L. ARTORIUS CASTUS IN ARMORICA: THE CASE FOR HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE DESERTERS' WAR

The Priscus Stone (from Gregori)

CIL 06, 41127

The Priscus Inscription (from Gregori)

Some time ago I explored the possibility that Lucius Artorius Castus had taken part in the bellum desertorum or Deserters' War on the Continent during the reign of Emperor Commodus:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/04/can-we-place-lucius-artorius-castus-in.html

In summary, there is considerable archaeological evidence for wide-spread destruction in Armorica at this time, despite the fact that Classical sources are silent on anything transpiring in that region.  Still, the Desertors War is said to have been happening in Gaul and Armorica was a part of Gaul.  

As I've only recently found a very good reason to settle on Armorica instead of Armenia or Armatos for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the LAC inscription (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/05/well-this-is-embarrassing-arms-can-in.html), it is necessary for me to explore how an Armorica expedition would have played out for LAC, especially given the apparent involvment of Priscus in the same war.

To begin, we need to once more take a good, long, hard look at this Priscus.  I will begin with the discussion of this man as found in Anthony Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN:

35. c.184? Priscus

Dio 72. 9. 2a (Petrus Patricius, Exc. Vat. 122): The soldiers in Britain chose the legionary legate

Priscus as emperor, but he declined, saying that ‘I am as much an emperor as you are soldiers’.

From its position in the excerpta this must describe an event between 177, exc.

Vat. 121, on Marcus Aurelius’ return to Rome in 177 (Dio 71. 32. 1), and 189–90,

123, on Julius Solon’s entry to the senate (72. 12. 3). A passage in the HA points

to the early 180s: ‘Commodus was called Britannicus by flatterers when the

Britons even wanted to choose another emperor in opposition to him’ (HA

Comm. 8. 4). The offer to Priscus could then be dated to 184, when Commodus

became Britannicus (see under Gov. 33). The HA also transmits the response

260 High Officials of the Undivided Province

tinguished career, including not least membership of a priestly college. Other possible ancestors are

the Augustan senator Cerrinius Gallus (Suet. D. Aug. 53. 3) and Martial’s friend Cerrinius, who wrote

epigrams (8. 18).

¹³⁹ CIL x. 7506+add.; PIR2 C 693.

¹⁴⁰ All communities in Pomptina were Italian: Kubitschek, Imperium Romanun, 271. Pflaum, Narbonnaise,

26f., pointed out that he was not a native of Volturnum.

to this abortive coup, although the connection is not made: the guard prefect

Perennis replaced legionary legates with equestrian commanders during the

British war, a measure which led to his own overthrow, in 185 (Comm. 6. 2) (see

under Gov. 33). Later in the HA Pertinax (Gov. 35) is said to have ‘deterred the

soldiers from mutiny, when they wanted anyone [else other than Commodus]

as emperor, especially Pertinax himself ’ (Pert. 2. 6), shortly after his arrival as

governor in 185. This is another possible context for the Priscus episode, but

Perennis’ measure makes the previous year more plausible. This legate could

be the Commodan general discussed below (36), who may have been called

Priscus among other names and possibly commanded VI Victrix at about this

time.

36. c.184? VI Victrix?, [ . . . J]unius [?Pris]cus Gar[gilius? . . .

?Qui]ntil[i]anus (cos. c.190)

G. Gregori, ZPE 106 (1995), 269–79=AE 1995. 231=G. Alföldy, CIL vi. 41127, Rome:

[ . . . I]unio, [ . . . f(ilio), . . . , Pris(?)]co |G.

ar[gilio(?) | . . . Qui(?)]ntil[i]an[o, co(n)s(uli), 4| sodal]i. Titiali

Fla[viali, | leg(ato) Au]g(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) leg(ionis) II I. [talic(ae), | praep]o. sito vexill(ationum)

[leg(ionum) III (trium)? | Brita]Nnicar(um)(?), legato l.[eg(ionis) V 8| Macedo]nic(ae), leg(ato) leg(ionis) [VI

| Victr(icis)(?) pi]ae fidel(is), cur[atori | rei pub]lic(ae) Cirtens[ium, | iuridic]o per Aemil[iam, 12|

Liguri(?)]am, praetor[i, trib(uno) | pl(ebis)?, qua]est(ori), triumvi[ro | c]apitali. | [Huic s]enatus, auc.[tore 16|

Imp(eratore) Cae]s(are) L(ucio) Aelio Aur[elio | Comm]odo Pio Feli[ce Aug(usto, | statua]m i.n te.mpl.[o . . . |

. . . ponendam censuit (?)].

