THE BEAR KING: ARTHUR AND THE IRISH IN WALES AND SOUTHERN ENGLAND

https://www.amazon.com/Bear-King-Arthur-Southern-England/dp/1548982954

ANOTHER EXPERT (DR. GEOFF TULLY) CHIMES IN ON L. ARTORIUS CASTUS AS DUX

Inscription of Velius Rufus

I've had several Roman scholars (including Professor Lawrence Keppie) refer me to the work of Dr. Geoff Tully.  Alas, his thesis is being kept locked up by his university library and they refused to permit me to access it.  

"Vexillatio : temporary units and special commands of the Roman army 211 BC-AD 268"

[https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:106031]

That being the case, I decided to contact Dr. Tully personally to ask him what he thought about the dux role of Lucius Artorius Castus, and whether or not vexillations were implied in Castus' inscription.  What follows, then, is the resulting email question-and-answer session.  My portion of the discussion is in regular font, while Dr. Tully's responses appear in italics.  

***

For some time now I have been researching the Lucius Artorius Castus stone found in Podstrana, Croatia. The problem, as I see it, is that we do not have another stone where vexillations is implied - unless we can go by the following:

publication: CIL 06, 01645 (p 854, 3163, 3811, 4725) = D 02773 = IDRE-01, 00019 = EAOR-01, 00026 = AE 1965, +00223

dating: 247 to 249         EDCS-ID: EDCS-18100446

province: Roma         place: Roma

praef(ecto)] / veh[icul(orum) proc(uratori)] / lud(i) ma[gni proc(uratori)] / Lusit(aniae) trib(uno) p[raet(orianorum)] / Philipporum A[ugg(ustorum)] / p(rimo) p(ilo) duci legg(ionum) Dac(iae) / |(centurioni) corn(iculario) praeff(ectorum) pr(aetorio)

Roger Tomlin (personal communication) says that is "an odd phrase, but I take it to mean that after service in the Praetorian Guard (to which he returned) he was senior centurion of one of the legions in Dacia – not specified – and at one point commanded detachments of them all.  A 'dux legionum' will be commanding detachments, not whole legions, if only because two or three whole legions would be commanded by the legate of the province; if he was dead and unavailable, then by one of the legionary legates acting 'pro legato'. For a centurion to replace them all, even the laticlave tribunes available, seems impossible to me. 

Agreed, and spot on. As I see it, I think you’re on solid ground, because your interpretation of Artorius’ inscription is the most logical and is, I believe, supported by CIL VI 1645 above. The good thing about Artorius’ inscription is that it clearly spells out each step of his career. 

Tomlin said that I should look at the career of Velius Rufus (ILS 9200), one of Vespasian's generals. He is 'primus pilus' of XII Fulminata, who does all the things that LAC did a century later: 'prefect' of a whole string of legionary vexillations (the legions named), procurator with 'ius gladii'.

Yes, I’m rather fond of Velius and I mention him often in my work. I think you have drawn a good parallel here with Artorius.

[For Velius, my blog readers can consult https://www.livius.org/articles/person/velius-rufus/.]

I suppose that someone reading three British legions to Armenia could have assumed he meant vexillations.  This is how Tomlin would have it.  He cites several errors in the Castus inscription, and has no problem with the carver simply leaving vexillations out in this context. 

Agreed. I think this is the most logical explanation. No emperor at this time would ever have stripped Britain of its legionaries in this way. Vexillations are implied, as they would have been to any Roman military man who read the inscription, i.e. taking into account Artorius’ previous and following posts - prefect of a legion and procurator of the tiny province of Liburnia. Those postings do not suggest to the reader that he commanded three legions, or even one, in between the two postings. Indeed, if he did have such a command, one would wonder why he didn’t explicitly spell it out, e.g. by naming the legions, as he clearly did with each of his earlier postings. In other words, it doesn’t make sense that one would spell out, in great detail, their early career and then not similarly detail what would have been the most important command of their lifetime. Commanding one, let alone three legions, was a very big deal. I think the reason he does not spell this out is because he never led two/three legions. That said (and I hope I’m not doing Artorius a disservice here), I do wonder whether the suggestion, in the inscription, of a more powerful command is deceptively deliberate, bearing in mind that Artorius set this up in his own lifetime. Not everyone who read it would have had military experience and would know how to interpret it correctly. In other words, he may have been trying to make his command sound rather more important than it really was. Still, his more likely command was significant all the same, and one that suggests that he was a highly capable combat commander, presumably, the best of his rank in Britain at the time.

