NOTE: the following article was written some time ago, but I continue to adhere to the view expressed therein. Dr. Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani, authors of "Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription", Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 47, no 3 & 4 Fall/Winter, 2019, pp. 415-437 (https://www.jies.org/), are still insisting that Lucius Artorius Castus led three entire legions within Britain against "armed men" (ARMATOS for ARM[...]S). This runs directly contrary to logic and textual evidence. It is for this reason that I'm reposting the blog piece with some links attached to additional supportive arguments. In addition, I have tagged on a piece Professor Roger Tomlin had written to me about his preference for the ARMENIOS reading. Below that is a brief communication from the late Professor Wilkes, who had no trouble with British troops being sent to the Continent when needed.
In essence, the problem with the LAC inscription has always been the lack of the word 'vexillations'. Because this word is absent, scholars have assumed the word was implied. Granted, there appear to be no other stones that exhibit an implied vexillations clause. While this implied presence on the LAC stone is objected to by the party mentioned above, it is a very reasonable deduction.
Why?
Well, to go back to what Professor Roger Tomlin had told me: a large province's entire legionary complement would never be removed from its bases and sent anywhere, whether in-country or out. Yet this is what we must have if we are to accept a literal reading of the stone. For he was not merely dux of the claimed three legions, but a general who led them against ARM[...]S. According to Tomlin, we would expect LAC, as prefect of the Sixth Legion, to lead his own legion, but he would only have led vexillations from the other two, even if the said vexillations were "generous" ones. In which case we would still be talking about implied vexillations in the inscription. It would not have been three entire legions, but one legion combined with vexillations from the other two.
ARMATOS itself, because of its ambiguity and vagueness, is summarily rejected by every expert Latin epigrapher and Roman military historian I have contacted. From what I understand, to date only the authors of "Missing Pieces" and the publisher of their paper subscribe to that reading for ARM[...]S. The suggestion is, in fact, held in such disdain that Tomlin has remarked -
"Armatos is a neutral term, and 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]."
What those who oppose an implied vexillations reading fail to understand is that leaving such a word out in the context of the stone's phrasing makes perfect sense. As the only historically recorded possibility for ARM[...]S is ARMENIOS, anyone reading
PREFECT OF THE LEGION VI VICTRIX DUX OF THREE BRITISH LEGIONS AGAINST ARMENIOS
would automatically know that the entire legionary complement of Britain had not been removed and sent to Armenia. Thus, the use of vexillations in this case would be so obvious as to be not worth stating in the inscription.
At this point, I have no intention of revisiting this issue in the future. The case for ARMENIOS for ARM[...]S is strong, especially when combined with the presence of Statius Priscus in Britain and the undoubted foundation date for Liburnia. Objections based on such things as there being no Armenian phase of the eastern war or supposed logistical impossibilities can be easily dismissed. As matters stand right now, there is absolutely no reason not to accept ARMENIOS as the preferred reading for ARM[...]S.
***
Some time ago, my colleague Antonio Trinchese informed me that his work on the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone had revealed that the 'Procurator Centenarius' formula could not be found prior to the Severan period. After some additional digging, I was able to extend that back to the reign of Commodus (c. 190). While we know this pay grade was applied to procurators well before Commodus' time, and we have several stones discussing pay grades of various ranks from the reign of Marcus Aurelius, the actual formula used on the LAC stone is not extant for the earlier period.
This would seem to create a problem for us. For the only known (that is, historically attested) reorganization of Dalmatia occurred c. 168 (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-date-of-lucius-artorius-castuss.html). I had made the case for this being the time of the appointment of LAC to the Liburnian procuratorship and the formation of that new provincial division. I have yet to find a professional Roman military historian who does not hold to the view that the most probable date for the founding of Liburnia was just prior to 170. Yet if LAC began as procurator in 168, or at least prior to 170, we are left with a two-decade long span before we encounter another such stone with the procurator centenarius formula.
Antonio (along with Dr. Linda Malcor and Alessandro Faggiani) would have us believe this 20 years is an insuperable gap. Their conclusion, therefore, is that he must have become procurator around or after 190. Their own preference is during the Severan period.
