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.  

English Translation of Zeljko Miletic's "Lucius Artorius Castus and Liburnia"

I have gone to the trouble of using Google Translate to make available in rough form the following Croatian article by Professor Doctor Željko Miletić of the University of Zadar (https://arheologija.unizd.hr/djelatnici/zeljko-miletic). This is a very sensible piece written on Lucius Artorius Castus, his service in the Armenian War and his appointment as procurator of Liburnia in the late 160s.  Because it has not before been available in English, it has been easier to either ignore or negate by the Sarmatian Contingent of Arthurian researchers.  I wanted to make sure the material was made available to an English speaking/reading audience, as it echoes my own work on LAC.  

Miletić's approach is quite simple and straight-forward, and free of any impulse to convert Castus into something that he clearly was not.  As such, it is of tremendous value to the field of Arthurian Studies.

I recently communicated with Prof. Dr. Miletić, and he has not changed his opinion on LAC's career since writing his article. 

Željko Miletić

Lucius Artorius Castus i Liburnia

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330926088_Lucius_Artorius_Castus_i_Liburnia

Inscriptions from Podstrana indicate that the position of the first centurion (primus pilus) of the legion enabled Lucius Artorius Caste to break through from

of the third bourgeoisie into knights. He continued his knightly career

is in the army, as praepositus classis Misenatium, praefectus

(castrorum) legionis i dux legionariorum et auxiliorum Britannicorum adversus Armenios, and finally as procurator

centenarius provinciae Liburniae, which is a function with the authority of ius

gladii of distinctly military significance. We date Artori's monuments

in the 2nd century, and the short-lived separation of Liburnia from the province

We associate Dalmatia with the Quad-Marcoman war in the time of M.

Aurelia (thesis related to Medini's). Detachments of new legions from

anti-German armies II Piae and III Concordiae, as well as the newly formed cohorts I and II miliaria Delmatarum, then built ramparts

around the suburbs of Salona in Dalmatia. The army is building fortifications in Noricum

and Pannonia, and possibly Artorius' command post, the principle

praetenturae Italiae in Liburnian Tarsatica. Throughout the region in

the age of M. Aurelius and Commodus changes the status of the provinces (Raetia, Noricum, Dacia, Liburnia), at a time when the knightly

the class breaks through some barriers to Senate competencies.

The career of Lucius Artorius Caste and the creation of the procuratorial province of Liburnia fit into modern social processes.

Professor Cambi asked me for a congress on the relationship of Lucius Artori

Caste and the provinces of Liburnia. I thank him for the opportunity. There is a lot in the work

a space dedicated to Artori’s career from the time before he became procurator

of the province, which was necessary to illuminate the period of his life about which

we know only from a few words on one of Arthori’s three inscriptions.

The first problem that needed to be solved was to determine the time of the creation of the monuments from which we reconstruct Artori's life path, especially the one with an exhaustive

an inscription from Podstrana, broken into two pieces (CIL 3, 1919 = 8513 = 12813).

Artori's cursus honorum shows the promotional path, titles and names of the units as they are

are common in the 2nd century, with which are mixed some elements that are extremely already

then they appear (titula dux), but are frequently awarded only from the last decade of the 3rd century,

ie in the time of Septimius Severus and later (Saxer, 1967: 44, nos. 77 and 78; 48, nos. 86-88,

57, no. 107; Ibeji, 1991: 226-234). Such late dating of the inscription certainly falls away,

due to the absence of characteristic late epithets in the names of units, due to the palaeography of letters and epigraphic features of the inscriptions, which indicate that the monuments

erected at the end of the second or beginning of the 3rd century In support of the claim that Artorije lived

in the 2nd century there is an indirect mention of vexillations on the inscription, which are precisely in that

period, from Marcus Aurelius to Septimius Severus, widely used in the war

arenas (Saxer: 33-49, nos. 63-88; Ibeji, 1991: 156-157; Cowan & McBride,

2003: 17-19). Command over vexillations, ie the title dux, as well as the statement

about the existence of some hitherto unknown procuratorial province from whose name they are

only the first three letters of the LIB remain, and in which the government with powers ius gladii, are referred to

that Artorije was a participant in major war events. Namely, from epigraphic records

and literary sources it is perfectly evident that vexillations were formed during the war

periods, while creating new provinces or changing the status of existing ones

in that period also related to wars and the accumulation of large contingents of troops

in certain areas.

In the process of connecting the data from Artori's extremely warrior life with

real wars, it is a fortunate circumstance that the duties on the inscriptions are shown in

a simple sequence from the lowest and earliest, to the higher and later. On the big one

the inscription from Podstrana precisely states each individual centurion position,

so the number of performed all duties and our knowledge of the rhythm in which they are otherwise

achieved, as well as knowledge about the duration of the career of military officers, allow to compare

pattern of Artori's progress with the schedule of military events during the 2nd century.

Paradoxically, as a key period in that temporal and spatial fixation

proved to be a long peaceful period of the reign of Antoninus Pius (Birley, 2000:

149-155). The peaceful character of his reign, interrupted only by minor riots in

Mauritania, Judea and Britain, is not in line with the major war conditions during

whose Artori's career took an upward trajectory and reached its peak. Only in

times of crisis, when established social frameworks collapse and bend boundaries

of various layers, frequent penetration into higher positions and radical change

personal legal status. For Artori, it was the time after Antonin's death,

in the time of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, when, already during the first year of his reign,

riots broke out in the East and war with the Parthians began. While that crisis is not over yet, it has begun

is a war with the Germans in the Danube area.

Thanks to these chronological benchmarks, I tried the remaining, earlier and

a less tumultuous part of Artori's career chronologically determined. There is an objection that this is

speculative method and that one misplaced link in the chain breaks the whole string.

However, in this way the career of Lucius Artorius Caste was completely reconstructed

corresponds to the picture of the progress of man from the third bourgeoisie to the knightly ordo.

