The Praetorian Guard
I have been reading the primary sources and lengthy commentaries such as Anthony Birley's. Seems to me we might have missed something when it comes to the treatment of the fall of the Praetorian Prefect Perennis.
Ulpius Marcellus is recalled in 184 or shortly thereafter. Pertinax is not sent until after Perennis is killed in 185. We have a stone showing a British acting or vice goveror (Crescens) at exactly the right time, whom Birley says was probably the acting governor for the several months that intervened between Marcellus' recall and Pertinax posting.
Now, it is this same exact time period that sees the 1500 men come to Rome. So we have a pretty good fix on that event. The sequence seems to be that in the mutiny following Ulpius's harsh methods concluding the northern war, the troops try to raise up Priscus (who is believed to be the legate of the 6th legion). He refuses and is removed and sent to head up the Macedonian legion. But to forestall this kind of thing from happening again, Perennis removes the legates and replaces them with equestrians.
If this is correct, then LAC as senior equestrian of the 6th legion had replaced the legate of that legion. He was now equestrian commander of the 6th.
As we have an acting governor in Crescens - it is, as we are fond of saying, literally on his stone -
CIL vi. 1336=ILS 1151, Rome: M(arco) An[tio . . . ] | Crescent[i] Calpurniano, [cos. ?,] 4|
proc[o](n)s(uli) prov(inciae) M[aced(oniae)], | XVvi[ro s(acris)] f(aciundis), iurid(ico) Brit(anniae) | vice
leg(ati), leg(ato) pr(o) pr(aetore) | prov(inciae) [ . . . , cur(atori)] r(ei) p(ublicae) / Marsorum Marruvior(um),
pr[aet(ori) . . . ].
To Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, consul(?), proconsul of the province of Macedonia,
quindecimvir sacris faciundis, iuridicus of Britain (and) acting-legate, propraetorian legate of the
province of . . . , curator of the commonwealth of the Marsi and Marruvini.
- and the 1500 men went to Rome between the recall of Marcellus and the appointment of Pertinax, then LAC cannot have been governor - at any time. The dux command on the stone, by chronology and sequence of known events, has to refer to the deputation to Rome.
For those wishing to dispute this account, I have provided below all the relevant documentation from the primary sources and the discussion of them by Anthony Birley (from his THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN), so that what I have produced above may be double-checked.
Otherwise, this chain of events seems pretty locked in. At least, I can't see a way of displacing anything without creating jarring anachronisms.
If someone needs for LAC to somehow become acting British governor, we would have to stick him between Pertinax and Albinus (although there is good reason for assuming Albinus took over from Pertinax and just held his post for a bit longer than usual; again, see Birley). But to do so, we have to reserve the dux on LAC's stone for that purpose (which doesn't work, anyway, because dux as a designation for governor of a large province such as Britian, with a huge army and an equestrian rather than a senator, does not occur until the third century). Which means omitting from the memorial stone his having led the 1500 men to Rome.
The man who led the deputation would absolutely have been called dux or praepositus, and the title would have been specific to that role. If he is acting governor, he calls himself that. He would differentiate the two titles to add to his career accomplishments. No one of his time would interpret dux on his stone as meaning he was governor of Britian. If he had been an interim governor of equestrian rank, his title would have been agens vice praesidis in II cent. AD (info. courtesy Davide Faoro). I mean, even the iuridicus Crescens made sure to identify himself as the acting governor!
And we can't read LAC's dux title backwards into the record. We can't have him become governor and call himself dux after Pertinax if had led the deputation to Rome before Pertinax. We would have to have him claim himself or be claimed dux/governor between Marcellus and Pertinax. After proving that Crescens was not the interim governor between Marcellus and Pertinax, obviously.
As for Crescens, it doesn't matter that he was iuridicus. An acting legate is an acting legate. We can't have two at once. So trying to make LAC into a governor on the basis that his power was martial as opposed to that of Crescens, which was administrative, fails mightily as an argument.
The only "evidence" for LAC as governor continues to be the INCORRECT usage of dux for a provincial governor in Britain at this time period.
In brief, here is where we MUST go:
LAC led the 1500 to Rome between Marcellus and Pertinax. If we need to have him be dux not only of that mission, but to have assumed dux as governor at the same time (a definition for dux at this time in Britain that I and everyone else reject), we must give our evidence for why Crescens wasn't acting governor at this time. There can't be two governors at the same time, and our attempt to have two governors - one administrative, and one military - cannot be allowed to stand. There is no precedent for such. Furthermore, we would need to have insisted from the beginning that there was no senatorial governor between Pertinax and Albinus, so we can't move Crescens to that time period.
We are thus precluded from having LAC named dux (or naming himself dux?) in the period between Pertinax and Albinus, which is what we would have been claiming all along. Unless, of course, we reject his role as commander of the Rome deputation.
