Dr. Linda Malcor et al, to support the argument they make in their journal article "Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription”, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 47, 2019, pp. 415-437, insist that the PRAEF[F] of the L. Artorius Castus memorial inscription means that this Roman officer was a praefectus legionis, not a praefectus castrorum. This is important to their case, as the former rank does not allow them to have Castus become de facto governor of the the province of Britain.
Their argument catches itself in a logical conundrum, for they insist PRAEF[F] must be accompanied by castrorum for him to be a camp prefect. Because it says he is prefect of the Sixth Legion, he must be a prefect legionis. Yet they reject the implication of vexillations when it comes to his dux title.
Unfortunately, scholarly opinion is arrayed against them on this point (as on so many others).
The definitive work on the equestrian replacement of legates is by C. Davenport, and I have posted key selections from his book below. For those interested in a more detailed treatment of the subject, I highly recommend you procure this invaluable source. Note that I have highlighted Davenport's reference to Perennis.
Tagged onto the end is the definitive material on the praefectus castrorum by Brian Dobson. This shows that what Malcor et al are suggesting just isn't valid theory. An additional note provides a mid-third century inscription for a man who held a praepositus role with the same fleet we find LAC attached to - and did so after being a centurion! This same soldier becomes primus pilus after being praepositus, and then goes on to be prefect of a legion. Such a career course, especially for the later period in which this inscription belongs, shows that praepositus was merely being used as a title of temporary command of a military force. It does not mean that LAC was anything other than a camp prefect of the Sixth Legion after being a praepositus.
From A History of the Roman Equestrian Order (By CAILLAN DAVENPORT, Macquarie University, Sydney, Cambridge University Press, 2019):
"The reign of Septimius Severus witnessed important developments for
the Roman military establishment, and the place of the equestrian order
within it. Severus created three new legions, the I, II and III Parthica, each
of which was placed under the command of an equestrian praefectus
legionis, not a senatorial legate.194 The first and third Parthian legions
were stationed in the new province of Mesopotamia, which was entrusted
to an equestrian prefect on the model of the province of Egypt.195
The commanders of the legions therefore had to be equites in order to
avoid having a senator answer to an equestrian governor.196 This had been
the practice of Augustus when he installed the legio XXII Deiotariana and
the legio III Cyrenaica in Egypt under equestrian prefects. The same command
structure was maintained in the legio II Traiana, which was the sole
legion stationed in Egypt in the Severan age.197 The third new legion
founded by Severus, the legio II Parthica, was quartered at Albanum just
outside Rome, and thus became the first legion to be permanently stationed
in Italy. One prefect of the II Parthica, T. Licinius Hierocles, is recorded
with the exceptional title of praefectus vice legati (‘the prefect acting in place
of the legate’), though this was probably only a formality, since no senatorial
legates are on record.198
Over the course of the 260s senatorial legionary legates were replaced by
officers of equestrian rank. These new officers bore the title of praefectus
legionis, like the commander of the legio II Traiana in Egypt and the
legiones Parthicae. The new prefects are collected in Table 11.8.
M. Aurelius Veteranus is styled praefectus legionis, which means that we
cannot entirely exclude the possibility that he served under a senatorial
legate, like Aurelius Syrus. However, the officers with stars next to their
names are recorded with the title of praefectus legionis a(gens) v(ice)
l(egati), indicating that they had replaced the senatorial general. These
new equestrian prefects had the rank of vir egregius, as had been the case
with the previous praefecti castrorum in the third century AD.
No senator is ever again attested as a legionary legate after the reign of
Gallienus. But there is a question as to whether this transfer of authority
from senatorial legates to equestrian prefects had started before the 260s.
