MAKING SENSE OF THE BRITISH MISSION TO REMOVE PERENNIS: THE ONLY TRULY PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO

Commodus as Hercules

Augustan History, Commodus vi.2

2 Hic tamen Perennis, qui tantum potuit, subito, quod bello Brittanni comilitibus equestris loci viros praefecerat amotis senatoribus, prodita re per legatos exercitus hostis appellatus lacerandusque militibus est deditus.

2 Yet in spite of his great power, suddenly, because in the war in Britain​46 he had dismissed certain senators and had put men of the equestrian order in command of the soldiers,​ 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.​

It seems to be current scholarly opinion that the deputation of 1500 British spearmen to Rome to remove the Praetorian Prefect Perennis is not a historical account.  I think this judgment is a mistake.

When one reads Anthony Birley's footnote on the mission in his THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN (https://books.google.com/books?id=6w1REAAAQBAJ&pg=PA169&lpg=PA169&dq=%221500+javelin+men%22&source=bl&ots=IKBkqZJBPn&sig=ACfU3U2wHOGIGPagxSghea_SCe7sGrtRfw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3sLa1v_z6AhVbGDQIHXvhA1s4ChDoAXoECBUQAw#v=onepage&q=%221500%20javelin%20men%22&f=false), or this source -

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwsqg.25#metadata_info_tab_contents 

- one begins to grasp the kind of confusion that has swirled around the analysis of this episode in the reign of Commodus.

Other scholars have taken up the battle cry.  An example:

Footnote 131 on p. 62:

https://repository.ubn.ru.nl/bitstream/handle/2066/150819/150819.pdf

Dio, 73.9.2. The passage has been made more difficult by the translation of

ÜTTcipxovTes as ‘lieutenants’ by E. Cary (LCL) and Grosso, Commodo, 186 (‘1 legati in

Britannia’). In fact, as P. A. Brunt, ‘The fall of Perennis: Dio-Xiphilinus 72.9.2’, CQ 23

(1973), 172-7; 172 demonstrates, imdpxovTes is here simply a synonym for övTes. The

passage, thus, should be translated differently: ‘The soldiers laid the blame on Perennius

(sic) and vented their anger on him for anything that gave them dissatisfaction, and those

actually in Britain, since they had been rebuked for their insubordination (they were not

quiet until checked by Pertinax), chose 1,500 javelin men from their own number and sent

them to Italy’.

Much of this comes from this study:

The Fall of Perennis: Dio-Xiphilinus 72. 9. 2

P. A. Brunt

The Classical Quarterly

Vol. 23, No. 1 (May, 1973), pp. 172-177 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/638138

Professor Roger Tomlin, in commenting on all this in a personal communication, said

"The senator commanding a legion was called the Emperor's 'legate' – i.e. his deputy – but, it is believed that the British legions were commanded at that moment by equestrian 'prefects'. This is assuming Perennis' command to replace the legates with equestrians actually went through. 'General-in-command' is not the word's basic meaning: it means 'delegate' or 'representative', which is why it is often used of 'ambassadors', i.e. diplomatic envoys or representatives."

If we follow this line of thought we simply cannot find a way to explain the deputation to Rome in any way that makes sense. But there IS a way to explain the entire affair that DOES make absolute sense, and does so quite elegantly.

Tomlin makes sure not to leave out that one major caveat: this translation is based on the idea that the legates were, in fact, replaced.  But if they weren't, we may accept the literal translation of the passage.  In other words, the legates of the legions - who were infuriated by Perennis' attempt to replace them - sent the deputation to Rome to report the matter to Commodus.  

I feel this is a better reading of the text, and of the history.  The alternative, as I've said before, does not make logical sense.

Here is my proposed outline of what happened:

1) Senatorial legate Priscus is offered the purple.  He refuses it and is removed from his post, being sent to be legate of the Macedonian legion.

2) To forestall this kind of thing from happening again in Britain, Perennis decides to take the radical move of replacing all three senatorial legates in Britain with equites.  

3) The senatorial legates in Britain, upon receiving this order, refuse to follow it.  Instead, they send the 1500 spearmen to Rome to demand the removal of Perennis.  This allows us to understand how the deputation managed to reach the capital unimpeded.  For any legions the 1500 spearmen encountered would be led by senatorial legates and these commanders, with their own positions potentially threatened by similar action on the part of Perennis, would have been sympathetic to the deputation. And, so, the deputation was given clear passage to Rome.

We cannot say what role the governor of Britain played in this scenario.  The legates may have disobeyed him or he may have been complicit.  He may have thought throwing Perennis under the bus, i.e. using Perennis as a scapegoat, might be a good way to help him better manage unruly troops. 

4) Commodus, to placate the British legates, and in an attempt to reduce the trouble in that province, hands over Perennis.  Whether the Praetorian Prefect were guilty of other charges is moot, as such charges could easily have been conjured as additional justification for his removal.  

It is absurd to propose that LAC was the new commander of the Sixth and, as such, was sent to Rome as part of the deputation. He would have greatly benefited from Perennis having raised him to supreme commander of the legion (having removed the senatorial legate), and thus he would have no reason whatsoever to seek the removal of the Praetorian Prefect.  

The above outline of events is supported by "A History of the Roman Equestrian Order" (By CAILLAN DAVENPORT, Macquarie University, Sydney, Cambridge University Press, 2019):

"There was certainly no move to replace senatorial legates with equestrian prefects elsewhere in the empire. This had been attempted by Sex. Tigidius Perennis, Commodus’ praetorian prefect, after the British legions acclaimed the senatorial legionary legate Priscus as emperor.203 When Perennis tried to place equestrians in command of the legions, this punitive measure provoked a military revolt that eventually led to his downfall.204 Severus was not about to repeat this mistake, and therefore his new legions fitted with existing equestrian paradigms and career paths."