ARM[...]S IN THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS INSCRIPTION: THE ARGUMENT FOR ARMORICA

NOTE: Since writing this piece, I have revisited the problem of fitting ARMORICOS on the LAC stone.  The problem is that the required C-O ligature appears to be quite rare.  According to Alessandro Faggiani, he has found only a couple instances so far.  This fact combined with the otherwise quite normal lettering of the inscription leds doubt to the notion that ARMORICOS should be the intended reading - which, of course, is why Dr. Linda Malcor and associated have preferred ARMATOS.

Tomlin told me (via private communication):

"I would agree that ligature doesn't suit the style of the stone. I don't know how rare it actually is, but I would have expected it to be later, Severan at least."

And:

"There is some use of ligature, but like you, I am not happy with 'o' within 'C'. But I don't think ARMORICOS can be abbreviated, quite apart from the embarrassment that the term was properly – as you, a Celticist would know – AREMORICOS. I think if the stone-cutter was saving space, he wouldn't have used ADVERSVS. CONTRA would have saved him two letters. The use of ADVERSVS rather suggests that he wasn't using abbreviation here."

I will be continuing to work on this problem over the next few weeks.  For now, I consider the ARM[...]S question unresolved. 

ARMORICA

LAC Stone with ARMORICOS

(courtesy Alessandro Faggiani)

It has become unfashionable to consider ARMORICOS as the proper reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the LAC inscription.  This is simply because ARMENIOS is preferred - something I wrote about at length.  At one time I favored the ARMENIOS reading.  This changed when I realized I could not divest myself of the Eliwlad-Ailithir equation, something that demonstrated a connection between the sub-Roman Arthur and the Sarmatian veterans who had settled at Ribchester in the Roman period.  And so I took it upon myself to seriously consider ARMATOS, a new reading proposed by Dr. Linda Malcor and her colleagues.

Alas, after a lengthy analysis and having checked with all the best epigraphers and historians, ARMATOS simply doesn't seem to work.  

What does that mean for our understanding of LAC's military career?

Well, if I'm right and he does belong to a time when the Sarmatian troops were in Britain, the only other possible alternative is ARMORICOS.

To see if such a reading made any sense in light of current research, I consulted a fairly new book by Thomas Grunewald - Bandits in the Roman Empire Myth and Reality (Routledge, 2008).  This volume contained a good summary of research that had been done on Maternus and the Deserters' War and its localization, at least in part, in Armorica.  I here quote from the most important discussion of the geographical evidence:

https://historicalunderbelly.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/thoma-grunewald-bandits-in-the-roman-empire-myth-and-reality-2004.pdf

Crucial for deciding on the plausibility of a link between Maternus and

the Bagaudae is the question as to whether Maternus’ movement really,

as Herodian claims, covered wide parts of Gaul, the Germanies and Spain.

Scholars, deeply sceptical about what Herodian says, have long regarded

the extension of the revolt as controversial; and indeed, Herodian is not

above having inordinately exaggerated its dimensions.153 In the end, he had

to make out Maternus to be a serious challenger to Commodus. G. Alföldy

has, on the basis of epigraphical evidence, located the centre of the uprising

in Upper Germany and the dependent territory of the Agri Decumates.

Reference has already been made to the inscription honouring C. Vesnius

Vindex who, as tribune of Legio VIII, survived a ‘recent siege’. Added to this

can be the wax writing tablet from Rottweil, also already touched upon in

relationship with Maternus’ rebellion.154 This mentions sentences under

martial law (of deserters?) by M. Iuventius Caesianus, legate of Legio VIII.

Beyond the region of the upper Rhine there was, at least according to

Alföldy, no unrest connected with Maternus.155 A revolt confined to Upper

Germany can scarcely be seen as the expression of a protest movement across

Gaul and even beyond.

Meanwhile, archaeological finds have continued to stimulate discussion.

As early as 1956, S. Szádeczky-Kardoss, on the basis of coin hoards, pointed

to destruction at Juliobona, at the mouth of the Seine, previously dated to

the reign of Marcus Aurelius, as an indication of the Bellum Desertorum.

156 In 1982, G. Mangard published his reconstruction of the building inscription

of a temple in Bois l’Abbé (Eu, Haute-Normandie), probably constructed

during the Severan period. The dedicator, L. Cerialius Rectus, cites in the

enumeration of his municipal positions that of ‘officer in charge of controlling 

banditry’ (pra[efectus latro]cinio [arcendo]).157 Contrary to what Mangard

proposes, this post has nothing in particular to do with Maternus. It describes those 

local Gallic officials charged as a matter of course to act against

latrones. This has already been seen in Chapter 1.158 Mangard further points

to a remarkable concentration of regional coin hoards dating to late in

Commodus’ reign.159 Independent of this, on the basis of an accumulation

of archaeological evidence for serious damage in the territory of the Pictones

(south of the Loire mouth, modern Poitou), G. Ch. Picard was able to

identify a destruction horizon stratigraphically dated to the period spanning

Marcus Aurelius’ Marcommanic wars and the reign of Commodus.160 Among

other sites, the civitas-capital, Limonum (Poitiers), had suffered harm so

severe as to be explicable only as the result of war. North of the mouth of

the Loire, and so north of Pictonian territory, comes Aremorica, which

then runs along the Channel coast to the mouth of the Seine, and includes

Juliobona. Into association with the destruction sites among the Pictones G.