To . . . Junius, son of . . . , . . . , Priscus? Gargilius? . . . Quintilianus?, consul, sodalis Titialis

Flavialis, propraetorian legate of the Emperor of the Second Legion Italica, commander of

vexillations of the three? British? legions, legate of the Fifth Legion Macedonica, legate of the

Sixth? Legion Victrix? Pia Fidelis, curator of the commonwealth of the Cirtensians, iuridicus in

Aemilia and ?Liguria, praetor, tribune of the plebs?, quaestor, triumvir capitalis. The senate, on

the motion of the Emperor Caesar Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus Pius Felix Augustus,

decreed the setting up of a statue? to this man in the temple of . . .

This unusual career can be dated by Commodus’ names, a style first assumed

in 191.¹⁴¹ The restoration of VI Victrix as one of the legions which the honorand

commanded depends on Alföldy’s conjecture that he is identical with the

legate Priscus (LL 35). A summary may be offered of Alföldy’s discussion. This

legate was no doubt a novus homo, to judge from his start as capitalis. Without

being military tribune, he went on to the three usual urban magistracies. After

the praetorship he was iuridicus in North Italy, then curator of Cirta in N.

Africa, before his first legionary command, of a legion with the title pia fidelis,

perhaps VI Victrix. If this is right, and he was the Priscus whom the legionaries

tried to make emperor, he was removed from this post by Perennis. He

Legionary Legates 261

¹⁴¹ G. A(lföldy) on CIL vi. 41127, citing D. Kienast, Kaisertabelle2 (1996), 148; cf. PIR2 Q 18.

certainly went on to command another legion, V Macedonica, in Dacia: a

second legionary command indicates trouble where the second one was based

and there was warfare in Dacia under Commodus (HA Comm. 13. 5). There

followed command over detachments of several legions, restored as [Brita]nnicarum.

Alföldy convincingly proposes that this force was assigned to deal with

the so-called ‘deserters’ war’ and can be identified with the ‘1,500 javelin-men’

from the British army who lynched Perennis near Rome in 185 (Dio 72(73). 9.

22–4) (cf. under Gov. 33). His final appointment—before the consulship,

restored, but very probable¹⁴²—was as legate of yet another legion, II Italica,

exceptionally described as ‘propraetorian legate’. II Italica was by then

normally commanded by the governor of Noricum. As he is not called legate

of Noricum, the legion must have been operating outside the province, even

beyond the frontier in Commodus’ ‘third German expedition’, perhaps

datable to 188.¹⁴³ His names include [J]unius, then a cognomen ending [ ]cus,

which could of course be for example, [Atti]cus, [Flac]cus, [Fus]cus, [Tus]cus,

[Urbi]cus, to mention some of the many names of the right length, as well as

[Pris]cus.¹⁴⁴ His next name began Gar[ ], probably Gar[gilius], followed by

one ending [ ]ntil[i]anus, for which [Qui]ntilianus is more plausible than

[De]ntilianus. Alföldy infers from the name Gar[gilius] and the post as

curator of Cirta that the man may have come from North Africa.

Professor Roger Tomlin was kind enough to discuss this man at length, and the problems involved in piecing together his hypoethical career.  He also sent me the best recent article on Priscus, Un nuovo senatore dell'età di Commodo? by Gian Luca Gregori, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik,

Bd. 106 (1995), pp. 269-279 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20189321?seq=1).

"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."

I do not think the argument for the vexillations being British is a strong one.  Why?  Because Priscus had been removed from Britain precisely because the troops tried to raise him to the purple.  Would a paranoid Commodus only a short time later provide that same man with mutinous British troops on the Continent?  That is quite illogical and, for that reason, almost certainly wrong.