What it comes down to this this: how long might a procurator have served, especially as it was the last rank LAC held in his career? To this we might add the obvious: although LAC claims on his stone to still be alive when it was fashioned, he may well have been retired for some time and even elderly or close to the end of his life. The carving of the stone thus could be placed at a time when the new pay grade formula had just come into fashion. It is not impossible, of course, that the LAC stone displays the first known occurrence of this formula. This is especially true if LAC were indeed made the first procurator of a newly established province in Dalmatia.
So what are we looking at for the term lengths of provincial procurators?
As it turns out, they could serve however long they wished to, subject only to the Emperor's pleasure. The best summary of this fact can be found in this recent, authoritative title:
In that source we are told that "In a procuratorial province, the governor or procurator was appointed directly by the emperor and could serve any length of time he desired."
The infamous Potius Pilate, for example, was procurator of Judaea for 10 years. While I've not yet made a search for other procuratorships lasting this long or longer, I have no doubt that such exist. When and if I have the time, I will attempt to compile a list of such. The more we find, and the longer the terms of those procuratorships prove to be, the more we can allow for the extension of LAC's Liburnian procuratorship.
Given all of the above, I don't think we can afford to insist on LAC being made procurator sometime after 190 A.D. Instead, we may dovetail him quite nicely as a new procurator c. 168, when Dalmatia was reorganized by the joint emperors in the face of the Marcomannic Wars. This being the case, we can have LAC attend Statius Priscus from Britain to Armenia, and accept a reading of ARM[ENIO]S (with a simple N-I ligature) on the LAC stone. We also can let go of the idea that LAC had anything whatsoever to do with the Sarmatians in Britain, who were not shipped there by Marcus until 175 A.D.
If you have LAC commissioned directly into the centurionate (something Tomlin has assured me is quite possible), and allow him to be in his mid-40s, rather than mid-50s, when he goes to Armenia in the early 160s, and then have him made procurator of Liburnia c. 168, he would then be around 50. Let him serve a decade or so (the Marcommanic Wars ended in 182), then retire. He may have made his stone anytime during the reign of Commodus, which is when the procurator centenarius formula first shows up. In 180 (when Commodus started ruling on his own), LAC would be in his early 70s. In 190, his early 80s. There is nothing far-fetched or unrealistic about this - even if we allow for LAC having retired prior to the end of the Marcomannic Wars. He still could have lived in retirement for enough years to take him to the time of Commodus and to have then carved his memorial stone.
Tomlin has pointed out to me that some soldiers' careers could be very long indeed. He cites Pflaum for Cn. Marcius Rustius Rufinus, who became centurion in the reign of Marcus, and proceeded through a series of posts like those held by LAC to become Severus' praefectus vigilum in c.207, enjoying a 30-year career.
As there is some reason to think LAC was the only procurator of Liburnia, it is possible that particular administrative entity - formed because of the onset the the Marcomannic Wars - ceased to exist at the completion of those wars. That event may have coincided with LAC's retirement.
When LAC was made procurator c. 168, he was paid 100,000 sesterces a year. Or maybe that was his final pay grade in the last year he served as procurator. Doesn't really matter which. We know this pay grade was given to procurators even before the time of Marcus. As well as pay grades even higher. Then, late in his life, after retirement, when the formula proc c is current in the reign of Commodus, that is how he carves his rank on his stone. I have gone on and on and on about pay grade/rank inscriptions from the time of Marcus, like that of Marcus Valerius Maximianus. The pay for the rank is NOT THE ISSUE. It is the formula for the rank, proc c, which seems to have originated under Commodus.
Marcus Valerius Maximianus is paid 100,000 sesterces for leading cavalry, then is made procurator of Lower Moesia WITH INCREASED salary. He did all that BEFORE he was made a senator. See http://www.rimskelegie.olw.cz/pages/articles/legincz/mvaleriusmaximianus_en.html.