Ch. Picard brings possible contemporary military activity action in Aremorica

[see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/06/picards-revolt-of-maternus-rough-google.html],

as evidenced by the funerary inscription of a certain L. Artorius Castus.161

An officer who had proved himself in a number of postings, in his personal

account of his own achievements he made much of the fact that he had led

two British legions together with auxiliaries ‘against the Aremoricans’.162

On the basis of chronological indicators in the history of the Roman army in

Britain, Castus’ command is dated after 181.

Given the close chronological and geographical proximity of the unrest in

Aremorica and Maternus’ rebellion, A.R. Birley had, indeed, before Picard,

already suggested a connection between the two.163 Picard adopts this

approach, and links all locations designated as having thrown up evidence

typical of military activity – such as destruction, coin hoards and inscriptions – 

to form a theatre of war in which a single integrated conflict might

have taken place: the revolt of Maternus.

In the current state of our knowledge we can, therefore, make out a

number of different centres of military unrest in Gaul and the Germanies of

the early 180s – in Upper Germany, and north-western and western Gaul. If

all the evidence is connected to Maternus, the geographical and chronological

extent of the Bellum Desertorum emerges as very wide indeed. Herodian’s

reference, apropos the wide distribution of the trouble spots, to Gaul and

Spain, seems more trustworthy; and the idea of some sort of link between

Maternus and the Bagaudae receives significant confirmation since the evidence 

for destruction in north-west Gaul, most recently pointed up by Picard,

fits in well with the notion of this area’s being the heart of the Bagaudic

movement.

Now this series of incidents, strung together to form a chain of evidence,

may well indicate that a number of regions in the general area of Gaul and

the Germanies suffered warlike incidents under Commodus, probably the

result of military threat, political instability and social crisis (whether real

or perceived). Maternus’ rebellion may, without doubt, be seen as manifestation 

of this last. However, there is no proof that all these trouble-spots were

linked to the revolt; and, what is more, contemporary symptoms of crisis are

certainly to be found even further afield in Gaul. To name just one example:

around the time that Commodus succeeded Marcus Aurelius, Trier received

its first city wall, still evidenced by its mighty North Gate, the ‘Porta

Nigra’.164 Since Trier had been granted colonial status under Augustus, the

construction of this wall can hardly be explained symbolically – as marking

the rank of colonia. And even if the wall was built close to the time of

Maternus’ rising, without further evidence no one would dream of supposing 

that it was erected just because of it. It is more likely that ‘general

unrest on the frontiers of the Rhine and Danube made the Treveri think it

advisable to adorn their tribal capital with a circuit-wall’.165 Contributory to

this ‘general unrest’ were, no doubt, numerous smaller incidents on the lines

of that of Maternus. Together with the new Germanic threat, they increased

the severity of the coming overall ‘Crisis’ of the third century, of which they

may be said to have been the harbingers. Thus it seems unlikely, and in

any case unproven, that Maternus’ revolt grew to such a size that it extended

from the upper Rhine to the far north-west of Gaul.

The only link between Maternus and the Bagaudae is the three inscriptions of 

C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, each alike almost to the letter.166 As

commander of a detached force of men seconded from the four German

legions, under the Severi, Castinus had directed operations ‘against renegades 

and rebels’ (adversus defectores et rebelles). Given the hundred years or so

that separated Maternus and the Bagaudae, the unique evidence of this

inscription should, from the start, be called upon as a link between the two

only with great circumspection. That the renegades and rebels mentioned

were insurgent provincials, deserters, runaway slaves and other marginal

figures, who still consciously saw themselves as continuing a movement

put down in 186, is not particularly plausible and anyway lacking in hard

evidence. The suppression of a provincial uprising involving units from

four legions would probably have found greater mention in the sources.

On the other hand, the explanation that Castinus and his force proceeded

against supporters of Clodius Albinus is convincing in terms of context and

chronology.167

Since it cannot be proved that Maternus was the instigator of all unrest

indicated in Gaul and the Germanies in his period, and since Castinus’

inscriptions are questionable as linking elements, it would seem best to steer

clear of any assumption of a basic connection between Maternus and the

Bagaudae.

In the second part of his report on the activities of the deserters, Herodian

first describes Maternus’ alleged intention of overthrowing Commodus and

claiming the imperial throne for himself.168 The planning and failure of

this attempt at usurpation form the conclusion of the account.169 The initial

uprising was crushed only after the involvement of the respective provincial

governors, ordered by Commodus to take active countermeasures after 

complaining about their negligence in combating the rebellion. That Pescennius

Niger was put in charge of putting down the revolt should be seen as an

invention of the author of the Historia Augusta, to support the credibility of

his claim of friendship between Niger and Septimius Severus, at that time

governor of Gallia Lugdunensis.170 If the wax writing-tablet from Rottweil

refers to the Bellum Desertorum, it follows that in the Agri Decumates the

revolt was quelled at the latest by August 186.171 As already mentioned, this

document refers to sentences passed by Iuventius Caesianus, legate of Legio

VIII. 

Given these kinds of troubles in Armorica at this point in time, it would not be at all unreasonable for LAC to have been sent to the Continent with legionary vexillations to help deal with the problem. Whether the instigator or leader was Maternus or someone else (if we wish to restrict the former's activities to Germany) need not detain us.  What is important is that Armorica seems to have been subject to major unrest and assistance was required from across the Channel.

For me to retain the 'Sarmatian connection', I must, through process of elimination, opt to read ARM[...]S as ARMORICOS.  

