CIL 03, 03228 (http://lupa.at/11536)
Because there has been continued resistance to the notion that L. Artorius Castus could have taken legionary vexillations to Armenia, I have been advised to research any known instances of the sending of other British vexillations to the Continent. We may start with the following source,
From Anthony R. Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN, p. 364:
<Under Valerian and Gallienus troops were sent from Britain to reinforce the
Rhine and Danube armies at the time of barbarian invasions and civil wars:
CIL xiii. 6780=A. v. Domaszewski, Westd. Ztschr. 18 (1899), 218 f., Mainz: [milites] leg(ionis) XX pro
sal(ute) | canabe(nsium) ex v[o]|to pos[uerunt] regr(essi) [ad] 4| can[ab(as) ab expedit]|ione VI Kal(endas)
[ . . . Vale]|riano III et G[allieno co(n)s(ulibus)].
The soldiers of the Twentieth Legion, set this up in accordance with their vow for the welfare
of the dwellers in the canabae, having returned to the canabae from the expedition, on the sixth
day before the Kalends of . . . , Valerian for the third time and Gallienus being the consuls (255).
CIL iii. 3228.=ILS 546=CIL iii. 2328, Sirmium: [I(ovi) o(ptimo)] m(aximo] | monitori [p]ro salute
adque 4| incolumitate d(omini) n(ostri) Gallieni Aug(usti) | et militum vexil(lationum) legg. (legionum) |
[G]ermanicianar[r(um) 8| e]t Britannici(a)n(arum) | [cu]m auxilis [e]arum | . . . [V]italianus, | [pro]tect(or)
Aug(usti) n(ostri), | [somnio mon]itus, 12| [praepo]situs, | [v(otum)?] p(osuit).
To Jupiter, Best and Greatest, Monitor, for the welfare and safety of our Lord Gallienus
Augustus and of the soldiers of the vexillations of the German and British legions, with their
auxilia, . . . Vitalianus, protector of our Emperor, commander, set up his vow?
The British legionaries are not recorded on Gallienus’ legionary coins and are
thought to have returned to Britain before these were issued.¹¹⁷ However,
those recorded at Sirmium, evidently under Gallienus as sole emperor,
between 260 and 268, may have been absorbed into other units: they could
have hardly returned to Britain after it fell into Postumus’ hands.¹¹⁸>
It is also now the consensus that British troops went to Germany, and then returned home. For a discussion of the inscription which informs us of this, see https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1322. I am citing the scholarly opinions concerning this stone here:
<Addenda from RIB+add. (1995):
The mason also omitted R in pr(aetore). When detachments were drawn from more than one legion, the plural was used: vexillarii or vexillationes. In normal usage vexillatio followed by the name of a unit means a detachment of [not ‘for’] that unit. (In the context of Julius Verus’ governorship, when there was trouble in northern Britain, this creates a problem.) Wilkes notes that vexillarii is the earlier term; this seems to be the first epigraphic instance of vexillatio, and confusion may have resulted.
There have been four attempts to emend or explain:
i. EX(ERCITIBVS) GER(MANICIS) DVOBVS Wilkes, ‘(contributed) to the two German armies’. ii. Birley Fasti, citing Wilkes but understanding ‘(contributed) from the two German armies’. iii. by haplography (EX) EX(ERCITIBVS) GER(MANICIS) DVOBVS Bogaers, ‘(contributed) from the two German armies’, re-stated by Frere, but dismissed as far-fetched by Haverfield in EE ix. iv. EX(ERCITIBVS) GER(MANICIANIS) DVOBVS Speidel, ‘(contributed) to the two German armies’ [and now returning], a possibility noted by Wilkes but thought to conflict with con(t)r(i)buti.
(iv) is the best compromise so far between the natural sense of the Latin and the historical context. It requires a previous troop-movement (from Britain to Germany), but Speidel can argue from ILS 1071 and AE 1924, 74 that a second army had been temporarily concentrated in Upper Germany. This would have been after the completion of the Antonine Wall, when northern Britain was peaceful.>
NOTE: Professor Roger Tomlin agrees with suggestion IV. In fact, what is said here in RIB is taken from Tomlin's long note at the end of the reprint/new edition of RIB in 1995 (confirmed through personal communication with Tomlin).
