MY REBUTTAL OF ANTONIO TRINCHESE'S SUPPORT OF 'ARMATOS' FOR 'ARM[...]S'

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 'rebelles hostes publicos'   (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 

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1994-0122-2

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"

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.

AS ROGER TOMLING WRYLY OBSERVED ABOUT THE PROPOSED USE OF THIS VAGUE. NONSPECIFIC TERM: "a Roman general wouldn't have congratulated himself on fighting against 'armed men', any more than he would have recorded a campaign against inermes."  INERMES ARE 'UNARMED MEN.' TOMLIN HAS WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ABOUT HIS REJECTION OF ARMATOS FOR THE CASTUS STONE, BUT HIS SUMMARY STATEMENT IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE: 

"Castus is so explicit elsewhere in his great inscription that I can't think he would have been so vague at the highpoint of his career. There are so many specific terms he might have used: DEFECTORES, REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES PVBLICOS, PRAEDONES, even DESERTORES. I think of Tib. Claudius Candidus, legate of Hispania Citerior, et in ea duci terra marique adversus rebelles hostes publicos.

Armatus, unlike all the nouns I have quoted above, is an adjective – it is used of a person doing something illegal (but specified), and worse than this, doing it 'under arms'. Can you find armatus being used by itself in the sense of 'illicitly armed'? I had a quick look at the dictionary, but I couldn't find it in this sense – only neutrally, 'having arms' and then explicitly, being a 'soldier'.

In other words, I wonder if armatus is used in the sense of doing something which is not only illegal but done 'with weapons'. But what this is, must be specified. For example, armed robbery. You fight 'armed men', but if only if they are enemies of the State in some way and are defined as such."

My own personal conclusion regarding ARMATOS is this: for a career soldier and prefect of a legion to make a big deal of saying that he had fought some armed men is, well, more than a bit ridiculous, really.  Frankly, it is so obvious an assertion as to be patently absurd.