If Ulpius Marcellus could serve as governor for at least seven years (see the relevant information on this governor pasted below), then there is no reason Albinus couldn't have served for roughly five. There is no reason to put an equestrian prefect as acting governor anywhere between the tenures of Marcellus, Pertinax or Albinus. Once again, it is probable that Antius was acting governor between Marcellus and Pertinax, and we know that Pertinax requested and accepted (i.e. approved) his successor.
Ulpius was recalled in 184 or soon after. Perennis was killed in 185. At this point (185), Commodus sends Pertinax to Britain. Pertinax becomes emperor at the end of 192 and we learn Albinus is at that time already in Britain as governor.
There is no reason whatsoever to assume that it was not Albinus who took over after Pertinax as governor. Again, Marcellus had served 7 years in Britain as governor just prior to Pertinax. There is no need to keep adding more layers of obfuscation to this chain of events. We not only don't need LAC as governor during the time period, we cannot justify him as such, and certainly have no evidence for him as such.
So, again, as Pertinax had requested replacement (and this means a regular senatorial replacement) and had accepted/approved his successor (something he never would have done with anyone in the British army, as they were all opposed to him and had actually tried to kill him!), we can be sure that even if this wasn't Albinus, it was another senator. The information we have allows Albinus with no difficulty. When someone proposes LAC in this context, we not only have no evidence for that, but no contextual support, either.
A very good case can be made for Crescens being the interim governor between Marcellus and Pertinax, as this is a shorter period, and Marcellus was actually recalled. It is a great deal less likely Crescens belongs between Pertinax and Albinus, as he is not an actual governor and would have only been responsibility for filling a short interval of time. So, again, the interval between Marcellus and Pertinax saw the duputation to Rome and, thus, LAC was appointed that dux command. He was not governor of Britain. Ever.
From Anthony Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN:
Agricola is thus the ‘British specialist’ par excellence. Also unusual is the length of his governorship, seven years, longer than that recorded for any other governor of Britain, with the possible exception of Ulpius Marcellus a hundred years later (Gov. 33), and not usual in any province.
Marcellus was apparently in office for at least seven years.
It was argued previously that there were two governors of Britain called
Ulpius Marcellus. The first was taken to have been appointed by Commodus,
because of the phraseology of Dio-Xiphilinus (72(73). 8. 2): ‘Marcellus was sent
against the Britons’ by that emperor, interpreted as ‘sent to Britain’, after
the death in battle of the ‘general’, assumed to be his predecessor. The
Commodan governor Marcellus is clearly attested by the inscriptions from
Chesters, one of which calls him legate of a single emperor, leg. Aug. pr. pr. The
consular governor under whom Tineius Longus was made a senator and
designated quaestor ‘by the decrees of our (two) best and greatest Emperors’,
iudiciis optimorum maximorumque impp., was interpreted as a later homonym,
perhaps son of the Commodan governor; and the two emperors were identified
as Caracalla and Geta.¹³³ The argument seemed to be reinforced by the
passage in Dio-Xiphilinus: ‘the barbarians . . . killed a general, strathgÎn tv
tina, with his soldiers’. Dio’s most frequent word for governor is £rcwn, but he
also uses Ógem*n and various phrases; and in a military context in his work
strathgÎß generally means governor, as with Julius Agricola (Gov. 11, 66. 20.
3), Julius Severus (Gov. 21, 69. 13. 2), and indeed with Ulpius Marcellus
himself a little later in this very passage (72. 8. 4).¹³⁴ Hence it was concluded
that the unnamed strathgÎß was the governor, in office c.182 or 183, who was
killed and replaced urgently by Ulpius Marcellus.¹³⁵ Others were content to
understand strathgÎß as legionary legate¹³⁶—even though elsewhere Dio
uses the term Ëpostr3thgoß for this officer (60. 20. 3, 62. 26. 6, and 72(73). 9.
2a, cf. below; cf. 78. 21. 2, 79. 7. 2).
166 High Officials of the Undivided Province
governor; Fitz later changed his mind, Alba Regia, 19 (1978), 369ff., favouring the reign of Gallienus;
but see Thomasson, LP i. 119f., who comments that the dedication to Virtus and Honos fits the
Antonine period better.
¹³² Thus Alföldy, Konsulat, 198, without knowledge of the proconsulship in 189, which adds
support. He is there hesitant about the view of Fitz (previous note) that Lower Pannonia was
temporarily of consular status at this time, as it may have been in 167, when the governor was Ti.
Claudius Pompeianus (CIL xvi. 123), on whom see now CIL vi. 41120, with further bibliography.
¹³³ FRB 140ff., 164ff.
¹³⁴ Cf. also 71. 3. 1¹, 75. 6. 2.
¹³⁵ F. Grosso, La lotta politica al tempo di Commodo (1964), 450 n. 2: ‘l’allusione al governatore della
provincia sembra evidente’, citing G. Vrind, De Cassii Dionis vocabulis quae ad ius publicum pertinent (1923),
52 n. 119, 143 n. 360.
