NOTE:
After showing this piece to Professor Roger Tomlin, he responded:
After showing this piece to Professor Roger Tomlin, he responded:
"An attractive guess, but you can only count it as a possible source of muddle."
***
Pannonia Inferior
For a long time now, the two primary contenders for the reading of the fragmentary ARM[...]S on the L. Artorius Castus stone have been either ARMORICOS or ARMENIOS. A more recently proposed ARMATOS has been shown to be not viable.
There are problems with ARMORICOS. Firstly, this term for the Celtic tribes living along the sea in what it now Brittany is rarely found in Classical sources. And some of these rare instances are from sources much later than the 2nd century. From https://docshare.tips/
Ar[e]morica Caesar BG 5,53,6; 7,75,4; Aremorica Pliny 4, 31; gentis Aremoricae Auson. 11, 10.28 (Profess.); Aremoricus 25, 10.14 (Techn.); 27, 3.35 (Epist.); Rutil. Namat. 1, 213; Armorici Eutrop. 9, 21; 'Aρµόριχος Zosim. 6,5,3; etc. ‘Land (situated) facing the sea’, are- mori- -ica.
As Tomlin once remarked, very few Dalmatians, in seeing ARMORICOS on LAC's stone, would know the place, while probably all of them would know all abou ARMENIOS.
Armenia is mentioned many times in the sources, and forms of the word are common in inscriptions. And, indeed, the term ADVERSUS ARMENIOS - exactly what we would have on Castus's stone - is found in Tacitus. What follows are some examples of Armenios from the sources themselves:
'ADVERSUS ARMENIOS' from Tacitus' ANNALS 13:37:
At Tiridates super proprias clientelas ope Vologaesi fratris adiutus, non furtim iam, sed palam bello infensare Armeniam, quosque fidos nobis rebatur, depopulari, et si copiae contra ducerentur, eludere hucque et illuc volitans plura fama quam pugna exterrere. igitur Corbulo, quaesito diu proelio frustra habitus et exemplo hostium circumferre bellum coactus, dispertit vires, ut legati praefectique diversos locos pariter invaderent. simul regem Antiochum monet proximas sibi praefecturas petere. nam Pharasmanes interfecto filio Radamisto quasi proditore, quo fidem in nos testaretur, vetus adversus Armenios odium promptius exercebat. tuncque primum inlecti Moschi, gens ante alias socia Romanis, avia Armeniae incursavit. ita consilia Tiridati in contrarium vertebant, mittebatque oratores, qui suo Parthorumque nomine expostularent, cur datis nuper obsidibus redintegrataque amicitia quae novis quoque beneficiis locum aperiret, vetere Armeniae possessione depelleretur. ideo nondum ipsum Volgaesen commotum, quia causa quam vi agere mallent; sin perstaretur in bello, non defore Arsacidis virtutem fortunamque saepius iam clade Romana expertam. ad ea Corbulo, satis comperto Volgaesen defectione Hyrcaniae attineri, suadet Tiridati precibus Caesarem adgredi: posse illi regnum stabile et res incruentas contingere, si omissa spe longinqua et sera praesentem potioremque sequeretur.
We can find ARMENIOS in other Classical authors. Here are several examples I found after doing a brief search:
Armenios Cilicasque feros Taurumque subegi (Line 594)
per Armenios et Cappadocas occidentem petit (66)
Tibullus
iactat odoratos vota per Armenios
Tactius Annals II (second occurence of the word in Tacitus)
ed praeverti ad Armenios instantior cura fuit
Ammianus Marcellinus (admittedly, a later author), Book XXXI, 2, 17-25
"itidemque Armenios discurrentes et Mediam
Florus 1.47.4
Armenios etiam et Britannos
That Armenia was very far away from Britain, and that we could not demonstrate that any British units had ever been sent more than half the distance or so between Britan and Armenia (something that I myself showed), has often been used as "proof" that British troops could not possibly have been sent to Armenia. However, the British goveror Statius Priscus went there, and it has been surmised that he went up the Rhine and down the Danube, gathering troops as he went. If the commander can go, then so, too, can some hastily assembled legionary forces from the province he had just governed. There is really nothing unreasonable in this assertion.
When it comes to my efforts (and those of several scholars before me) to utilize a reading of ARMORICOS to designate action in the Deserters' War, which was going on in Germany, Spain and Gaul (including the Gallie Lugdunensis of which Armorica was a part), we run into another problem. It was best pointed out by Roger Tomlin who said, simply, that other than Maternus (the leader of the revolt) -
"There are so many specific terms he might have used: DEFECTORES, REBELLES, LATRONES, HOSTES PVBLICOS, PRAEDONES, even DESERTORES."
