CAN WE PLACE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS IN ARMORICA?

Aremorica

Ar(e)morica

TN TN: Brittany (FRA). Ar[e]morica Caesar BG 5,53,6; 7,75,4; Aremorica Pliny 4, 31;

gentis Aremoricae Auson. 11, 10.28 (Profess.); Aremoricus 25, 10.14 (Techn.); 27,

3.35 (Epist.); Rutil. Namat. 1, 213; Armorici Eutrop. 9, 21; 'Aρμόριχος Zosim.

6,5,3; etc. ‘Land (situated) facing the sea’, are- mori- -ica.

(from http://docshare02.docshare.tips/files/28516/285161581.pdf)

Armŏrĭcae (later form Arēmŏrĭ-cae , Aus. Ep. 9, 35; id. Prof. 10, 15)... some of the northern provinces of Gaul, Bretagne, with a part of Normandy, Caes. B. G. 5, 53; 7, 75; Hirt. 8, 31; cf. Mann. Gall. 160.

(from http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3DArmoricae)

There are only three possibilities, really, for the ARM[...]S of the fragmentary Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone's inscription: ARMORICOS or ARMENIOS.  While Dr. Linda A. Malcor and her colleagues Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiana (2019, Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription, Journal of Indo-European Studies, https://www.jies.org/) have made their case for ARMATOS, I have not been able to make that proposed word work.  And I did really try!  I have in the past covered my reasons for not being able to support their suggestion in great detail and will not belabor my readers with all of that again. 

In this piece I will present the case for LAC in Armorica. His presence there in the time of the so-called Deserters' War during the reign of Commodus would allow us to associate him with Sarmatian troops in Britain.  Opting instead for ARMENIOS takes this connection away from us (see  https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/04/officially-bestowed-pay-grades-and.html and several prior blog articles). 

ARMORICOS can fit on the LAC stone, if we allow for a relatively rare o inside the c ligature.  We would have to confirm that this ligature was found in the 180s.  I have not yet pursued that line of research.  Professor Roger Tomlin guessed that it might be later rather than earlier.

While Ar[e]morica is not found otherwise in inscription, it is known in documentary sources.  

But the primary evidence for the involvment of Armorica in the Revolt of Maternus is archaeological.  Grunewald    

(see https://historicalunderbelly.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/thoma-grunewald-bandits-in-the-roman-empire-myth-and-reality-2004.pdf p. 130) has summarized the research of Picard [1], who theorized that Armorica was, indeed, the center of serious trouble during the time period we are considering:

"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."

Grunewald continues later in his book, showing that there was trouble in Germany and Gaul, including northwestern Gaul (where Armorica is located):

"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." 

We could, therefore, make a case for LAC in Armorica during the Deserters' War.

But what about the Priscus who is often mentioned in either this context or in that of the delegation of 1500 British spearmen sent to Rome to execute Perennis?

Well, 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. "

Now, to be fair, Tomlin is not at all convinced the story of the delegation of 1500 spearmen to Rome is anything other than that - a story.  But if we accept it as a historical event, we must try to "fit it into" the narrative as that has been presented to us.  

Obviously, if LAC is telling us he took legionary detachments to Armorica, we are not talking about his going on a delegation to Rome.  He would be fighting followers of Maternus in what is modern Brittany. And that means the British had answered Commodus' call to the provinces to deal with the desertors.  

What we are told about the 1500 spearmen is that they were sent because they were upset about being punished (or censured?) for insubordination.  The insubordination in question was, if Dio's account is correct, the attempt to raise Priscus to the purple.  But the stated reason as to why they tried to do that is because Perennis had made it official policy to replace legates with equestrians - something that had actually been going on for awhile prior to the reign of Commodus (as Tomlin has demonstrated to my satisfaction).  In any case, the army would appear to have been in a mutinous state.

It has occurred to me that it is just as possible that Perennis began replacing the legates (in Britain at least) as a result of the attempt to make Priscus emperor. Only members of the Senatorial class could become emperors, so if they were removed and replaced by equestrians, this potential danger was removed.  It is reasonable to suppose that Priscus, after showing his loyalty to the emperor, was threatened with removal.  He may then have sent some of his men to Rome to make his case against Perennis and once again show his loyalty to Commodus by revealing a conspiracy headed by the Praetorian Prefect.