¹³⁶ Thus Wright, RIB 1320; Frere, Britannia3, 163; neither give reasons. M. G. Jarrett, Britannia, 9
(1978), 290 f., argued that the unnamed governor fell in 180 and that Marcellus was sent to Britain to
replace him in that year. This case now lapses.
The diplomas now show that Ulpius Marcellus was already governor under
Marcus and Commodus, in March 178—and had probably been appointed
the previous year. Hence there is no obstacle to his being the governor
under two emperors of the Benwell altar. It cannot be excluded that he was
appointed in 177 but had been replaced, perhaps soon after Commodus’
accession as sole ruler in 180—and then sent back again after the disaster
incurred by the unnamed ‘general’, who would then be his successor as well as
his predecessor.¹³⁷ This would be almost unparalleled, but there is the case of
Corbulo, legate of Cappadocia from 54/55 to 60, then moved to Syria, but in
63 sent back to Cappadocia, after the debâcle incurred by his successor
there.¹³⁸ It is no doubt safer to concede that it was only a legionary legate that
lost his life, presumably of VI Victrix, the legion nearest to the wall—which
wall is not specified in the Dio passage, but it was no doubt that of Hadrian,
since the Antonine Wall had evidently been out of commission for over
twenty years (see under Gov. 27).
***
Cassius Dio
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,
Historia Augusta
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
In 184. According to Dio, LXXII.8, the Britons living north of the boundary-wall invaded the province and annihilated a detachment of Roman soldiers. They were finally defeated by Ulpius Marcellus, and Commodus was acclaimed Imperator for the seventh time and assumed the title Britannicus; see c. viii.4 and coins with the legend Vict(oria) Brit(annica), Cohen III2 p349, no. 945.
Birley
Soon after Commodus’
accession the province was invaded by the northern peoples ‘crossing the
Wall’, who killed a Roman general. The war was ended by Ulpius Marcellus
(Gov. 33) in 184, when Commodus took the title Britannicus. Marcellus was
apparently in office for at least seven years. During the remainder of
Commodus’ reign there were problems within the army: a legionary legate
named Priscus (LL 35, cf. 36) was invited to become emperor by the troops;
the legionary legates were replaced for a time by equestrian prefects; a iuridicus
evidently served as acting-governor; and the British legionaries continued
to be mutinous for some time.
At least three diplomas, all dated 28 March 178, two complete British inscriptions,
one datable to the period 177–80, the other to a sole reign, clearly of
Commodus, and another fragmentary one, record Ulpius Marcellus as governor.
His successful campaign against the north Britons under Commodus was
described by Dio, although most of the detail preserved by his epitomator is
concerned with Marcellus’ eccentric personal characteristics. External evidence
allows the conclusion of the campaign to be dated precisely to the year
184, when Commodus took his seventh acclamation as imperator and the title
Britannicus maximus. The date at which it started is less certain, but it was
presumably either 182 or 183.¹¹⁸
The diplomas now show that Ulpius Marcellus was already governor under
Marcus and Commodus, in March 178—and had probably been appointed
the previous year. Hence there is no obstacle to his being the governor
under two emperors of the Benwell altar. It cannot be excluded that he was
appointed in 177 but had been replaced, perhaps soon after Commodus’
accession as sole ruler in 180—and then sent back again after the disaster
incurred by the unnamed ‘general’, who would then be his successor as well as
his predecessor.¹³⁷ This would be almost unparalleled, but there is the case of
Corbulo, legate of Cappadocia from 54/55 to 60, then moved to Syria, but in
63 sent back to Cappadocia, after the debâcle incurred by his successor
there.¹³⁸ It is no doubt safer to concede that it was only a legionary legate that
lost his life, presumably of VI Victrix, the legion nearest to the wall—which
wall is not specified in the Dio passage, but it was no doubt that of Hadrian,
since the Antonine Wall had evidently been out of commission for over
twenty years (see under Gov. 27).
By the time of Marcellus’ victory, perhaps in reaction to his harsh methods,
there was a mutiny, recorded in a fragment of Dio (72(73). 9. 2a)¹⁴³: ‘The sol-
diers in Britain chose Priscus, a legionary legate (Ëpostr3thgon) as emperor;
but he declined, saying: “I am no more emperor than you are soldiers”.’ The
dating is supplied by the HA: ‘Commodus was called Britannicus by flatterers
when the Britons even wanted to choose another emperor in opposition to
him’ (Comm. 8. 4). Priscus was clearly removed from his post (see LL 35), as
were, apparently, the other legionary legates. Again, the HA supplies some
information: ‘but this same Perennis [the guard prefect], although so powerful,
because he had dismissed senators and put men of equestrian status in
command of the soldiers in the British war, when this was made known by
representatives of the army (per legatos exercitus), was suddenly declared a public
enemy and given to the soldiers to be lynched’ (Comm. 6. 2). Perennis fell in
185, for ‘when [Commodus] had killed Perennis he was called Felix’ (Comm. 8.