In other words, if Castus had come to the Continent to fight against the deserters, why not say so? Why say he was fighting against Armorica?
On the other hand, the search for an ARM[...]S term that works to describe the march of the 1,500 spearmen to Rome ends up being a futile exercise. To begin with, grave problems surrounding Dio's account of this British mission to oust Perennis have been levied by a great many highly respected scholars. Roger Tomlin said -
"I find the whole story difficult. Here are 1500 men, a tenth of the legionary establishment in Britain, walking half-way across Europe to complain of how their generals have been appointed. It is mutiny for one thing, and who chooses their leader? And will he be a senior equestrian himself? And how do you march 1500 men all that way without official warrant? Did they simply seize food and billets every time they stopped for the night?"
I tried to provide an adequate explanation for account for such difficulties
(https://mistshadows.blogspot.
Was there any way I could make sense of the story of the 1,500 British spearmen - and in such a way as to finally, once and for all, allow us to dispense with ARMORICOS as a possible reading for the ARM[...]S of the inscription?
Well, I was re-reading John S. McHugh's book THE EMPEROR COMMODUS: GOD AND GLADIATOR. In particular, I needed to reacquaint myself with what he had to say on the Perennis affair. And I found something of interest - something that made me feel stupid for not having noticed it before. The following passages are taken from his work:
What this new information meant to me was that we could have our British soldiers in the Perennis story without having them come from Britain.
How?
Well, it will be noted above in McHugh's discussion of the Perennis affair that Plotianus, and perhaps Perennis' son as well, were stationed in Pannonia Inferior. As it happens, so was a well-known unit that had been raised in Britain and bore a name designating it as such.
I would refer my readers to this article by Valerie Maxfield, The Ala Britannica, Dona and Peregrini
Valerie A. Maxfield, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 52 (1983), pp. 141-150:
According to Maxfield, this unit, originally raised in Britain, was under Trajan "sent east from its base in Lower Pannonia." It was in Amaseia in Pontus and in Emona. Another British unit, the cohors I Brittonum, was "probably moved east from its base in Dacia to participate in the war of Marcus and Verus." Maxfield's summary of the ala's history reads as follows:
Other scholars discuss this unit in some detail. See, for example,
https://www.academia.edu/
of which I paste below only a fraction of the information provided on this unit.
3.2.1. Ala I Britannica
History
The ala was mentioned for the first time in Tacitus’ Histories (III 41) in his
description of the events in AD 69, the Year of Four Emperors. Tacitus (Hist. III 15, 22)
tells us that before the second battle at Cremona, in the autumn of AD 69, the forces of
Vitellius consisted of “reinforcement from Britain, Gaul and German” and “detachments
from three British legions” (the 2nd, 9th and 20th). Moreover, after the battle, Vitellius’
general Valens “asked for help and received three cohorts together with the cavalry
regiment from Britain” (Tacitus Hist. III 41; Morgan 2006, 220). This cavalry regiment
is considered to be ala I Britannica, a British unit that took the side of Vitellius in the
Civil wars. Moreover, it is known that a British unit was in Rome for the suppression of
the revolt of Vindex in AD 68 (Tacitus Hist. I 6; Murison 1993, 13), which culminated
with the battle at Vesontio, modern Besançon, in the same year (Murison 1993, 21;
Morgan 2006, 22-24).
Tacitus writes (Hist. I 6) that after the death of Nero, the newly proclaimed Emperor
Galba, on entering Rome in AD 68, noticed that “[…] the capital was crowded with a
quite unusual garrison. In addition, there were numerous drafts from Germany, Britain
and the Balkans”. The British draft was the very same unit that had taken part in the
battle of Vesontio in the previous months (Tactitus Hist. I 6). What happened with the
unit after the assassination of Galba in the first month of AD 69 is unknown. It would be
logical to think that the unit joined the forces of Otho in Rome and during the battle at
Cremona fought on the side of Otho’s generals. However, the ala is mentioned as being
57
part of Vitellius’ forces in late AD 69, which suggests that it joined Vitellius’ army. Was
this ala in the forces of Vitellius the same unit/detachment as the one in the army of
Nero and later Galba? I would argue that this is highly unlikely. According to Tacitus
(Hist. I 60-61), when Vitellius was proclaimed the new Emperor in Lower Germany
after the assassination of Galba he received support from the legions and units stationed
in Britain, although “the detachments would arrive only after the campaign against Otho
had been won” (Morgan 2006, 81). Probably this was when, after Vitellius had gained
power in April AD 69, “the cavalry regiment from Britain” was formed. What happened
with the British detachments in Rome Tacitus does not tell us, but it is likely that they
joined Otho’s forces as did other units in Rome (Murison 1993, 105; Morgan 2006, 101-
102). This actually mean that there were two cavalry regiments: one, which was raised
ca AD 68 or before that; another – specially for Vitellius’ forces in AD 69.