ARMENIOS remains the best possibility for the ARM[...]S of the LAC stone. At least, this is the consensus of all leading Roman epigraphers. ARMORICOS (with R-I and C-O ligatures) does fit the stone, and would imply a date concurrent with the Deserters' War/Maternus Revolt under Commodus. Unfortunately, we have no independent record of a campaign to Armorica. And such a late date does not accord with the reorganization of Dalmatia c. 168. ARMATOS, still the preferred reading of Trinchese, Malcor and Faggiani, has to my knowledge not been accepted by anyone other than the publisher of their journal article on the subject. Every top Roman epigripher and Roman military historian I have consulted reject the proposed reading. In any case, even if we do opt for LAC fighting 'armed men' (Tomlin's phrase comes to mind here: "a Roman general wouldn't have congratulated himself on fighting against 'armed men', any more than he would have recorded a campaign against inermes."), we find ourselves with a phrase which does not allow us to identify the military action in question with any known event recorded in extant sources. Not, that is, without availing ourselves of unbridled and totally unsupported speculation.
My conclusion, then, after many months of soul-searching, is that LAC took legionary vexillations with him to Armenia under the British governor Statius Priscus. Not too long after the successful Armenian campaign, LAC was awarded the Liburnian procuratorship. He held the position for a considerable period of time before retiring and then had his memorial stone constructed sometime around 182-190, i.e. during Commodus's reign.
My arguments can be set forth in simplified form as follows:
1) The Roman governor Statius Priscus, in the early 160s, was sent from Britain to Armenia on an emergency status. He may well have taken some legionary vexillations with him. LAC may have commanded those units. ARMENIOS is the best reading for ARM[...]S on the LAC memorial stone.
2) Liburnia was probably formed shortly before 170. This would have been when LAC was made procurator of the new province.
3) LAC may have remained procurator of Liburnia for quite some time. He may well have made his stone after retirement, and even when he was quite old. This allows us to accept the "formula" of procurator centenarius as belonging to the right period, i.e. during the last several years of the reign of Commodus.
For additional material that supports my argument for ARMENIOS, see the following links:
From Professor Roger Tomlin on the treatment of Artorius as dux by Dr. Linda A. Malcor et al:
"They are wrong about dux. In the second century a praepositus was the acting-commander of a unit (most often an auxiliary cohort) when the real commander was missing; for example if he had gone, and his successor had not yet appeared. Such a praepositus was usually a centurion, I would expect a legionary centurion. Then in the Late Empire, praepositus becomes the standard term for a unit-commander. But while a praepositus might also command a vexillation, a dux was something grander, the 'ad hoc' commander of a larger detachment, whether it was a large legionary vexillation or one drawn from several legions or auxiliary units: he was more like a 'brigadier' in modern terms. In the Late Empire, dux becomes the standard term for the commander of a provincial army.
In other words, they appear to be treating dux and praepositus as formal ranks (as indeed they are in the Late Empire) when they really mark acting appointments in emergency: 'in charge of' and 'leader (of)'.
I would take a closer look at Valerius Maximianus (AE 1956, 124) and Salvius Rufus (ILS 9200). Valerius Maximianus is praepositus of legionary vexillations and fleet detachments quite early in Marcus' reign, much the same time as Artorius Castus. While Salvius Rufus, having been 'prefect' of many legionary vexillations, heads an army in Africa to crush a revolt, duci exercitus Africae et Mauretanici ad nationes quae sunt in Mauretania conprimendas. His career extends from Vespasian to Trajan. Incidentally, he becomes procurator of Raetia with special powers, proc(urator) provinciae Raetiae ius gla[d]i. A nice early example for you of a procurator with 'ius gladii'.
I see Statius Priscus as being transferred at short notice from Britain to take command in Armenia. He did not necessarily travel with troops from Britain – indeed, since his mission was urgent, I expect he went ahead of them. I have only suggested that he chose a reliable man whom he knew to take command of the British contingent. No doubt other contingents were being dispatched from the Rhine and Danube frontiers. [1] LAC was only commanding an improvised unit in the field army that was assembled to campaign in Armenia. Statius Priscus was its commander-in-chief, but he did not 'command' each of its components as well, except in the sense that a modern lieutenant-general commands all the battalions in his army, each under its own lieutenant-colonel."
Professor John Wilkes kindly referred me to https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1322. The stone describes the transfer of troops from Britain to Germany and thence back again c. 158.