1): Felix first appears in his titulature in that year.¹⁴⁴ As well as the legionary
legate Priscus, a iuridicus can be identified who served under Marcellus, Antius
Crescens, later acting-governor (Gov. 34). His appointment at a time when
the governor was heavily occupied in the north fits the theory that the British
iuridicus was not a regular official.
Yet another sign of the mutinous spirit of the army of Britain is Dio’s
account (72(73). 22–4, in Xiphilinus’ epitome) of Perennis’ fate: ‘Those [sc. the
soldiers]¹⁴⁵ in Britain then, when they had been rebuked for their mutinous
conduct (for they did not in fact quieten down until Pertinax quelled them)
now chose out of their number one thousand five hundred javelin-men and
sent them to Italy’; Commodus met them outside Rome, where they
denounced Perennis, alleging that he was plotting to make his son emperor.
Commodus, influenced by Cleander, handed Perennis over to them to be
killed. Other sources have different versions of Perennis’ fall; and it remains a
mystery what 1,500 soldiers from the British army were doing outside Rome.
One possibility is that they were part of a task force rounding up deserters,
whose activities had reached alarming proportions in Gaul and Spain, and
perhaps even had got as far as Rome. Their inclusion in such a force may have
seemed a good way of dealing with them after the mutiny.¹⁴⁶
Dio does not make clear whether or not there was any appreciable interval
between Marcellus’ victory and his recall, but it is plausible to suppose that it
was the fall of Perennis, not to mention the mutinies, which led to Marcellus’
prosecution on his return. Of course, if he had really served uninterruptedly
from 177 to 185, his governorship would have exceeded even that of Julius
Agricola (Gov. 11), exactly a century earlier. The replacement of the legionary
legates by equestrian commanders would have meant that for a time the only
senatorial official in the province was the iuridicus, who was made actinggovernor.
Marcellus’ pardon was sufficiently complete for him to become proconsul
of Asia, evidently in 189: he is actually described as ‘my friend’ by Commodus
in a letter to the city of Aphrodisias.¹⁴⁷ Possible members of his family in later
generations have been referred to above.¹
In 184 or soon after, when Ulpius Marcellus was
recalled, there were no legionary legates, as they had been replaced by
equestrians (see under Gov. 33). Hence it is plausible that Crescens was actinggovernor
for several months—as the only senator left in the province. He
presumably remained in post, the army still being mutinous, until the arrival
of Pertinax in 185.¹⁵¹
CIL vi. 1336=ILS 1151, Rome: M(arco) An[tio . . . ] | Crescent[i] Calpurniano, [cos. ?,] 4|
proc[o](n)s(uli) prov(inciae) M[aced(oniae)], | XVvi[ro s(acris)] f(aciundis), iurid(ico) Brit(anniae) | vice
leg(ati), leg(ato) pr(o) pr(aetore) | prov(inciae) [ . . . , cur(atori)] r(ei) p(ublicae) 8| Marsorum Marruvior(um),
pr[aet(ori) . . . ].
To Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, consul(?), proconsul of the province of Macedonia,
quindecimvir sacris faciundis, iuridicus of Britain (and) acting-legate
it was
only after Perennis’ death in 185 that Commodus asked him [Pertinax] to assume the
governorship of Britain (3. 5, quoted above), where the army was still
mutinous. Dio (Xiphilinus) twice records that Pertinax finally suppressed the
mutiny. The HA adds details: apparently the troops still wanted another
emperor, preferably Pertinax himself, but he managed to repress them with
difficulty, and nearly lost his life in a riot at the hands of one legion. He then
requested the emperor to send a replacement, since the legions resented his
restoration of discipline.
The HA specifically states in the biography of Pertinax (Pert. 12. 8) that he
did not replace any of those ‘whom Commodus had placed in charge of
affairs’, so it may be taken that Albinus was already in Britain in 192. This
confirms the garbled remarks in Victor, as well as in the vita Albini, that he was
appointed by Commodus. He was probably not the direct successor of
Pertinax, whose tenure terminated abruptly, at his own request, hardly later
than 187. Otherwise, Albinus would have been in Britain for over five years by
the time of Commodus’ death: not impossible, but it is a priori likelier that he
was appointed in one of the years 190–2.
Note on Birley's dating of Crescens from Professor Roger Tomlin:
"I think Birley's assessment is excellent. The only hard date is 204, when he is independently attested as XVvir sf, an appointment which apparently followed his service in Britain. But, as Birley shows, there is no need to take 204 as the date of his appointment; nor to suppose that this was soon after his service in Britain. The hiatus after Ulpius Marcellus Birley shows is a likely moment when the (senatorial) iuridicus, not an equestrian prefect, might have replaced him temporarily.
185 seems good to me."