In BRITAIN DURING THE THIRD CENTURY CRISIS (Anthony R. Birley, pp. 45-55,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctv2gjwz64.8), the author says that the following British troops were found on the Continent:
Brittones at Walldurn Germany AD 232
AD 255 Men from the XXth at Mainz
British legionaries at Sirmium not long after that
Roger Tomlin tells me of an earlier group sent to the Continent. Details on this group can be found in
"In AD 87 – 88, the whole legion was moved from Britain to Pannonia – legio II
Aduitrix was relocated from Chester to Budapest, Hungary (Jones B.W. 1992, 132-133; Farnum 2005, 16). Together with the legio II Adiutrix various detachments taken from other legions and auxiliary units stationed at that time in Britain were also redeployed to the Continent (Strobel 1989, 80). One such detachment, ala Tampiana vexillatio Britannica, is recorded on an inscription in the legionary fortress Carnuntum, modern Bad Deutsch-Alteburg in Austria (CIL III 4466)."
Incidentally, that publication is an excellent resource in general for Britons on the Continent and beyond.
In treating of Robert Saxer's work, Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des Römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis Diokletian (Studies of the vexillations of the Roman Imperial Army from Augustus to Diocletian), Anthony Birley (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27684466#metadata_info_tab_contents) remarks that
Birley's mention of well over "42 such cases" in which the word vexillationes (or vexilla, etc.) is implied is significant. I had found one such and used it to counter the argument of Dr. Linda Malcor that vexillations could not be implied in the Castus inscription (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/10/proof-positive-that-vexillations-are.html). I now know there are many more inscriptions that clearly refer to detachments, even if the detachments in question are not specifically described.
As is evident, Birley once held that the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the Castus inscription should read ARMORICANOS. He later recanted this (personal communication), admitting that Tomlin was correct in choosing ARMENIOS instead. ARMORICANOS, at any rate, will not fit the space provided on the stone,. ARMORICOS with two ligatures, one of them rather uncommon, can be fit onto the line.
Birley furthermore says of Saxer's study
"Vexillations of the British army are dealt with on pp 65-74; pp 22-5 treat vexillations sent from Britain to fight on the Continent, and there are various other references."
***
I finally obtained a copy of Saxer (1/6/2023). The section on British legionary detachments serving abroad (as Birley stated, on pp. 22-25):
CIL 13, 12539, 7
The inscription belongs to Mirebeau bei Dijon in Germanica Superior. Roger Tomlin told me this about it:
"XIII 12539, 7 is unhelpful: one of a collection of brick-stamps by vexillations, but I can't see which one."
The inscription before that merely lists the offices of a man who had been a prefect of vexillation(s) of the XXth victricis, but also of many of legions, and this one was found in Syria. It is headed as Dessau 9200, and the man is Caio Velio Salvi son of Rufo.
Tomlin:
"Velius Rufus, as his name should be, was commander of vexillations drawn from Britain and elsewhere who campaigned far afield."
CIL XIV 3612 has a tribune leading vexillations of the IX Hispana to Germany, and I know that at some point this legion was stationed in Britain.
Tomlin:
"XIV 3612 is Roscius Aelianus, who was later suffect consul in AD 100, so his trip to Germany has been linked to Domitian's German campaign.
The Carnuntum example from modern Austria follows (the one Tomlin discussed above)."
[1]
In Anthony Birley's "Viri Militares Moving from West to East in Two Crisis Years (AD 133 and 162)",
the author echoes Tomlin's words, saying that Statius Priscus would have taken men with him to Armenia:
And for more on Statius Priscus, here is a selection from "Two Governors of Dacia Superior and Britain", also by Birley. I have elsewhere in my blog supplied the longer treatment of this man from the same author's THE ROMAN GOVERMENT OF BRITAIN.
Note in particular that Priscus had served in Britain prior to his being sent there as governor, and was likely taken by Severus from Britain to Iudaica. This would parallel Priscus taking Castus with him to Armenia.
