NO EVIDENCE (OR GOOD ARGUMENT) FOR LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS AS LEGATE OR GOVERNOR OF BRITAIN

Lucius Artorius Castus Stone with Proposed ARMATOS Reading

(Courtesy Alessandro Faggiani)

Because it is probable that the sub-Roman Arthur was born at the fort of the Roman period Sarmatian veterans in Britain, I have provisionally agreed to accept the ARMATOS reading for the LAC stone - despite unified scholarly resistance to the idea.  I have also found it highly likely that LAC as an equestrian acting for the legate of the Sixth Legion was assigned to lead a deputation against Perennis. This deputation was composed of 1500 Sarmatian contus-bearers drawn from the three British legions. 

But the further claim tha LAC became either legate or governor of Britain, presumably filling the gap between Pertinax and Albinus, is not something I can support.  And here's why...

Firstly, there is no evidence he became such.  Secondly, that he became procurator of Liburnia after leading the legionay detachments of Britain does not prove that he had to be governor.  We have an equestrian in the time of Hadrian who was made procurator of a part of the newly divided Dacia.  So there is precedent right there.  Secondly, had he been legate or governor - even acting-governor - these are distinctions that he would never have omitted from his memorial stone.  'Dux' in the context of someone leading three legionary detachments refers in the Antonine period to a junior officer being given a special military task - and that's all.  It does not imply that he was legate or a governor.  

No equestrian became governor in the period prior to or during the Antonine period.

The notions that Commodus may have appointed LAC governor as a reward for his getting rid of Perennis, or because there was a shortage of senators for the post due to plague happening at the time (both suggestions being made by Dr. Linda Malcor), are appealing, even tempting.  But if LAC had been officially appointed governor, once again we can be assured he would have claimed this on his stone.  He goes into great detail about his procuratorship, and governorship of a province, as the highlight of his military career, would not have been left out.  The same holds true for the rank of legate.

We do have a record of an equestrian becoming governor of two provinces in the Severan period, Titus Cornasidius Sabinus (193-211 AD).  But these were small provinces.  The following information, though found on Wikipedia, is drawn from Adrian Goldsworthy's 2003 book THE COMPLETE ROMAN ARMY:

"In the imperial administration, equestrian posts included that of the governorship (praefectus Augusti) of the province of Egypt, which was considered the most prestigious of all the posts open to equites, often the culmination of a long and distinguished career serving the state. In addition, equites were appointed to the governorship (procurator Augusti) of some smaller provinces and sub-provinces e.g. Judaea, whose governor was subordinate to the governor of Syria."

Needless to say, Britain was not a small province. 

There is one overriding, indisputable fact about Lucius Artorius Castus's memorial stone and that is this: the highest rank he achieved prior to the procuratorship of Liburnia was prefect of the Sixth Legion. We can say this with certainty, for that is all he tells us.  He does not supply us with his rank of legate or with his rank of governor.  The dux designation has been abused enough by those wishing to see more in it than is there.  Prior to the mid-third century, it was not used as a formal rank.  It merely showed that a junior officer had been given a special temporary mission.  Whatever we decide ARM[...]S represents in the inscription, the legionary detachments he led against the person, place or thing were led by a prefect acting as the agent of a legate. 

No Roman military man is going to leave off his very large and very expensive and very beautiful memorial stone the most important and highest ranking titles of his career.  Anyone who tries to convince you he would, and that a term used on the inscription has either a different meaning than we know it had, or has an implied meaning that is not otherwise evinced, is in error. 

This sentiment is echoed in Tomlin's quote, which I only just included in my post a few days ago at https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/a-confusion-of-sarmatians-or-what.html:

"The Valerius Maximianus inscription is almost the same date. He is careful to specify that he was raised to the senate before being made a legionary legate. LAC never says this.  LAC never pretends to be anything other than a prefect of a legion."

[1]

Professor Roger Tomlin on the PRAEFF on LAC's stone:

"PRAEFF is such an easy stonecutter's error that I don't like to overload it with the sense that LAC was prefect twice. He would surely have said so, in the way that a primus pilus for the second time is proud of being iterum."