From Prof. dr. Daniëlle Slootjes,
Department of History, European Studies and Religious Studies,
University of Amsterdam:
"As for the governor's term of office, although there seems not to have been a fixed term, based on the fasti of officials as used as a base for the Prosopographia Imperii Romani (PIR) and the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (PLRE) scholars generally assume that the term was between 1 to 3 years, but in some case we have evidence for longer terms of offices. I always assume that such longer - exceptional - terms were generated by specific local circumstances. In such cases emperors might have asked governors to stay longer (but only if they really trusted these men not to be acclaimed emperor then by troops in those regions as we see happening in the third century). So Albinus could have certainly been there longer. We have no evidence that there was a governor in between.
As for the case of Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, I do not see any reason to assume that his position was instead taken up by an equestrian prefect. I would certainly trust Birley's judgement."
Professor Caillan Davenport, whom I have several times been referred to as the current expert on the equestrians during the Roman Empire, also agrees with Anthony Birley, saying his his book A HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EQUESTRAIN ORDER:
"When Commodus dismissed the consular Ulpius Marcellus from the governorship of Britain in the AD 180s, he appointed the iuridicus M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus as acting governor."
In the following source, Dr. P.M.M. Leunissen, an expert on the Roman consuls in the period of Commodus, agrees with Birley in dating Crescens' acting governorship in Britain.
Under "Direct Promotions from Proconsul to Consul under the Principate" islisted
15. M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus Macedonia 180/after204
His full description of this man:
The cursus-inscription of M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus (CIL VI 1336 = ILS 1151), known as XVvir sacris faciundis in the year 204 (CIL VI 3236,50), presents another problem. CIL VI 1336 True, the damaged stone obviously carried his full career, and it was most probably recorded in descending order. But the consulship is restored, and, as A.R.Birley recently noticed, [c.v.] would be equally possible, pointing conveniently to ILS 1150, another XVvir. Indeed, his referring to this inscription ( = CIL V 4341), set up in honour of M. Nonius Arrius Paulinus Aper, is very much to the point, as it displays in an equally thorough way the man's career, without mentioning a consulship. This magistracy is not known for Aper from other sources; neither is it for Crescens. There may be some truth in Birley's observation that, "if Antius Crescens was indeed iuridicus [i.e.Britanniae vice legati] in the 180s, he no doubt did achieve the consulship eventually, whether or not it was recorded on ILS 1151". But even then, we still cannot say with certainty that the consulship came directly after the proconsulship of Macedonia, which can be regarded as his last known praetorian post.13
13 A.R.Birley, The Fasti of Roman Britain, Oxford 1981,138 n.9; ib. 137 the end of line 3 in the inscription is rightly rendered as [cos.?]. In his description of Crescens' career Birley accepts the consulship without any reservation (see esp. 138), as I did too, see Konsuln 61. 72. 147. 233. 302 (Macedonia "wahrscheinlich sein letztes Amt vor seinem Suffektkonsulat"); in the survey of his career on p.391 [suff.] is given wrongly without a question mark. Cf. also Jacques, Curateurs 79 where co(n)s(uli) is rendered, as if the indication is preserved on the stone.
From Professor Keppie, Emeritus Professor of Roman History and Archaeology and Senior Curator of Archaeology, History and Ethnography at the Hunterian Museum:
"Dear Professor Keppie:
About this fellow...
CIL vi. 1336=ILS 1151, Rome: M(arco) An[tio . . . ] | Crescent[i] Calpurniano, [cos. ?,] 4|
proc[o](n)s(uli) prov(inciae) M[aced(oniae)], | XVvi[ro s(acris)] f(aciundis), iurid(ico) Brit(anniae) | vice
leg(ati), leg(ato) pr(o) pr(aetore) | prov(inciae) [ . . . , cur(atori)] r(ei) p(ublicae) / Marsorum Marruvior(um),
pr[aet(ori) . . . ].
To Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, consul(?), proconsul of the province of Macedonia,
quindecimvir sacris faciundis, iuridicus of Britain (and) acting-legate, propraetorian legate of the
province of . . . , curator of the commonwealth of the Marsi and Marruvini.
Birley (THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN) says he was likely interim governor between Marcellus and Pertinax.
Do you agree with this assessment?"
"I don't have anything to add to this, except that Tony Birley is usually correct in his judgments."
Summary Statement (issued to Dr. Linda Malcor on Novemeber 11, 2022):
Crescens was acting governor between Marcellus and Pertinax, when the deputation to Rome occurred. Thus the dux title, which the inscription makes clear refers to the mission of 1500 spearman to Rome to get rid of Perennis, applies to that mission. And given that Crescens was acting governor at this time, LAC was not governor.
If he went back with his men to Britain, he would have remained prefect of the Sixth under Crescens. Then Pertinax arrives. You cannot now say that when Pertinax leaves Britain and there *might* be a gap in governors between Pertinax and Albinus that LAC becomes governor at this time with the title of dux. There is simply no way for this to have happened, even if we allow (which no authority does!) that dux could mean governor for an equestrian prefect at this time period in Britain. To suggest that he 'backread' the title of dux from a later period to his mission to Rome BEFORE he became governor is, frankly, beyond absurd.