From Wilkes (personal communication):
"Some time ago, I argued that the famous text excavated from the bed of the river Tyne at the beginning of the last century naming detachments from the three legions of Britain recorded their departure for the two German provinces, rather than as generally assumed their arrival back in Britain, as generally assumed since the time of Haverfield and Richmond. The date appears to be AD 158. What is relevant to Artorius is that this, in my view, suggests a pattern of use for the three legions based in Britannia, grossly disproportionate given the size of the province, as a mobile reserve for deployment elsewhere."
This reading of the stone has received consensus acceptance. It suggests that troops could be taken from Britain around 160 for use in Armenia.
[1]
Legio I Minervia was sent to Armenia from Bonn, Germany, on the Rhine, and vexillations from the Danubian legions were also sent, some under P. Iulius Geminius Macianus, former legatus of legio X Gemina. X Gemina was based at Vienna on the Danube.
NOTES:
-A-
Armenios in the literary sources. This is not at all an exhaustive list; rather, it represents a cursory search on the part of the author.
Tacitus:
Ann. ii 55 and 68, ad Armenios; 56, cultum Ar-meniorum; 60, Suri Armeniique et contigui Cap-padoces; 64, regem Armeniis datum.
Armenios Cilicasque feros Taurumque subegi (Line 594)
per Armenios et Cappadocas occidentem petit (66)
Tibullus
iactat odoratos vota per Armenios
Tactius Annals II (second occurence of the word in Tacitus)
ed praeverti ad Armenios instantior cura fuit
Ammianus Marcellinus (admittedly, a later author), Book XXXI, 2, 17-25
"itidemque Armenios discurrentes et Mediam
Florus 1.47.4
Armenios etiam et Britannos
-B-
This following response to Antonio Trinchese's support of ARMATOS was posted in the Facebook KING ARTHUR: MAN AND MYTH group page. My passages of rebuttal are all in Italics.
The word "armatus" as a noun has been used many times by Latin authors. Julius Caesar, for example, uses it in this passage:
“Ei repentino malo perterriti diffugiunt ad sua praesidia; quae nostri ut viderunt, acrius contra armatos incitati neminem ex eo numero vivum capi patiuntur. Profugit inde cum paucis Lucterius nec se recipit in eastra.
"They were panic-struck by the sudden blow, and fled helter-skelter to their own detachments. When our men saw it they dashed the more fiercely against the armed men, and suffered not one of the number to be taken alive. Lucterius fled away from the spot with a few followers, and did not return to the camp”
In this context, we are informed exactly who the armed men are. Here is a bit fuller version of the account:
35 Having collected great store of corn, Drappes and Lucterius established themselves not more than •ten miles from the town, intending from this point to convey the corn into the town by degrees. The commanders divided the duties between them: Drappes stood fast with part of the force to guard the camp, Lucterius escorted the train of animals to the town. Having posted several detachments thereabout, he began about the tenth hour of the night to carry the corn into the town by narrow paths through the woods. The camp sentries noticed the noise thereof, and scouts, being sent out, reported what was afoot; so Caninius moved speedily with p565 cohorts (which had stood to arms) from the nearest forts and attacked the corn-carriers just before dawn. They were panic-struck by the sudden blow, and fled helter-skelter to their own detachments. When our men saw it they dashed the more fiercely against the armed men, and suffered not one of the number to be taken alive. Lucterius fled away from the spot with a few followers, and did not return to the camp.
36 After his success Caninius discovered from the prisoners that a part of the force was with Drappes in camp not much more than •twelve miles away.
In Tacitus we find examples of both the use of "adversus armatos" as “against well armed men, soldiers” and of the word "armati" as a synonym for "mutiny soldiers":
Tacitus, Annales, 1, 59, “non enim se proditione neque adversus feminas gravidas, sed palam adversus armatosbellum tractare.
For he practised war, not by the help of treason nor against pregnant women, but in open day and against men who carried arms”.
