Commodus coin with Felix title, assumed by the Emperor
after the killing of Perennis
In the following blog piece -
- I laid out my idea that Lucius Artorius Castus fought in Britain, commanding his own Sixth Legion supplemented by generous vexillations from the other two British legions. This would have happened in the early 180s, during the reign of Commodus.
Accepting this scenario (which I at first resisted), I was forced to provisionally allow ARMATOS for the ARM[...]S on LAC's memorial stone. While I was not particularly happy to equate 'armed men/soldiers/troops' with the several tribes said to break through Hadrian's Wall at the time in question, no other good alternative presented itself.
Might there be a way that we can make ARMATOS more palatable?
I think so. I have discussed before the 1500 British spearmen sent to Rome to execute Perennis [1]. These troops may well have been Sarmatian cavalry (who he most certainly would have employed during battles in Northern Britain). Their delegation to Rome (185 A.D.) happens immediately after Ulpius Marcellus' victory in Britain. While we don't know exactly what transpired, it seems Marcellus' methods had been so harsh in quelling the barbarian invasion from the North that a mutiny of the British army ensued. The situation became so dire that the British troops try to raise a legate named Priscus (probably of the Sixth Legion [2]) to the purple. The expressed reason for their discontent is a policy supposedly instituted by Perennis whereby senators were replaced by equestrians (like LAC). But, in truth, we know this kind of thing was happening before Perennis' time and it is more likely the Perennis simply became the scapegoat for what were perceived as failed leadership in general. While Perennis' decision to replace senators with equestrians is said to be the a punishment for the insubordination of the British troops, it is just as possible that it was instead a reaction to the attempt to make Priscus emperor. As only senators could be emperor, removing them from senior posts would eliminate the danger that one of them might ultimately accept the offer to rule the Empire.
In any case, the British army decides that Perennis must go, and sends the 1500 spearmen to Rome. Commodus either believes their story that Perennis was conspiring against him or he wishes to placate the British troops. Perennis is handed over and killed. Marcellus is put on trial (perhaps because of the mutiny and also, perhaps, in some way, because of the killing of Perennis), but later pardoned. He eventually restores his friendship with the Emperor, and is found to be in favor later in his career.
Commodus, during all this, did two things directly related to British events: he declared himself Britannicus or Conqueror of Britain (thanks to Marcellus' success) and adopted the title of Felix ('fortunate') in celebration of the murder of Perennis.
Is it possible, I wonder, that LAC took part in both events? Might the ambiguity of three British legions and ARMATOS of his inscription be a reflection of that fact?
Well, let's take a look at a speculative, though utterly plausible scenario...
Priscus was a legate of the Sixth. The Sixth (with whom LAC is serving as camp prefect) tries to raise Priscus to the purple during the mutiny. He refuses. But Marcellus, aware of the Sixth's state of mind and trying to quell a mutiny, promises them Perennis and selects their camp prefect Lucius Artorius Castus to head up the delegation to Rome.
This seems to take account of everything. Firstly, Priscus, whether legate of a legion or possibly later a praepositus of some British vexillations (all depending on our reading of several extremely damaged inscriptions on individuals who may - or may not - be the same man), did not have the authority to send a delegation of 1500 spearmen to Rome. Neither did LAC, of course. Granted, if the troops were mutinous, they may not have paid any attention to the governor. But if they acted without his consent, the 1500 spearmen would have immediately have been destroyed once they set foot on the Continent. Instead, we are assured by Dio that they were left unhindered in their march to Rome. This must have been due to the fact that they were travelling on the governor's mandate.
Before Priscus is supposed to have led some British vexillations, he was serving with the Macedonian legion. And that posting happened only after his stint with the Sixth. If he were really made praepositus of some British troops while with that Macedonian legion, he must have commanded them in some aspect of the Deserters' War. The sequence of events in Dio has Perennis fall before Commodus is afflicted with Maternus' rebellion. Thus the British troops Priscus may have led after being with the Macedonian legion could not have been the ones sent to Rome to kill Perennis. Sending a man who had been offered the purple to Rome with the very troops responsible for that action would have been an ill-conceived and even provocative move. But sending a man who had served under him with the same legion would have been politically astute.
If LAC took the place of a legionary commander, being appointed dux, this must have happened before Priscus was appointed legate of the Sixth. In other words, we can imagine LAC leading his troops against the tribes from beyond the Wall on an emergency footing. At some point, perhaps when Marcellus arrives on the scene or sometime thereafter, the posting of the missing legate is filled. It is unlikely LAC would have been made dux on this occasion if the Sixth had a legate or that legate were not somehow indisposed.
How might LAC have chosen to commemorate his role in the killing of Perennis, assuming he was the commander (dux) of the delegation to Rome? He could have just said 'against Perennis' or 'against a public enemy (hostis publicus, as he was declared according to The Life of Commodus in the Augustan History, 6:2). But who was it he might have had to bring his spearman against if his mission actually involved fighting? Roger Tomlin has reminded me that this action on the part of the British forces could have resulted in actual civil war.