If you accept that he led the 1500 ADVERSUS the Praetorians of Perennis, then you must abandon your purely fictional notion that LAC was governor of Britain. If you reject that he led the mission to Rome, you reject the only recorded instance of a British officer leading what appears to be three legionary detachments in exactly the time period we need. And as these men are spearmen, described using a word that may well indicate they are Sarmatian cavalrymen, then you lose the tenuous Sarmatian connection with LAC as well.
If he went back with his men to Britain, he would have remained prefect of the Sixth under Crescens. Then Pertinax arrives. You cannot now say that when Pertinax leaves Britain and there *might* be a gap in governors between Pertinax and Albinus that LAC becomes governor at this time with the title of dux. There is simply no way for this to have happened, even if we allow (which no authority does!) that dux could mean governor for an equestrian prefect at this time period in Britain. To suggest that he 'backread' the title of dux from a later period to his mission to Rome BEFORE he became governor is, frankly, beyond absurd.
If you accept that he led the 1500 ADVERSUS the Praetorians of Perennis, then you must abandon your purely fictional notion that LAC was governor of Britain. If you reject that he led the mission to Rome, you reject the only recorded instance of a British officer leading what appears to be three legionary detachments in exactly the time period we need. And as these men are spearmen, described using a word that may well indicate they are Sarmatian cavalrymen, then you lose the tenuous Sarmatian connection with LAC as well.
If you try to shift him to a man you are claiming a much longer posting for - like you "unknown/missing" governor between Pertinax and Marcellus - you automatically create a very improbable (and pretty much impossible) scenario. You simply have no precedence for placing Crescens in a position where he is acting governor for years (187-191/2).
One last time:
1) If LAC takes the deputation of 1500 spearmen to Rome, this would be defined as a dux (or praepositus) mission. A dux mission, incidentally, does not have to entail actual military action. It can (and did, in fact), indicate a MOVEMENT of troops or even supplies from one place to another by a junior officer appointed that special role on a purely temporary basis. We cannot argue against such a use of dux for LAC even if we wanted to.
2) If M. Antius Crescens Calpunianus is acting-governor at this time (as all experts I have contacted favor as the best possible chronology for him), then LAC was not a governor at this time (even if we allow for dux meaning governor in a grossly anachronistic sense).
3) The notion (already proposed in some desperation) that LAC went on the mission to Rome with no dux title (again, such a mission requires a dux or praepositus title) and then was granted the dux title as an acting governorship when he returned to Britain AFTER the mission to Rome is absurd. LAC would have used dux on his stone for the mission, then attached agens vice praesidis or similar to indicate the highest rank he had achieved in his career (that of acting governor). Furthermore, Crescens was still in place, presumably, until Pertinax took over, and by then LAC would already have returned to Britain. Once again, you can't have two governors at once. [And, no, you can't fudge and claim one as administrative governor and another as military governor.]
4) Yet another attempt to retain LAC as governor has been put forward. The opposition wants to shift Crescens as interim governor to the period 187-191/192, i.e. between the terms of Pertinax and Albinus, when a 'gap' in governors has been admitted as a possibility (although Marcellus served for 7 years, so there is no real reason for denying 5 to Albinus). This would allow them to have LAC be governor not between Pertinax and Albinus, but between Marcellus and Pertinax (a gap of some months in 184-185 - the most likely time period for Crescens as an iuridicus interim governor). There are three problems with this proposed scenario. First, we are forced to accept dux as referring not to the mission to Rome (which by all rules of Latin epigraphy for the period it certainly does), but to him being made acting governor (again with dux being used anachronistically). Any title for his special role in leading the deputation would be left out, supposedly being unnecessary, as it fell under the "umbrella" rank of dux. Second, we would never have a governor lead the deputation to Rome; he would appoint a junior officer, probably another equestrian prefect who had replaced a legate in Britain. And, third, the army was still in a state a rebellion when Pertinax left. One legion had actually tried to kill him. The notion that Commodus would decide to make the leader of the 6th legion governor at this time makes no sense at all.
For these reasons, there is no possibility of LAC being acting governor of Britain. I ask that the opposition abandon this position, and be satisifed with retaining ARMATOS as the preferred reading of the stone.
1) If LAC takes the deputation of 1500 spearmen to Rome, this would be defined as a dux (or praepositus) mission. A dux mission, incidentally, does not have to entail actual military action. It can (and did, in fact), indicate a MOVEMENT of troops or even supplies from one place to another by a junior officer appointed that special role on a purely temporary basis. We cannot argue against such a use of dux for LAC even if we wanted to.
2) If M. Antius Crescens Calpunianus is acting-governor at this time (as all experts I have contacted favor as the best possible chronology for him), then LAC was not a governor at this time (even if we allow for dux meaning governor in a grossly anachronistic sense).