This does not, obviously, help us with the 1500 spearmen who marched to Rome to destroy Perennis.  We must assume that if LAC led the spearmen, it happened after his force had finished fighting in Armorica.  This is entirely possible. The sequence of events involving Priscus, legate of the Sixth legion, and the war is difficult to parse.  I have discussed Priscus in several blog posts, most recently this one: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-problem-of-priscus-loyal-legate.html.  The case has been made that Priscus was fighting against the deserters and that he was the one who led the 1500 spearmen to Rome.  An analysis of the stones that may be related to him indicates that he may have been praepositus of some British troops after he served with the Macedonian legion.  And it was before he served with that legion that he was legate of the Sixth in Britain.

My own feeling is that Tomlin is right and the uncertain double N in the Priscus inscription may mean that these troops being led by Priscus were from German legions, not British ones.  I say this because after Priscus refused the British attempt to raise him to the purple, he would have been rewarded for his loyalty by being made legate of the Macedonian legion.  And, of course, it would have been considered wise to remove him from Britain.  To then think that he would have at some point be put back into the command of British troops makes no sense at all.  For this reason, I take him out of the British sphere as far as the praepositus rank is concerned. 

It will be noticed in the above account of the Maternus revolt that there are now thought to be chiefly two theaters in which trouble was occurring:  Germany and Armorica.  I would propose, then, that LAC was sent with British troops to help in Armorica, while Priscus was sent with German troops to help in Germany.  

If so, this leaves us with the question of who led the 1500 British spearmen to Rome.  As I have removed Priscus from the picture, there is no good reason why to not settle on LAC as the commander of this mission to remove Perennis from power. 

 

ARMATOS STILL DEEMED UNACCEPTABLE

LAC Memorial Stone Showing ARM[...]S

The verdict on the use of ARMATOS in the LAC inscription as a reference to the leading of British troops against Perennis at Rome has not been well received by the top Latin epigraphers and Roman historians.  In fact, I have failed to garnish support from even one of these scholars.  My idea was that armatos might in the context of the LAC stone represent an intentionally vague or oblique, perhaps even diplomatic effort at referring to the action that led to the execution of Perennis.

No one bought this.  If Commodus gave up his Praetorian Prefect, either being convinced of the conspiracy charges levied at Perennis or as a means of appeasing the British army, the man who had removed such a man would have declared one of two things: either he would have named the man or he would have used 'hostis publicus' or similar.  This is especially true if LAC had been rewarded for the killing of Perennis with the Procuratorship of Liburnia.  In short, we cannot reconcile his wanting to

both claim the successful mission on his stone and a need or desire to avoid naming or directly implicating Perennis.  

And we still have the same problem with ARMATOS that we've had all along: its nonspecific nature.  Yes, sure, we find the phrase ADVERSUS ARMATOS in Tacitus.  But it is found in a context that allows us to know exactly what armed men are being referred to, as well as where the armed men are to be found and who they are fighting for  Here is the relevant passage in the original Latin and in English translation.  I have highlighted the relevant passage:

TACITUS, ANNALS, I.59:

59. Fama dediti benigneque excepti Segestis vulgata, ut quibusque bellum invitis aut cupientibus erat, spe vel dolore accipitur. Arminium super insitam violentiam rapta uxor, subiectus servitio uxoris uterus vaecordem agebant, volitabatque per Cheruscos, arma in Segestem, arma in Caesarem poscens. neque probris temperabat: egregium patrem, magnum imperatorem, fortem exercitum, quorum tot manus unam mulierculam avexerint. sibi tres legiones, totidem legatos procubuisse; non enim se proditione neque adversus feminas gravidas, sed palam adversus armatos bellum tractare.

59. The report of the surrender and kind reception of Segestes, when generally known, was heard with hope or grief according as men shrank from war or desired it. Arminius, with his naturally furious temper, was driven to frenzy by the seizure of his wife and the foredooming to slavery of his wife's unborn child. He flew hither and thither among the Cherusci, demanding "war against Segestes, war against Caesar." And he refrained not from taunts. "Noble the father," he would say, "mighty the general, brave the army which, with such strength, has carried off one weak woman. Before me, three legions, three commanders have fallen. Not by treachery, not against pregnant women, but openly against armed men do I wage war. 

Armatos is so disliked by scholars that I have had Tomlin recently remark, "Did any Roman officer ever boast instead of marching against INERMES [unarmed men]?"  The problem has to do with the fact that it would have been assumed an enemy being fought against was armed and so quite unnecessary to describe one's enemy that way.

For now, I find myself in a quandary: the sub-Roman Arthur does seen to have been born at Ribchester, where the Sarmatian veterans were settled in the Roman period.  That suggests that the name Artorius had been preserved by the descendants of those settlers.  And that would have happened only if Lucius Artorius Castus had somehow been seen by the Sarmatians in Britain as a notable figure and one who was involved with them in some special way.  The possibility that the 1500 British spearmen who went against Perennis might well be Sarmatian cavalry would provide us with that connection.  

But if all this is so, what to make of ARM[...]S?  The only candidate available would appear to be ARMORICOS, and that is not entirely satisfactory, for reasons which have been discussed before.

It is possible I am wrong about the Eliwlad-Ailithir equation, of course.  And that would leave open ARMENIOS, placing LAC in Britain before the Sarmatians were sent there.  We could then not propose any association of LAC with Sarmatians.  The 1500 sent against Perennis would have been commanded by someone else - perhaps the Priscus I have discussed before in great detail.

Over the next week or so, I will be taking yet another look at ARM[...]S.  There may be other possibilities we have missed.  For example, an inscription from Dalmatia to the god Armatus reads on the first line ARMAVG S for Armatus Augustus.  Although ARM[...]S can only have a few letters missing, they could be, conceivably, letters of another abbreviated word, with ARM being separate from them.  

Stay tuned... I will post any new finding or eventual conclusion.  