But I would propose yet another scenario:

LAC served under Priscus when the latter was legate of the Sixth Legion.  After the attempt to make Priscus emperor, the legate is sent to the Macedonian legion.  LAC nexts takes legionary vexillations to Armorica to fight against the deserters.  While that is going on, Priscus (of senatorial and legate rank, and thus a man who outranks an equestrian) assumes command of the British forces on the Continent.  LAC, in response to the hated policies of Perennis, who may simply have been blamed for all the problems afflicting northern Europe at the time, is sent with troops to Rome.  By going after Perennis, Priscus showed his continuing loyalty to Commodus.

The transfer of command may look awkward and difficult to explain, but it may be that LAC was referring to himself as commander of the troops going to Armorica, while knowing that ultimately those very troops were to be assigned to Priscus.  And, needless to say, it was Priscus who stood to lose the most from Perennis' policies. Whether LAC's delegation to Rome was prearranged (as something that was to coincide with LAC's being relieved of control of the British units) is impossible to say.  

This may well be the way it happened.  In which case, we can allow both ARMORICOS on the stone and LAC's involvment with the delegation of 1500 [Sarmatian?] spearmen. 

[1]

I have attempted to provide a rough translation below of the French article by Picard.  The link is to that original study.  

https://www.persee.fr/doc/bsnaf_0081-1181_1987_num_1985_1_9135

G. PICARD. -

 La révolte de Maternus

M. Gilbert Picard

Bulletin de la Société nationale des Antiquaires de France  Année 1987  1985  pp. 77-84

THE MATERNUS REVOLT

77

Session of March 20.

Mr. Gilbert Picard, m. r., presents a communication entitled: The Revolt of Maternus.

An almost unshakable historical tradition strives to minimize the catastrophes which hit the Roman Empire during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. If the first rupture of the limes could not be hidden in 167, almost all the authors since those of the History of Augustus have endeavored to reduce the severity of secondary wars or internal revolts, or to delay them in order to place the responsibility on Commode. One of the causes of the stagnation of studies is certainly the excessive specialization of research, too few historians and Latinists keeping themselves sufficiently aware of archaeological and epigraphic discoveries, which are almost alone likely to enrich our documentation; and too few archaeologists, who rightly strive to practice an increasingly precise technique, strive to achieve or make possible a historical interpretation of their discoveries.

Fortunately recent works escape these faults and renew our knowledge of this crucial period for the Empire that were the last ten years of the unhappy philosopher prince: for example UArmorique Romaine by P. Gal-liou 1, Miss Walter's thesis on the Porte Noire by Besançon 2, the various works by G. Bauchhenss on the Columns of Jupiter in Germany3, and various more limited research which I will cite below.

The starting point of the crisis was the break in 167 of the Danubian limes by the Quades and the Marcomans, who had been, since the fall of the kingdom of Maroboduus, peaceful neighbors and

1. P. Galliou, L'Armorique romaine, Braspars, 1983, p. 243-245.

2. H. Walter, La Porte Noire de Besançon, Besancon, 1985, p. 366-367.

3. C. S. I. R., Deutschland, II, 2, Germania Superior, Die grosse Iuppitersäule auf Mainz; II, 3, Denkmäler des Iuppiters Kultes aus Mainz, Mainz, 1984. These works are based on the previous works of G. Bauchenss, with whom we generally agree, except on two important points. We maintain, with P.-M. Duval, that the oldest pillar of Jupiter known is that of the nautical figures of Paris, and therefore we do not think that the Column of Nero, original variant of the series, could have given birth to it. On the other hand, we almost entirely share the sentiment of G. Bauchenss on the meaning of the columns, a monument of imperial loyalty.

  MARCH 20

even friendly of the Romans 4. The breach was obstructed, and from 169 the Romans resumed the offensive. But the repercussions of the initial, extremely deadly defeat in an Empire already weakened by the plague were severe and lasting, and were felt in almost every province except a few preserved regions, such as Africa and Asia proconsulates. It was particularly widespread and serious in Gaul.