3) The notion (already proposed in some desperation) that LAC went on the mission to Rome with no dux title (again, such a mission requires a dux or praepositus title) and then was granted the dux title as an acting governorship when he returned to Britain AFTER the mission to Rome is absurd. LAC would have used dux on his stone for the mission, then attached agens vice praesidis or similar to indicate the highest rank he had achieved in his career (that of acting governor). Furthermore, Crescens was still in place, presumably, until Pertinax took over, and by then LAC would already have returned to Britain. Once again, you can't have two governors at once. [And, no, you can't fudge and claim one as administrative governor and another as military governor.]
4) Yet another attempt to retain LAC as governor has been put forward. The opposition wants to shift Crescens as interim governor to the period 187-191/192, i.e. between the terms of Pertinax and Albinus, when a 'gap' in governors has been admitted as a possibility (although Marcellus served for 7 years, so there is no real reason for denying 5 to Albinus). This would allow them to have LAC be governor not between Pertinax and Albinus, but between Marcellus and Pertinax (a gap of some months in 184-185 - the most likely time period for Crescens as an iuridicus interim governor). There are three problems with this proposed scenario. First, we are forced to accept dux as referring not to the mission to Rome (which by all rules of Latin epigraphy for the period it certainly does), but to him being made acting governor (again with dux being used anachronistically). Any title for his special role in leading the deputation would be left out, supposedly being unnecessary, as it fell under the "umbrella" rank of dux. Second, we would never have a governor lead the deputation to Rome; he would appoint a junior officer, probably another equestrian prefect who had replaced a legate in Britain. And, third, the army was still in a state a rebellion when Pertinax left. One legion had actually tried to kill him. The notion that Commodus would decide to make the leader of the 6th legion governor at this time makes no sense at all.
For these reasons, there is no possibility of LAC being acting governor of Britain. I ask that the opposition abandon this position, and be satisifed with retaining ARMATOS as the preferred reading of the stone.
Summary Statement (issued on November 8, 2022 to Antonio Trinchese):
1. I think it possible that "dux" could also refer to the leadership of such a detachment, even if the correct terminology, found in other epigraphs, is that of "dux vexillationis" or "dux vexillationum", while in the epigraph of LAC we have "dux legionum " 2. that M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus was acting governor exactly in the period in which the 1500s went to Rome is a hypothesis, it is not certain 3.We do not know for sure if it was LAC who led the 1500s in Rome: he is undoubtedly an excellent candidate for such a role, which he may have remembered using the word "dux": the fact, however, that he chose to use "dux legionum "and not" dux vexillationis" suggests that his role was greater than that of a detachment chief. After all, it was almost a coup d'état, not a simple military mission. [Antonio]
You and Linda consistently misapply the dux title to something other than what the very text applies it to: it is applied to the leading of troops against someone. Once again, it he is acting governor as well, trust me, he will not forget to put something like agens vice praesidis on his stone. At the time we are talking, dux for a large province with a huge army is not going to mean governor, as you and Linda continue to contend. Furthermore, that Crescens was acting governor of the time is not just a hypothesis, as you put it, but the most probable chronological framework for this man.
If you want your dux legionum to mean what you want it to mean, I would suggest stripping out the following ADVERSUS clause. If we had merely 'dux of the British legions" or, even better, simply ' dux of Britain', then we might well have reason to ask whether this man was a great deal more powerful than merely being a prefect given a special military mission. But we don't have those. We have that he was a dux (could have been praepositus as well) who is leading British legionary detachments against ARMATOS. I will emphasize this point again, so that you and Linda understand it: dux is not being used in the inscription in isolation, i.e. we don't have dux of British legions or dux of Britain. We have dux of an expeditionary force. And that is NOT a governor - whether or not you allow Crescens to be acting governor of the time.
4. The scenario is not well defined. I favor an automatic position, deriving from the absence of a hierarchical superior, without a formal appointment. An assignment that was probably appreciated by Commodus, both for his favorable position to the equestrian order, and for the family ties that bound him to the gens Artoria. If this happened in 184-185, it is likely that it was the provincial leader himself who moved to Rome to carry out the coup against Perennis, just as the pretenders to the imperial throne who were governors of Britain moved in person, certainly not sending junior officers. In conclusion, the idea that LAC led the delegation of 1500 javelin men, probably Sarmatian cavalry, to Rome to oust Perennis, I find plausible and coherent. I believe that the title, the wording "dux legionum" may well cover both his role in this special mission and his role in Britain. Finally, I believe that "adversus armatos" can indicate a plurality of enemies, including praetorians loyal to Perennis, but not only these [Antonio]
No. This is not possible. And there is no precedent for what you are claiming. If he was appointed acting governor, he would have said so. And if you keep trying to use dux in this way, then you remove that title from the context of the expeditionary force - which is the context in which it is found on the stone. Were he to have led such a force, he would be dux or praepositus. Were he to have then been proclaimed governor, he would have assumed the title of acting governor. You cannot claim the dux title for presumed governor came first, because no governor is himself going to lead troops to Rome: he would send a deputy, doubtless one of the other equestrian legionary prefects who had replaced the earlier senatorial legates.