Piso has recently published two statue bases from Potaissa in Dacia, which
date to the reign of Aemilius Aemilianus (AD 253). These attest a
certain M. Publicianus Rhesus as praef(ectus) alae Bat(avorum) (milliariae)
agens vice praef(ecti) leg(ionis) (‘prefect of the thousand-strong cavalry wing
of Batavi, acting in place of the prefect of the legion’). The legion in question
was the V Macedonica, which was stationed at Potaissa.278 Was the prefect
whom Rhesus replaced merely the praefectus castrorum who answered to
a senatorial legate, or was he the legionary commander? Piso argued that it is
unlikely that he was the praefectus castrorum, since it is difficult to accept
that the equestrian prefect of a nearby auxiliary unit (the the ala I Batavorum
milliaria was stationed at Salinae to the south of Potaissa) would be
seconded to this post. This raises the prospect that a certain Donatus,
attested as praefectus legionis of the V Macedonica in AD 255, was also an
independent legionary commander, rather than being the praefectus
castrorum.279 Piso’s argument is certainly possible, but without further
information we cannot be confident that Rhesus did not deputise for a
praefectus castrorum. The jury must remain out for now. What we can say
for certain is that the epigraphic evidence shows that senatorial tribunes and
legates ceased to be appointed after the reign of Gallienus, even if the process
may have begun earlier in the 250s."
Davenport on the praefectus castrorum:
"A primipilaris who remained in the army could then be promoted
to the post of praefectus castrorum, or to one of the Rome tribunates (in the
vigiles, urban cohorts, praetorian guard, or equites singulares).118
to the post of praefectus castrorum, or to one of the Rome tribunates (in the
vigiles, urban cohorts, praetorian guard, or equites singulares).118
118 Dobson 1974: 413–20, 1978: 68–91.
The crisis of AD 260 was thus the culmination of a decade of military
setbacks resulting in the attrition of Roman forces and officers. It is
plausible to propose, therefore, that Gallienus sought to fill the legionary
commands left vacant after senatorial legates had been captured or killed at
the Battle of Edessa by promoting soldiers from within the army hierarchy.
The most logical choice would be officers at the rank of praefectus castrorum
who were now deputised to act in place of legate, hence the title
praefectus agens vice legati which we find in the epigraphic sources.317 Such
an action would have been in keeping with the Roman government’s
pattern of replacing deceased officials with acting substitutes, as we
explored earlier in the chapter.
setbacks resulting in the attrition of Roman forces and officers. It is
plausible to propose, therefore, that Gallienus sought to fill the legionary
commands left vacant after senatorial legates had been captured or killed at
the Battle of Edessa by promoting soldiers from within the army hierarchy.
The most logical choice would be officers at the rank of praefectus castrorum
who were now deputised to act in place of legate, hence the title
praefectus agens vice legati which we find in the epigraphic sources.317 Such
an action would have been in keeping with the Roman government’s
pattern of replacing deceased officials with acting substitutes, as we
explored earlier in the chapter.
317 See Heil 2008a: 755 n. 6, for a possible connection between the post praefectus castrorum and
the later praefectus legionis. Of course, those praefecti castrorum who accompanied the
legionary vexillations to Persia would not have been viable candidates, as they too would have
been killed or captured. We are referring here to praefecti castrorum who commanded units or
vexillations that did not form part of the expeditionary force.
the later praefectus legionis. Of course, those praefecti castrorum who accompanied the
legionary vexillations to Persia would not have been viable candidates, as they too would have
been killed or captured. We are referring here to praefecti castrorum who commanded units or
vexillations that did not form part of the expeditionary force.
The second example is the career of a chief centurion (primus pilus) who
advanced through a series of command posts, including the new position
advanced through a series of command posts, including the new position
of camp prefect, praefectus castrorum, created by Augustus. The prefect
initially oversaw legions or vexillations stationed together in one camp
(hence their title) but later became attached to a specific legion.256
initially oversaw legions or vexillations stationed together in one camp
(hence their title) but later became attached to a specific legion.256
One of the strange features of the Roman army hierarchy was that primipilares
such as Gavius Fronto did not advance into the militiae equestres.