Once again, the context tells us exactly who the armed men are. And the fuller passage:
59 1 The report of Segestes' surrender and his gracious reception, once it became generally known, was heard with hope or sorrow by the advocates or opponents of war. Arminius, violent enough by nature, was driven frantic by the seizure of his wife and the subjugation to slavery of her unborn child. He flew through the Cherusci, demanding war against Segestes, war against the Caesar. There was no sparing of invectives:— "A peerless father! a great commander! a courageous army! whose united powers had carried off one wretched woman. Before his own sword three legions, three generals, had fallen. For he practised war, not by the help of p345 treason nor against pregnant women, but in open day and against men who carried arms. In the groves of Germany were still to be seen the Roman standards which he had hung aloft to the gods of their fathers. Let Segestes inhabit the conquered bank, and make his son once more a priest — to mortal deities:11 one fact the Germans could never sufficiently condone, that their eyes had seen the Rods, the Axes, and the Toga between the Elbe and the Rhine. Other nations, unacquainted with the dominion of Rome, had neither felt her punishments nor known her exactions: seeing that they had rid themselves of both, and that the great Augustus, hallowed as deity, and his chosen Tiberius had departed foiled, let them never quail before a callow youth,12 before a disaffected army! If they loved their country, their parents, their ancient ways, better than despots and new colonies, then let them follow Arminius to glory and freedom rather than Segestes to shame and slavery!"
The armed men are, obviously, his Roman enemy.
Tacitus, Annales, 1, 32:
“Cassius Chaerea, mox caede Gai Caesaris memoriam apud posteros adeptus, tum adulescens et animi ferox, inter obstantis et armatosferro viam patefecit.
Cassius Chaerea, soon to win a name in history as the slayer of Caligula, then a reckless stripling, opened a way with his sword through an armed and challenging multitude”.
This episode took place during a mutiny of the Roman troops in Germania.
Which once again proves the point: the context tells us who the armed men are.
The word "armatus", in its various cases, is widely used also in Latin epigraphy. There are 73 examples in the Clauss-Slaby database: in many cases they are personal names; in two cases, precisely in Dalmatia, they indicate a local divinity (Daniel Hunt was the first to point out this evidence to me); in other cases, finally, they indicate "armed men" or "troops".
And in not one of these instances in ARMATOS used the way you are proposing it is used in the LAC inscription.
An example of the use of the word "armati" in epigraphy is given by the epigraph CIL 02-05, 01022, containing the so-called "Lex Ursonensis", granted by Marcus Antonius in 44 BC.
“...103. Quicumque in colonia Genetiva IIvir praefectusve iure dicundo praerit, eum colonos incolasque contributos quocumque tempore coloniae finium defendendorum causa armatoseducere decuriones censuerint, quot maior pars qui tum aderunt decreverint, id ei sine fraude sua facere liceto. Eique IIviro aut quem IIvir armatispraefecerit idem ius eademque animadversio esto, uti tribuno militum populi Romani in exercitu populi Romani est, itque ei sine fraude sua facere liceto ius potestasque esto, dum it, quot maior pars decurionum decreverit, qui tum aderunt, fiat.
Whenever a majority of the decurions present at any meeting determine to draft armed menfor the purpose of defending the territories of the colony, it shall be lawful, without prejudice to themselves, for every duumvir or prefect charged with jurisdiction in the colony Genetiva Julia to draft under arms colonists, resident aliens, and "attributed" persons. And the said duumvir or any person placed in command of such armed forceby the duumvir shall have the same right and the same power of punishment that belongs to a military tribune of the Roman people in an army of the Roman people; and he shall exercise lawfully and properly such right and power without prejudice to himself, provided that all acts performed are in accordance with the decree of a majority of the decurions present at the said meeting”.
Particularly interesting is the example of the inscription, which contains instructions from the praetorian prefect to the governor of the province Macedonia, not far from Dalmatia, referring to previous provisions specifically concerning "armed men".
And yet again, we are specifically told who these armed men are. The LAC inscription does not.
