My Final Conversation with Professor Roger Tomlin Concerning Armoricos Vs. Armenios on the L. Artorius Castus Memorial Stone

    Model of the acropolis of Artaxata,

           ancient capital of Armenia

"Roger,

I still think you are right about Armenia and Castus.

Armenia was its own separate kingdom. While it had a Roman client king sitting on the throne everything was fine. When the Parthians replaced him and killed a bunch of Roman soldiers, the kingdom became an enemy. Someone you would go against (adversus) with a military force.

But, Armorica was part of the Roman province of Gallia Lugdunensis. Deserters formed the core of the enemy in this case, and archaeology shows they were devastating the province. Rome's job was pretty much a police action, designed to save lives and property and restore order to the province. So they were only going against the deserters, not against the Armoricans themselves. Chances are the deserters were not themselves Armorican, but were originally from elsewhere and merely stationed in Gaul. Why, then, would Castus have said he was going against the Armoricans?

Furthermore, Dio's account of the march of the 1,500 British spearmen on Rome is presented as solely dedicated to the removal of Perennis. No mention of its connection with the Deserters' War is made. John S. McHugh in his THE EMPEROR COMMODUS: GOD AND GLADIATOR reminds us that "The three legates [removed from their posts], important senators in their own right, would have to cross Gaul which was in the midst of massive unrest with an army of deserters, slaves and criminals on the loose.  Such a party would need a large bodyguard to cross the war zone as their number, 1,500, is large for a vexillation but it was known they would be likely to be involved in combat."  In other words, there is no reason to conjure military action in Armorica when Dio's narrative is fine just the way it is.  

When I combine this with

1) The British governor Statius Priscus going to lead the Armenian campaign,

2) The possibly pronounced Dalmatian connections between Julius Severus, Statius Priscus and Castus,

3) The very probable (pretty much proven) early foundation date for the Liburnian province,

4) The many references to Armenia found on stones, as compared to none with Armorica,

5) The better fit on the stone for Armenia than Armorica,

and

6) The superior word recognition of Armenia over Armorica among Romans of the period, especially those in Dalmatia,

there is not much left to recommend Armorica.

Reasonable assessment?"

Professor Tomlin's response?

"I think so – bearing in mind that I am committed to Armenia!"

NOTE:

The proposed reading of ARMATOS, 'armed men', is no longer being considered. This term is so vague as to be meaningless and Castus would never have put such on his stone. That whoever his legionary detachments were fighting happaned to be armed would be assumed by everyone.  ARMATOS fails to identify the opposing fighting force and where that force was located.  It is, therefore, a wholly unacceptable reading.