THE PROBLEM OF PRISCUS THE LOYAL LEGATE: A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A FRAGMENTARY RECORD

Commodus Dressed as Hercules

Over the past several weeks I have been discussing the Priscus who is offered the purple by British troops during the reign of the Emperor Commodus.  A number of assertions have been made about this man, and some of these are being passed off as factual statements.  With Professor Roger Tomlin's help, I have gained a real appreciation for the difficulty involved in piecing together a long military career from a series of incomplete sources.  Tomlin has kindly pulled everything together and produced the following narrative, which I will comment upon later in this post.

"Our basic problem, as you know, is whether we can pull all these inscriptions together and refer them to the same man – (1) Titus Caunius Priscus, legate of III Augusta who is about to become consul (but we don't know when); (2) the legate of III Augusta called ]CO LEG[, who is in post under Commodus; (3) the consul of Commodus in c.191 who is called ]VNIO ... [...]CO. Identifying (3) with (2) depends on seeing his latest command as III Augusta, not II Italica (as in Birley p. 261, following Gregori and Alföldy). From what I can see of the stone, this is possible, and better suits his titulature.

If you do identify the three, you get a long and interesting senatorial career crowned by the consulship at the end of Commodus' reign. In ascending order:

legate of VI Victrix (but bear in mind that this is a restoration – we only know for sure that it was a legion with P F in its titulature)

legate of V Macedonica

field-commander of vexillations drawn from a provincial army ending in –NNICARVM , which again must be reconstructed as the 'British' legions. The first N is doubtful – could it be 'Germanicarum' instead?

legate of III Augusta (which depends on a re-reading of the Rome inscription)

consul, c. 191

If this is seen as the career of Caunius Priscus, which I think is reasonable (but not certain), then you get a tight chronology if you try to fit it to the second-rate literary record.

Priscus is legate of VI Victrix in 184, when Commodus becomes Britannicus and the British army tries to proclaim the legate Priscus. He is promoted for his loyalty, and also to get him out of Britain – becomes legate of V Macedonica. As such, he is made acting-commander of a field force perhaps (but not necessarily) drawn from Britain. In any case, he would not have needed to go to Britain to command a field-force operating on the Continent.

He is successful in this command – i.e. he kills Maternus – and as a reward gets the plum post of III Augusta which is a provincial governorship as well; and naturally leads to the consulship. One complicating factor is that the Historia Augusta says that Pescennius Niger distinguished himself in Gaul against the deserters[1], while Herodian has Maternus slipping away from Gaul when a force is concentrated against him, and being arrested and executed in Rome.

I suppose it would be safe to assume that more than one field force was mobilised against the deserters, since the uprising was so widespread.

I think you can squeeze it all together, since his legionary command in Britain would have ended with his refusal to become a usurper, and he could have commanded the vexillations during his next post, the command of V Macedonica.

I leave it to you to decide whether the vexillations were 'British' or to be identified with the 1500 spearmen who killed Perennis, let alone whether LAC had anything to do with all this."

This astute summary of the extant materials on Priscus reveals what a tricky business reassembling a personal history can be.  There aren't too many scholars with the acumen capable of treating of these complex and confusing matters in a way that commands admiration and respect.  

Tomlin is still content with the ARM[...]S of the LAC inscription as ARMENIOS, and remains "happy to see him as already procurator of Liburnia" when the Perennis affair plays out.

My only question concerning Priscus is whether it is logical to assume he would have been given command of British troops on the Continent shortly after members of the British army had tried to raise him to the Purple.  This seems rather counter-intuitive.  Allowing for the inscription to read GERMANICARUM thus makes more sense.  We know that Maternus attacked Argentoratum in Upper Germany in 185 A.D.  Gaul, Spain and Germania were involved in the Deserters' War (see https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiptavb3LP7AhWrGDQIHV5LAAsQFnoECCIQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F351783693_Emperor_Commodus%27_%27Bellum_desertorum%27&usg=AOvVaw1Nnz0NcpGFDzs-QASY8g_U , T. Grünewald, Bandits in the Roman Empire. Myth and Reality, London/New York

2004 and https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi55KKv3rP7AhUHIjQIHb7MBfkQFnoECAsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournals.umcs.pl%2Frh%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F9556%2F8305&usg=AOvVaw2A-zVYlJrjHDRSEMzBmuaR.

The story of the deputation of the 1500 British spearman is highly suspect, and it is likely that this is a garbled account of soldiers coming instead from Illyricum (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/11/no-1500-spearmen-from-britain-better.html).

[1]

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Pescennius_Niger*.html#3.4

Now Pescennius was on very friendly terms with Severus at the time that the latter was governor of the province of Lugdunensis.12 4 For he was sent to apprehend a body of deserters who were then ravaging Gaul in great numbers...

NO EVIDENCE (OR GOOD ARGUMENT) FOR LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS AS LEGATE OR GOVERNOR OF BRITAIN

Lucius Artorius Castus Stone with Proposed ARMATOS Reading

(Courtesy Alessandro Faggiani)

Because it is probable that the sub-Roman Arthur was born at the fort of the Roman period Sarmatian veterans in Britain, I have provisionally agreed to accept the ARMATOS reading for the LAC stone - despite unified scholarly resistance to the idea.  I have also found it highly likely that LAC as an equestrian acting for the legate of the Sixth Legion was assigned to lead a deputation against Perennis. This deputation was composed of 1500 Sarmatian contus-bearers drawn from the three British legions. 

But the further claim tha LAC became either legate or governor of Britain, presumably filling the gap between Pertinax and Albinus, is not something I can support.  And here's why...