<Julius Severus almost certainly took several officers from Britain. They included M. Statius Priscus, prefect of cohors III Lingonum, about whom more must be said presently, who was to be decorated for service in the expeditio Iudaica...
M. Statius M. fil. Claudia Priscus Licinius Italicus (cos. ord. 159)
Finally, one must turn to Statius Priscus, most of whose long career was under Antoninus Pius.69 After his prefecture of the cohors IIII Lingonum in Britain, which he may have taken to Judaea, his further service in the equestrian militiae included three legionary tribunates, one or perhaps two of them in Judaea during the Bar-Kochba war, followed by the prefecture of an ala in Pannonia Inferior,70 then a lowly procuratorship Gaul. It must be inferred that Antoninus Pius granted him the latus clavus. But he did not receive any remission (except that he was excused the vigintivirate), unlike many who transferred from the equestrian career to the senate at other periods, such as in the reign of Vespasian or during the Marcomannic wars. This reflects the conservatism of the reign. Priscus must have been well over thirty when he entered the senate as quaestor, and well over fifty when he became consul. Still, once he had held the compulsory Republican magistracies, he had the type of career enjoyed by men like Julius Agricola, Julius Severus, and Lollius Urbicus: only two posts, the first a legionary command, between praetorship and consulship. His governorship of Upper Dacia, attested by eight inscriptions in the province, as well as by his cursus inscription at Rome (ILS 1092), immediately preceding his consulship, is dated closely by diplomas, to 13 December 156 and 8 July 158; and a dedication made at Apulum sub M. Statio Prisco consule designato can be assigned to autumn 158. Before that he had commanded the Carnuntum legion XIV Gemina, perhaps when Claudius Maximus, the friend of M. Aurelius, was governing Upper Pannonia (he is attested there in 150 and 154). Priscus’ consulship as ordinarius for 159 was a remarkable honour for a novus homo – only one other man of comparable background, the jurist Salvius Julianus, received similar distinction during this reign. One reason in Priscus’ case was no doubt his military success in Dacia, no doubt in fighting against free Dacaians and Jazyges, as revealed by inscriptions from that province.71 After his consulship he had a brief spell as curator of the Tiber, but before the end of 160 must have become governor of Upper Moesia, where he is attested in office on 8 February 161. It may have seemed a good idea to put him back close to the region where he had won his victories in AD 158. He was still there, not surprisingly, after the death of Pius the following month, as shown by his dedication in honour of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, set up after he had been appointed to Britain. It may have been the sudden death of a recently appointed governor of Britain, or perhaps just the difficult military situation in the north of the province, that led the new Emperors to transfer Priscus there soon after their accession. As stated by the HA: ‘a British war was also threatening’ in 161 (M. Ant. Phil. 8.7), which as it turned out had to be dealt with by Priscus’ successor Sex. Calpurnius Agricola (cos. suff. 154).72 Priscus can only have spent some months in Britain when a more serious situation arose in the east: a Parthian attempt to take control of Armenia, resulting in the defeat and suicide of the governor of Cappadocia, with the loss of a legion –– perhaps it was IX Hispana ?––, then the invasion of Syria by the Parthians. Priscus was chosen to deal with this crisis, and won a major victory, capturing the Armenian capital Artaxata (HA M. Ant. Phil. 9.1, cf. Verus 7.1) and founding a new one, which he garrisoned (Dio 71.3.11). These successes allowed Lucius Verus to assume the title Armeniacus in 163. The satirist Lucian alleges that a contemporary historian described ‘how Priscus the general merely shouted out and twenty-seven of the enemy dropped dead’ (How to write history 20). Hardly serious evidence, but perhaps Priscus had an aggressive style of leadership. The choice of Priscus to be recalled from Britain to deal with a crisis in the east exactly parallels the sending of Julius Severus to Judaea thirty years earlier. Severus was described as ‘the foremost of Hadrian’s leading generals’ in that connection (Dio 69.13.3, see 21). Priscus, after his success in Dacia in the late 150s, was no doubt equally highly rated. These two cases underline the high military status of Dacia and of Britain and their governors.>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.