The itinerary of the reconstructed Arthurian journey through the provinces agrees with the historical one

itinerary of the legions and units in which Artorije served. A circle of people to whom

was Artorije was surrounded in his reconstructed life fits perfectly

interest groups, social ties, hierarchy and manner

progress.

On an inscription from Podstrana, Artori's first recorded position is the place of a centurion in III. the Gallic Legion (legio III Gallica) while this one was stationed in Judea at the time

Hadrian. However, he had to start his career earlier, probably as an ordinary soldier. If L. Artorije became a centurion by promotion from the Legion, it probably is

this was after 13 to 20 years of service, which is the usual range during which plain

soldier - miles - progresses through pay grades, through some of the total of a hundred

military and non-commissioned officer positions (Breeze, 1974: 442). Advancing to the centurion

during his service in the Praetorian Guard is within the same range (usually about 16

year). The third common way was to place the centurion directly in the legions of

by the governors of the provinces, if they have previously fulfilled their basic civil

duties in municipalities (Dobson, 1974: 403-404). Anyway new

the centurions of Emperor Hadrian were experienced soldiers in the 1930s.1

 Although

Artorius was not pointed out on the inscriptions, it is quite possible that he was miles in the Third

the Gallic legion, in which he would then rise to the rank of centurion. Legio III Gallica

stationed in Syria, or Judea since the civil wars of 69, and there she found herself

and Emperor Hadrian on his journey to the East (Ritterling, 1925: 1521-1524).

The deterioration of Roman-Judaic relations grew after the emperor's arrival in Jerusalem and

it was potentiated by the order to start construction work in the new Jerusalem

which Hadrian named Aelia Capitolina. Possibility to build capitol

the temple at the Jewish Temple was one of the reasons for the Judean rebellion of Bar-Kohba

(Sicker, 2001: 180-184; Goodman, 2008: 483-488). After the Egyptian legion

XXII Deiatorana was destroyed, Hadrian sends his best generals to Judea,

among which the first is Cn. Minicius Faustinus Sex. Julius Severus (Salomies, 1992:

126 et seq.), 2

 former governor of Britain, and from 134 Judea (Cass. Part, LXIX.13,

2; Birley, 2005: 129-132). Regardless of whether Judea remained of praetorian rank or not

became a consular province shortly before 127, the relocation shows the importance of the war

in which Julius Severus did not decide on a frontal conflict, but with seven full ones

legion and with cohorts and auxiliaries of the strength of another 5 legions, destroyed fort after fort,

as described by Cassius Dion (Cass. Dio, LXIX 13, 3 – 14, 2). After the end of the war

In 135, Julius Severus received ornamenta triumphalia and was appointed governor

Syria Palestine, a newly formed province of great military importance at the time (CIL III,

2830+CIL III, 9891).3

 It is important to say that Julius Severus was born in the colony of Aequum

in the province of Dalmatia, a countryman of young Artorius (Bulić, 1903: 125 = AE 1904, 9;

Abramić, 1950: 237-239 = AE 1950, 45; Gabricevic: 1953, 257-258; CIL 3, 2830).

---

At the age of just over thirty, during the Judean War or just after

upon its completion, Artorije became a centurion. Time, space, and circumstances ideally matched the promotion from NCO to first in a series of centurion ranks.

His superior knightly military tribune (tribunus militum angusticlavius) was then

was Statius Priscus whose chivalrous, and later even senatorial career, began which

a year earlier just under the command of Sextus Julius Severus in Britain. Stations

Prisco was decorated for services in the Judean War (CIL 3, 1523). We mention it because

his life path will still be intertwined with Artori's. The next position of the centurion

He achieved Artorije, in the same area, in Legion VI. Ferrata, who is of the Flavians

in the province of Syria, and after the end of the war he stationed in Jerusalem the neighboring city of Bostra in the client Nabatea (Ritterling, 1925: 1587-1596), as part of the Syrian military

contingent, the largest in the Empire. Legion VI. Ferrata remained in Judea until

215. We conclude that the first two centurion positions, at intervals of 3-5 years,

Undoubtedly, he kept Artorius in two legions in the Judeo-Nabataean area,

he was a participant in the war against Bar-Kohba and his commanders were the tribune of the Statue

Prisco and Consul Julia North. Artori's next position of centurion in II. legion

Assistants (legio II Adiutrix), demanded his transfer to something else entirely

area, on the Danube limes, that is, in Aquincum in Pannonia, where II.

the legion has been stationed since Trajan 's Dacian wars, until the end of antiquity (CIL III

14347; 2

 Z. Visy, 1988: 81; Ritterling, 1925: 1446-1449).

Artorije in the forties of the 2nd century achieved the position of centurion in the 5th Macedonian

legion stationed at Tresmis in Lower Moesia (Moesia Inferior) at the mouth of the Danube

to the Black Sea, in a province later called Scythia Minor. Legion V. is also on

the Danube Limes since the Dacian Wars (Ritterling, 1925: 1576-1577). Although

the progression of centurions through units we observe through individual, isolated cases, they are the result of larger actions, for example the addition of units due to

losses in wars or dismissals from military service etc. It is therefore not surprising that from Tresmis

we have an inscription (CIL 3, 6186) with a mention of Artori's contemporary, the centurion

Tiberius Claudius Ulpian, a native of Syria, who was transferred to V. in the same way.

legion from II. legions at Aquinas (CIL 3, 6186). They are probably even earlier at the same time

were in Syria, where Tiberius Claudius Ulpian served in the leg. X Fretensis which

was stationed in Jerusalem and suffered great damage during Bar-Kohbin

uprising. Tiberius Claudius, who should be some ten years older, however,

this was the last duty, for he died at the age of 66 after as much as the seventh centurion

in sequence. He is one of the vast majority of centurions who, despite a long career, more

they could not progress.