Instead, there was a completely separate promotion path for them. This led
to the post of legionary praefectus castrorum, and then to the ‘Rome tribunates’
in the vigiles, urban cohorts, the praetorian guard, and later, from the
time of Trajan, the equites singulares (the emperor’s horse guard).62 They
could then embark on procuratorial careers in the imperial administration,
usually starting at a slightly higher grade than officers in the militiae.63 This
distinction between the primipilaris career and the militiae equestres
emerged as the result of Claudius’ reforms, and ensured that there was no
clear path to officer ranks for ordinary soldiers until the dramatic changes of
the mid-third century AD."
such as Gavius Fronto did not advance into the militiae equestres.
Instead, there was a completely separate promotion path for them. This led
to the post of legionary praefectus castrorum, and then to the ‘Rome tribunates’
in the vigiles, urban cohorts, the praetorian guard, and later, from the
time of Trajan, the equites singulares (the emperor’s horse guard).62 They
could then embark on procuratorial careers in the imperial administration,
usually starting at a slightly higher grade than officers in the militiae.63 This
distinction between the primipilaris career and the militiae equestres
emerged as the result of Claudius’ reforms, and ensured that there was no
clear path to officer ranks for ordinary soldiers until the dramatic changes of
the mid-third century AD."
And the same author on Perennis:
"The career paths for the officers of the Parthian legions followed the
pattern of the legions stationed in Egypt. Their tribunates were integrated
into the militiae equestres, with some tribunes of the Parthian legions going
on to procuratorial careers in the usual manner.199 The traditional route to
the prefecture of the legio II Traiana in Egypt was via the primipilate and
the Rome tribunates.200 The command of this legion ranked as
a ducenarian procuratorship by the Antonine period, and the same status
was given to the prefects of the new legiones Parthicae.201 The first prefect
of a Parthian legion, C. Iulius Pacatianus, was promoted from the militiae
equestres, but thereafter the commands appear to have been given to
primipilares, following the Egyptian precedent.202 This suggests that
Septimius Severus was following traditional status hierarchies when establishing
his new Parthian legions. 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.
204 For this reconstruction of events, see A. R. Birley 2005: 168–9, 260–1. Cf. Herodian 1.9.1–10,
who states that Perennis’ demise was precipitated by the revolt of his sons against Commodus
in Pannonia. Kolb 1977a: 467–8 speculatively suggests that one of Perennis’ sons was actually
an equestrian commander appointed in Britain."
The Significance of the Centurion and 'Primipilaris'
in the Roman Army and Administration
by BRIAN DOBSON, Durham
"The post of praefectus castrorum seems to have been an Augustan
creation, one in each legion, even though legions often camped together.
The special title praefectus castrorum imp. Caesar. Aug. presents difficulties
which cannot be discussed adequately here88. The qualifying experience for
this post, a preceding one of tribunus militum, was dropped after Claudius,
and promotion was direct from primuspilus. From Claudius onwards the
name of the legion is given on inscriptions, although in literature the old
unqualified title praefectus castrorum lingers on87.
By the beginning of the second century the habit of shortening the
title praefectus castrorum legionis to praefectus legionis had appeared88. They
are shown to be identical by the two inscriptions of M. Porcius Iustus89.
The two titles were used side by side till by the early third century the
new title finally ousted the old; there was no official ban by Severus, for
a M. Aurelius Alexander who died in Britain at the age of 72 used the
title on his tombstone, and his citizenship if given by an emperor cannot
predate Marcus Aurelius in 161, and if it was given to him in time for
him to enlist in a legion in his twenties we must place his death not earlier
than 211, and more likely later90.
One final variation in title may be mentioned. Where full career details
are given the phrase p.p., praef. castr. leg. seems to imply that the primuspilus
went on to be praefectus castrorum in the same legion91."
