SHORT STATEMENT ON WHY I FINALLY SETTLED ON THE 'ARMENIOS' READING FOR THE L. ARTORIUS CASTUS MEMORIAL STONE

For a few years now, I have worked feverishly on determining the best possible reading for the fragementary 'ARM[...]S on the LAC inscription.  What follows in a summary of my reasons for preferring ARMENIOS, as opposed to either ARMORICOS or ARMATOS.

ARMORICOS -

It can be made to fit on the stone, with the right ligatures

(see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lucius-artorius-castus-stone-with_14.html).  But it does not work in any other way.  There is no independent record of a British force going to Armorica (which at the time should have been spelled AREMORICAE, at any rate). If we adopt ARMORICOS as the reading, we must be talking about the Deserters' War which happened during the reign of Commodus.  A lot has been written on this event, but what we can say it that while Gaul was involved in the conflict (as was Spain and Germany), ARMORICOS is not a word LAC would have used in this context.  We know that the army of Maternus came to be classified as 'hostes publici'

 (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351783693_Emperor_Commodus%27_%27Bellum_desertorum%27), 'enemy of the Roman state.'  This would have made the most sense, but he could also have used any number of specific terms, from Maternus' name itself to descriptions such as latrones or deserteres.  Lastly, Commodus is said to have demanded forces been raised in opposition to Maternus only from those provinces affected by the rebellion.  Britain was not one of those provinces.  There is simply no reason for LAC to have resorted to ARMORICOS if we are talking about the Deserters' War.

ARMATOS -

Considered ridiculous by every good epigrapher and military historian I have consulted.  The phrase 'armed men' is simply too vague, non-specific and out of character with the detail found in the rest of the LAC stone.  He would no more say that he was taking detachments of three British legions against armed men than he would say he was taking them against INERMES, 'unarmed men.'  That his enemy was armed would be assumed by anyone reading the memorial stone.  Several other very specific terms were available to him ('hostes/publici', 'defectores', 'rebelles', or even 'desertores'), as well as regional designations or personal names.  We can't apply ARMATOS to the army of Maternus, and we can't apply it to the Praetorians of Perennis (who, in any case, were never engaged in battle by the 1500 British spearmen).  We can't apply it to Britain as a matter of internal security, for once again a specific term would have been used, most probably a tribal designation or something regularly used of mutinous troops. Proponents of the ARMATOS idea insist that this word is used in many Latin literary sources, yet in each and every cited instance context clearly shows who the armed men are or, at least, where they are (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/11/my-rebuttal-of-antonio-trincheses.html).  Such is not the case with the LAC inscription. This proposed reading must be abandoned as utterly wrong.

ARMENIOS -

The only workable reading for ARM[...]S.  We know Statius Priscus, the Roman governor of Britain, was sent to Armenia on an emergency basis.  It would have been quite reasonable for him to have taken some soldiers with him, as we know troops were taken from the Rhine and the Danube.  Those who quibble about the distance are the same group who have no problem with 5,500 Sarmatians being taken almost as far in the opposite direction.  And I have aptly demonstrated that these kinds of movements of vexillations did happen (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/12/vexillations-sent-from-britain-to-fight.html).  In addition, the military reorganization of Dalmatia occurred under Marcus and Verus shortly after the Armenian War, and this is the only time we know of for Liburnia being founded as a geopolitical entity distinct from Dalmatia.  As one of the chief tasks of a provinicial procurator was recruitment, and that's what was going on at the onset of the Marcomannic Wars in Dalmatia, we can be fairly sure this was the time LAC was appointed to his Liburnian procutorship.  

Anthony Birley (THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN, 2005) accepted ARMENIOS, although he believed at the time this referred to action by British troops under either Caracalla or Alexander Severus: 

"However, the improved reading by Loriot shows that Arme[nio]s, the

Armenians, must be restored in line 7. Hence the context is an eastern expedition,

most probably either under Caracalla in 215 (cf. Dio 77. 21) or Severus

Alexander.⁸¹

⁸¹ X. Loriot, BSNAF (1997), 855ff., refers to the photograph published by J. Medini, Diadora, 9

(1980), 363ff. For operations in Armenia under Severus Alexander he cites IGR i. 623=ILS 8851,

Tomi."

Near the end of his life, however, he admitted that Tomlin has it right in selecting Statius Priscus instead (personal communication).  The dates for Caracalla and Alexander are far too late to allow Castus to have become procurator over the newly formed Liburnia in the late 160s.  Furthermore, Tomlin has pointed out that 

"The British legions contributed to Caracalla's German campaign, to judge by RIB 369, but I don't know any evidence that they contributed further east. Nor, I think, does Birley. He would surely have said so. I would agree with Martin Henig that the stone is second-century, not third."

Henig himself (https://www.classics.ox.ac.uk/people/revd.professor-martin-henig) had told me 

“I've now had a chance to look at the objects in question.  I fully trust Roger's [Tomlin] verdict with regard to the dating of the inscription and the carving of the letters. Generally speaking, it certainly looks firmly 2nd century to me. As for the vegetal decoration, I would equally say that the shape of the flowers and tendril ornament do not support a date later than, roughly, the mid-2nd century AD (which includes the 160s). Although the pieces come from a provincial context, the ornament does not show any of the characteristics which we would expect for the Severan and later periods (i.e. a lot of drill-work and sharp contours).”

If ARMENIOS is the actual reading of ARM[...]S, then we can be sure L. Artorius Castus had nothing whatsoever to do with the Sarmatians in Britain, as he simply wasn't there when they were.  Any theory seeking to account for the Arthurian tradition that relies on Castus' presence in Britain with the Sarmatians is invalid and should be rejected.