knowledge we can, therefore, make out a
number of different centres of military unrest in Gaul and the Germanies of
the early 180s – in Upper Germany, and north-western and western Gaul. If
all the evidence is connected to Maternus, the geographical and chronological
extent of the Bellum Desertorum emerges as very wide indeed. Herodian’s
reference, apropos the wide distribution of the trouble spots, to Gaul and
Spain, seems more trustworthy; and the idea of some sort of link between
Maternus and the Bagaudae receives significant confirmation since the evidence
for destruction in north-west Gaul, most recently pointed up by Picard,
fits in well with the notion of this area’s being the heart of the Bagaudic
movement.
Now this series of incidents, strung together to form a chain of evidence,
may well indicate that a number of regions in the general area of Gaul and
the Germanies suffered warlike incidents under Commodus, probably the
result of military threat, political instability and social crisis (whether real
or perceived). Maternus’ rebellion may, without doubt, be seen as manifestation
of this last. However, there is no proof that all these trouble-spots were
linked to the revolt; and, what is more, contemporary symptoms of crisis are
certainly to be found even further afield in Gaul. To name just one example:
around the time that Commodus succeeded Marcus Aurelius, Trier received
its first city wall, still evidenced by its mighty North Gate, the ‘Porta
Nigra’.164 Since Trier had been granted colonial status under Augustus, the
construction of this wall can hardly be explained symbolically – as marking
the rank of colonia. And even if the wall was built close to the time of
Maternus’ rising, without further evidence no one would dream of supposing
that it was erected just because of it. It is more likely that ‘general
unrest on the frontiers of the Rhine and Danube made the Treveri think it
advisable to adorn their tribal capital with a circuit-wall’.165 Contributory to
this ‘general unrest’ were, no doubt, numerous smaller incidents on the lines
of that of Maternus. Together with the new Germanic threat, they increased
the severity of the coming overall ‘Crisis’ of the third century, of which they
may be said to have been the harbingers. Thus it seems unlikely, and in
any case unproven, that Maternus’ revolt grew to such a size that it extended
from the upper Rhine to the far north-west of Gaul.
The only link between Maternus and the Bagaudae is the three inscriptions of
C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, each alike almost to the letter.166 As
commander of a detached force of men seconded from the four German
legions, under the Severi, Castinus had directed operations ‘against renegades
and rebels’ (adversus defectores et rebelles). Given the hundred years or so
that separated Maternus and the Bagaudae, the unique evidence of this
inscription should, from the start, be called upon as a link between the two
only with great circumspection. That the renegades and rebels mentioned
were insurgent provincials, deserters, runaway slaves and other marginal
figures, who still consciously saw themselves as continuing a movement
put down in 186, is not particularly plausible and anyway lacking in hard
evidence. The suppression of a provincial uprising involving units from
four legions would probably have found greater mention in the sources.
On the other hand, the explanation that Castinus and his force proceeded
against supporters of Clodius Albinus is convincing in terms of context and
chronology.167
Since it cannot be proved that Maternus was the instigator of all unrest
indicated in Gaul and the Germanies in his period, and since Castinus’
inscriptions are questionable as linking elements, it would seem best to steer
clear of any assumption of a basic connection between Maternus and the
Bagaudae.
In the second part of his report on the activities of the deserters, Herodian
first describes Maternus’ alleged intention of overthrowing Commodus and
claiming the imperial throne for himself.168 The planning and failure of
this attempt at usurpation form the conclusion of the account.169 The initial
uprising was crushed only after the involvement of the respective provincial
governors, ordered by Commodus to take active countermeasures after
complaining about their negligence in combating the rebellion. That Pescennius
Niger was put in charge of putting down the revolt should be seen as an
invention of the author of the Historia Augusta, to support the credibility of
his claim of friendship between Niger and Septimius Severus, at that time
governor of Gallia Lugdunensis.170 If the wax writing-tablet from Rottweil
refers to the Bellum Desertorum, it follows that in the Agri Decumates the
revolt was quelled at the latest by August 186.171 As already mentioned, this
document refers to sentences passed by Iuventius Caesianus, legate of Legio
VIII.
Given these kinds of troubles in Armorica at this point in time, it would not be at all unreasonable for LAC to have been sent to the Continent with legionary vexillations to help deal with the problem. Whether the instigator or leader was Maternus or someone else (if we wish to restrict the former's activities to Germany) need not detain us. What is important is that Armorica seems to have been subject to major unrest and assistance was required from across the Channel.
For me to retain the 'Sarmatian connection', I must, through process of elimination, opt to read ARM[...]S as ARMORICOS.
This does not, obviously, help us with the 1500 spearmen who marched to Rome to destroy Perennis. We must assume that if LAC led the spearmen, it happened after his force had finished fighting in Armorica. This is entirely possible. The sequence of events involving Priscus, legate of the Sixth legion, and the war is difficult to parse. I have discussed Priscus in several blog posts, most recently this one: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-problem-of-priscus-loyal-legate.html. The case has been made that Priscus was fighting against the deserters and that he was the one who led the 1500 spearmen to Rome. An analysis of the stones that may be related to him indicates that he may have been praepositus of some British troops after he served with the Macedonian legion. And it was before he served with that legion that he was legate of the Sixth in Britain.
My own feeling is that Tomlin is right and the uncertain double N in the Priscus inscription may mean that these troops being led by Priscus were from German legions, not British ones. I say this because after Priscus refused the British attempt to raise him to the purple, he would have been rewarded for his loyalty by being made legate of the Macedonian legion. And, of course, it would have been considered wise to remove him from Britain. To then think that he would have at some point be put back into the command of British troops makes no sense at all. For this reason, I take him out of the British sphere as far as the praepositus rank is concerned.
It will be noticed in the above account of the Maternus revolt that there are now thought to be chiefly two theaters in which trouble was occurring: Germany and Armorica. I would propose, then, that LAC was sent with British troops to help in Armorica, while Priscus was sent with German troops to help in Germany.
If so, this leaves us with the question of who led the 1500 British spearmen to Rome. As I have removed Priscus from the picture, there is no good reason why to not settle on LAC as the commander of this mission to remove Perennis from power.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.