Talk:Lucius Artorius Castus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment about first mention of Artorius as Arthur

Kemp was not the first person, who suggested that Artorius was Arthur - the first Latin chronicle to manetion the name "Arthur" is The History of the Brions (Historia Brittonum)which is believed to have been compiled about 800 by a Welshman named Nennius. This work was written in Latin, but many scholars feel that Nennius based his details about the Twelve Battles of Arthur upon native Welsh sources. Artorius is a Roman gens name, though it might also be Celtic in origin, coming from artos viros (bear man. Historically he was perhaps a fifth -or sixth-century chieftain or general, though he is not mentioned by any contemporary historian. One argument says that he is to be identified with the Celtic king Riothamus, but legend would seem to suggest that he is, rather, a composite figure, combining the attributes and achievements of more than one person. However, the first complete, coherent narrative of the life of King Arthur appears in the fanciful eleventh-century HISTORIA REGUM BRITANNIAE (History of the Kings of Britain). This work combined the works of Nennius and Welsh folklore to give the Arthurian legends known today, along with many of the major characters and events.

sources: A Companion to Arthurian & Celtic Myths & Legends by Mike Dixon-Kennedy, Sutton Publishing Limited, 2004 - The Romance of Arthur -an anthology of medieval texts in translation, Garland Publishing, Inc. New York & London 1994 by James J. Wilhelm (ed.) The Northon Anthology -English Literatur - 7th. ed. W.W.Northon Company, 2001

Actually, artos viros is Greek, I believe.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

"Not mentioned by any contemporary historian"

This is disingenuous. Arthur wasn't mentioned by contemporary historians because there weren't any. Gildas is the only British writer of the period whose work survived, and he was not a chronicler but a polemicist, who mentions hardly any individuals by name.

Added new primary sources (the LAC inscriptions), removed hypothetical biographic entries

The article had too much in it that was derived from the overly inventive biographical sketch presented by Linda Malcor in her Heroic Age articles. I feel it is best to stick closely to the inscriptions themselves and not delve too much into hypothetical reconstructions of the man's life....otherwise, we are writing fantasy and not history. Cagwinn (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is best to put the inscription in context. If we didn't do that, we wouldn't know much at all about Rome. Shashtah (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Need to post accurate information

Removed etymological speculation on the names Artorius and Arthur because they were not factual Cagwinn (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cagwinn, you have made great improvements to the article, thanks for all the work. As you suggest, this could profitably be used to rework the relevant section of the Historical_basis_for_King_Arthur. I do suggest that Linda Malcor has made enough of a splash in the limited world of Arthurian studies to justify a small section on the Arthurian interpretation here. If I can dig out her book and find the time I might give it a try.Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

There's another book, summarizing much of my research, coming out soon as well. Shashtah (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Just be careful with how you present her views on the subject - it is my opinion that her work is error-ridden and sloppy (when I follow up on her sources I often find that she has either misquoted or misrepresented what they actually say) and that her biography of Artorius is primarily a work of fiction (she has a way of asserting as fact - without qualification - things that are neither mentioned nor even implied in the inscriptions). Cagwinn (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add my voice here; this is obviously a big improvement over the previous version, checking the diffs, well done :-) I'm adding it to my watchlist so I can keep an eye on it. A couple of points which jump out at me are as follows. First, Linda Malcor's work does need fuller reference in the last section if nowhere else, if only because it has had (IIRC) good academic reviews as well as bad and has had a degree of influence: most of those who come to this page will probably be familiar with it and so it needs to be here (one can, of course, legitimately cite scholarly disagreement with her conclusions, Arthurian and otherwise), Second, there are a couple of places where we may need to be careful to avoid accusations of 'original research' by editors, bearing in mind the stated aims and policies of wiki. So, for example: "It should be noted that the regional names Armoricani or Armorici are not attested in any other Latin inscriptions, whereas the country Armenia and derivatives such as the ethnic name Armenii and personal name Armeniacus are attested in numerous Latin inscriptions." This has no reference but I feel it probably needs one, otherwise it is simply the editor's assertion, which is potentially problematical: is there a page of database results or similar that could be used in lieu of a published discussion which makes this point? Would that count, wiki-policy-experts?? In any case, good work Cagwinn :-) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments on the fact that Armorici/Armoricani are not attested on any other inscription and that there are numerous attestations for "Armenian" names in Latin inscriptions are based on my own searches of the Clauss-Slaby (EDCS) and Heidelberg databases; I am certain that these facts have been mentioned in print, but I will need to hunt down the exact references. Should I just link to the EDCS in the meantime?Cagwinn (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For me, a link to the database (or better, a results page/pages, if possible?) would work for the present as it is merely a factual matter, Of course, IMHO you ought to probably write your objections to the Malcor etc interpretation up for a journal so that they can be easily cited ;-P Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Armenios, the noun, does not appear, however. Only the adjectival form appears. Shashtah (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It absolutely DOES appear in inscriptions (in other case forms; Armenios is the accusative plural - we have inscriptions with the nominative plural [CIL 5, 6726/ILCV 565 (em)/AE 2011, +190/AE 2011, 430; ZPE-154-227; CIL 3, p 774 (p 1054, 2328,57)/IGRRP-3, 159/IDRE-2, 394/Cooley-2012a/GLIA-1, 1/AE 2007, +36/AE 2007, +37/AE 2009, +35/AE 2013, +4/AE 2013, +5/AE 2014, +10/ZPE-220-281; CIL 2-5, 900/SCPisone-B, p 23, AE 2016, +21; SCPisone-E, p 33; SCPisone-A, p 10/HEp 1994, 831z/AE 2006, +134/ZPE-192-284] and nominative singular [CIL 3, 3109 (p 1038); AE 1982, 82 - ignoring for the moment the many men who bore the nomen and cognomen Armenius]) - please conduct proper research!