In addition to the geographical proximity, the dating of the epigraph in the year 192 is interesting, given that the dating proposed by us for the epigraph of Lucius Artorius Castus is the year 197:
SEG-53, 00617 = AE 2014, 01178: “Exemplum epistu(lae) [scrip]tae Messalae Rutiliano a praef(ecto) prae[torio. Ci]rca armatoset circa ceteros comme[antes sat]is provinsum est principalibus consti[tutionib] us, qua certum est te non ignora[re, ut si s]ecumdum ea partibus tuis functus [sis, nequ]e diplomatibus commeantes neque [coloni] vel stabularii iniuriam patientur = Copy of the letters to Messala Rutilianus written by the pretorian prefect. Concerning those bearing arms and other travellers, the imperial constitutions, which you surely know, take ample care of; if you perform your duties accordingly, neither those travelling with a diploma nor the peasants nor the station personnel will suffer any wrong”.
This is an intentionally vague reference, as it is written about laws pertaining to whoever happens to be armed and may be encountered by travelling. Using this example for comparison with a supposed ARMATOS on the LAC inscription is arguing apples and oranges. No one could possibly know who all the armed men are wondering about, and so there is no effort to tell us who they are. This is mere common sense. You can't be specific if you are speaking in general terms ON PURPOSE. But we do know who is being spoken about here. So in that sense, we are not kept in the dark.
In those years many "armed men" toured the Empire, legally or not. "Armati" is, notoriously, also a synonym for "soldiers", and during the last years of Commodus' reign and during the subsequent civil wars for the conquest of the throne, there were soldiers mutinied to their commanders, but faithful to the emperor, or vice versa, or real deserters constituting almost a regular army, even with claims to the imperial throne, in the well-known case of Maternus:
Herodian [1.10.1] “But before long another plot was organized against Commodus. It involved a former soldier named Maternus, who had committed many frightful crimes.He deserted from the army, persuading others to flee with him, and soon collected a huge mob of desperadoes. At first they attacked and plundered villages and farms, but when Maternus had amassed a sizable sum of money, he gathered an even larger band of cutthroats by offering the prospect of generous booty and a fair share of the loot. As a result, his men no longer appeared to be brigands but rather enemy troops”.
Have you bothered to look up 'enemy troops' in Herodian? You need the Greek text here. But, in any case, we are once again looking at an enemy CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE LITERARY ACCOUNT. We have no doubt who these armed men are: they are the armed men who follow Maternus.
No one would put on his stone that he had fought armed men. As Tomlin has pointed out, who else would he have fought? Inermes (unarmed men)? Unless you specify on the inscription whose armed men they are, the term is so obvious as to not require stating.
You are consistently confusing true literary sources with inscription texts. For example, you claim that such a use of ARMATOS on the LAC stone would not be at all unlike the use of "rebelles hostes publicos" in Tiberius Claudius Candidus's inscription. But 'rebels hostile to the state' (against supporters of Albinus, opponent of Severus in 196–7; see https://dokumen.pub/image-and-reality-of-roman-imperial-power-in-the-third-century-ad-the-impact-of-war-0815353731-9780815353737.html) is a very specific description. We would presume, of course, that they were armed.
For those who wish to inspect the Candidus inscription themselves, I would send them to
For those who wish to inspect the Candidus inscription themselves, I would send them to
There it is revealed just how specific the use of the terms discussed above really are:
duci terra marique adversus rebelles hh(ostes) pp(ublicos) item Asiae item Noricae
"governor of the province of Hispania Citerior for the two emperors, as well as military commander on land and on sea against rebels and enemies of the State in the same province, also (against rebels and enemies) in Asia and Noricum"
"governor of the province of Hispania Citerior for the two emperors, as well as military commander on land and on sea against rebels and enemies of the State in the same province, also (against rebels and enemies) in Asia and Noricum"
CONCLUSION
ARMATOS in the LAC inscription tells us nothing at all other than that the enemy happened to be armed. IN EVERY EXAMPLE Antonio Trinchese PROVIDED AND WHICH I TREATED OF IN DETAIL, THE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE TELLS US EXACTLY WHO THE ARMED MEN WERE AND WHAT ROLE THEY WERE PERFORMING AS ENEMIES. THE LOCATION OF THE ENEMY IS ALSO NOT LEFT IN DOUBT. ARMATOS IS A NEUTRAL TERM, AND TELLS US NOTHING, AND THEREFORE WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN USED IN ISOLATION ON THE STONE.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.