He had begun his centurion career in the legions of L. Artoria Cast at the time

Hadrian in the Syrian area, completing it in the time of Antoninus Pius in the Pannonian

-Danish Danube area at the very beginning of the fifties of the 2nd century, when

becomes primus pilus - the first centurion of the 5th Macedonian Legion in Troesmis.

They were captivated by people in their fifties, of vast military experience.

The youngest known primus pilus is Blossius Pudens, which as primus pilus desi-

gnatus died at the age of 49, while he had not yet taken up the appointed office i.e. not yet

managed to “consume” that position, as stated on the inscription CIL 6, 3580. Brian

Dobson believes that the service received was one year, although this is not yet possible

formally demonstrate (Dobson, 1974: 411-412) .After the honorable dismissal, he received

a significant amount of money that qualified him to enter the knighthood (Suetonius,

Caligula, 44; Dobson, 1974: 376) .4

 Lucius Artorius Caste's position as first centurion

(primus pilus) legions also allowed entry from the third bourgeoisie into

knights, which is confirmed on the inscription from Podstrana by the knightly duties that follow. For such remarkable success it was necessary to show military virtues, but certainly also

to have the support of the commander of the legion and possibly the governor of the province.

From the inscription we read that Artori's next position was in the elite Praetorian fleet

in the Gulf of Misena on the Tyrrhenian coast of Italy: praepositus classis Misenatium,

i.e. praepositus classis praetoriae Misenensium. Without additional data difficult

is to say precisely what a command post it is. It seems to have preceded

The "real" procurators, that is, the rank, corresponded to the militias (militiae),

preliminary duties of young people from the knightly class. How is Mizenska

the praetorian fleet, Artori's presbytery, corresponds in rank to the tribune of a particular praetorian cohort in the city of Rome. It may be the command of some navy

departments in the city of Rome itself. Cohortes classicae were singled out from the majority

praetorian fleets at Misena, and had a similar role as praetorian cohorts (Saddington, 2007: 209-210). The title praepositus is often carried by vexillation commanders,

so the function could be tied to the command of several ships grouped into a fleet division. Of the two known prepositional vexillations from the 2nd century, one from the era

Hadrian commanded the legionary divisions and was the primus pilus, the second of the era

Marcus Aurelius auxiliary compartments and was praefectus alae (Saxer, 1967:

26, no. 47; 34, no. 64), which corresponds to Artori's rank. Also the word can be

and about some specific task, like the one the man mentioned in the inscription had

ILS 2764 from half a century later of the northern period, in charge of imperial transport

luggage and ship supplies: praepositus reliquationi classis praetoriae Misennatium

piae vindicis et thesauris dominicis et bastagis copiarum devehendarum. That would

certainly any place that needs a particularly devoted and reliable man. However,

we cannot fathom what exact indebtedness Artoria has as a praepositus.

 He continued the knightly career of Artoria in the legion, as praefectus legionis, which is

an abbreviated form of the full title praefectus (castrorum) legionis, common on the inscription

2nd century material This position is regularly held by people who came to the knightly class over

primipilates (primipilares). There are many analogous examples of this. Thus Artorius' somewhat younger contemporary Petronius Sabinus was decorated during the Germanic

wars (169-175) by M. Aurelius, after whose death he received another primipilate

and continued his procuratorial career (Maxfield, 1981: 198). Artorije performs the service

in Britain, in leg. VI Victrix, which Hadrian transferred to York in 119. It's a legion

built Hadrian's, and later Antonin's wall. Between 155 and 157, the Brigadiers

rebelled in northern Britain, the legions suffered losses and the vexillation arrived

reinforcements from Germany, headed by Gnaeus Julius Vera, the new governor of

around 154/5 to 158 (RIB 1322; Speidel, 1987: 233-237; Birley, 2005: 145-149),

which originates from Ekva in Dalmatia (CIL III, 2732 = CIL III, 8714) .5

 He was

son (or nephew) of Gnaeus Julius Severus, a victor in the Judean War in which he is like

the young centurion also participated in Lucija Artorija (Zaninović, 2011: 507). Gnej Julije

Ver regained full control of Hadrian's Wall.

Somewhere from the time of Emperor Claudius until the middle of the third century there are two

the basic lines of advancement of the former primipila. The privileged way is when the primipilares go to the successive positions of the Roman tribunes, then to the position of the primus pilus

iterum and further into the system of equestrian procurators. The second is when the former primipili

get the position of praefectus castrorum, which is a kind of camp logistics chief,

after which they retire (Dobson, 1974: 402). Artorije, however, continued

career. There is no doubt that Lucius Artoria Cast proved himself in Britain as

praefectus castrorum legionis VI Victricis still under Julius Faith. To understand

of this unexpected course of his career one should know that the governor 161. — 162.

in Britain Marcus Statius Priscus Licinius Italicus, whose origin is uncertain,

but there is serious speculation that he could be a native of Dalmatia

(Birley, 2005: 151-155). Articles Prisco is briefly the governor of Britain for a time

the coming to power of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, when the long-lasting peace in the Empire was interrupted.

Prisco was thirty years earlier, 132nd, in that same Britain its unbelievable

he began a successful career as a knightly prefect. We have already mentioned that after that

was tribune III. of the Gallic Legion in Hadrian’s Judean War as Artori’s commander. Later, he rose from the knighthood to the Senate and passed the entire Senate

cursus honorum, he became consul in 159 (CIL 6, 1523). Station Prisco goes to

East to replace Mark Sedati Severian, the then governor of Cappadocia

who was killed by Vologez IV., destroying one Roman legion. He arrives there in 162 and the next

conquers the Armenian Artaxerxes (SHA, Marcus, 9.1; SHA, Verus, 7.1; Birley,

2000: 160-164). I consider that under his command was Lucius Artorius

The caste to which the title dux has been assigned.