Could he have said he was leading three entire legions if he were leading his own Sixth with large vexillations from the other two British legions WITHIN BRITAIN?  In other words, leading such a force from York to the North.  Not taking them outside of Britain.  As he was prefect of the Sixth, he could have taken over command, say, in 180, when the legate and other men were killed as tribesmen crossed the Wall.  We could assume the legate and his senior tribune had been killed, and Castus had to take over.  The Sixth may have been depleted and required reinforcement from detachments from the other two British legions.  In this instance, might he have felt justified in claiming he had led three British legions on his stone?

In such scenarios the next officer in the chain of command must have taken temporary command until his replacement arrived. And, the scenario as laid out, with reinforcements from the other two legions, is plausible, but as you point out, one then has to interpret adversus arm[…]s as this armatos you say has been proposed, which does not seem convincing at all. I would also point out that Artorius laid out his career in detail, i.e. he was obviously proud of his career and achievements, so why would he then describe his greatest enemy as simply ‘armed men?’ That doesn’t make sense. So, I would interpret the relevant part of the text as ‘field commander of [vexillations of the three] British legions against the Armenians’.

Tomlin and others feel the PRAEFF is a stonecutting error, as for him to have been prefect twice, there would have to be an intervening post.  Can you account for him being prefect of the same legion twice in a row, when this rank was often held for a long period of time just once?

PRAEFF could be a stonecutting error as Tomlin suggests; that’s one interpretation. But Artorius’ career is so carefully described that I prefer to read it as written. If there is a missing intervening post, perhaps it is his command of the vexillations of the British legions, e.g. perhaps he was prefect of Legio VI, made commander of vexillations of the British legions against the Armenians and upon his return took up once again the post of prefect of Legio VI, and to avoid costly repetition on the stone this was abbreviated to PRAEFF LEG VI VICTRICIS. That’s a second interpretation, but I even wonder if Artorius is counting his second go as prefect of Legio VI as his command of the vexillations? The term dux at this point in time is not a rank, but a title, i.e. ‘field commander’, so presumably his rank was still ‘prefect’ during his mission to Armenia. So is Artorius counting this as a second go as prefect of Legio VI? I’m not sure we’ll ever know which is correct.

THE MISUSE OF THE PRAEPOSITUS CLASSIS RANK OF LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS FOR DATING PURPOSES

Over the past several months, I have sytematically demolished the various dating "proofs" established for the Lucius Artorius Castus stone by Dr. Linda A. Malcor and her colleagues, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani.  There was only one argument left to counter.  In their paper "Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription" (https://www.jies.org/docs/jies_index/authors.html), the authors claim that the rank of praepositus classis "did not exist before the year 170 CE."  As with all their other attempts to force a late date onto the memorial stone inscription, this one is designed to preclude the possibility of Castus having gone to Armenia in the early 160s.  They require that ARMENIOS not be allowed (or preferred) as a reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the inscription, for by doing so Castus would be separated from the Sarmatians sent to Britain c. 175.

When I set out to investigate their claim that there were no praepositii of fleets prior to 170 A.D., it did not take me long to discover that this claim was false (or based on the usual ignorance).

The Malcor contingent would have us concentrate on the epigraphic evidence alone.  And, if we do, we encounter what appear to be unimpeachable sources like the following:

Professor Michel Redde (https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/ETUDESarchivees/Navires/Documents/Redd%c3%a9-MareNostrum1986.pdf), Dr. Heinrich Clemens Konen (Migration und Mobilität unter den Angehörigen der Alexandrinischen und Syrischen Flotte. Laverna 14, 2003, 18–47) and Hubert Devijver (https://books.google.com/books?id=nK4Ek8rwKwUC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=%22P.+Aelius+P.+f.+Palatina+Marcianus%22&source=bl&ots=2yXZzHGlO-&sig=ACfU3U2C0OlX8fwOR4fWrDlCGY8W_RQ7Ng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9hp_V3tT0AhUPHzQIHYjPB0UQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=%22P.%20Aelius%20P.%20f.%20Palatina%20Marcianus%22&f=false).  These scholars have argued convincingly that P. Aelius P. f. Palatina Marcianus (CIL VIII, 9358 = ILS 2738), the earliest extent iname bearing the  praepositus classis rank  (of Syriacae et Augustae), had his cursus c. 170 A.D.

However, what Malcor and colleagues do not tell us is that we have a LITERARY RECORD for a praeposistus of the very same fleet over which Castus held the rank dating from the 1st century!  By relying solely on the epigraphic evidence, they have once more slipped into the error of equating  Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence.  In other words, we can't possibly know how many other stones with praepositus classis/classibus written on them have either been destroyed or remain undiscovered. 