The account in Dio mentions that Commodus had many times the number of Praetorians at his disposal and could have brought these to bear. Praetorians were soldiers. Although LAC could have referred to them by name, he may have been hesitant to do so, as these were the personal guards of the Emperor (see https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/secondary/SMIGRA*/Praetoriani.html) They could have been referred to simply as milites or armatos, an intentionally diplomatic term whose generic nature was designed to avoid undesirable connotations. In addition, these were fellow Roman soldiers. They were not REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES, DEFECTORES, DESERTORES. As Tomlin told me, "If it were a matter of internal security [i.e. an action within Britain], I would have expected a term such as this." Going to Rome was not such an action.
If, however, we allow for LAC's three British legions against ARMATOS as a reference not only to the several tribes he fought in Northern Britain, but also to the soldiers of the Praetorian Guard he might well have faced, could we not accept ARMATOS as an appropriate, all-inclusive word in the context of the inscription? The 1500 spearmen might well have been drawn, 500 each, from the three British legions.
LAC was alive when he made his stone. His stating this means that he was vouching for the authenticity of its claims. He would not have permitted the exclusion of vexillations from the inscription, as that would prove that he was a liar and a fake. People of the time would have known better. So I must go with my "gut" on this, and the above is the best that I can conjure from our extant sources.
***
PERENNIS IN CASSIUS DIO
8 He also had some wars with the barbarians beyond Dacia, in which Albinus and Niger, who later fought against the emperor Severus, won fame; but the greatest struggle was the one with the Britons. p87 2 When the tribes in that island, crossing the wall that separated them from the Roman legions, proceeded to do much mischief and cut down a general together with his troops, Commodus became alarmed but sent Ulpius Marcellus against them. 3 This man, who was temperate and frugal and always lived like a soldier in the matter of his food as well as in everything else when he was at war, was becoming haughty and arrogant; he was most conspicuously incorruptible, and yet was not of a pleasant or kindly nature. 4 He showed himself more wakeful than any other general, and as he wished the others who were associated with him to be alert also, he used to write orders on twelve tablets, such as are made out of linden wood, almost every evening, and bid an aide to deliver them to such-and‑such persons at various hours, so that these officers, believing the general the always awake, might not themselves take their fill of sleep. For nature in the first place had made him able to resist sleep, and he had developed this faculty by the discipline of fasting. 5 For in general he would never eat to satiety, and in order that he might not take his fill even of bread, he used to send to Rome for it. This was not because he could not eat the bread of the country, but in order that his bread might be so stale that he should be unable to eat even a small portion more than was absolutely necessary; for his gums were tender and, if the bread was very dry, would soon begin to bleed. However, he purposely exaggerated his natural tendency by simulating, in order that he might have the greatest possible reputation for p89 wakefulness. 6 Such a man was Marcellus; and he ruthlessly put down the barbarians of Britain, and later, when, thanks to his peculiar excellence, he was all but on the point of being put to death by Commodus, he was nevertheless pardoned.
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 the 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.
[1]
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, Sarmatian heavy cavalry brought from Britain.
A description of the Sarmatian contus from R. Brzezinski and M. Mielczarek's THE SARMATIANS 600 BC - AD 450:
... the Sarmatian lance (Latin contus, Greek kontos) was such an exceptionally long weapon that it stands out above the confusion. The word had been used in Homer for a long pole used by Greek sailors for punting. Much later the Romans applied it to the huge Sarmatian lance or contus sarmaticus. It even appears in Roman poetry in non-Sarmatian contexts... From the 1st century onwards, authors like Tacitus, Arrian and Ammianus speak of the Sarmatian or Alan weapon as the contus, and calls its user a kontophoros or 'contus-bearer.'
[2]
I have Gergori's paper on Priscus, and Tomlin's detailed commentary on this soldier. The author's Italian is roughly translated into English.
Un nuovo senatore dell'età di Commodo?
Gian Luca Gregori
Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik , 1995, Bd. 106 (1995), pp. 269-279
Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20189321
The lacuna at the beginning of r. 7 does not allow to establish with precision the legions of belonging of the departments to which ours was in charge; however, the sign that can be glimpsed right on the fracture margin, also considering the distance between the letters, should rather belong to an N than to an A and, since at least 5 letters should have fallen into the gap, the integration [Brita ] nnic (arum) would seem preferable to [Germ] anic (arum). It would therefore be the vexillations of the three legions stationed in Britannia20, the II Augusta (in Isca), the VI Victrix (ad Eburacum) and the XX Valeria Victrix (in Deva) 21: in order to r. 6, on the other hand, there seems to be enough space to integrate the number [III]...