Chris, links to the databases sound good anyway. Do they offer a search URL that we can click on (and you can give as a ref) which makes it immediately clear that there are lots of Armenians and no Armoricans?Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The EDCS can be searched here: http://compute-in.ku-eichstaett.de:8888/pls/epigr/epigraphik_de - to search for any inscriptions mentioning either Armorici or Armoricani, simply type "armoric" in the "Suchtext 1" field and hit return; for inscriptions mentioning "Armenian" names, enter " armeni" (with a space before the initial "a" so that you only search for words beginning in "A-" and filter our words such as Parmenion, etc. The Heidelberg database, which is linked to the EDCS by the way, is located here: http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/institute/sonst/adw/edh/index.html.en - I am not certain of the proper way to cite search results from databases such as these - they don't generate results pages that you can hotlink to.

Translation

Some great work here, but this really needs a reference - of course, if it was done by an editor, we have a problem. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

My original translation was my own, which I checked against several others (including Birley's and Malcor's). I have replaced it with Birley's, as it is one of the most recent and more accurate than some others.Cagwinn (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Sorry to be a pain, but... Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I visited the site in Podstrana last summer, and I didn't see any sign after the "M" of "ARM", but also in the photos of the good work of Christopher Gwinn I can't see any sign...To put an "E" pasted to the "M" is certainly wrong. there was surely a gap with the following letter. It could be "E" or "O". We have several examples of troops from Britannia fighting in Gaul and in Armorica (Clodius Albinus, Magnus Maximus, Constantinus III, and others), any other examples of troops from Britannia fighting in Armenia. (Antrinc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.203.143.240 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact remains that the first modern scholar to document the stone, F. Carrara, transcribed the word with a ligatured -ME-; we may never know for sure if Carrara's reading was correct (unless another, more complete inscription is found making mention of the expedition), but the stone surely has been moved around a bit since the mid-19th century and has been exposed to the elements, so it's very possible that the stone has suffered some damage since Carrara first examined it. The pictures that I have seen (and I am very jealous that you have seen the stone in person) make it look as if the stone is broken along the right-hand stroke of the M, precisely where the ligatured E would have fallen; I don't see any extra space here after the M, but obviously I have not seen the stone from all angles.Cagwinn (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