I would urge my readers to see https://www.romansonline.com/Src_Frame.asp?Lat=L&DocID=His_Bk02_a0.  Note that Lucilius is promoted as praepositus of the fleet of Misenum.  To this we may compare the praeposito classis Misenatium on the Castus memorial stone.

Historiae by Tacitus

Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb

Book II Chapter 100: Revolt of Vespasian. Caecina marches [AD 69]

Caecina, having embraced Vitellius and received tokens of high distinction, left him, and sent a detachment of cavalry to occupy Cremona. It was followed by the veteran troops of the 4th, 10th, and 16th legions, by the 5th and legions, and the rear was brought up by the 21st (the Rapax) and the first Italian Legion with the veteran troops of three British legions, and a chosen body of auxiliaries. After the departure of Caecina, Valens sent a despatch to the army which had been under his own command with directions that it should wait for him on the road; such, he said, was his arrangement with Caecina. Caecina, however, being with the army in person, and consequently having greater influence, pretended that this plan had been changed, so that the gathering forces of the enemy might be met with their whole strength. Orders were therefore given to the legions to advance with all speed upon Cremona, while a portion of the force was to proceed to Hostilia. Caecina himself turned aside to Ravenna, on the pretext that he wished to address the fleet. Soon, however, he sought the retirement of Patavium, there to concert his treachery. Lucilius Bassus, who had been promoted by Vitellius from the command of a squadron of cavalry to be admiral of the fleets at Ravenna and Misenum, failing immediately to obtain the command of the Praetorian Guard sought to gratify his unreasonable resentment by an atrocious act of perfidy. It cannot be certainly known whether he carried Caecina with him, or whether (as is often the case with bad men, that they are like each other) both were actuated by the same evil motives.

Caecina e complexu Vitellii multo cum honore digressus partem equitum ad occupandam Cremonam praemisit. mox vexilla primae, quartae, quintaedecimae, sextaedecimae legionum, dein quinta et duoetvicensima secutae; postremo agmine unaetvicensima Rapax et prima Italica incessere cum vexillariis trium Britannicarum legionum et electis auxiliis. profecto Caecina scripsit Fabius Valens exercitui, quem ipse ductaverat, ut in itinere opperiretur: sic sibi cum Caecina convenisse. qui praesens eoque validior mutatum id consilium finxit ut ingruenti bello tota mole occurreretur. ita adcelerare legiones Cremonam, pars Hostiliam petere iussae: ipse Ravennam devertit praetexto classem adloquendi; mox Patavii secretum componendae proditionis quaesitum. namque Lucilius Bassus post praefecturam alae Ravennati simul ac Misenensi classibus a Vitellio praepositus, quod non statim praefecturam praetorii adeptus foret, iniquam iracundiam flagitiosa perfidia ulciscebatur. nec sciri potest traxeritne Caecinam, an, quod evenit inter malos ut et similes sint, eadem illos pravitas impulerit.

 

Geoffrey D. Tully's THE MILITARY MEANING OF THE TERM 'DUX' FROM CAESAR TO GALLIENUS

Professor Lawrence Keppie has very kindly provided me with scans of this Appendix from Dr. Geoffrey D. Tully's Vexillatio : temporary units and special commands of the Roman army 211 BC-AD 268 (2002), PhD Thesis, School of History, Philosophy, Religion and Classics, The University of Queensland.  I am posting this because, according to Keppie, one of the world's foremost Latin epigraphers, it represents the best recent assessment of the nature of the role of the Roman dux.  As it happens, the conclusion reached by Tully in this piece completely contradicts the claim made by Linda D. Malcor and colleagues that the 2nd century Lucius Artorius Castus, as camp prefect of the Sixth Legion, was as dux the de facto governor of the province of Britain.  To date, I have not found a single respected, professional Roman military historian or Latin epigrapher who will accept their theory as valid. Tully's work thus echoes those of Tomlin, Birley and others in insisting that LAC was merely acting on a temporary basis as a junior officer in charge of legionary vexillations.

Note that these scans are jpeg images and my readers may have to enlarge them to make them readable.  I have posted them here in as large a size as the blog parameters will permit.  

***

WHY HISTORIANS AND EPIGRAPHERS ACCEPT THE IMPLIED VEXILLATIONS IN THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION

Duci legionum trium Britan(n)ici{an}arum adversus Armenios

Leader/Conductor [Dux] of (vexillations/detachments of) the three “Brittannician” legions against the Armenians

Why is it that all the top Latin epigraphers and Roman military historians have no problem accepting implied vexillations in the Lucius Artorius Castus inscription?  We find this expressed everywhere. 

Here is a good example...

From  Vol. 1 of Dobson:

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/8434/1/8434_5438-vol1.PDF?UkUDh:CyT

"L. Artorius Castus was appointed dux of vexillations from three legions after being

prefect of one of them."