Firstly, there is no evidence he became such.  Secondly, that he became procurator of Liburnia after leading the legionay detachments of Britain does not prove that he had to be governor.  We have an equestrian in the time of Hadrian who was made procurator of a part of the newly divided Dacia.  So there is precedent right there.  Secondly, had he been legate or governor - even acting-governor - these are distinctions that he would never have omitted from his memorial stone.  'Dux' in the context of someone leading three legionary detachments refers in the Antonine period to a junior officer being given a special military task - and that's all.  It does not imply that he was legate or a governor.  

No equestrian became governor in the period prior to or during the Antonine period.

The notions that Commodus may have appointed LAC governor as a reward for his getting rid of Perennis, or because there was a shortage of senators for the post due to plague happening at the time (both suggestions being made by Dr. Linda Malcor), are appealing, even tempting.  But if LAC had been officially appointed governor, once again we can be assured he would have claimed this on his stone.  He goes into great detail about his procuratorship, and governorship of a province, as the highlight of his military career, would not have been left out.  The same holds true for the rank of legate.

We do have a record of an equestrian becoming governor of two provinces in the Severan period, Titus Cornasidius Sabinus (193-211 AD).  But these were small provinces.  The following information, though found on Wikipedia, is drawn from Adrian Goldsworthy's 2003 book THE COMPLETE ROMAN ARMY:

"In the imperial administration, equestrian posts included that of the governorship (praefectus Augusti) of the province of Egypt, which was considered the most prestigious of all the posts open to equites, often the culmination of a long and distinguished career serving the state. In addition, equites were appointed to the governorship (procurator Augusti) of some smaller provinces and sub-provinces e.g. Judaea, whose governor was subordinate to the governor of Syria."

Needless to say, Britain was not a small province. 

There is one overriding, indisputable fact about Lucius Artorius Castus's memorial stone and that is this: the highest rank he achieved prior to the procuratorship of Liburnia was prefect of the Sixth Legion. We can say this with certainty, for that is all he tells us.  He does not supply us with his rank of legate or with his rank of governor.  The dux designation has been abused enough by those wishing to see more in it than is there.  Prior to the mid-third century, it was not used as a formal rank.  It merely showed that a junior officer had been given a special temporary mission.  Whatever we decide ARM[...]S represents in the inscription, the legionary detachments he led against the person, place or thing were led by a prefect acting as the agent of a legate. 

No Roman military man is going to leave off his very large and very expensive and very beautiful memorial stone the most important and highest ranking titles of his career.  Anyone who tries to convince you he would, and that a term used on the inscription has either a different meaning than we know it had, or has an implied meaning that is not otherwise evinced, is in error. 

This sentiment is echoed in Tomlin's quote, which I only just included in my post a few days ago at https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/a-confusion-of-sarmatians-or-what.html:

"The Valerius Maximianus inscription is almost the same date. He is careful to specify that he was raised to the senate before being made a legionary legate. LAC never says this.  LAC never pretends to be anything other than a prefect of a legion."

[1]

Professor Roger Tomlin on the PRAEFF on LAC's stone:

"PRAEFF is such an easy stonecutter's error that I don't like to overload it with the sense that LAC was prefect twice. He would surely have said so, in the way that a primus pilus for the second time is proud of being iterum."

A CONFUSION OF SARMATIANS or WHAT REALLY DID TRANSPIRE DURING THE PREFECTURE OF PERENNIS?

 

In recent days, I wrote the following pieces:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/were-1500-british-soldiers-who-killed.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/1500-lanciarii-and-eagle-eliwlad-why-i.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/how-we-can-accept-armatos-on-lucius.html

Since then, I've been thinking more about the conflicting accounts of the downfall of Perennis, as well as what may be the truth behind his story.  To help me with both, I first consulted The Fall of Perennis: Dio-Xiphilinus 72. 9. 2., A. Brunt, The Classical Quarterly, Vol. 23, No. 1 (May, 1973), pp. 172-177 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/638138?seq=1). Then I went back to the primary sources themselves.  

The first interesting detail that struck me was that in Herodian's version, it is not British soldiers who are the instrument of Perennis' death, but instead a conspiracy of Illyrian soldiers under the command of Perennis' sons.  These Illyrian soldiers supposedly (HISTORIA AUGUSTA, Life of Commodus, 6.1) had won victories over the Sarmatians. If we go by Dio's account, it would appear the 1500 contus-bearing soldiers from Britains may be intended to represent Sarmatian cavalrymen.

Now, Herodian is generally considered to be little better than a historical romance.  But the apparent coincidence of battles against Sarmatians in one place and the possible march of Sarmatians from another is certainly worth noting.  It may well be that some kind of confusion has occurred in the various primary texts, a confusion that has combined British and non-British events that happened at or near the same time, a sort of conflation of history. The relevant passages from both the HISTORIA AUGUSTA and Herodian are posted here in full:

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/Commodus*.html

6 1   About this time the victories in Sarmatia won by other generals were attributed by Perennis to his own son.45 2 Yet in spite of his great power, suddenly, because in the war in Britain46 he had dismissed certain senators and had put men of the equestrian order in command of the soldiers,47 this same Perennis was declared an enemy to the state, when the matter was reported by the legates in command of the army, and was thereupon delivered up to the soldiers to be torn to pieces.48

45 According to Herodian, I.9, this son of Perennis, in command of the Illyrian troops, formed a conspiracy in the army to overthrow Commodus, and the detection of the plot led to Perennis' fall and death.