What happened with the British regiment(s) after the Vitellian forces were defeated
Tacitus does not tell us. Both units would have had a choice of either joining once more
Otho’s forces (Murison 1993, 105; Morgan 2006, 101-102), or Cerialis, Vespasian’s
general (Kennedy 1977, 252). The latter is more likely due to the presence of the
(joined?) unit in Upper Germany in the 70-80s transferred there together with Cerialis’
forces who had fought against Civilis during the Batavian revolt of AD 69 – 70 (Lörincz
1979, 357-358; 2001, 16). This can be supported by evidence for the service of two
soldiers whose origins lay in this province (II.1 – Sequanus soldier; II. 3 – a soldier from
Mainz)131. The Batavian revolt of AD 69 – 70 might have triggered the relocation of
forces previously stationed in northern Italy in the aftermath of the Civil wars to the
lands of Upper and Lower Germany (Strobel 1988, 178).
After the Batavian revolt the unit could have been transferred for some time back to
Britain as is evident from the occurrence a military diploma found in Britain (I. 2),
plausibly issued for the army of Pannonia. Tully (2005, 380-381) has convincingly
argued that this diploma was issued to a Briton, who, after 25 years of serving in the
unit, preferred to return after AD 102 from Pannonia, where the unit was located at that
time, to his home in Britain. Following this line of arguments, this Briton must have
been recruited ca AD 77. This further suggests that between the years of ca AD 70 – 80
the ala was indeed relocated to Britain for some time and that at that period it accepted
local, i.e. British-born, recruits. The archaeological evidence (discussed below) in a way
also points to the same conclusion, though it must be emphasised that, at present, the
conclusion is too tentative to be considered in its own right.
The unit was probably back once more to Upper Germany during the campaigns of
Domitian in this area, i.e. the Chattian Wars of AD 82 – 83 (Kennedy 1977, 252). This
can be supported by the imperial gentilicia of the three soldiers, who were plausibly
granted citizenship in the aftermath of these wars (Titi Flavii - II. 1-3)
132
In the early 80s Domitian started to strengthen the frontiers of the Danube after the
attacks of the Dacians on Moesia and ordered additional troops into the area (Jones B.
1992, 137 mentions three diplomas of AD 80, 84 and 85). In the preparations for the
upcoming war, the ala was also transferred to Pannonia, but after AD 85, since it is not
mentioned on the diplomas issued between the years of AD 80 – 85 from the army of
Pannonia133 and due to the unit’s participation in the Chattian Wars. The epigraphic
record indicates that, while being stationed in Pannonia, the unit took part in expeditio
Germanica, AD 89 – 96 (Lörincz 2001, 16; Tully 2005, 379).
The ala was part of the support troops during the first Dacian War, AD 101 – 102,
since it is attested as being part of the army of Pannonia in AD 102 (I. 1-2), and probably
took an active service134 in the second, AD 105 – 106 (II. 6 Lörincz 1979, 358, 2001, 16;
Tully 2005, 379; Ilkić 2009, 150). It is unknown if the unit returned to Pannonia
immediately after the wars ended or was for sometime stationed in the new province,
because on diplomas issued on the same day in AD 110 (I. 3-4) the ala is attested as
being part of the army of Dacia and Pannonia Inferior at the same time. Spaul (1994, 71)
suggests that this was either a mistake of the engraver or an indication for the relocation
of the unit from one province to another. Some researchers, following up on the ideas of
Radnóti and Barkóczi (1951, 195) and Lörincz (1977b, 363; 2001, 157), believe that
there were two alae with the title I Britannica (Tentea and Matei-Popescu 2002-2003,
263; Holder 2006a, 144; Matei 2006, 57). Indeed, on the diploma issued for the army of
Dacia the unit appears without the title milliaria and the epithets Flavia Augusta (I. 3),
while on the Pannonian diploma it has all these designations (I. 4). It is therefore
suggested that the later unit was stationed in Pannonia, took part in the Dacian Wars and
after they ended, returned to Pannonia Inferior (Tentea and Matei-Popescu 2002-2003,
263; Holder 2005, 82, 2006a, 144 supposes that this ala was mentioned for the first time
on the diploma issued for the army of Pannonia in AD 71 and mistakenly recorded as ala
I Brittonum, RMD V 324). The former unit was also in Pannonia, took part in the Dacian
Wars and was still present in Dacia as late as AD 123 (here I. 10-11; RMD 21, 22;
Lörincz 1977b, 366; Tentea and Matei-Popescu 2002-2003, 263; Holder 2005, 82).