NOTE:
Publication: CIL 08, 01322 = CIL 08, 14854 = CIL 11, *00250,2a = D 02764 = ILTun 01287 = IDRE-02, 00431 = AE 1937, +00116 = AE 1956, 00011 = AE 2017, +01742 EDCS- ID: EDCS-17701194 Province: Africa proconsularis Location: Toukaber / Tukabur / Tuccabor
C(aio) Sulgio L(uci) f(ilio) Pap(iria) Caeciliano praef(ecto) leg(ionis) III Cyrenai/cae p(rimo) p(ilo) leg(ionis) XX Valeriae Victricis praeposito reli/quationi classis praetoriae Misenatium Piae / Vindicis et the{n}sauris domini[cis e]t Bastagis copia/rum devehendar(um) |(centurioni) leg(ionis) III Aug(ustae) et septimae Geminae / et primae Parthicae et XVI Fl(aviae ) F(irmae) et XIII G(eminae) in provincia Daci/a nauarch(o) classis praetoriae Mise[n]atium Piae / Vindicis optioni peregrinorum et ex[erci]tatori mil[i]/tum frumentarior(um) et Sulgiae [3]AE et Sulgio / Apro III II IIIICII [S]ulgio [3]IO[3]IRSI / PICI[3]FS[3]LAIIIAIIIIA[3] patri et co(n)iu[gi] Type of
inscription / personal status: milites mulieres; ordo equester; tria noun; Viri
Material: lapis
A good description of this inscription can be found in https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwwg9.17#metadata_info_tab_contents:
Here is another good example of the use of praepositus - several times - in an inscription now believed to me from the time of Marcus Aurelius. The man holding the praepositus title is thought to have been a freedman (!). In one case, he is praepositus of a fleet. Note also the use more than once of praefectus, as applied to cohorts and such. I imagine other such examples can be found demonstrating quite nicely that the extraordinary nature of LAC's praepositus title claimed by Malcor et al is a gross exaggeration.
publication: CIL 08, 09358 (p 1983) = D 02738 = IDRE-02, 00464 = CERom-07, 00403 = AE 1987, 00827 EDCS-ID: EDCS-23500113
province: Mauretania Caesariensis place: Cherchell / Cherchel / Scherschel / Caesarea
P(ublio) Aelio P(ubli) fil(io) Palati/na Marciano / praef(ecto) coh(ortis) I Augustae / Bracarum / praeposito n(umeri) Illyricorum / trib(uno) coh(ortis) Ael(iae) expeditae / praef(ecto) al(ae) Aug(ustae) II Thracum / praeposito al(ae) Gemin(ae) / [[Seba[sten(ae)]]] / praeposito classis / Syriacae et Augustae / praef(ecto) classis Moesiaticae / C(aius) Caesius Marcellus / veter(anus) ex dec(urione) / al(ae) II Thracum
inscription genus / personal status: litterae erasae; milites; ordo equester; tituli honorarii; tria nomina; viri
material: lapis
...the career inscription of P. Aelius Marcianus set up in Caesarea in Mauretania Caesariensis (ILS 2738 = PME I,IV,V, A44). The text reads: P. Aelio P. fil. Palati/na Marciano / praef. coh. I Augustae / Bracarum / praeposito n. Illyricorum / trib. coh. Ael. expeditae / praef. al. Aug. II Thracum / praeposito al. gemin. / Seba[sten.] / praeposito classis / Syriacae et Augustae / praef. classis Moesiaticae / C. Caesius Marcellus / veter. ex dec. / al. II Thracum
His career has been dated to the years following the death of Hadrian.26 Recently a later date has been suggested for his career. It has been pointed out that the nomen and filiation of Marcianus coupled with the tribe Palatina would suggest that he was the son or the grandson of a freedman.27 Thus the post of praepositus of the fleets of Syria and Egypt at Caesarea in Mauretania Caesariensis would belong to the reign of Marcus when the Moors invaded Baetica.28 This later dating is also supported by his post of praeposito n. Illyricorum. This unit was converted into an ala at some time after AD 140 (RMD I 39) and before the third century when it is recorded as such on two tombstones (AE 1992, 1472; VI 3234).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.