That the vexillations were German, however, makes perfect sense.  Anthony Birley (in THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT IN BRITAIN) says of Priscus' role as legate of the Italian legion:

"II Italica was by then normally commanded by the governor of Noricum. As he is not called legate of Noricum, the legion must have been operating outside the province, even beyond the frontier in Commodus’ ‘third German expedition’, perhaps datable to 188.¹⁴³

This timeframe works.  With Priscus being offered the purple at the completion of the British War in 184, he would have time to serve his post with the Macedonian before taking command of the Germanic vexillations a few years later.  

The case for GERMANICARUM becomes stronger given the substantial evidence we have for Germania's involvement in the Deserters' War. To quote from BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE by Thomas Grunewald (https://historicalunderbelly.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/thoma-grunewald-bandits-in-the-roman-empire-myth-and-reality-2004.pdf) :

"A. Alföldy has convincingly put together the evidence to suggest that it was Maternus and his deserters who blockaded VIII Augusta in its main base at Strasbourg. This not only confirms that Maternus had a significant number of men at his disposal, but also provides a geographical reference, localising one centre of unrest in upper Germany."

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." 

For good examples of inscriptions showing use of Germanic vexillations, we have these:

publication: CIL 03, 10471 = IDRE-02, 00278 = TitAq-01, 00019 = AE 1890, 00082 = AE 1972, +00378 

dating: 208 to 211         EDCS-ID: EDCS-29500130

province: Pannonia inferior         place: Budapest / Aquincum

P() / C(aius) Iul(ius) Sep(timius) Castinus co(n)s(ul) / des(ignatus) leg(atus) Aug[[gg(ustorum)]] pr(o) pr(aetore) / P(annoniae) i(nferioris) leg(atus) (!) I M(inerviae) ex pr(a)ec(epto) dom(inorum) / nn[[n(ostrorum)]] dux vex(illationum) IIII Germ(anicarum) / VIII Aug(ustae) X<X=V>II Pr(imigeniae) I M(inerviae) / XXX Ulp(iae) adver(sus) defec(tores) / et rebel(l)es proco(n)s(ul) / Cretae et Cyr(enarum) iurid(icus) / per Apul(iam) Cal(abriam) Luc(aniam) / Bru(ttios) cur(ator) viae Sal(ariae) / cur(ator) Ae<c=T>lan(ensium) praet(or) / tutel(arius) tr(ibunus) pl(ebis) qu(a)est(or) / tr(ibunus) mil(itum) leg(ionis) I / Ad(iutricis) item V Mac(edonicae)

inscription genus / personal status: Augusti/Augustae;  litterae erasae;  milites;  ordo senatorius;  tituli honorarii;  tria nomina;  viri

material: lapis

publication: EpThess-01, 00045 = LBIRNA 00379 = Legio-XXX, 00151 = AE 1957, 00123 = AE 2010, 01834          EDCS-ID: EDCS-13600193

province: Numidia         place: Lambaesis

[Pr]o salute Invictor(um) Imperr(atorum) Severi et Antonini [[Sanctissi]]/[[[morum] Aug(ustorum)]] et Iuliae Aug(ustae) [[Piae matri(s)]] Aug(ustae) deae Caelestis aedem / [a Lep]ido Tertullo inc(h)o{h}atam p[er]fici curavit Cl(audius) Gallus / [leg(atus)] Augustor(um) pr(o) pr(aetore) co(n)s(ul) design(atus) [d]onatus donis militarib(us) / [ab In]victis Imperr(atoribus) secunda Par[t]hica felicissima expedi/[tio]ne eorum praeposi[t]us vexillationum / [leg(ionum)] IIII Germanicar(um) ex[pe]ditione s(upra) s(cripta) leg(atus) [leg(ionis)] XXII Primig(eniae) curator [ci]vitatis Thessalo/[nice]nsium cum Flavia Silva Prisca c(larissima) f(emina) uxore et / [Fla]vio Catulo Munatiano c(larissimo) p(uero) et Cl(audia) Galitta c(larissima) p(uella) / fili(i)s

inscription genus / personal status: Augusti/Augustae;  litterae erasae;  milites;  mulieres;  ordo decurionum;  tituli honorarii;  tituli operum;  tituli sacri;  tria nomina;  viri

material: lapis

I elsewhere provide Grunewald's discussion of war in Armorica during the period of the Deserters' War (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/04/can-we-place-lucius-artorius-castus-in.html).