In Poitou, very important destructions were observed in Poitiers itself5, in the ficus of Vieux Poitiers8 located at the confluence of the Clain and the Vienne, in the Tours Mirandes7, concilia-bulum located thirty kilometers north of Poitiers, and on many other sites in Vienna and southern Deux-Sèvres. The date of the destruction of Old Poitiers had been fixed by MM. Fritsch and Olivier towards the middle of the century. But G. Nicolini, head of the Regional Antiquities until 1982, and his successor, Mr. Papinot, kindly told us that this chronology could be lowered by about a quarter of a century. In Poitiers, the findings of G. Nicolini had been questioned by J. Hiernard8. The work of the III National Congress of Scholarly Societies, held in Poitiers in April 1986, definitively proved that Limonum had suffered, especially at the site of its forum (now Place Charles de Gaulle), extremely serious violence, with fire. of several buildings, which may be dated to about 180.

In the Loir-et-Cher, the flourishing artisanal vicus of Tasciaca (Pouillé-Thésée) was, says Claude Bourgeois who directed the excavation, destroyed at the end of the century. In Armorica, P. Galliou9 notes that the invasion of 166-167 opens a long troubled period. Several establishments were abandoned in the last years of the second century, especially in Finistère. Galliou rightly reconciles these findings with the funeral inscription of L. Artorius Castus, found in Yugoslavia at Stobrez; this Dalmatian officer, after being a centurion in Syria

4. CE. for the support given by their kings to the expedition sent by Nero to the Baltic, J. Kolendo, In Search of the Baltic Amber, Studia Antiqua of the University of Warsaw, 1981.

5. G. Nicolini, Gallia 35, 1977, 2, p. 383.

6. A. Ollivier and R. Fritsch, Archeologia 163, February 1982, p. 52 ff.

7. G. -Ch. Picard, C. R. A. 1982, p. 555.

8. Ancient Poitiers, in History of Poitiers directed by R. Favreau, 1985.

9. Open cit., p. 243 ff.

G. PICARD. -

THE REVOLT OF MATERNUS

79

and in Dacia, primipile, commander of the fleet of Misene, was appointed prefect of the VIth Victrix legion at Eburacum, and duke of two legions of Brittany sent against the Armoricans l0. H. -G. Pflaum11 had rightly seen that "this appointment of a career officer to such an important position contradicts all the rules of the military hierarchy in honor of the 11th century," and attributed the responsibility to Perennis. In fact, there was a more general problem: until Trajan a number of young senators had devoted themselves to a military career, and had learned the trade, like Trajan himself and Hadrian, by multiplying their years. of service as tribunes. The affair of the four consuls had begun to discredit these military viri, and Antonin and Marcus Aurelius had been seen very clear without any serious military aptitude, such as L. Attedius Cornelianus or M. Sedatius Severianus promoted to high command, while that officers trying to restore discipline, such as Avidius Cassius, were treated with suspicion. After the catastrophic results obtained under Marcus Aurelius, Perennis tried to apply the remedy that was to prevail in the second third of the middle century: the creation of a corps of generals out of rank. It was prevented by a senatorial reaction so violent that it brought about its downfall. To constitute the real army entrusted to Artorius Castus, it was necessary to draw two legions from the troops of Brittany. This reclamation was so important that it enabled the barbarians of Scotland to take down the wall of Antonin, in 182 l2. The Armorian revolt was therefore a very serious affair, and it was not only a few rebellious brigands or peasants who challenged the Roman order. Here we find confirmation of the account that Herodian tells of the revolt of Maternus 13; the Alexandrian historian assures that the rebels made raids until Spain, which obviously places the epicenter of their movement in West Gaul. The inscription of Ar-torius speaks on the other hand of Armoricans, term which applies to all the coastal peoples between the Loire and the Seine. Certainly

10. Dessau, I. L. S., 2770; A. R. Birley, Soldier and civilian in Roman Yorkshire, 1971, p. 95 it. 80; G. Alföldy, Bellum desertorum, Bonn. Jahrb. 71, 1971, p. 367-376, n. 33.

