OUR TWO CHOICES FOR THE DUX EXPEDITION OF L. ARTORIUS CASTUS

Roman Empire at the time of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus

Not really an article here - sorry!  Just a very brief summary statement of my long exploration of L. Artorius Castus' expedition as dux of British vexillations.  

While I once defended the Armenia reading for the LAC stone, several factors - not the least of which is simple logistics - forced me to abandon it.  Of the few records we have of troop movements from Britain to other locations, all identify Germany or the Rhine as destinations.  That a large legionary force would be taken from Britain all the way to Armenia seems rather incredible, once we weigh all the evidence.

I have drawn arrows on the above map to show the stark contrast in distance for vexillations leaving Britain for either Armorica or Armenia.  The question we need to ask ourselves when viewing this map is whether it is more reasonable to assume LAC's troops went with him to Armorica in Gaul (as we know the Deserters' War was being fought in Gaul and Armorica has been shown through archaeology to have suffered major destructive disruptions at this time) or all the way across the entire Empire to Armenia. 

For me, the formulaic expression 'procurator centenarius' on the LAC stone may well be the most important dating indicator.  Antonio Trinchese had informed me that the expression was found first on stones dateable to the Severan period.  But I did a more thorough search and found one firmly dateable to the reign of Commodus.  Now, we do have ranks and pay grades on stones from as early as Marcus Aurelius, but none betray the formula proc cent.  And the centenarius pay for a procurator is known from literary sources well before Marcus.  So it is possible for LAC to have used the terms after his retirement and even not long before his death, in which case he may have simply made use of an expression then current - but not current at the time he held the actual position.  We could thus still push his dux expedition back to 161-163.  But as it stands, the extant epigraphic evidence points to proc cent becoming a formulic expression that became fashionable under Commodus.  And that would mean Armorica for the expedition, not Armenia.    

On the whole, it seems much more probable that the troops were taken to adjacent Armorica, rather than to Armenia.  For ARMORICOS on the LAC stone, see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lucius-artorius-castus-stone-with_14.html.

ARMATOS: a Third Reading for ARM[...]S?

The ARMATOS reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the LAC memorial monument, meaning nothing more than 'armed men', is being restricted to Britain itself, as the proponents of the word insist on rejecting the implied presence of vexillations in the inscription.  In their mind, three entire legions were mobilized within Britain to fight armed men.  Who these armed men were, or where they were  - if we accept ARMATOS on the stone - is not stated.  This vagueness allows the proponents to conjure any number of foes, a sort of smorgasbord of enemies and at a time of their choosing.  [Never mind that he was somehow ignorant of whom he was fighting!] While they will not allow implied vexillations (which all scholars I have discussed the problem with have no trouble supporting), they do claim that before LAC was dux he was prefect twice (the PRAEFF is a stonecutter's error, and may be checked with the record we have of the second LAC stone, which had merely praefectus), that one of the prefectures was of the Sarmatians in Britain (a purely imaginary construct), that his special temporary appointment as dux means that he was de facto governor of the province (if LAC had been governor or even acting governor he would have said so), and that the VIVVS in the inscription is a number plus an abbreviation for VIVVS (when all authorities, including Keppie and Tomlin, are quite certain it is exactly what it looks like - VIVVS, divided between lines as are other words in the inscription).

The proponents of the ARMATOS reading point to the word's use in several literary sources, but in each and every case such use is accompanied in the relevant text with additional information allowing us to identify the combatants in question.  No such details are provided for us on the LAC stone. Context is thus lacking.  As Roger Tomlin has made clear, an entire province's legionary complement is not going to be taken anywhere - even within the province.  It is conceivable LAC led the Sixth legion with large vexillations from the other two British legions and then used shorthand by saying 'three British legions' so that he could avoid saying ITEM for dux after prefect of the Sixth, plus a descriptive phrase listing the other two legions. But even this is a stretch and scholars are united in taking legionary vexillations as implied on the stone.