The character of the troupe led by Lucius Artoria Cast

There is a lengthy debate as to which units are commanded by dux Artorius, for

are in place of this statement on the inscription as many as two fractures on the stone, and it is possible that they were

stolen and stonemasonry errors. The problem is further complicated by the doubtful relationship

whether the word British refers to the area from which military units were brought or is part of it

unit names. There are also two against whom Artorije is at war, against the Amorites

(adversus Armoricanos) or, as I firmly believe, against the Armenians (adversus

Armenians). I base this on Carrara's reading of the letter E in the word ARME [nio] S on

an inscription from Podstrana (Carrara, 1852: 23, no. IX; Gwinn: 2010), as well as on historical circumstances. Therefore, one of the possible solutions of the syntagm on the inscription

could be dux leggionum (trium or duarum) Brittaniciniarum adversus Armenios.

However, instead of the word trium or duarum, of which only the final letter remains

M, the missing part could be supplemented with alaru] m or cohortiu] m or auxilioru] m

or peditu] m. Lack of space for longer words in the empty space between the two

parts of the inscription from Podstrana can theoretically be solved by shortening words and ligatures (joined letters). If we separate the clumsy form of Brittanicimiarum into

two words, we could offer some more elegant solution such as cohortiu] m

Britanici (arum) mi (lli) ar (i) um. Note that the abbreviated word LEGG with the double letter G does not have to refer to plural legiones but can also refer to legionarii. For

such a solution there is an analogy on the inscription of Mark Claudius Front which refers

precisely on the Armenian-Parthian war in which Fronto, as the legate of the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Vera, fought under the command of Stacius Priscus. We read:… leg (ato)

Augg (ustorum) pr (o) pr (aetore) exercitus legionarii / et auxilior (um) per Orientem

in Armeniam / et Osrhoenam et Anthemusiam ducto / rum… (CIL 6, 1377). Therefore

we can also accept the resolution of the word LEGG s on the inscription of Lucius Artorius Caste

genitive legionariorum. A more studious analysis of this problem will be offered by mine

colleagues dealing with epigraphic topics in these papers from the Congress.

British troops in the war against the Armenians

The general meaning of the quotation on the inscription is clear. Dux Lucija Artorije Kast leads to

East, against the Armenians, vexillation composed of soldiers from legions and auxiliaries

troops. These auxiliaries bear the provincial name of the British or the ethnic name of the Britons.

I think the epithet Britaniciae or Britanicianae of Artori's auxilias should be understood

as a result of the desire to reconcile the ethnic and provincial names of the units of which it is

compound vexillation.

The question immediately arises as to where these British auxiliary units were moved to the East. It is said that before leaving for Armenia, Artorije performed his duty

camp prefect VI. legions called Victrix, stationed in Britain, so we would

might have thought that the vexillations launched to the east were composed of units in

that province. In Britain at that time they were stationed on August II in Isch (Ritterling,

1925: 1460), VI Victrix in Eburak (Ritterling, 1925: 1606) and XX (Valeria) Victrix in

Devi (Ritterling, 1925: 1773). However, neither in the work Historia Augusta, nor in any

other literary sources or on the inscriptions of that legion are not mentioned as participants

in the Parthian War Lucius Vera. In addition, due to significant unrest in Britain in which

was therefore sent by Sextus Calpurnia Agricola, it would be difficult to expect to be a province

weakens (HA 8.8; Birley, 2001: 123). On the other hand, we know they are in response to

the destruction of the legion in the East and the defeat of Atidius Cornelian sent legion I Minervia from

Bone - her legate is Fronto - II Adiutrix from Aquinas and V Macedonica from Tresmis

(CIL 6, 1377; CIL 8, 18893; CIL 3, 7505; SHA, Marcus 8.6; Birley: 2001, 123).

Vexillations were also sent from Pannonia led by P. Julius Geminius Marcianus, sent as legatus Auggustorum super vexillationes in Cappadocia, where he set out

from the position of commander of the leg. X Geminae stationed in Vindobona (CIL 8, 7050),

and I have no doubt that he took with him part of the legionary cohorts and auxiliary units from

Pannonia, united in vexillations. Evidently, the majority of the forces are in Syria and Armenia

started from the Danube Limes. Where before the war with the Parthians were ale,

cohorts and irregular troops called Brittanica or Brittonum? More than half

them from all over the Empire is in the province of Dacia, the rest are on the Danube Limes in

Rhetia, Pannonia and Moesia, and only one is outside that area, in Mauritania. Here

there is no place to discuss the reconstruction of the schedule of auxiliary units, which

is particularly complex in terms of auxiliaries with the epithets Britannica and Britonum, because of

similarity of unit names, change of epithets, multiplication of the same ordinal number and

sometimes scarce records. Therefore, we mention only those for which there is a relative

secure stationing space, primarily thanks to diploma data.

Most of the troops in Dacia remained there after the Dacian wars. She's graduating

attested cohors I Britannica milliaria equitata c. R. (Spaul, 2000: 193-194);

then Cohors II Brittonum (Britannorum) milliaria c. R. p. F. (Matei-Popescu &

Tentea: 135; Spaul: 2000: 198). In Dacia, after the annexation of the province, the so-called ala

I Brittonum c. R. (Matei-Popescu & Tentea: 133). Cohors I Brittonum milliaria

Ulpia Torquata pia fidelis is mentioned in 119th and 123rd in Porolisen Dacia, according to

by some opinions perhaps the same unit that later appears as Cohors I Brittonum milliaria (Spaul, 2000: 195-197). For Cohors II Brittonum Augusta Nervia

pacensis milliaria we know that in Pannonia Inferior was 114th, and in Dacia it was transferred

139. - 140. (Spaul, 2000: 201). Irregular pedites singulares Britanniciani were brought from Britain during the Dacian Wars and remained in the province (Matei-Popescu &

Tentea: 140). Let us also mention the neighboring provinces. In Pannonia Inferior is Ala I Flavia

Augusta Britannica milliaria c. R. (Spaul, 1994: 68-69) and Ala I Brittonum Veterana

c. R. (Spaul, 1994: 72). Cohors III Britannorum is witnessed in Recia on the series

diploma (Spaul, 2000: 202). Cohors II Brittonum Flavia equitata positioned

is in Moesia Inferior (Spaul, 2000: 199). Cohors III Brittonum veteran, after

Of the Dacian Wars, stationed at Moesia Superior (Campbell, 2009: 15; Matei-Popescu

& Tentea: 131; Spaul, 2000: 203). There are indications that several more units of the same

type of name is stationed on the Danube Limes.