11. Procuratorian careers, I, p. 535 ff., N ° 196.

12. D. Divine, The North-West frontier of Rome, London, 1969, p. 200-201.

13. I, 10, 3. See C. R. A. /., 1982, p. 555 ff.

80

MARCH 20

On the other hand, identify the revolt of Maternus with the bellum desertorum of which the Augustan Story speaks about the wonders that occurred under Commodus: the sky ignited before the deserters' war! One could hastily conclude that this war only started under Marc's son. But one can only speak of bellum from the moment when units of the regular army are engaged, and consequently after the arrival of Artorius Castus and his forces. Now the account of Herodian clearly indicates that it was decided to appeal to the legions only after the militias in the cities had shown their powerlessness and that important cities, capitals of republics, had been plundered. The intervention of troops from Brittany brought a new argument in favor of locating the epicenter of the movement in north-west Gaul. Admittedly G. Alföldy showed that an inscription of Urbino mentions, in 185, the siege of Stras¬ bourg defended against the deserters by the legion VIIIe Augusta lS. But this event was very clearly after the operation led by Artorius Castus; at that time (185) Maternus was in the process of making its "long march" to Italy, most probably across Limousin, the Massif Central and the Alps. Part of his troops must have deemed it less risky to flee to Germany, and it was in the process that they attacked Strasbourg.

  At the same time relates the mission of Pescennius Niger in Gaul; the life of Niger in V Histoire Auguste teaches us that this extraordinary mission was contemporaneous with the legation of Septime Sévère in Lyonnaise (185 or 186 to 189) l6. Its purpose was to rid Gaul of the innumerable deserters which ravaged it then. It is quite understandable that it was deemed necessary, on the one hand, to constitute in the provinces without garrison of the Hairy Gaul an independent force, without having to weaken the armies of the limes; on the other hand, to allow the chief of this force to operate in all the provinces, without being hampered by the administrative limits, which certainly had a lot to do with the development of the insurgency, the deserters moving with extreme mobility. We therefore see no reason to consider, with G. Alföldy, this

14. S. H. Α., Commodus, 16, 2.

15. C. I. L., XI, 6053; G. Alföldy, I. I., p. 370, p. 19.

16. S. H. Α., Niger, 3, 3-5; Alföldy, l, l., P. 369, n. 12.  

G. PICARD. - THE MATERNUS REVOLT

81

passage of the History Auguste like an invention of the editor intended to fill a hole in its documentation.

The fundamental problem remains: how could Gaul have been, during the initial five or six years of the reign of Commodus, submerged by a crowd of deserters, to whom were obviously added "jacques" and common criminals, but who were organized with military discipline, by chiefs who had obviously received strategic training? The only possible cause is obviously a defeat of the Roman armies having led to the disarray of important units of auxiliaries and even of legionaries, including the executives. However such defeats occurred under the reign of Marc Aurèle, in 166-167, and until 169. The Roman losses were terrible, even in the high command. Thereafter, the situation recovered, and the fighting generally moved east.

The internal repercussions of these events are manifested for the most part in 173: revolt of the Boucoloi, suppressed by Avidius Cassius in Egypt in 172-173 17. In 173 also, the Moors attacked, reaching as far as Beticia18.

The traces of troubles in Gaul in this period are numerous; we have indicated above those relating to the west. Had in Seine-Maritime, on the territory of Ambiens, a notable is in charge of a praefectura arcendis latrociniis l9. The troubles among the Séquanes, the only ones reported for the reign of Marc by Yliis-toire Auguste 20, seem to have justified the construction of the Besançon arch. This monument of exceptional importance celebrating, not a particular victory, but the general pacification of the Empire, is commensurate with the gravity of the dangers run 21. It has for counterpart, on the western side, the pillar of Yzeures, with the Turons, but at the limit of the Pictons22, and on their territory, at Saint-Jacques de Montauban in the Deux-Sèvres, a group of riders with an anguiped standing just at the limit of what we might call the “Picton Desert” 23: the part of the

17. P. Petit, Roman peace, p. 86.

18. Finally, E. Frezouls, Ant. Afr., 16, 1980, p. 65 ss.

19. M. Mangard, Gallia 40, 1982, 1, p. 42 ff.

20. S. H. Α., Marcus; cf. H. Walter, l. L, p. 368-369.

21. H. Walter, p. 384 ff.

22. Gallia 35, 1977, 1, p. 99 ff.

23. Mr. É. F. R. A. 93, 1981, 2, p. 901, fig. 2; erroneously given as coming from Poitiers.

ANT. BULLETIN -1985

6

82

MARCH 20

Armorican Massif constituting the north of Deux-Sèvres and the east of Vendée, which is empty of Roman monuments.