From a personal communication by Professor Doctor Lukas de Blois:

"This dux Castus certainly was the equivalent of a praepositus vexillationum.  I was thinking of wars on the continent, for example under Valerian and Gallienus, who used vexillationes from Britannia. Within Britannia there were several possibilities. To make war in Scotland governors or emperors such as Septimius Severus might have used at least the entire legion from York plus vexillationes from elsewhere, even from neighbouring provinces. In the attachment you will find some praepositi vexillationum.

PRAEPOSITI VEXILLATIONUM

ILS 8870, Oinoanda, the 250s, Valerius Statilius Castus, praepositus

vexillationum. An interesting case. He also mentions himself ally of the Caesars.

Pflaum 1960 II, p. 598-601, nr 225, CIL X 6657 = ILS 1387, Antium, M.

Aquilius Felix. Period of Septimius Severus. Cf. AE 1945, 80. See HA, Didius

Iulianus 5.8; Niger 2.6; Sev 5.8, cf Cassius DIO 73.17.1. He was: ad census eqq

R, pr.classis praetoriae Ravennatis, procuratos patrimonii bis,

proc.hereditatium patrimonii privati, proc.operum publicorum,

praepos.vexillationum, primus pilus leg.XI Claudiae, centurio frumentarius,

patronus of colonia Antium.

Ulpius Victor, CIL III 1464 = ILS 1370, period of Septimius Severus +

Caracalla, Dacia. He was: proc.Aug.prov.Daciae Apulensis agens v.p.item

proc.prov.Porolissensis, subpraefectus annonae sacrae urbis, praepositus

leg.VII Geminae Antoninianae item proc.stationis privatae per Tusciam et

Picenum item proc.ad bona Plautiani, trib.mil.leg.II Parthicae Antoninianae,

praepositus vexillationis auxiliariorum Pannoniae Inf., praef.coh.VII

Breucorum

Helvius Pertinax, Pflaum I, 1960, 451-4, nr 179; in 171 AD he was praepositus

vexillationum. 

Pflaum 1960 I nr 181bis, p. 476-494, plus III nr 181bis p.982, M. Valerius

Maximianus. AE 1956, 124: M.Valerius Maximianus. A long career. In AD

171 he was praepositus vexillationum."

And from Dr. Alfred Hirt:

"The title dux is suggestive of vexillations as the title does not otherwise have significance in military language up to Diocletian. As for vexillations and duces, I tend to customarily  turn to Saxer, R. (1967): Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Diokletian. (Epigraphische Studien, Bd. I ). Köln."

From Professor Michael A. Speidel:

"I agree with Roger [Tomlin]. A dux legionum of the second century will have commanded a task force made up from detachments, not entire legions, and led them to their operation area." 

From "The military and administrative reforms of the emperor Gallienus", pp. 74-75 (http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/7550/1/7550_4615.PDF by PD Britton, 1981, Durham University):

From R. E. Smith's 'Dux, Praepositus,' Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Bd. 36 (1979), pp. 263-278 (16 pages) (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20185810?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad05dd9b57b4f2ea93e9929f7823f5410&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents):

"Marcus Aurelius was confronted from the outset of his reign with military problems which required exceptional methods to death with... and this situation was, in fact, to become endemic in the third century. Two titles were used, legatus and praepositus, the first title not surprisingly confined to senators, the second almost entirely to equites... The first case need not delay us long, that of M. Valerius Lollianus, an eques, praepositus in Mesopotamia vexillationibus... If, as seem likely, this belongs to the reign of M. Aurelius, it should be dated to c. 163-6... [NOTE: Other more recent scholars have dated this praepositus to the reign of either Trajan or Hadrian; see David Kennedy's  https://www.academia.edu/11331587/The_special_command_of_M._Valerius_Lollianus.]

Up to the end of the Antonine period the word [dux] had a certain currency as a general term which meant 'army commander' without its having a special or specific technical connotation.  But from the time of Severus its use becomes more frequent, and this trend continues throughout the third century, until by the time of Diocletian it is established as the official title of certain army commanders."

We can go to several other sources and find the same thing.  One of the most commonly accessed is this one by renowned scholar Tully, which concentrates on camp prefects as vexillation commanders:

http://www.uni-koeln.de/phil-fak/ifa/zpe/downloads/1998/120pdf/120226.pdf

GEOFFREY D. TULLY

THE STRATARXHS OF LEGIO VI FERRATA AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF CAMP PREFECTS AS VEXILLATION COMMANDERS[1]

aus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 120 (1998) 226–232

© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

[Note:  I have removed the footnotes from the article to increase readability and avoid format problems.]