Let us repeat that II. legion of Adiutrix of Aquinas in Pannonia,

without any doubt, with auxiliary units, of which the said inscription speaks

P. Julius Gemini Marciano. We also know that there is a leg. V. Macedonica from Tresmis u

Moesia Inferior, for which we can also with high probability assume

to lead its satellite auxiliaries, which is common. Recall that

in the fifties of the 2nd century the third centurion of Artorius was in II Adiutrix, and the fourth in V.

Macedonian legion, in which he then became the primus pilus, and he knew him very well

troops from the Danube Limes. If we accept the assumption that he led Artorije

vexillations composed of auxiliaries from the Danube region (perhaps from Dacia) that bear the name

Britannica or Brittonum, as well as from legionary divisions from the same provinces, we see that

this fits perfectly with the data from the Historia Augusta that the northern borders were intentional

were weakened by the transfer of troops to the East due to the crisis with the Parthians (SHA, Marcus

12.13; Birley, 2001: 123). This model corresponds to the common practice of forming individual vexillations from legionary and auxiliary soldiers from one province.

that is, from some unique space.

We can conclude that the Danube troops, including Artori's (Dacian)

vexillations, were part of the successful army of Mark Stati Prisk.

Using vexillation

Vexillations were common in the time of Marcus Aurelius and were the main way of organizing troops in the Parthian and German wars, and a little later in the time of Septimius.

North. Although each post of vexillation commander (legatus Aug. vex., Dux vex.,

praefectus vex., praepositus vex., tribunus vex.), it seems, can cover a wide range of sizes and strengths of the merged divisions, ie each of these positions can

preceded by a differently ranked command post, the title dux vexillationum, at least

as far as we know from a couple of inscriptions from the time of Septimius Severus, it is highly ranked

the title of commander of the joint divisions. It is held by senators, legates of provinces and legions, as well as one equestrian whose rank we do not know because the title vir egregius was then still general.

honorary title for knights (Saxer, 1967: 44, nos. 77 and 78; 48, nos. 86-88, 57, nos. 107;

perhaps 62, no. 22). However, through the 2nd century and in the time of Marcus Aurelius this was not common

the name of the commander of such joint units, the titles legatus Aug.

vex., praepositus vex. and tribunus vex. They often come from the ranks of the senatorial class

(ordo senatorius), as we see from the following few examples. One from the beginning of the 2nd century.

is Quintus Julius (Q. Iulius Quadratus Bassus), commander of the leg. XI Claudiae, then

101. - 102. praepositus vexillationum, and after that the commander of the leg. X Fretensis,

consul suffectus 105. and stratelates (dux exercitus) during the Second Dacian War

(Dąbrowa, 1993: 34-35; Gregori, 2007: 657). In the time of Artorius some 60 years

later this is still a senatorial position, as we see from Senator Julius ’career

Pompilius Pison who during the German War was commander of the I Italian Legion, IIII

Flavian legions and all their auxiliary troops, with praetorian or consular

snagom promagistrata: praepositus legionibus I Italicae et IIII Flaviae cum omnibus copiis auxiliorum dato iure gladii (ILS 1111; Campbell, 2009: 31). Although

the phrase praepositus vexillationum is not explicitly used here, for sure

it is the command of vexillations (joint units separated

from the regular composition), which we see from the stated composition of the hull. A young officer from the knighthood, M. Valerius Maximianus, became famous for his heroic deeds.

captures at the beginning of the German War, he enjoyed the great confidence of M. Aurelius, he was

presidial procurator, after which he was elevated by the mechanism of adlection (adlectio)

in the Senate inter praetorios, after which he continued a brilliant career as commander of a number of legions, and finally as consul suffectus around 186 (Campbell, 2006: 31).

inscription we know that he was already included among the senators of 179, when he was in office

commander of vexillations during the winter in Leugaricia (praepositus vexillationum

Leugaricione hiemantium) 150 km deep in the enemy territory of Sueb, in

Trencin in Slovakia (AE 1956, 124; CIL 3, 13439). His career is an example

of exceptional social progress made possible by a dynamic military-political one

the situation. However, we can follow it exclusively through numerous inscriptions, and not through literary ones

sources, in the same way as in Artorius. The equalization of the importance of knights and senators began precisely in the time of Antoninus Pius, which can be seen from one formal thing,

namely, only the Senate honorary title vir clarissimus is then given the most

ranked knights, praetorian prefects, accompanied by consular honors

(Crook, 1955: 166; Bekavac & Glavaš, 2011: 129). Lucius Artoria Cast lived

in the same social and time frame, but his above-average career nonetheless

is slightly less bright. At the time of Sever's second Parisian campaign praepositus

vexillationum IIII Germanicarum expeditione secunda Parthica je Klaudije Gal

(Maxfield, 1981: 199).

Knights can also be given the position of vexillation commander. Contemporary Lucy

Artoria Caste is a knight of Sextus Baius Pudens, governor of the province, i.e. presidial

procurator in Noricum. Several inscriptions show its function praepositus vexillationum per Germaniam et Raetiam et Noricum et Pannoniam et Moesiam, which, given the sequence of functions on the inscriptions and the space it encompasses

duty of preposition, relations to the German war (CIL VI 31870, 31871, 41284; CIL

14, 00289). The title dux carried by Lucius Artorius Castus should therefore be understood in

meaning praepositus or praefectus vexillationum - commander of vexillation. Name

the dux carrying Artoria may have been to show the great numerical strength of the troops

led by an Equestrian commander, and we would expect for such a formation a man from the senatorial order.