It doesn't matter how you slice this, Antonio: LAC was not a governor, and there is no way you can make him into one given what we have on the stone.
"Unfortunately I do not see new arguments in your answer, you continue to attribute to us the positions that we have not taken, regarding the alleged appointment as governor, transform what scholars have defined "probability" into certainties, in the case of Antius Crescens. On the use of "dux", we know very well that in the case of Tiberius Candidus, governor of Spain, he used this word in relation to "adversus", without this implying a special assignment, a special mission: just as we know that Candidus had to face the remains of the troops loyal to Albinus, so we know that invasions from the north, mutinies of troops and revolts of local populations followed one another in Britain." [Antonio]
Tiberius Claudius Candidus was a SENATOR. Not an equestrian prefect. https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/G_1994-0122-2 The duci commands on his stone are quit specific about what forces he was leading and who and/or where he was leading them against. This is not a good parallel to use for LAC. In fact, it is not a comparable inscription at all.
"You insist on the impossibility that LAC has been appointed acting governor, but I have just written that I do not assume such an appointment, but a normal temporary takeover of the highest ranking officer, where the titular commander is temporarily absent. I don't think there is a need to demonstrate such a practice, it happens in all hierarchical and military structures, at all times" [Antonio]
I am going by Linda's theory, which she continues to defend. Are you saying now that LAC did not achieve the status of acting governor? If you are - and that seems to be what you are conceding here - then you have no choice but to support what the stone says: he was military commander of British legionary detachments sent to Rome. As he obviously did not strip Britain of all its legions and lauch all those against Rome, and as the acount of the Fall of Perennis gives the reasonable number of 1500 (three detachments drawn from the legions, perhaps incorporating Sarmatian auxiliary cavalrymen), there is no justification whatsoever for continuing to insist that he was leading three entire legions. In fact, if you continue to do this, you are putting forward a logical fallacy, plain and simple.
"That Candidus was a senator does not invalidate my statement in any way," [Antonio]
Yes, it does. Because you are trying to show that because dux is used in a certain way for a senator (who became a legate), you can do the same thing with it as you can do with an equestrian.
"because we know that the word "dux" was used, both before and after the Severian era, also for equestrians:" [Antonio]
And this is important - why? We already know FROM EVERY IMPORTANT, HIGHLY RESPECTED LATIN EPIGRAPHER AND ROMAN MILITARY HISTORIAN that dux was used at this time period for larger provinces with large armies in the sense of a temporary command given to someone who was of this or that rank. In LAC's case, he was a prefect of the Sixth who had replaced the legate of that legion because of Perennis' decree.
"the use of the two words "dux .. .adversus "is similar to what LAC did, which was also specific about which forces he was referring to:" legionum britannici (m) iarum "." [Antonio]
Exactly. Which is what I've been saying all along. Your point?
"On the role played by LAC, I try to be even clearer (although I seem to have already written it in the past): if the governor suddenly leaves office, and is not replaced, the military command is assumed by the highest ranking officer , until the arrival of the successor; if in Britain the legions were commanded by equestrian prefects, it is therefore possible that the highest ranking, the most experienced of the three prefects temporarily took over the military command of the province. Nothing impossible or illogical" [Antonio]
Firstly, the likelihood that Crescens was acting governor when Marcellus was recalled up to the point where Pertinax was appointed is now considered quite high. In fact, NO ONE IS GOING TO BE RECALLED if his replacement is not already at hand. LAC would never be made commander over a senator acting as governor. Nor would you raise to provincial commander of the army a member of that army when the army was in a state of rebellion. But now you are forcing me to repeat my earlier arguments, rather than answering them yourself. If you stick LAC between Pertinax and Albinus, you cannot give him the dux title for a mission that was conducted before Pertinax was appointed. As I recall, you and Linda had originally proposed he was the "missing" governor between Pertinax and Albinus. You seem now to be changing your tune...
You continue to dodge the issue, because if you face it head on you have to admit that there was no 'island command' for LAC. It is quite an impossibility, and it is illogical, as anyone reading this discussion can fairly quickly ascertain.
"there was no 'island command' for LAC. It is quite an impossibility, and it is illogical": frankly, I see no reason that makes it impossible or illogical to assume that the highest ranking officer present has assumed temporary command in the absence of the ordinary commander. The word "dux" perfectly renders this function, and "legionum trium britanniciarum" specifies which troops he exercised it. It always remains a hypothesis, but I see it as possible" [Antonio]
And you have every right to do so. But you are making a very bad choice, based on very bad reasons, and you will pay for it with the continuing universal rejection by the academic community. I will have to accept ARMATOS provisionally based upon sound conjecture, and leave you two out of the remainder of my own treatment of the subject. I regret that we could not see our way to a 'grand unified theory', and wish you well on your future researches.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.