In November 66, during the early stages of the Jewish War, Cestius Gallus was taking the outer suburbs

of Jerusalem and would have captured the city forthwith, we are told, had he not been diverted from an

immediate attempt, primarily by Turranius Priscus, a stratopedãrxhw (praefectus castrorum) in his

army.2 Later attempts failed to take the city, and once Cestius had decided to withdraw, his army was

quickly set upon by the rebellious Judaeans and consequently suffered numerous casualties during the

retreat, one of whom Josephus says was ‘Priscus’ – this time, the ‘stratãrxhw of the Sixth Legion’.3

The two passages have often been overlooked,4 and the title stratãrxhw at BJ 2.544 has been translated

both as legatus legionis and praefectus castrorum.5 Because of the varied interpretations of

stratãrxhw, the above names, i.e. ‘Turannius Priscus’ and ‘Priscus’, have nearly always been dissociated as being those of different officers.6 However, an examination of the Bellum Judaicum and other

evidence reveals that Josephus did not use the term stratãrxhw as the technical equivalent of any

specific rank in the Roman army, but rather as a more general word for ‘commander’ or ‘leader’. The

picture which emerges is that Turranius Priscus and Priscus were one and the same person, and that

while this officer held the ‘rank’ of praefectus castrorum, (stratopedãrxhw) ‘his assignment’ at the

time of Cestius’s campaign was as the commander (stratãrxhw) of a vexillation from the Sixth Legion.

This is significant, as the notion that camp prefects could even command legionary vexillations on

campaign from as early as the first century has only recently been raised.

Unfortunately, we have no epigraphic or other literary evidence for the commanders of the Sixth

Legion between c. 19 and 70,7 which might otherwise confirm or disprove a translation of stratãrxhw

as meaning legatus legionis. Our dilemma, moreover, is not alleviated by the fact that Josephus uses the

term stratãrxhw on only one occasion, i.e. to describe the above Priscus. An appropriate starting point,

therefore, is to examine the language which Josephus uses to indicate the rank of legatus legionis.

Mason lists three words which are used by Greek writers for this rank, two of which appear in Josephus, i.e. êgvn and taj¤arxow.

8 While Josephus uses êgvn (leading) on a single occasion to indicate that Sextus Cerealis was the legate of the Fifth Legion,9 the word, in itself, is not the technical equivalent of legatus legionis, but instead relies solely on the context of the sentence to take on this meaning. Similarly, Josephus does not appear to use taj¤arxow as a term for this rank either, but rather as a term for ‘senior officers’ in general (e.g. ofl taj¤arxoi pãntew).10

Obviously Josephus employed another term for legatus legionis and this is ≤gem≈n.

11 Of the eleven instances in which Josephus refers to legionary legates by name, ≤gem≈n is used on ten occasions.12 But on most occasions (26 in all) Josephus simply refers to anonymous ‘≤gemÒnew’ under more senior commanders, such as Mark Antony, Vespasian, Mucianus and Titus.13 This use of the word is clearly meant to include the legionary commanders on most, if not all, occasions. Indeed, some of the best examples of the employment of ≤gem≈n for legatus legionis appear in Josephus’s description of the Roman army’s order of march into Galilee,14 and in his account of the organisation of the Jewish army along Roman lines.15 This aside, Josephus curiously uses the word ¶parxow – a term widely attested as the equivalent of praefectus16 – on a single occasion to describe Sex. Vettulenus Cerealis, the legate of V Macedonica.17

That Josephus is usually consistent in the terminology he employs for Roman army ranks is supported by the fact that he nearly always describes commanders above the rank of legionary legate, such

as Vespasian, by the term strathgÒw18 and those below the rank by terms such as ¶parxow (praefectus)19 and xil¤arxow (tribune).20 Thus, if Priscus had been a legionary legate, we would expect Josephus to have described him as the ≤gem≈n (or perhaps as the ¶parxow) of the Sixth Legion. That he is not so described suggests that Josephus was not implying this rank by the use of stratãrxhw. We are still left, therefore, with the problem of what Josephus meant by stratãrxhw.

stratãrxhw is not a commonly attested word, surviving in only 67 literary and one epigraphic

example,21 and an examination of its employment in a few of these cases will suffice to illustrate how

Josephus most likely intended stratãrxhw to be understood. Regrettably, our sole epigraphic example

is highly fragmentary and sheds little light on our understanding of the word:

- KasianÚw doÁj fisxu[rÚw? ------]

énØr stratãrxhw §n ----------------

flppas¤aiw krãtistow ---------------

deinow no . . ----------------------------22

The inscription gives Cassianus the title of doÊj (dux), which is attested from as early as the reign of

Domitian, and was originally used to denote the commander of an operation or the commander of

vexillations.23 The fact that both doÊj and stratãrxhw appear on the same inscription appears to argue

that they have quite different meanings, but just what the relationship is between the two is impossible

to say.24 All we can say is that Cassianus was a seemingly capable officer who is mentioned both as dux and stratãrxhw.