Transfer of troops from the East from the Parthian War

on the Danube in the German Wars

Victory in the Parthian War was secured in 166, and troops brought an epidemic

some severe infectious disease to the West, from which he died during the German Wars

and Emperor Lucius Verus, in the winter of 168/169. (Birley, 2001: 149-158). Without a doubt,

numerous legions and auxiliaries from the East were transferred to the Danube. Many names of commanders from the East are also mentioned in the German wars, but we also find a whole new layer

young commanders, for it is evident that the disease has decimated the troops. Swabian

Quadi and Markomani broke through the 167 Limes, penetrated all the way to Aquileia, besieged it, and

then plundered the adjoining Opitergium, and in 168 M. Aurelius's headquarters set the code

Aquileia, and later moved to Carnuntum, the oldest military stronghold on the Pannonian Limes on the Danube (Mócsy, 1974: 186-187).

The condition of the legions at that time is best known from the inscription ILS 2288, on which

at the end of the list of 33 legions by provinces, the names of the new three legions S. were added.

North. Two new legions of M. Aurelius, II Pia and III Concors later, are also listed

known as II and III Italica, recruited in 165, precisely because of the aggravation of the crisis on

Danube due to the Quad and Marcomanne danger (ILS 2287; ILS 2288; Dąbrowa,

1993: 29-30). At this time there were only four legions on the Rhine, and as many as nine on the Danube

one in Dacia. Vandals (Astingi and Lacringi) and Sarmatian Jazigi broke into Dacia,

so the V. Macedonian Legion was transferred from Tresmis to Moesia Inferior in Potais in

Porolisenska Dacia (SHA, Marcus 22, 1; Cassius Dio, Historia Romana, Epitome 72, 11-12). By 180, there were 12 legions on the Danube borders, including II. and

III. Italica (Birley, 2001: 166-167). More than half of the total Roman population in

the army participates in the German wars.

The Marcomanni were defeated in 172, the Quadi in 173, the Sarmatian Jazigi in 174 (Birley, 2001:

171-177). Due to new hostilities, 177. M. Aurelius and Commodus go to another war

expedition (expeditio secunda Germanica) (AE 1956, 124). In this expedition

participate and II. and III. an Italian legion that may have been planned to be stationed in two

provinces that had yet to be established on the newly conquered land across the Danube,

in the area of ​​Sveba and Sarmata.

The Parthian War, and then the German "expeditions", marked the life of Artorius. After being a dux, in the order of honor on the inscription from Podstrana, Artorije is the procurator of a province from whose name the first letters of LIB have been preserved. None

there is no doubt that he took up this new duty without any pause, directly

after the end of the Armenian-Parthian War 166. In Artori's high age

and with the career of a knight we must not expect any break. That in the East he stayed on

a position necessary to deal with a post-war situation (eg a military

-administrative position), we would expect this to be indicated on the inscription as well.

 In the 2nd century, the possibility arose that a person who was praefectus castrorum would progress to centenary procurators (Dobson, 1974: 402). The last in a series of listed

Of Artori's functions, procurator of the province of LIB [urniae], given

on the ius gladii he possesses, it is of distinctly military importance. The emergence of a new province

and a knight who rules with the powers of ius gladii can be brought at this time exclusively in

connection with the war zone of the Alpine-Pannonian area of ​​the provinces along the Danube during

German wars. J. Medini elaborated the thesis that the province of Liburnia was organized in response to these turbulent war events, in order to defend Italy outside

its territory, sometime around 184/5. years (Medina, 1980: 372, 380-381). IN

I basically agree with his thesis which he thoroughly developed in the work »Provincia

Liburnia ”(Medini, 1980: 364-392), with the proviso that I determine the origin of the province

during the German Wars. I dedicate this article to the memory of Julian

Medinija, Professor of Provincial Archeology at the Department of Archeology, Faculty of Philosophy in Zadar.

Direct confirmation of the existence of protruding defensive lines for the defense of Italy

gives us the cursus honorum of Quintus Antistus Adventus who, like Artorius, took part in the Parthian War of 162, as commander of II. legion Adiutrix (translato ine am

expeditione Parthica qua donatus est donis militaribus…), so he remained in the East

as governor of Arabia Petrae from 165, then elected deputy consul,

after which he was curator operum locorumque publicorum in Rome (CIL 3, 92 -

Bostra; SEG 7, 822 - Gerasa). Perhaps the experiences of public affairs, with fresh war,

was decisive that in 168 during the German War he became imperial commander

pretenture Italije i Alpa: legatus Augusti at praetenturam Italiae et Alpium expeditione Germanica (AE 1893, 88 = ILS 8977 - Thiblis). Without a doubt, the expression

praetentura in the inscription means a military area, and judging by the scope of modern construction work between the Adriatic, the Alps and Pannonia, this area was the pre-wall of Italy

with a system of defensive fortifications - praetentura Italiae et Alpium (Petru, P.

- Šašel, J., 1971). L. Margetić, on the trail of Šašel's argument and denying

Degrassi's conclusions, convincingly proved that at the time of the formation of the pretenture

there was no movement of the borders of Italy to the territory of Liburnia (Margetić, 1990: 27-

28). He believes that the term pretense has only a general meaning of "defense" or "protection", and

it does not imply the organization of some military-territorial area, for which it is anyway

there was a short-term need because the situation in that area stabilized after

170, as can be seen from the fact that parts of the Italian legions built ramparts at Salona

(Margetić, 1990: 27-28). These arguments, however, are not good, because, after all

of short-lived appeasement, the seventies of the 2nd century are again a time of fierce

conflict, so M. Aurelius and Commodus undertook another expedition. Also,

Department II. and III. the Italian legions are constantly strengthening the defensive force of the pretense,

building and renovating camps and erecting city walls.