We can then make a good case for Priscus having led German detachments against the deserters in Germany (possibly to relieve the siege of Strasbourg), while LAC took his British force against the enemy in Armorica.  LAC would have been fighting under the auspices of the new governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, Pescennius Niger, who was sent there specifically to deal with the deserters who were ravaging all of Gaul in great numbers

(https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Pescennius_Niger*.html). We might assume operations of a similar kind were being conducted in Spain, the third known area of trouble during the Maternus revolt. 

Obviously, with LAC leading the British vexillations on the Continent, we may assign to him the delegation who went to Rome to urge the removal of Perennis.  Or, if we must stick with the account and have all 1500 actually go to Rome, we would have to assume he did so in pursuit of Maternus, who according to Herodian also went to Rome. 

It is not unreasonable to also allow for LAC playing a role in Ulpius Marcellus's victory over the British tribes in the North c. 184.  Sarmatian troops would have been employed during this event as well.

CONCLUSION:

Someone brought troops from Britain. It wasn't Priscus, because he was already on the Continent. So it if wasn't LAC, then who?  As Roger Tomlin as pointed out, Priscus as praepositus is not going to be taking troops form LAC as dux, even though Priscus was legate of the Macedonian legion. 

There is still some resistance - especially from Roger Tomlin - to the idea that the taking of British legionary detachments to Armorica could actually be an action directed against Maternus' deserters

(see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/12/the-death-knell-for-armorican-theory-of.html). Earliier studies chose to emphasize the literary or fictional nature of much of the Maternus story.  However, more recent scholars think that the threat from the deserters and their mixed army was quite a serious one and was tantamount to widespread rebellion.  John S. McHugh, for example, in his COMMODUS: GOD AND GLADIATOR (pp. 95-96), applies this kind of assessment to the event:

Thus ARMORICOS is still in the running as a decent reading for the ARM[..]S of the L. Artorius Castus memorial inscription.  We need only allow for the possibility that Armorica was in such a state of general unrest due to the rebellion taking place there that Castus was justified in carving ADVERSUS ARMORICOS on his stone.  He would have been assigned this region by the governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, Pescennius Niger, who had been appointed to his position precisely to deal with a such an uprising.  Caunius Priscus, on the other hand, with detachments drawn from the German legions, was involved in actions in Germany itself, and quite possibly was sent to assist Strasbourg.  One of two things then happened: either the deserters and their followers were put down and an embassy from the British legionary forces was sent to Rome to complain about Perennis or all 1500 spearmen proceeded to Rome in pursuit of Maternus.  With Maternus dead, they demanded the execution of the Praetorian Prefect - something granted to them by a grateful Emperor.

This scenario does mean, of course, that Castus' procuratorship falls later, rather than sooner.  I have gone to great pains in the past to demonstrate that the most likely foundation date for Liburnia was c. 168. If instead Castus became procurator in the latter half of the 180s, it may be that his role as a loyalist was to protect Italy from a perceived threat represented by Pannonia Inferior.  I discussed before in another context (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/11/a-british-named-cavalry-unit-and-son-of.html) that Perennis' son, perhaps in charge of a Pannonian legion, might have been implicated in a plot against Commodus by the then-governor of Pannonia Inferior, Plotianus.  If the troops of that province were still under suspicion, a paranoid Emperor may have found it wise to install Castus in a buffer province with power of the sword.

If Castus did go to Armorica, then my argument for Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester as the sub-Roman Arthur's father may be allowed to stand.  For my most recent thoughts on this theory, please see

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/12/why-i-cannot-shake-off-sawyl-as-arthurs.html.