LAC RIDES AGAIN (SIGH) or A READER URGES ME TO RECONSIDER THE ARMENIAN CAMPAIGN BASED UPON THE FOUNDATION DATE OF LIBURNIA

Every once in a while, out of the blue, a reader finds some of my long lost articles on Lucius Artorius Castus and takes me to task for them.  Usually, it's someone associated with Linda Malcor (whose new book with John Matthews ignores anything and everything I have discovered concerning their beloved LAC) and those remonstrations I have learned (painfully) to ignore.  But sometimes a comment is supportive or even is uttered so forcefully and with so much conviction as to spur me on to take positive action.  Rarely do such make me actually totally change my mind, of course.  But... that has been known to happen.  Unlike some of my detractors, I have altered my Arthurian theory whenever I thought it was necessary to do so.  Sometimes this means admitting you have been caught with your britches down. 

Recently, I received this from a party who has asked to remain anonymous, and it was forwarded to me through a friend (as I have found it prudent to block most other means of contacting me):

"Dear Dr. Hunt [NOTE: I do not carry an advanced degree!], I was struck by your pieces on the most probable foundation date of Liburnia and the relationship of that founding with L. Artorius Castus.  That Statius Priscus, a British governor, was sent to Armenia, certainly allows for Artorius having been sent there as well. Given that Artorius is the only procurator of Liburnia we know of, it makes sense to have him appointed at the time of the reorganization of Dalmatia under Aurelius and Verus.  You also showed through numerous excellent pieces that all of Artorius' ranks could easily have been held in this earlier period, i.e. we don't need to stick him later, say from Commodus on. There are precedents for all of them being held at the right time or even earlier.  Yet you eventually abandoned this very neat picture for the questionable account of the British units sent after Perennis in Rome. I realize your early medieval Arthur's possible presence at Ribchester of the Sarmatians, and the apparent Northern scope of the Arthurian battles led you to reach this conclusion, but is is possible that you were right before - that Sawyl is merely a poetic honorific for Uther Pendragon/Illtud?  Perhaps we don't need to look to Sawyl of Ribchester as Arthur's father, and can accept Illtud instead?  I mean, Uther Pendragon of the Elei/Eli, as you have definitively shown, is a Cymracized version of the Latin ranks given to Illtud.  Do we really have to go the Sarmatian route - which aligns you dangerously with a certain crazy theorist whose name I will not utter? I would urge you to please reconsider your current position, as I think your Illtud theory was quite brilliant and, I feel, in my humble opinion, correct.  You need only show how Arthur's battles fit in to a more centrally located Arthur, and commit to your fix of Illtud's Llydaw (River Leadon) in what had been part of the kingdom of the Dobunni.  Anyway, I thank you for your time and patience, and I hope that I have not offended you in any way by prompting you to take another hard look at ARMENIOS versus ARMORICOS in the Artorius inscription."

And there it is!  Principally, the author of that missive was referring to these articles:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-date-of-lucius-artorius-castuss.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-problem-of-liburnia-lucius-artoris.html

But as for the material underlying those, and subsequent studies, well, there is simply too much to rehash.  Other than to remark upon the truthfulness of what the anonymous writer is stating in regards to the the relationship of the Armenian campaign to the formation of Liburnia, and the perfectly plausible insertion of LAC (with his various ranks) into both events.

So how to answer this person? Indeed, should I answer this person?  I'm no longer researching or writing, and had - so I thought - put Arthur behind me. That's not to say that I don't have lingering doubts about my Arthurian theory.  It wouldn't still be a theory if I didn't!  It would be proven historical fact, which it decidedly is not.

I suppose the only thing I have to say is this: that Statius Priscus went to Armenia on an emergency footing, and may well have taken some troops with him, is quite likely.  No less an authority on the matter than Professor Roger Tomlin still holds to this view.  We know troops were sent at this time to Armenia from the Rhine and Danube. 

It is also extremely probable - I would almost say certain - that Liburnia was formed when Dalmatia was reorganzied under Aurelius and Verus.  This would have been the perfect time to place LAC over the new province as procurator. While attempts have been made for the late foundation of Liburnia (either during the late phases of the Marcomannic Wars or even after), none are in the least bit convincing and only seem reasonable when the early date - the only extant reference to the reorganization of Dalmatia - is summarily dismissed.

Both ARMENIOS and ARMORICOS (as I have demonstrated) fit fine on LAC's stone.  But ARMORICOS would be the only known use of the term in an inscription, and the term is rarely found in the literary sources.  Armenia is mentioned many times in all media.  All in all, simply from the standpoint of statistical chance, ARMENIOS is, therefore, a better candidate than ARMORICOS.  

It is true that the distance of Britain from Armenia would seem to highly favor Armorica as the place where LAC took his troops, and we do have the (possibly spurious) account of the three legionary detachments going to Rome to destroy Perennis.  I have suggested that the account of these troops is confused.  That in reality they were fighting in Armorica during the Deserters' War, and it was an escort/'honor guard detached from this force that brought the disgruntled British legates to Rome.

Tomlin thinks LAC's fame would be more easily derived from his role in the Armenia campaign, and that people in Dalmatia would be unlikely to know about or care much about an action in Armorica.  He also thinks that if the action in Armorica were against Maternus, either the latter's name, his 'enemy of the state' status or his forces (by the usual derogatory terms) would have been referred to. The Deserters' War appears to have ranged from Gaul to Germany and even to Spain, and Armorica in that context would be too specific a locative for the conflict. 

That is the best I can do, really. As is so often the case with fragmentary stones, we often must simply throw up our hands and admit defeat.  The alternative is to choose to believe this or that, but when one goes in that direction the only things guaranteed to afflict us are bias, irrationality, fanaticism and cognitive dysfunction.