The organization of the pretense was fueled by a fear of Italy's vulnerability, provoked

burglaries in Dacia, Pannonia and especially in northern Italy (Birley, 2001: 157).

The goal of Marcus Aurelius was to protect Italy and Illyricum: omnia, quae ad munimen Italiae

atquuae Illyrici pertinebant (SHA, Marcus, 14, 6; Zaccaria, 2002: 77). Intensively

the fortification of cities, the erection of camps, fortifications and ramparts encompassed a wide Retskonoric-Pannonian-Dalmatian area. Detachments of new legions and auxiliaries from the anti-German army (newly formed legio II and leg. III Italica, as well as cohors I and coh. II

miliaria Delmatarum) then built ramparts around the suburbia of Salona in Dalmatia (CIL

3, 1979 = CIL 11, 642a5; CIL 3, 6374 = 8655; CIL 3, 1980 = 8570).

In Norik, replacement began during the first decades of the second century

earthen-wooden with stone camps. Augustiana Fortress (Dan. Traismauer u

Austria) was thus completed around 140-144 (Alföldy, 1974: 145; CIL 3, 5654).

During the first burglaries of Quad, Markoman and Narist 166 - 167 were looted

the auxiliary fortresses of Lauriacum, Tullnerfeld, Faviana, Zwentendorf and Augustiana,

and possibly some others (Fisher, 2012: 35-36). Rainbows probably date from that time

defensive walls near Rattendorf (Alföldy, 1974: 154; P. Petru - J. Šašel: 1971,

90). Judging by the diploma from Mauterno in the time of Hadrian, until the middle of the 2nd century.

in Norik reside three alae, at least five cohorts, and more divisions of one cohort, which

agrees with the number of approximately nine auxiliary camps that existed in Hadrian's time

(CIL 16, 174; Alföldy, 1974: 144). The total number of soldiers would be of the order of one

legions. At least part of the auxiliaries were withdrawn from the limes to the southern part of the province as early as 168, when

a pretense was formed (Alföldy, 1974: 152-153). Fortifications that already exist on

pretentious area, eg the one in Vrhnika in Slovenia (Roman Nauportus on the border

Italy), are integrated into the renewed and supplemented defense system of praetenture,

whose command headquarters was Tarsatica (today Rijeka in Croatia).

The area of ​​Atrans, the Trojan pass in

Slovenia, which is a key point on the main road leading from Aquileia to the Pannonian

limes in Carnuntum, or Windobon. Maybe it's about the fortifications in Atrans

word on a building inscription from the second pol. 168 (CIL 3, 11675 = ILJug-01,

382. = Shashel, 1992: 231-233). The strongest blow to Norik was in 170 or 171 when they were

barbarians penetrated into northern Italy as well. Solva was completely destroyed between 160.

and 170. (Alföldy, 1974: 152 et seq .; Hudeczek, 1977: 464-465). After that breakthrough,

the new legion of Marcus Aurelius, II Italica, probably around 171, and no later than 175,

she built a legionary camp in Ločica near Celeja in Norik, where she stayed for a short time

and in which numerous bricks with the seal of that unit were found (CIL 3, 5757,1g, CIL 3,

5757.4, CIL 3, 14369.2a-k, CIL 3, 14369.21; Alföldy, 1974: 154-155; Winkler,

1977: 224-225). This camp controls the same road, the so-called "Amber Road," like

and Atrans. II Italica from Ločica was moved to the border to build a legionary fortress

in Albing, on an island in the Danube, perhaps after the Germanic-Sarmatian triumph of M.

Aurelia 176. She stayed there for a short time, because she went to a permanent camp 7 km away

Lauriak, at the confluence of the Enns and the Danube, which, after many years of work, was completed in

Komodo's time, judging by the inscription dated September 18, 191. (CIL 3,

15208: Ritterling, 1925: 1469-1470; Alföldy, 1974: 165-167).

Ovilavae in Noricum became, shortly before the end of the German War, a colony

Aurelia Antoniniana and then the ramparts were erected. From 179 to 180 there is a building inscription

of the legionary camp of Castro Regina in Regensburg, in which it is written that he was for the emperor

Antonina Pia and Komoda, leg. III Italica sagradila vallum cum portis et turribus

(CIL 3, 11965). Regensburg is command post III. legions until late antiquity.

Also, over thirty marching temporary camps north of

Danube (Fisher, 2012: 39). After the death of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus undertook the Third

a German expedition, perhaps retaliation for disrespecting client relations with

barbarians established during the previous expedition (SHA, Commodus, 12, 8;

CIL 5, 2155 - Altinum). At the end of the war, Komod erected a series of burgs and presidiums

along the Danube, to fight the wandering jazz hajduks (latrunculi), about which

say inscriptions with the same text from the Intercise dated 183-185 (Mocsy,

1974: 196-197, Fig. 196; CIL 3, 10312; CIL 3 10313; RIU-05, 1128; RIU-05, 1129;

RIU-05, 1130…). It seems that the preserved inscriptions were never placed on the burgs,

because the legate of the province of L. Cornelia Felix fell into disfavor, he experienced damnatio me-

moriae, so all the plates were left in the workshop at Intercisa (Mocsy, 1974: 197). These

events coincide with the overthrow of Praetorian Prefect Tigidi Perenis, who

tried with the legions of Pannonia to raise a rebellion against Commodus. Medina agrees

with the opinions of Pflaum, Wilkes, and Šašel that somewhere at that time the emergence of the province of Liburnia was provoked (Medini, 1980: 373-374). I think that's what happened

at least a decade earlier, as part of a general reorganization of the status of the provinces in the north

borders of the empire, when various military areas (praetenturae) coexist.