The surviving literary evidence of stratãrxhw, on the other hand, is far more helpful. Herodotus,

Philo and Zonaras each use stratãrxhw in the sense of a ‘general of an army’.25 This use of the word

appears to support Liddell and Scott’s suggested translation of stratãrxhw, i.e. ‘general of an army’,

and, in a Roman context, Mason’s translation as ‘legatus legionis’. But Philo elsewhere uses stratãrxhw as a word to describe God, or to denote a religious ‘leader’ of the people, such as Moses.26

Obviously a translation of ‘general’ in these circumstances is inappropriate, and consequently casts

doubt on the intended meaning of the earlier examples just cited, in which a translation of ‘commander’

or ‘leader’ fits equally well. However, it is Philo’s use of the word to describe the events leading up to

the arrest of A. Avilius Flaccus (prefect of Egypt c. AD 32–38), which perhaps gives us the greatest

insight into its use. Bassus, the centurion sent to effect the arrest, was anxious for military support upon

his arrival and ordered one of the soldiers on duty in Alexandria to show him the house of the

‘stratãrxhw’, here clearly standing for the praefectus castrorum Aegypti,27 which elsewhere is recorded in Greek as the stratopedãrxhw t«n épÚ ÉAlejandre¤aw dÊo tagmãtvn.28 Of central importance

is the fact that Philo came from a wealthy family in Alexandria and lived all of his life under Roman

rule.29 He, therefore, must have known the technical title of the military commander in Egypt.30 But it

may well be that the use of such a technical and specifically Roman term like stratopedãrxhw, with its

implication of a camp commander, would have been less relevant to his Greek readers,31 and so Philo

instead has Bassus refer to this officer as the stratãrxhw – clearly not meaning legatus legionis – but

something more like ‘the military commander’.

stratãrxhw, therefore, should not be translated as a technical term which equates to a specific

Roman military rank, such as legatus legionis or praefectus castrorum, but with a more general meaning, such as ‘commander’ or ‘leader’, and this is what Josephus has done in relation to Priscus. Shortly after informing us that Turranius Priscus held the rank of stratopedãrxhw (praefectus castrorum), Josephus gives us the additional information that he (Priscus) had fallen during the retreat from Jerusalem and emphasises the importance of this loss by telling us that Priscus was, at that time, the stratãrxhw (‘commander’ or ‘leader’) of the Sixth Legion. In this regard, it is important to remember that the whole of Legio VI Ferrata did not accompany Cestius on the campaign.

In preparation for the expedition, Josephus informs us that Cestius assembled the whole of Legio

XII Fulminata and 2,000 vexillation-soldiers (§p¤lektoi) from each of his other legions, in addition to

numerous auxiliaries. The identity of the other legions which provided troops is regrettably still somewhat uncertain, but it is generally accepted that a vexillation of VI Ferrata did participate.32 Thus, when Josephus describes Priscus as the ‘commander of the Sixth Legion (stratãrxhw tãgmatow ßktou), what he really meant was that Priscus was the commander [of the vexillarii] of the Sixth Legion (stratãrxhw [§pil°ktvn] tãgmatow ßktou).33

Although we have a reasonable amount of evidence for the commanders of what could loosely be

termed ‘legionary vexillation-groups’ (i.e. two or more vexillations under the one commander),34 we

have very little information on the men who actually commanded individual legionary vexillations on

campaign.35 Until quite recently, the accepted theory was that, prior to the Marcommanic Wars, only

senatorial officers could lead these detachments, i.e the commander of the legion (the legatus legionis)

and his second in command (the tribunus laticlavius).36 However, the career of M. Clodius, an equestrian tribune placed in command of vexillarii from Legio V Macedonica at some time under Claudius or Nero, clearly shows that equestrians were also considered suitable for these commands.37 Since Clodius and other tribuni angusticlavii like him were on the fourth level of seniority in the legionary chain of command, we should not be surprised to find that the third in command of a legion38 was also eligible for the command of vexillarii on campaign.