The proponents further state that ARMATOS is used because there were too many different types of armed men to be able to list them all on the stone.  They thus accept any number of different groups of armed men as being implied by the word ARMATOS. As they continue all the while, of course, to deny implied vexillations.  This is inherently illogical. 

The ARMATOS argument is, in fact, a classic instance of circular reasoning:

ARMATOS is the correct reading for ARM[...]S because LAC leads three entire legions within Britain

LAC leads three entire legions within Britain because ARMATOS is the correct reading for ARM[...]S

I will repeat one last time here Roger Tomlin's sage remarks on ARMATOS, and then I will not discuss the term again:

“I think armatos is a neutral term, and that a Roman general wouldn't have congratulated himself on fighting against 'armed men', any more than he would have recorded a campaign against inermes [unarmed men]. Truth is, 'armatos' is much too unspecific, and there are many inscriptions referring to the suppression of internal revolt, the language used being 'adversus rebelles', 'adversus defectores', 'adversus hostes publicos'. For example Dessau ILS 1140, Claudius Candidus, who was 'duci ... adversus rebelles'. The Romans hardly ever use armatos by comparison with hostes, but even hostes is a vague term, and I would expect LAC to give the enemy their name. Or at least to use a generic geographical term.

I don't believe in the vague ARMATOS. I think ARMATOS would have been used adjectivally, and a Roman writer would have specified who had taken up arms. Once again, there are many such terms, which could have been used on their own – REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES, DEFECTORES, DESERTORES.

If it were a matter of internal security, I would have expected a term such as this. That they were 'armed' would not need to be stated.”

For these reasons, ARMATOS should be rejected as a possible reading for ARM[...]S.

A Note on LAC and the Sarmatians in Britain

Obviously, if LAC went to Armenia 161-163 A.D., he was not in Britain when they Sarmatians were there (arrival 175).  On the other hand, we can postulate a Sarmatian connection if we select ARMORICOS for ARM[...]S.

My own personal bias enters in here (which is exactly why I'm bringing up the subject).  For my theory for a historical Dark Age/Sub-Roman Arthur involves a man born at the Ribchester Roman fort, site of the settlement of Sarmatian veterans.  While I was not looking to associate Arthur with the Sarmatians, once it seemed that he indeed did belong at Bremetennacum Veteranorum I had no choice but to explore the possibility.  It made sense to suggest that the Artorius name, preserved in the British Arthur, may have been passed down through the generations of the Sarmato-Britons at Ribchester.  If so, we would have to assume that an Artorius had impressed himself upon them significantly.  According to my tentative outline of LAC's career, he would not only have employed Sarmatian cavalry in the victorious British war during the reign of Commodus, but would also have included Sarmatians in the legionary vexillations he took to Armorica.  Furthermore, it is quite possible that while on the Continent he took 1500 Sarmatian contus-bearers to Rome to execute the Praetorian Prefect, Perennis.

Such actions, if they did include Sarmatian troops, may have caused his name to be remembered as a famous hero among the descendents of the Sarmatian veterans at Ribchester.

The proponents of three entire legions going against armed men in Britain do not consider the possible implications of LAC-Sarmatian interactions on the existence of a Dark Age/Sub-Roman Arthur.  If they were to associated the 2nd century officer and the 5th-6th century battle leader, they must rely on the supposed use of Sarmatian troops in whatever scenario they decide to invent.  Or (as hinted at already above), they make the baseless and unsubstantiable claim that LAC was prefect not only of the Sixth Legion, but of the Sarmatians. 

We, therefore, have not only a choice between Armorica and Armenia, but of Sarmatians being included in other legionary forces to fight armed men in Britain OR of Sarmatians being used against the tribes of the North that broke through the Wall, against the deserters, etc., of Maternus in Gaul and then being the sole agents in bringing about the downfall of the second most powerful man in the Roman Empire.