Sarmatians on Trajan's Column
In trying to decide on whether the dux command of L. Artorius Castus could have been the mission of the 1500 British spearmen to Rome, whose purpose it was to demand the death of Perennis, we must critically examine the different versions of the Praetorian Prefect's execution as found in the extant sources. These sources are, in order, Cassius Dio, the Augustan History and Herodian. I supply all three versions of Perennis' ruin at the bottom of this post.
Now, a little first on the reliability of the sources themselves. Scholarly opinion on the relative value of Dio's history has recently been radically revised, and in a very positive direction (see Lange, Carsten Hjort Herausgeber Madsen, Jesper Majbom Herausgeber (2016). Cassius Dio: Greek intellectual and Roman politician; Fromentin, Valérie, Bertrand, Estelle, Coltelloni-Trannoy, Michèle, Molin, Michel, Urso, Gianpaolo, eds. (2016). Cassius Dion: nouvelles lectures; Burden-Strevens, C.; Lindholmer, M.O. (2018). Burden-Strevens, Christopher, Lindholmer, Mads (eds.). Cassius Dio's Forgotten History of Early Rome). Most importantly, he was a contemporary of Commodus - indeed, he was a senator during that Emperor's reign.
The Augustan History, on the other hand, is pretty universally maligned. It is replete with fictions and otherwise considered an untrustworthy source valued only to the extent that it contains some information - though dubious in nature - that is otherwise missing from our records. Much of it must be taken provisionally or rejected out of hand as propaganda or pure sensationalism. Perhaps its worst fault is that is was written quite late, i.e. the author was not a contemporary of Marcus Aurelius or Commodus.
"Modern scholars have long regarded his information as unreliable, and indeed, he is not as good a historian as Cassius Dio, who has covered more or less the same subject matter. However, this criticism is not entirely fair. Herodian's lack of literary and scholarly pretensions makes him less biased than the senatorial historians. (In fact, he is - with Velleius Paterculus - one of the few non-senatorial historians of the Roman Empire; this in itself makes him an important writer.) His description of the cultic reforms and religious innovations by the emperor Heliogabalus, who wanted to introduce the cult of the Syrian sun god, is less hostile than that of Dio. He refrains from the irrelevant descriptions of sexual practices that can be found in the publications by so many other historians. He has an open eye for the role of empresses like Julia Domna, Julia Maesa, Julia Soaemias, and Julia Mamaea. Today, he is regarded as an independent and more or less unbiased, although uncritical, author who offers colorful information about events in Italy."
The first point to raise is that as far as the Augustan History's terse account goes, there is nothing really in it to contradict what Dio has to say. What Dio offers is more a case of embellishment. The important series of events in the History is boiled down to three statements:
1) because in the war in Britain he [Perennis] had dismissed certain senators and had put men of the equestrian order in command of the soldiers
2) this same Perennis was declared an enemy to the state
3) when the matter was reported by the legates in command of the army, Perennis was thereupon delivered up to the soldiers to be torn to pieces
We can reconcile this rather easily to Dio's version by simply having the legates in Britain "report" to Commodus via the agency of the deputation of 1500 spearmen sent to Rome. The legates of the army are the senatorial legates in Britain.
But when we get to Herodian, everything suddenly gets very strange...
There we have a grand conspiracy hatched between Perennis and his sons, who have been set up as commanders of the army in Illyricum (wherein was to found Castus' Liburnia). This seems to be related to the Augustan History's claim that victories won by other generals over the Sarmatians had been credited to Perennis's son. In the History, immediately after mention of the Sarmatian victories, we are told about the Britons and the resulting fall of the Praetorian Prefect.
Herodian, however, skips over Britain entirely. Instead, he tell us merely that
"some soldiers visited Perennis' son in secret and carried off coins bearing the prefect's portrait. And, without the knowledge of Perennis, the praetorian prefect, they took the coins directly to Commodus and revealed to him the secret details of the plot. They were richly rewarded for their service."
The question we need to ask in this context, obviously, is who were these soldiers? Well, clearly if we go by the other two accounts, the soldiers who brought the report to Commodus that damned the Preatorian Prefect were the 1500 spearmen from Britain.