What happened with this unit after AD 123 is unknown, but it was no longer mentioned
as part of the army of Dacia or any other provinces (Ciongradi et al. 2009, 210). The
absence of any further evidence for the service of the second ala with the title ala I
Britannica civium Romanorum casts doubt that there were two alae with a similar title.
What is certain is that the ala I Flavia Augusta Britannica milliaria was recruiting
in Pannonia Inferior in AD 110: an Eravisci soldier was discharged in AD 135 after 25
years of service, which places his recruitment in AD 110 or earlier (Roxan 1999, 254).
In AD 114 the unit was sent on a mission, but returned to the province by AD 123 at
the latest (I. 10-11). This period coincides with the Parthian War of Trajan, AD 114 –
117, and two inscriptions from Turkey (II. 7-8) support an idea that the ala took part in
this war (Radnóti and Barkóczi 1951, 195; Kennedy 1977, 252; Mitford 1980, 1197;
1997, 143, note 34; Maxfield 1983, 148; Roxan 1999, 254; Lörincz 1979, 358; 2001, 16;
Tully 2005, 380). Roxan (1999, 254) was convinced that the ala returned to Pannonia
Inferior in the early 20s of the second century AD, since the unit accepted local, Eravisci
and Azali, recruits around that date (I. 19 and 20). Lörincz (1979, 358; 2001, 16),
however, suggests that the ala returned immediately after the war came to an end, i.e. in
AD 117/118 (Tully 2005, 380 also follows this idea).
Table 3.1 Position of ala I Britannica AD 69 Flavian dynasty Dacian Wars Early second century Late second century Third century Detachments Northern Italy Britain (ca AD 70 – 80) ? Germania Superior (ca AD 70 (?) – 86) Pannonia (AD 86 – 105) Pannonia (until AD 105) Dacia (AD 105 – 106) Pannonia Inferior (AD 110 – 252) Pannonia Inferior (AD 110 – 252) Pannonia Inferior (AD 110 – 252) Syria (AD 252 - ?) Parthian Wars (AD 114 – 117) Mauretania Caesariensis / Moorish wars (AD 149)
ETC.
The important thing to note is that this unit, bearing a British name, was present in Pannonia Inferior when Plotianus was its governor, and a son of Perennis perhaps a legate of a legion.
Given that this is so, I think I can now safely outline what really happened during the Perennis affair.
No British soldiers were sent from Britain to Rome. Instead, some of the soldiers sent to Rome from Pannonia Inferior were members of the Ala Britannica. Or it was simply known that some of the soldiers under Plotianus' control and perhaps even commanded by Perennis' son belonged to a "British" unit. Dio had this information, but confused the soldiers of the Ala Britannica for soldiers from Britain proper. Spearmen or lancers need not be a reference to infantry soldiers, for Roman cavalrymen carried lanceae.
We can, of course, look upon the presence of the Ala Britannica in Plotianus' Pannonia Inferior as merely a coincidence, and thereby discount its relevance. Or, we can reconcile the two accounts of the Perennis affair by allowing the "British" spearmen to be not soldiers coming from Britain, but instead a force hailing from Pannonia Inferior, or one known to be present in the army of Pannonia Inferior.
This would not have been a difficult confusion to make, as there were problems going on in Britain and it would be natural to want to attach those to the Fall of Perennis. But those problems probably did not involve the replacement of legates with equestrians, but rather had more to do with the failure to pay a donative to the troops after victories were achieved (something McHugh mentions). While unrest is unrest, and mutiny had to quelled in Britain, it makes a lot more sense to see in the Fall of Perennis something much closer to Rome and involving the family of Perennis itself. And we can have both if we allow for Plotianus to be the ultimate causative agent in the execution of the Praetorian Prefect.
If I'm right about this, then the ARM[...]S on the Castus stone must read ARMENIOS. For British legionary vexillations never came from Britain to Rome (or to Gaul) during the reign of Commodus. We no longer have to worry about defaulting to an unsatisfactory ARMORICOS.
NOTE:
The author of the Plotianus article, Prof. Cristina De Ranieri, who first suggested a connection between this governor of Pannonia Inferior and Perennis, has promised to send me a scanned version of her paper on the subject. I will try to incorporate that into any required revision of this blog post.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.