PROOF POSITIVE THAT VEXILLATIONS ARE IMPLIED IN THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION

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)

comment: sarcophagus

Roger Tomlin on the key portions of the inscription:

"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."

Now, if we follow the logic of Malcor et al, we have a man here who BEFORE HIS STINT AS PRIMOPILUS commanded all the Dacian legions, effectively playing the role of an acting governor (for Malcor et al equate LAC as dux of the British legions with an acting governor).  

There is not anyone in the world who will allow a centurian to be commander of all the legions of Dacia.  Instead, this man led detachments.

Accepting the formula dux legionum Daciae as being equivalent to LAC's dux legionum [trium] Britan(n)ici{an}arum, we must allow for the fact that the detachments in the LAC inscription are implied in exactly the same way they are in the anonymous inscription.*

Precedent is everything, and Malcor et al are constantly insisting that there is no other inscription showing a dux legionum in a similar context.  They are, of course, wrong about that.  

*This man has been identified as a certain Ignotus.  See https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiSj-21rYv7AhWTIDQIHcKOCIEQFnoECA8QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fstable%2F10.1163%2Fj.ctv2gjwwg9.17&usg=AOvVaw2VZ16NgjZ1k5Z9CEmquFxL.