WHY I AM ACCEPTING 'ARMATOS' FOR THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION

ARMATOS in the LAC inscription

(reconstruction courtesy Alessandro Faggiani)

Well, for the LAST time, I have explored every possible way of inserting a form/spelling of Armorica into the gap of the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the Lucius Artorius Castus inscription.

While there are a couple of methods that will make it fit - barely! - none of them are acceptable, as they rely upon ligatures of a style or date that are not otherwise evinced on the memorial stone.

The most probable date of the stone (the reign of Commodus at the earliest; see my and Antonio Trinchese's work on the proc centenario formula use) disallows us from defaulting to ARMENIOS (despite how well that word can be made to fit with perfectly allowable ligatures). ARMENIOS would mean LAC was appointed dux of vexillations accompanying the British governor Statius Priscus in the early 160s. There are several problems with this scenario. Most notably, we would expect Priscus himself to have commanded these detachments. No need, in other words, to appoint LAC as dux over them. A dux was a junior officer who was given a special, temporary, independent command over troops. He would not be in this capacity second-in-command to a senatorial governor.

Furthermore, another thorough scouring of the CIL database has not revealed to me another dux of this period who had left vexillations out of his inscription, while at the same time IMPLYING their presence. Alas, I have not been able to obtain a copy of Robert Saxer's Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis Diokletian (1967), which I was advised to consult for legionary vexillations commanded by duces. But, to be honest, I find it doubtful that we would find anything helpful in that volume.

As for the dux title of LAC being applied to him merely for the sake of transport of troops to the Continent, Tomlin was in agreement with my concern. Had LAC only led troops to the Continent to be commanded by someone else, namely Priscus, he would not have said 'adversus' so and so. ADVERSUS means he was the commander who had actually led legionary forces in war against ARM[...]S.

My conclusion is inevitable: LAC led legionary forces against ARM[...]S in Britain. This had to have happened when the general and his troops (a legate with soldiers of his Sixth Legion) were killed c. 180. The claim of dux of three British legions is justified on the basis that he led his own Sixth, supplemented by large detachments from the other two British legions. These last were doubtless made necessary due to the losses the Sixth had sustained at the hands of the northern tribesmen.

LAC's fighting in this emergency situation as dux does not preclude his later presence on the Continent for the Deserters' War and the execution of Perennis. Priscus led British troops in the Deserters' War, and these troops are believed to have been drawn from the mutinous British army upon the completion of the war against the several tribes that had broken through the Wall.

While many will object, there is no reason why we can't have LAC come across to fight under Priscus (especially as Priscus would have been appointed legate at some point during the British war, and would certainly have known the camp prefect of the Sixth, i.e. LAC). We also are free to have LAC appointed head of the delegation to Rome, a delegation composed of 1500 Sarmatian cavalrymen. Doubtless Sarmatians had proved instrumental in winning the war in Britain. None of this would have appeared on his stone, for as soon as he had fulfilled his temporary command as dux, he would have reverted to his rank of camp prefect. In addition, he was serving under Priscus on the Continent.

All of this would be in accord with my theory that the famous Dark Age Arthur was born at Ribchester, site of the Roman era settlement of Sarmatian veterans. We need only accept the possibility that LAC's fame among the Sarmatian troops had caused the name Artorius to be remembered and passed down among the descendents of the Sarmatians at Ribchester. That name emerged as Arthur in the 5th-6th centuries A.D.

While I hate to admit it (because by doing so I am literally going against the professional opinion of every good Latin epigrapher and Roman military historian I have consulted), ARMATOS may be the only possible reading for ARM[...]S. It would be representative of the several tribes LAC had to fight in northern England/southern Scotland. In effect, it would be a kind of shorthand - assuming, of course, that all the names of the said tribes were actually known to him! While hostes in this context would be preferable, it is equally vague, and ARMATOS might simply be a 'one-off' occurrence on this particular memorial stone. As vexillations is not present, readers of the stone would probably rightly have assumed that the fighting was in Britain, not elsewhere, and so ARMATOS would be understood as meaning 'Britons.' Again, a statement 'dux of three British legions against Britons' would be silly.

NOTE: There is, I suppose, the slim possibility that in ARM[...]S we have preserved a personal name. The problem is that if LAC is naming an individual, this particular person would have to be truly of a significant stature to warrant the use of a major legionary force being sent against him. Our extant historical sources are mute on such a person. Therefore, it is impossible to prove his existence, even from a purely hypothetical standpoint.