So the province of Liburnia would be formed immediately after the end of the Parthian War,

at the time of the acute crisis with the barbarian peoples, about 168.

We see that vexillations, especially those from II. Drinks and III. Concordia, build fortifications

in Noricum and Pannonia, and possibly the principle in Tarsatica, today in Rijeka. It's recent

published a collection of papers on the principle in Tarsatica, in which the results of new ones were published

archaeological excavations (Radić Štivić & Bekić, 2009). The authors of the articles based on the so-called

of small archaeological material date the erection of the building in the middle of the 3rd century (Višnjić,

2009: 62). The largest amount of found material originates from that period, and from 66

pieces of money from the principality, 36 of them from the other sex. 4th century, and 21 from the second half. 3rd st.

(Bekić, 2009: 186-187). However, we note that in almost every category of findings

there are objects that we can undoubtedly date earlier, in the 2nd century, and some even

ago. Let us mention some: terra sigilatta bowl Hayes 10 (Percan, 2009: 75); African amphorae 2a, Dressel 2-4, Dressel 30, Pompeii VII (Visnjic, 2009a: 125-132);

Aucissa fibulae, profiled 1st and 2nd century fibulae, plate enameled fibulae from the transition

1st in the 2nd century, pendant of horse equipment of the Bishop 3C type (Višnjić, 2009b: 156-162);

several forms of glass cups, glass semicircular bowl, glass plates, spherical

glass jug (Janeš, 2009: 231-235). The number and variety of these items, which are

much older than the assumed time of construction of the principles, is difficult to explain

longevity of use. Therefore, I think it is time to build principles in Tarsatica

should be lowered lower, in the 2nd century, during the German Wars and intensive construction

activities in the Alpine-Danube-Adriatic area, and served as Artori's

command post in the province of Liburnia.

Changing the status of the provinces

Another important phenomenon that covered the entire region in the time of M. Aurelius and Commodus is the change in the status of the provinces (Dacia, Raetia, Noricum, Liburnia). Cause of

barbarian burglaries 167. in the area of ​​Dacian auraria, formed Tres Daciae, which are

169 or 170 placed under the general governorship of Claudius Front (AE 1963, 52;

Birley, 2001: 160). Raetia and Noricum, hitherto procuratorial provinces under administration

governors of the knightly class, during the German Wars, no later than 175, for

the presence of a large number of troops, changing status to imperial provinces, each

under the administration of legates from the senate class - legatus Augusti propraetore (Alföldy,

1974: 242-250, Appendices V-VI; Winkler, 1977: 204-205). Under his authority is also Commander II. legion of Italica which has since been stationed in Noricum. Change

status was reflected in the titles of staff of the provincial senatorial office in Virunum.

Now the titles beneficiarius consularis (legionis II Italicae libra) librarius appear

consularius, frumnetarius, strator consularis legionis… Yes such a change is not

exceptional, proves the relocation of part of the boundary line between Pannonia Inferior and

Superior around 214, in similar war circumstances, as a result of Carp pressure

and the Vandals on the northeastern edge of Pannonia 212/213. (Mócsy, 1974: 198). Two

The Pannonians were equal in military strength, since then with two legions each.

Artorije procurator Liburniae

The last known presiding procurator Norika Ti. Claudius Priscinianus

he took office (which lasted in Norik as a rule for three years) in 168.

(Alföldy, 1974: 246-247). The procurators of Norik were from a very high knighthood

rank ducenaria. After the arrival of the propretor legates to the post of governor,

the procurators in Noricum appear in parallel, but no longer as governors, but as

financial procurators of lower status of sex agencies, ie centenaries (Alföldy,

1974: 164).

Procurator Lucius Artorius Caste, governor of the province of Liburnia, is of centenary rank. The province of Liburnia, however, is not a place of financial action

procurator, rather than a separate administrative and administrative unit separated from Dalmatia, managed by the presiding procurator. L. Artorije Kast has ius gladii, authority

held by the highest senate magistrates, e.g., proconsuls and propretors in the provinces.

The imperial presence in the province implies that he is the ultimate authority. If

confer on a senator on that occasion a power that includes the right to command

army, trials and punishments, then it is especially emphasized on the inscriptions, as in

the case of the already mentioned Julius Pompilius Pison who during the German War

commander of the two legions and the associated auxiliaries and to whom ius gladii was given:

praepositus legionibus I Italicae et IIII Flaviae cum omnibus copiis auxiliorum

dato iure gladii (ILS 1111; Campbell, 2009: 31). What are the exact reasons for getting it

such high powers we can only speculate. It's probably about command

large military forces whose total number of soldiers in this case is forces at least

three legions, while in the usual circumstances senators from the ranks of former praetors or

consuls command with only one legion, that is, as former consuls can

to be governors in only a few imperial provinces with two or more legions.

Lucius Artoria Cast is not even a senator, so there is no doubt that he was given exceptional authority

ius gladii as presiding procurator, i.e. as governor and commander of the army in

province of Liburnia (Medina, 1980: 382). Artori's chivalrous career is not over

by some regular procurator of the highest rank, but the last two of his duties are high and, given the authority ius gladii he has been granted, have been assigned to him for

his military virtues.

Due to the lack of records, ex silentio we can only speculate that the province was not long-lived. We do not know if Lucius Artoria Cast, who after

fifty years of service at the age of about 70 podines retired to the peace of his estate,

outlived the province.

dies natalis c. 104

miles 121-135

centurio legionis III Gallicae 135-138

centurio legionis VI Ferratae 139-142

centurio legionis II Adiutricis 143-146

centurio legionis V Macedonicae 147-150

primus pilus legionis V Macedonicae 151

praepositus classis Misenatium 152-154

praefectus castrorum legionis VI Victricis 155-162

dux legionariorum et auxiliorum Britannicorum adversus

Armenians

162-166

procurator centenarius provinciae Liburniae 167-174