The theory proposed by Géza Alföldy and accepted by most scholars since (including Anthony Birley) that the 1500 spearmen were led to Rome by the legate Priscus is not supported by the Augustan History's statement that "the matter was reported by the legates in command of the army." That statement plainly suggests that the legates sent someone to report the matter to Commodus; they did not all go to report it in person! I have before expressed my doubt that a man who had been offered the purple by British troops and was removed from his post for that reason would have later (after heading up the Macedonian legion) be given British troops to fight in the Deserters War on the Continent.
The idea that Priscus was is solely dependent on a reconstruction of a horribly mutilated stone (Un nuovo senatore dell'età di Commodo? by Gian Luca Gregori, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik , 1995, Bd. 106 (1995), pp. 269-279;
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20189321). Roger Tomlin has remarked on the emendation of [Brita]nnicarum for the inscription's [---]+nicar(um): "The first N is doubtful – it could be 'Germanicarum' instead."
Thus while on the surface the accounts given in the three histories may seem to be different, they are actually the same. Herodian's tale about the begger-philosopher is an entertaining aside. It may have happened, or it may not have happened. But, in fact, it doesn't matter either way. For the very same soldiers are ultimately responsible for Perennis' downfall.
I have remarked before that it is interesting the Sarmatians are mentioned in the Augustan History. For I have proposed that the 1500 spearmen accompanying Castus to Rome were Sarmatian heavy cavalrymen, drawn 500 each from the three British legions.
***
CASSIUS DIO
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/73*.html
9 Perennis,6 who commanded the Pretorians after Paternus, met his death as the result of a mutiny of the soldiers. For, inasmuch as Commodus had given himself up to chariot-racing and licentiousness and performed scarcely any of the duties pertaining to his office, Perennis was compelled to manage not only the military affairs, but everything else as well, and to stand at the head of the State. 21 The soldiers, accordingly, whenever any matter did not turn out to their satisfaction, laid the blame upon Perennis and were angry with him.
2a The soldiers in Britain chose Priscus, a lieutenant, emperor; but he declined, saying: I am no more an emperor than you are soldiers"
The lieutenants in Britain, accordingly, having been rebuked for their insubordination, — they did not become quiet, in fact, until Pertinax quelled them, — now chose out of their number fifteen hundred javelin men and sent them into Italy. 3 These men had already drawn near to Rome without encountering any resistance, when Commodus met them and asked: "What is the meaning of this, soldiers? What is your purpose in coming?" And when they p91 answered, "We are here because Perennis is plotting against you and plans to make his son emperor," Commodus believed them, especially as Cleander insisted; for this man had often been prevented by Perennis from doing all that he desired, and consequently he hated him bitterly. 4 He accordingly delivered up the prefect to very soldiers whose commander he was, and had not the courage to scorn fifteen hundred men, though he had many times that number of Pretorians. 10 So Perennis was maltreated and struck down by those men, and his wife, his sister, and two sons were also killed. Thus Perennis was slain, though he deserved a far different fate, both on his own account and in the interest of the entire Roman empire, — except in so far as his ambition for office had made him chiefly responsible for the ruin of his colleague Paternus. For privately he never strove in the least for either fame or wealth, but lived a most incorruptible and temperate life; and as for Commodus and his imperial office, he guarded them in complete security.
AUGUSTAN HISTORY (LIFE OF COMMODUS)
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Commodus*.html
6 1 About this time the victories in Sarmatia won by other generals were attributed by Perennis to his own son.45 2 Yet in spite of his great power, suddenly, because in the war in Britain46 he had dismissed certain senators and had put men of the equestrian order in command of the soldiers,47 this same Perennis was declared an enemy to the state, when the matter was reported by the legates in command of the army, and was thereupon delivered up to the soldiers to be torn to pieces.48 3 In his place of power Commodus put Cleander,49 one of his chamberlains.