It was the existence of this vast area, poorly controlled by the authorities and whose inhabitants should have felt only unfriendly towards the people of Haut Poitou, which allowed the grouping of deserters whose some may have originated there; located at the limit of the provinces of Aquitaine and Lyonnaise, it allowed them, by crossing the Loire, to easily evade possible prosecutions. It is not besides soiled reason that will develop there the revolt of the Ba-gaudes, without speaking about more recent jacqueries and uprisings. It obviously took a long time for Maternus to become a little brigand chief a real insurgent general. This slow maturation of the revolt seems to us to have been very well described by Hérodien for whom we do not share the severity of G. Alföldy; we had already noted that for the African revolt of 238, the Alexandrian historian was very well informed24. We can only confirm this judgment about the events of Gaul, which Auguste History on the contrary downplayed to the extreme, out of sympathy for the philosopher emperor.

We do not find it unnecessary to conclude by summarizing numerous and complex facts. From 167, many soldiers and officers of the legions and auxiliaries tested by the German offensive deserted and sought refuge at the ends of the Empire, in the far west of Gaul, especially in the "Pict desert". Little by little, taking advantage of the consensus of the local populations, they began to organize raids against the nearest Romanized centers. A leader was essential, who organized an effective tactic, based on extreme mobility, and certainly using above all the cavalry, which made it possible to strike very far, as far as Spain. Simultaneously unrest broke out in the north and east; towards the end of the reign of Marc Aurèle, the insecurity is general in all Gaul Hairy and threatens even to gain Spain. In 179 or 180, Maternus decided to take a big hit on Limonum, the capital of Aquitaine; he took control of the city center, set fire to a number of buildings and withdrew, after having released the prisoners from the prison he incorporated. Convenient then gets angry, and attacks the magistrates of the city

24. Civitas Mactaritana (Karthago, VIII, 1960), p. 000.

G. PICARD. - THE MATERNUS REVOLT 83

in principle responsible for the order. As a sanction, Limonum loses its rank of capital. But Perennis realizes that serious military intervention is needed. Rather than draw the necessary troops from the Rhine, he preferred to call on the army of Brittany. An officer out of the ranks, Artorius Castus, is in charge of an extraordinary command. His army, comprising almost two legions, was easily victorious, no doubt near the estuary of the Loire. But the clarissims protested violently against an innovation which deposed them with one of their essential prerogatives. On the other hand the barbarians of Scotland take advantage of the departure of a part of the troops to bring down the wall of Antonin; the British troops transported to Gaul show their dissatisfaction and do not hesitate to march on Rome, where Perennis is deposed and put to death. However, the defeat dissolved the army of Maternus; himself with a few faithful will attempt a desperate coup on Rome, while other rebels try to gain Germany, attacking the Argentoratum passage where the VIIIth Augusta victoriously resists. Finally Cléandre, the new prefect of the praetorium, entrusted Pescennius Niger with extraordinary command; in conjunction with energetic provincial legates, he managed to pacify the Gauls.

Mr. André Ghastagnol, m. r., note that Mr. Picard uses a certain number of texts which are not always guaranteed. As for the inscription of Bois-Labbé, it is not dated precisely, and, as for its reading, the word latro remains very random in its entirety and its restitution.

With his prudence, associates Mr. François Braemer, m. r., as regards the date and the significance of the various fragments of sculpted monuments, several of which (notably the fragments of Yzeures and Paris) pose problems which, to this day and despite appearances, do not unanimously and have not yet been resolved, because they are based on the agreement between iconographic considerations and technical data.

Mr. Joël Le Gall, m. r., asks if this is not the time when the posts of beneficiarii multiply.

Mr. Gilbert Picard, m. r., evokes on this subject the monument of Maraudi, in Vaison, which passes to appear a chariot of beneficiarius.

Mr. F. Braemer reserves his judgment on the fragments from the Maraudi house, the outline of the ancient parts of which remains to be defined.

Mr. J. Le Gall then specifies that there were Juvenes in Alesia, if we are to believe a fragmentary inscription. Mr. François Chamoux, m. r., recalls that the Juvenes existed in the eastern part of the Empire and bore the title of ephebes. They are responsible for fighting against external threats: armies or bandits.