Probably around 184, when ours could have held his first legation of legion, there was a military uprising in Britain, following which some of the soldiers acclaim their legate as emperor, of which only the surname Priscus is known: these refused? the honor and succeed? to quell souls34. Our senator, how is he? said, he was at a certain point in his career in charge of departments drawn from the probably British legions. Since the senators in command of legionary vexillations were often chosen from among the former legions of one of the legions involved35 and considering that the first legion to which ours was bound bears the appellations of pia fidelis, it does not seem impossible that he had exercised command of VI Victrix, honored with those titles since the time of Domitian and stationed in Eburacum36: at the beginning of r. 9 c '? moreover, enough space to integrate the epithet Victrix, abbreviated to the first three or four letters. While acknowledging that Priscus? very common surname, then I wonder if it is too risky to identify our senator with the contemporary Priscus protagonist of the episode mentioned by Cassio Dione.
Addendum
When already the article was in print I received some further indications from prof. G. Alfoldy, which I consider appropriate to refer here, as a contribution to the interpretation of the text. As for the onomastatics of the senator, to r. 2 could also read GAR [?] (instead of CAR) to be integrated with a second noble of the character: eg. Gar [gilio?] (see G. Alf? ldy, Chiron 8, 1978, 369-375) or Gar [ilio?] (see CIL VIII 4241, 8064, 19758, 20503). The office of [praep] ositus vexill. [leg. Ill Brita] nnicarum could fit into the years 185-186, at the time of the bellum desertorum, also for comparison with God 72, 9, 2-4 (in 185 1500 soldiers of the British troops arrived in Italy to ask for the death of Perennis).
To help us understand those passages, Tomlin writes:
The problem is whether the Rome inscription attests a legate of III Augusta. This man [...]VNIO [...]CO is consul under Commodus, commander of several legions, with an African connection (honoured by Cirta). The difficulty is reading the legions, as you can see. The first one looks like II Something, but (as Birley notices) for its commander to be described as legate 'pro praetore' implies that he had more the status of a provincial governor. For this reason I think Birley's critics prefer to see it as III [Augusta] rather than II I[talica], since the legate of III Augusta was also governor of Numidia. This would fit neatly with the Legate of III Augusta called T. Caunius Priscus, since he is attested by Dessau ILS 3843 (Lambaesis), which also says he was 'consul designate'. His dating depends on a very fragmentary inscription also from Lambaesis (CIL vi.2697), which attests a legate of Commodus (AD 186) called [...]CO LEG[...].
You will have to decide for yourself whether all these identifications and restorations hang together.
Priscus would have been superior in rank, but they cannot have held the same command. LAC is 'dux legionum [...] Britanicianarum' – i.e. acting-commander of a force drawn from the British legions (etc.) – while Priscus (if correctly restored) is 'praepositus vexillationum [of legions, plausibly restored as 'British', but this is not certain]', i.e. acting-commander of [?British legionary] detachments.
They are equivalent commands, and thus surely two different commands?
Our basic problem, as you know, is whether we can pull all these inscriptions together and refer them to the same man – (1) Titus Caunius Priscus, legate of III Augusta who is about to become consul (but we don't know when); (2) the legate of III Augusta called ]CO LEG[, who is in post under Commodus; (3) the consul of Commodus in c.191 who is called ]VNIO ... [...]CO. Identifying (3) with (2) depends on seeing his latest command as III Augusta, not II Italica (as in Birley p. 261, following Gregori and Alföldy). From what I can see of the stone, this is possible, and better suits his titulature.
If you do identify the three, you get a long and interesting senatorial career crowned by the consulship at the end of Commodus' reign. In ascending order:
legate of VI Victrix (but bear in mind that this is a restoration – we only know for sure that it was a legion with P F in its titulature)
legate of V Macedonica
field-commander of vexillations drawn from a provincial army ending in –NNICARVM , which again must be reconstructed as the 'British' legions. The first N is doubtful – could it be 'Germanicarum' instead?
legate of III Augusta (which depends on a re-reading of the Rome inscription)
consul, c. 191
If this is seen as the career of Caunius Priscus, which I think is reasonable (but not certain), then you get a tight chronology if you try to fit it to the second-rate literary record.
Priscus is legate of VI Victrix in 184, when Commodus becomes Britannicus and the British army tries to proclaim the legate Priscus. He is promoted for his loyalty, and also to get him out of Britain – becomes legate of V Macedonica. As such, he is made acting-commander of a field force perhaps (but not necessarily) drawn from Britain. In any case, he would not have needed to go to Britain to command a field-force operating on the Continent.
He is successful in this command – i.e. he kills Maternus – and as a reward gets the plum post of III Augusta which is a provincial governorship as well; and naturally leads to the consulship.
I think you can squeeze it all together, since his legionary command in Britain would have ended with his refusal to become a usurper, and he could have commanded the vexillations during his next post, the command of V Macedonica.
I leave it to you to decide whether the vexillations were 'British' or to be identified with the 1500 spearmen who killed Perennis, let alone whether LAC had anything to do with all this. "