46 In 184. According to Dio, LXXII.8, the Britons living north of the boundary-wall invaded the province and annihilated a detachment of Roman soldiers. They were finally defeated by Ulpius Marcellus, and Commodus was acclaimed Imperator for the seventh time and assumed the title Britannicus; see c. viii.4 and coins with the legend Vict(oria) Brit(annica), Cohen III2 p349, no. 945.

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/herodian-s-roman-history/herodian-1.9/

Commodus was persuaded to put the prefect's sons in command of the army of Illyricum, though they were still young men; the prefect himself amassed a huge sum of money for lavish gifts in order to incite the army to revolt. His sons quietly increased their forces, so that they might seize the empire after Perennis had disposed of Commodus...

"Commodus, this is no time to celebrate festivals and devote yourself to shows and entertainments. The sword of Perennis is at your throat. Unless you guard yourself from a danger not threatening but already upon you, you shall not escape death. Perennis himself is raising money and an army to oppose you, and his sons are winning over the army of Illyricum. Unless you act first, you shall die."

There is a great deal of confusion about the actual sequence of events in Britain at this time, and much of it involves a certain Priscus.  I have discussed this man before.  He was of the senatorial class, and served as legate of the Sixth legion in Britain.  After that term, he served as legate of the Fifth Macedonian legion. It was this latter legion that was often brought to bear against the Sarmatians, including under the reign of Marcus Aurelius.  It again went against the Sarmatians early in the reign of Commodus (https://www.livius.org/articles/legion/legio-v-macedonica/). After this posting, he may has served as praepositus over vexillations of the British legions - although the reconstructed reading on his stone is considered highly conjectural, according to Professor Roger Tomlin.  My analysis of the stone as found in Birley would concur with Tomlin's opinion.  For more details on the Priscus inscription, see "Un nuovo senatore dell'età di Commodo?", Gian Luca Gregori, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik , 1995, Bd. 106 (1995), pp. 269-279 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20189321).  After this questional British posting, he goes on to become propraetorian legate of the Second Legion Italica.

Returning now to Dio Cassius' mention of Priscus:

2a The soldiers in Britain chose Priscus, a lieutenant, emperor; but he declined, saying: I am no more an emperor than you are soldiers"

The lieutenants in Britain, accordingly, having been rebuked for their insubordination, — they did not become quiet, in fact, until Pertinax quelled them, — now chose out of their number fifteen hundred javelin men and sent them into Italy. 3 These men had already drawn near to Rome without encountering any resistance, when Commodus met them and asked: "What is the meaning of this, soldiers? What is your purpose in coming?" And when they  p91 answered, "We are here because Perennis is plotting against you and plans to make his son emperor," Commodus believed them, especially as Cleander insisted; for this man had often been prevented by Perennis from doing all that he desired, and consequently he hated him bitterly. 4 He accordingly delivered up the prefect to the very soldiers whose commander he was, and had not the courage to scorn fifteen hundred men, though he had many times that number of Pretorians. 10 So Perennis was maltreated and struck down by those men, and his wife, his sister, and two sons were also killed. 

What we need to do now is to try and untangle this knot, many loops of which are hidden from our view.  The only real evidence we have is the Priscus stone, despite its poor condition and hypothetical reading.  Priscus may have been offered the purple when he was legate of the Sixth.  This would seem to be the most logical moment for such a thing to have happened.  It is unlikely the troops would have tried to make emperor a man who was sent to lead British troops on some special - and probably emergency - mission.  Alfoldy (with Birley agreeing) suggested that Priscus was praepositus over British troops during the Deserters' War on the Continent.  While this is possible, our records show the Maternus affair being dealt with by Pescennius Niger based at Lyon with the Eight Augustan Legion (https://www.livius.org/articles/person/pescennius-niger/). Commodus had made the call for troops from the provinces affected by the revolt, and Britain in not included in the descriptions of the Deserters' War (although from the time of the governorship of Ulpius Marcellus, Britain was in a mutinous state).

It is best at this juncture that I include the wonderful summary here from Anthony Birley's THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN.  He is surely correct here in placing the attempted elevation of Priscus when the latter was actually legate in Britain.

"By the time of Marcellus’ victory, perhaps in reaction to his harsh methods, there was a mutiny, recorded in a fragment of Dio (72(73). 9. 2a)¹⁴³: ‘The soldiers in Britain chose Priscus, a legionary legate (Ëpostr3thgon) as emperor; but he declined, saying: “I am no more emperor than you are soldiers”.’ The dating is supplied by the HA: ‘Commodus was called Britannicus by flatterers when the Britons even wanted to choose another emperor in opposition to him’ (Comm. 8. 4). Priscus was clearly removed from his post (see LL 35), as were, apparently, the other legionary legates. Again, the HA supplies some information: ‘but this same Perennis [the guard prefect], although so powerful, because he had dismissed senators and put men of equestrian status in command of the soldiers in the British war, when this was made known by representatives of the army (per legatos exercitus), was suddenly declared a public enemy and given to the soldiers to be lynched’ (Comm. 6. 2). Perennis fell in 185, for ‘when [Commodus] had killed Perennis he was called Felix’ (Comm. 8. 1): Felix first appears in his titulature in that year.¹⁴⁴ As well as the legionary legate Priscus, a iuridicus can be identified who served under Marcellus, Antius Crescens, later acting-governor (Gov. 34). His appointment at a time when the governor was heavily occupied in the north fits the theory that the British iuridicus was not a regular official."