4 After Perennis and his son were executed...
[6 1 Eo tempore in Sarmatia res bene gestas per alios duces in filium suum Perennis referebat. 2 hic tamen Perennis, qui tantum potuit, subito, quod bello Britannico militibus equestris loci viros praefecerat amotis senatoribus, prodita re per legatos exercitus hostis appellatus lacerandusque militibus est deditus. 3 in cuius potentiae locum Cleandrum ex cubiculariis subrogavit.
4 Multa sane post interfectum Perennem eiusque filium...]
HERODIAN
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodian-s-roman-history/herodian-1.9/
[1.9.1] [185] After he had removed the men whom Commodus had reason to fear, those who showed him good will for his father's sake, and those who were concerned for the emperor's safety, Perennis, now a powerful figure, began to plot for the empire. Commodus was persuaded to put the prefect's sons in command of the army of Illyricum, though they were still young men; the prefect himself amassed a huge sum of money for lavish gifts in order to incite the army to revolt. His sons quietly increased their forces, so that they might seize the empire after Perennis had disposed of Commodus.
[1.9.2] This plot came to light in a curious fashion. The Romans celebrate a sacred festival in honor of Jupiter Capitolinus, and all the stage shows and athletic exhibitions are sent to take part in this festival in the capital. The emperor is both spectator and judge, together with the rest of the priests, who are summoned in rotation for this duty.
[1.9.3] Upon his arrival for the performance of the famous actors, Commodus took his seat in the imperial chair; an orderly crowd filled the theater, quietly occupying the assigned seats. Before any action took place on the stage, however, a man dressed as a philosopher (half-naked, carrying a staff in his hand and a leather bag on his shoulder) ran out and took his stand in the center of the stage. Silencing the audience with a sweep of his hand, he said:
[1.9.4] "Commodus, this is no time to celebrate festivals and devote yourself to shows and entertainments. The sword of Perennis is at your throat. Unless you guard yourself from a danger not threatening but already upon you, you shall not escape death. Perennis himself is raising money and an army to oppose you, and his sons are winning over the army of Illyricum. Unless you act first, you shall die."
[1.9.5] Whether he said this by divine inspiration, or whether, obscure and unknown before, he was making an effort to gain fame, or hoped to receive a generous reward from the emperor - whatever the reason, Commodus was thunderstruck. Everyone was suspicious of the man's words, and no one believed him. Perennis ordered the philosopher to be seized and burned for making insane and lying accusations.
[1.9.6] Such was the penalty that the beggar paid for his ill-timed outspokenness. The emperor's intimate friends, however, who had long been secretly hostile to Perennis (for the prefect was harsh and unbearable in his insolence and arrogance), believed that the time had come and began to bring charges against him. As a result, Commodus escaped the plot, and Perennis and his sons perished miserably.
[1.9.7] For not much later, some soldiers visited Perennis' son in secret and carried off coins bearing the prefect's portrait. And, without the knowledge of Perennis, the praetorian prefect, they took the coins directly to Commodus and revealed to him the secret details of the plot. They were richly rewarded for their service.
[1.9.8] While Perennis was still ignorant of these developments and anticipated nothing of the sort, the emperor sent for him at night and had him beheaded. And he dispatched men to Perennis' son by the fastest route, so that they might reach him before he knew what had happened. These men were to take a route shorter than the one by which news was regularly carried; in this way they would be able to come to the youth before he was aware of events at Rome. Commodus wrote the youth a friendly letter, telling him that he was recalling him to greater expectations, and ordering him to come to Rome.
[1.9.9] Perennis' son knew nothing of the reception awaiting him and was unaware of his father's fate. When the messengers informed him that his father had given these same orders orally but, satisfied with the emperor's letter, had not written a separate note, the youth was convinced, although he was concerned about leaving the plot unfinished. Nevertheless, relying on his father's power as if that power still existed, he left Illyricum.
[1.9.10] On the way to Italy the youth was killed by the emperor's men. Such was the fate of Perennis and his son. Thereafter Commodus regularly appointed two praetorian prefects, believing that it was safer not to place too much authority in the hands of one man; he hoped that this division of authority would discourage any desire to seize the imperial power.