In a recent paper, Saddington has noted that camp prefects could be assigned to the command of

vexillations (plural) on campaign during the first century.39 But although his conclusion, in the view of

the present writer, is quite correct, his statement is based on the example of Aeternius Fronto, the stratopedãrxhw t«n épÚ ÉAlejandre¤aw dÊo tagmãtvn, who commanded the detachments drawn from

Egypt for Titus’s campaign in Judaea.40 This office was clearly far more senior than the average post of

praefectus castrorum in the legions outside Egypt,41 and cannot be used as evidence that all camp

prefects were eligible for the command of vexillations.42 Indeed Dobson pointed out some twenty years ago that camp prefects were employed as the commanders of vexillations.43 His statement is based on three epigraphic examples, two dating from the latter half of the second century and the other from the late third. However, the identification of Turranius Priscus in this role shows that camp prefects from the legions outside of Egypt were commanding war-vexillations in the first century. This is further supported, moreover, by other literary evidence, which is given here for clarity’s sake, along with the epigraphic evidence cited by Dobson. The provinces and dates listed indicate where and when the detachments were operating.

1. Pannonia AD 14

Interea manipuli, ante coeptam seditionem Nauportum missi ob itinera et pontes et alios

usus, postquam turbatum in castris accepere, vexilla convellunt . . . praecipua in Aufidienum Rufum praefectum castrorum ira . . .44

2. Germania AD 14

at in Chaucis coeptavere seditionem praesidium agitantes vexillarii discordium legionum, et

praesenti duorum militum supplicio paulum repressi sunt. Iusserat id M. Ennius castrorum

praefectus . . .45

3. Britain AD 51

praefectum castrorum et legionarias cohortes exstruendis apud Siluras praesidiis relictas

circumfundunt.46

4. Armenia AD 58

. . . Corbulo, ne inritum bellum traheretur utque Armenios ad sua defendenda cogeret,

excindere parat castella, sibique quod validissimum in ea praefectura, cognomento Volandum, sumit; minora Cornelio Flacco legato et Insteio Capitoni castrorum praefecto

mandat.47

5. Judaea AD 66

Turranius Priscus – stratãrxhw [§pil°ktvn] tãgmatow ßktou (see above).

6. Italy (?), Raetia and Noricum c. AD 167–180?

. . . praeposit(us) v[exillationum | per Ital(iam)?] et Raet(iam) et Noric(um) [bello | Germanico?, pra]ef(ectus) kastr(orum) Leg(ionis) II Tra[ianae Fortis, primo pilo . . . ] . . . 48

7. Lower Germany c. AD 190

[I(ovi) O(ptimo)] M(aximo) et Gen[io vexil(lationis) Leg(ionis) I M(inerviae) P(iae) F(idelis) . . . pro sal(ute)] | im[p(eratoris)] M(arci) Aur(elii) Com[modi] Aug(usti) sub | Cla[ud(io)] Apollin[are l]eg(ato) Leg(ionis) I M(inerviae) | 5et Sa[bi]nio Nep[otian]o pr(a)ef(ecto)

vexil(lationis) | sub c[ura] M(arci) C[laudii(?) Va]lentis sig(niferi) | Leg(ionis) I [M(inerviae)] I[mp(eratore) Commodo VI et Sep]t(imiano) co(n)s(ulibus).49

8. Gallia Lugdunensis late third century

. . . L(ucius) Artori[us Ca]stus . . . [pr]aef(ecto) Leg(ionis) VI Victricis, duci leg(ionum)

[duaru]m Britanicianarum adversus Arm[oricano]s . . . 50

[BLOG AUTHOR'S NOTE:  LAC BELONGS TO THE LATE SECOND CENTURY, AND ARMORICANOS SHOULD HERE BE REPLACED BY ARMENIOS.]

The evidence as a whole is not abundant, but it does show that camp prefects were commanding detached forces on campaign from as early as AD 14. [Emphasis here supplied by the blog author.] Promotion to the rank of praefectus castrorum was considered an additional distinction to those who had already reached the primipilate,51 and men of such seniority and experience are not likely to have been overlooked for such responsible positions. Indeed, when it came to the choice of which officer a legionary legate (perhaps aged in his early 40s) might choose to command a vexillation for a campaign, it is important to remember that many of his junior officers, i.e. the senatorial tribune and perhaps many of the equestrian tribunes, were aged somewhere between 18 and 24, and that at this age they were not always responsible individuals.52 By contrast, the camp prefect was probably aged in his 40s or older and possessed a great deal of experience,53 and in many instances was likely to have been the better choice, despite any humble origins. Moreover, when a legion was called upon to supply two or even three separate war-vexillations at more or less the same time,54 it is only logical that the third-in-command of the legion must at least have been considered for the command of one of these detachments, provided he could be spared from his usual responsibilities.