To help us fill in the time in question, here is what Birley has for Antius Crescens:

The acting-governorship of this man is known only from this fragmentary

inscription. An approximate chronology may be obtained, for he is also

named on three other, dated, inscriptions. Two at Ostia show his presence

there as pontifex Volcani in 194 and 203; the third, the Acta of the Saecular

Games of 204, attests his participation as a quindecimvir.¹⁴⁹ His tenure of that

priesthood is registered on his cursus inscription in what seems to be chronological

order. This led to the conclusion that his service in Britain, mentioned

next, must have come not long before 204. Early 203 was excluded, since he

was at Ostia on 24 March in that year, and it was assumed that he was actinggovernor

c.200 on the death or sudden departure of Virius Lupus (Gov. 37).¹⁵⁰

But nothing whatever is known about the end of Lupus’ governorship, so this

dating lacks any basis. Crescens was elected to the college after service in

Britain and before the proconsulship of Macedonia. But it does not follow that

he held these posts just before the games of 204. If he was praetor at the

normal age, 29, his service in Britain probably came when he was in his midthirties

(the cura of an Italian community and the legateship in a proconsular

province would not occupy more than three years or so). Hence he probably

became a quindecimvir at about 38. He could have remained an active member

for at least another twenty years.

Acting-governorships were the product of special circumstances, in most

cases (before the third century) the sudden death of the governor. Sometimes

an imperial procurator assumed the role, but there are several cases where a

legionary legate took over. One precedent in Britain is from the year 69, when

the legionary legates governed the province jointly after the flight of the

governor Trebellius Maximus (Gov. 7, cf. LL 8). Under Domitian a legionary

legate called Ferox (LL 12) may have been acting-governor after the death of

Sallustius Lucullus (Gov. 12). In 184 or soon after, when Ulpius Marcellus was

recalled, there were no legionary legates, as they had been replaced by

equestrians (see under Gov. 33). Hence it is plausible that Crescens was acting governor

for several months—as the only senator left in the province. He

presumably remained in post, the army still being mutinous, until the arrival

of Pertinax in 185.¹⁵¹

A quindecimvir died c.185, C. Aufidius Victorinus (cos. II ord. 183) (Dio 72. 11.

1).¹⁵² Calpurnianus could have replaced him—as a reward for meritorious

service in Britain. That might also explain his relatively rapid progress to the

consulship, after only one further post, as proconsul of Macedonia. By contrast,

Sabucius Major (iurid. 5), after being iuridicus of Britain not long before

Crescens, went on to be prefect of the military treasury, governor of Belgica,

and proconsul of Achaia, before becoming consul in 186.

Our sources declare that the mutiny in Britain was not quelled until the governorship of Pertinax, Marcellus' successor.

What next?

Well, if LAC led 1500 Sarmatian troops from Britain to Rome to get rid of Perennis, and he did it with detachments from all three British legions, he was performing the role (as Roger Tomlin has made plain) of either "acting-commander: pro legato" or "a prefect 'acting' for the legate, agens vice legati.  These become legionary commanders in the second half of the third century, and in Egypt the legions were always commanded by equestrian prefects."

The answer as to who sent the deputation to Rome is provided in this source:

Such a man was Marcellus and he inflicted terrible damage on the barbarians in Britain; and after this he was almost at the point of being put to death by Commodus, on account of his special excellence, but was nevertheless pardoned.

Dio-Xiphilinus 72. 8. 1–6

On this pardon, Birley has this:

Dio does not make clear whether or not there was any appreciable interval between Marcellus’ victory and his recall, but it is plausible to suppose that it was the fall of Perennis, not to mention the mutinies, which led to Marcellus’ prosecution on his return. Of course, if he had really served uninterruptedly

from 177 to 185, his governorship would have exceeded even that of Julius Agricola (Gov. 11), exactly a century earlier. The replacement of the legionary legates by equestrian commanders would have meant that for a time the only senatorial official in the province was the iuridicus, who was made acting governor. Marcellus’ pardon was sufficiently complete for him to become proconsul of Asia, evidently in 189: he is actually described as ‘my friend’ by Commodus in a letter to the city of Aphrodisias.¹⁴⁷ Possible members of his family in later generations have been referred to above.¹⁴⁸

I would plausibly put forward that it was Ulpius Marcellus who was held responsible for LAC's mission to Rome.  However, it was probably Priscus the legate of the Sixth who sent LAC.  Again, LAC was acting as the agent of the legate.

Now, this leaves open the question of Priscus' possible use of British troops after his posting as legate with the Macedonian legion. I would make this later use of British troops to have happened after "Pertinax requested the emperor to send a replacement, since the legions resented his restoration of discipline (Birley)." "It is probable that an unknown governor was Pertinax’s immediate successor (Birley)."  That governor was followed by Decimus Clodius (Septimius) Albinus. 

If the proposed reconstruction of the Priscus stone is correct, he was praepositus of vexillations of three British legions.  Now, a praepositus is a temporary, ad hoc commander.  LAC had himself held this position with the fleet of Misenum. The strange thing about Priscus holding this rank is that he had twice before been legionary legate, and then was legionary legate again. His being appointed as a temporary commander for detachments of British legions must mean that he was needed to deal with some kind of emergency.  If we do not permit this to be action in the Deserters' War on the Continent (in A.D. 185-186-7, with Maternus' attack on Argentoratum happening at the turn of July and August 185 and Perennis's death in April–May 185; see https://journals.umcs.pl/rh/article/viewFile/9556/8305), then we can only assume he was needed either during the quashing of the British rebellion by Pertinax or immediately after, in the interval between Pertinax and Albinus.  Pertinax had barely escaped with his life, and the legions were still unruly. Perhaps the praepositus here was, literally, filling the gap in the governorship.  Priscus was legate of the Sixth had been beloved enough of his troops for them to try and make him emperor.  Perhaps his presence in the province later was designed to have a calmative effect, as he would be more likely to gain the allegiance of the mutinous troops. 

Who was the unknown governor who took over from Pertinax?

Well, whoever it was, it cannot have been LAC.  Whether he was governor or acting-governor, that is something he would have placed on his memorial stone between his role as dux in the Perennis affair and his serving as procurator of Liburnia.  We cannot interpret dux as being the equivalent of governor. This has been demonstrated time and time again, and I will not repeat the reasons why this is so in this post.  In the second century, and in the Antonine period, dux meant simply a leader or general of a special task force.  In addition, we know of an equestrian in Hadrian's time who was appointed procurator of a newly divided Dacia.  So there is no difficulty in accepting that LAC had been a legionary legate prior to his posting in Liburnia - especially when we remember that he was almost certainly born at Salona.  Once again, and I emphasize this to the nth degree: had LAC been governor of Britain, he would have said so on his stone.  To expect anyone prior to the mid-third century to know that dux meant provincial governor is not possible.  That kind of ambiguity is not something LAC would ever have done when trying to pass done his life's accomplishments to posterity. 

I will conclude with this brief treatment of LAC's military ranks with a wise comment from Professor Roger Tomlin:

"The Valerius Maximianus inscription is almost the same date. He is careful to specify that he was raised to the senate before being made a legionary legate. LAC never says this.  LAC never pretends to be anything other than a prefect of a legion, and the dux designation merely serves to show that he was a prefect performing the role of  agens vice legati.  If he were more - say, a legate, or a provincial governor - he would absolutely have put that on his stone.  Indeed, he would have screamed it to the world!"

 

Were the 1500 British Soldiers Who Killed Perennis Sarmatians?

Sarmatian Warriors Wielding the Contus

(Courtesy http://warfare.6te.net/Ancient/Bosporan_murals.htm)

A good question... And one which we may be able to answer in the affirmative.

First, a description of the Sarmatian contus from R. Brzezinski and M. Mielczarek's THE SARMATIANS 600 BC - AD 450:

HOW WE CAN ACCEPT 'ARMATOS' ON THE LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS MEMORIAL STONE

Sarmatian on Trajan's Column

"He accordingly delivered up the prefect to very soldiers whose commander he was, and had not the courage to scorn fifteen hundred men, though he had many times that number of Praetorians."

- Dio Cassius on Commodus giving Perennis to the

1500 Sarmatian cavalrymen (?) under the command of Lucius Artorius Castus

In the following recent blog post, I presented my argument for accepting the ARMATOS reading proposed by Dr. Linda Malcor and her colleagues for the ARM[...]S found on the memorial stone of Lucius Artorius Castus:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/1500-lanciarii-and-eagle-eliwlad-why-i.html

I would like to discuss the idea a little further here.

It is important for me to begin by stating that I have, in the past, put up strong resistance to adopting the ARMATOS reading.  There are many reasons for this, and I have detailed them in past blog posts.  My continuing conversations with Latin epigraphers and Roman military historians has done nothing to endear me to the reading - quite the contrary.  For LAC to have boasted about leading detachments of three British legions against 'armed men' is considered unsatisfactory in the extreme.  It is thought to be vague and nonspecific, as no foe is named and no location is given for that foe, and the idea that one would be fighting armed men is a given in any context.  In the words of Professor Roger Tomlin, 

"Did any Roman officer ever boast instead of marching against INERMES [unarmed men]? That they were 'armed' would not need to be stated."

So why stick with ARMATOS?  

Well, I'm now as convinced as I can be that Eliwlad son of Madog son of Uther is a reflection of Matoc Ailithir son of Sawyl of the Sarmatian Ribchester fort. If the sub-Roman Arthur came from this place, then the name Artorius had been remembered and passed down among the Sarmato-British inhabitants of the Ribchester region.  And that, in turn, suggests that the 2nd century Lucius Artorius Castus, twice prefect of the Sixth Legion in Britain, had some special relationship with the Sarmatian troops there.

If all that holds true, and I don't think it's an unreasonable supposition, then the 1500 contus-bearers who go to Rome to kill Perennis may well have been Sarmatians.  Their number fits perfectly three 500 man vexillations drawn from each of the three British legions.  According to Richmond (https://www.jstor.org/stable/297275?seq=1), the 5,500 Sarmatians sent to Britain by Marcus Aurelius would have been divided up and stationed in different places, especially in the frontier zone.  That fits there being 500 (at least) in each of the province's legions.

So the question I keep asking myself is this: if LAC did lead 1500 Sarmatian cavalrymen to Rome (and even this is not certain, as there are a couple of conflicting reports on Perennis' end) and ended up executing Commodus' second in command, how would he have recorded that on his memorial stone?

The most obvious answer would be "ADVERSUS Perennis." But the quote from Dio I have above suggests another possibility.  In going against Perennis, LAC was setting himself and his troops up for a potentially disastrous confrontation with the emperor's Praetorian Guard.  Perennis was prefect of that very guard.  It is possible, therefore, that LAC wished to be diplomatic as to  how he bragged about his blatant act of aggression against the authority of the Praetorians.  Rather than refer to them by name, he opted for the safer use of the generic ARMATOS. Armatus meant soldier as well, and we find 'praetorianus miles', and milites used of praetorians. 

As with the apparent Eliwlad-Ailithir identification, I don't think we can afford to ignore the 1500 Sarmatians (?) who go against Perennis.  This is the only record of three vexillations from British legions being brought to bear on anyone anyplace for the period under consideration for LAC.  Because that is an undeniable fact, I am going out on a limb (!) not only with Eliwlad the eagle, but with the ARMATOS reading for the LAC memoral stone.