It is now clear, therefore, that all of the legionary officers above the primuspilus, i.e. the tribuni angusticlavii, the praefectus castrorum and the tribunus laticlavius were utilised by legionary legates as the commanders of war-vexillations from early on in the first century.55

In conclusion, there is no longer any reason to view ‘Turranius Priscus’ and ‘Priscus’ as separate

persons, simply because of the use of the term stratãrxhw. The evidence from Philo and others shows

that this word was not used as the technical equivalent for any particular rank in the Roman army, but

rather as a more general word for ‘commander’ or ‘leader’. It is therefore attested both for an officer in

charge of two legions (i.e. A. Avilius Flaccus) as well as for one in charge of only a portion of a legion

(i.e. Turranius Priscus). Although our extant sources provide only a limited number of examples of nonsenatorial officers in command of legionary vexillations on campaign, there is enough evidence to

suggest that camp prefects could be assigned as the commanders of war-vexillations if the situation

justified it, and indeed the extensive wars and campaigns of the first century may even have necessitated their employment.

An appendix on the evolution of the role of dux is found at the end of Tully's study, and Professor Lawrence Keppie is sending that to me via snail-mail.  I will make it available here on my blog site once I have it in hand and have scanned it.

Another interesting piece by Tully is his "Did Centurions Lead Detachments of Their Legions in Wartime?", viewable here:

http://www.casa-kvsa.org.za/legacy/2004/AC47-08-Tully.pdf

Only just the other day I had yet another discussion with Professor Roger Tomlin on this topic.  I had asked him about an unusual inscription involving a centurion who had led legionary forces as a dux:

publication: CIL 06, 01645 (p 854, 3163, 3811, 4725) = D 02773 = IDRE-01, 00019 = EAOR-01, 00026 = AE 1965, +00223

dating: 247 to 249         EDCS-ID: EDCS-18100446

province: Roma         place: Roma

praef(ecto)] / veh[icul(orum) proc(uratori)] / lud(i) ma[gni proc(uratori)] / Lusit(aniae) trib(uno) p[raet(orianorum)] / Philipporum A[ugg(ustorum)] / p(rimo) p(ilo) duci legg(ionum) Dac(iae) / |(centurioni) corn(iculario) praeff(ectorum) pr(aetorio)

Tomlin's response was illuminating, as always:

"It's an odd phrase, but I take it to mean that after service in the Praetorian Guard (to which he returned) he was senior centurion of one of the legions in Dacia – not specified – and at one point commanded detachments of them all.

I still think a 'dux legionum' will be commanding detachments, not whole legions, if only because two or three whole legions would be commanded by the legate of the province; if he was dead and unavailable, then by one of the legionary legates acting 'pro legato'. For a centurion to replace them all, even the laticlave tribunes available, seems impossible to me.

I have been wondering if you have looked at the career of Velius Rufus (ILS 9200), one of Vespasian's generals. He is 'primus pilus' of XII Fulminata, who does all the things that LAC did a century later: 'prefect' of a whole string of legionary vexillations (the legions named), procurator with 'ius gladii', etc. Kennedy wrote an article about him in Britannia 14 (1983), but it's long since I read it.

I think Loriot [in his piece on LAC] may be over-insistent on dated inscriptions. After all, LAC isn't 'dated'; and Velius Rufus is doing these things under a different title."

I had not yet explored the career of Velius Rufus.  Fortunately, while the Britannia piece is available through subsciption to the journal only, I was able to find the following very respectable Web page devoted to the subject that cited Kennedy's study as a primary source:

https://www.livius.org/articles/person/velius-rufus/

Velius served as primus pilus (the highest ranking centurio) in XII Fulminata, and immediately after, he was made commander (tribunus) of the Thirteenth Urban Cohort, which was based in Carthage. In c.85-87, he was the "leader [prefect] of the army of Africans and Mauritanians that suppressed the nations that live in Mauretania", and received his second set of decorations: another mural crown, two spears, and two banners.

This was his first independent command, and the emperor, Domitian, must have known about him, and must have asked him to come to the north, to the Danube, where a large war had started against the Dacian king Decebalus. After a couple of setbacks, the Romans defeated their main enemy, and an expedition was sent out across Dacia, to the Sarmati, Quadi, and Marcomanni beyond the Dacians. Velius was the commander [dux] of a vexillatio of nine legions, which means that he was in charge of a force made up of subunits from other legions.

Here is a complication, because the inscription mentions only eight units, all from Britain and Germania Superior.

There's one legion missing, XI Claudia.

The numeral VIIII is wrong and there were only eight legions involved.

It is common to accept the first option. 

I could continue dredging up more and more examples to support the universally held belief that vexillations on the LAC stone are implied, but have reached the point where I consider further efforts to be a waste of time and energy.  It is, therefore, with great relief that I am suspending my search.