To address another point mentioned above, the Ala I Britannica was sent to Cappadocia in 114 AD to take part in the Parthian war of 114-116. An inscription mentioning one of the unit's soldiers was discovered at Nicopolis (now Piurk) in Amrnenia. Castus' inscription does not say that troops were pulled from Britain for his expedition - only that he lead legiones....Britanicimia, which may be a stone cutters error for Britan(n)ici(a)nia (or maybe the form is correct and it is just some otherwise unattested name?), if the latter, we may note the form is very similar to that of the ala I Flavia Britannica/Britanniciana (a unit that was once stationed - before Castus' time - in Britain [for which they got their name], but stationed in central Europe for most of the 2nd-3rd centuries AD) - the same unit that was sent to Cappadocia in 114 - and a detachment was later sent to the East again in 252, to fight in Trebonianus Gallus' Persian war. During this same time period, the Res Gestae of Shapur mentions a Roman Caesar committing injustice in Armenia.Cagwinn (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your intersting and precise answer. If you look the photo, as I could see on the original, when the vertical line of M go down, there is an evident gap, in the space where you put the upper line of hypotetical E. It could be E, but not ligatured.About the Ala I Flavia Britannica, I note that it was stationed in Pannonia, closer to the east part of the empire. But it was one Ala, maybe 1000 cavalrymen; on the Artorius' inscription we read that he was dux of two or three legions, or of legions and alae: more or less 11,000 or 17,000 men. the fact that he was Praefectus in Britannia just before to be dux...Britani..rum suggests that his army came from Britannia. And to move such an army on the opposite side of the empire was surely very dangerous for the security of Britannia.Not so dangerous to move troops on the other shore of the Channel, where we have evidences of the so-called "bellum desertorum" in the time of Commodus (relatiive of gens Artoria, being descendant from Marcus Artorius Geminus, through his grand-grandson Barea Sura and his daughter Marcia Furnilla, mother of Ulpius Traianus). Sorry if I am for the moment uncapable to log me in, my name is Antonio Trinchese from Rome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.75.136.99 (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any gap to the right of the M - all that I see is the rounded edge where the stone has been broken. A dux legionum was in command of combined vexillations drawn from the legions of a province (see "Roman officers and frontiers", by David John Breeze, Brian Dobson, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1993, p. 180), so I don't think that he commanded nearly the number of troops that you suggest. Just because he was in Britain immediately before becoming dux, does not mean that these troops were necessarily drawn from Britain (though, I will admit that they could have been). Has it been demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that Commodus was related to the Artorius gens? It seems to me that this might be speculative, but I am happy to be corrected. Anyway, the if it is true, the connection seems rather distant and there is no way to prove that LAC's family was closely related to that of Marcus Artorius Geminus (if at all!).Cagwinn (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have examined the stone repeatedly in person using various lighting. There is no ligature. Shashtah (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

As anyone can see from the pictures, the stone is damaged right along a line where the ligature would have occurred (the right leg of the -M- in ARM- is absolutely damaged); you are being completely disingenuous by claiming that a ligature could not have been visible to Carrara in the mid-19th century! Before you ever saw it, the stone faced another 160 years of weathering while exposed to the elements in the church wall, right alongside of a busy road! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

My latest publications (starting 2019) suggest that the next letter was an A and that the word was Armatos, which fits the space. Armoricos is too long, and Armenios is not possible. Shashtah (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It is nothing more than your uninformed opinion that Armoricos is "too long" and Armenios "is not possible"; the scholarly consensus is that both are quite possible, with Armenios being more likely for historical reasons. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually I saw the plaster casts of the inscription: the original is now in the Museum of Zagreb to be studied. epigraphists and scientists could give a more sure interpretation and datation. About relation of Commodus with gens Artoria, see "Sepulcrum Marci Artori" by Silvestrini, Francesca, Roma 1987. There is a genealogy from Marcus Artorius Geminus (son of Marcus Artorius Asclepiades, physician of Augustus) to the two daughters of Barea Sura, Marcia and Marcia Furnilla, one wife of Titus and the other mother of Traianus, based on epigraphic evidences. And from the sister of Traianus, Marciana, if I'm not wrong, we go to Aurelius and Commodus. The tomb of Artorius Geminus, with the inscriptions, is in the National Museum of Rome, but it's called "Tomba dei Platorini", for the first attribution to Sulpicius Platorinus, probably a relative of Geminus. I don't know if LAC was a direct descendant of MAG, but he's one of the more prominent figure bearing that nomen in the age of the empire, after Caius Artorius Bassus, Marcus Artorius Priscus Vicasius Sabidianus, Marcus Artorius Rufus and before Lucius Artorius Pius Maximus. I saw on the tomb of Geminus the same symbols on the tomb of Castus, but it is not a prove that is the same family, they were of common use. Near the inscription of Castus, there is another inscription, of a certain Cania Ursina. The island in front of the tomb, Braç in croatian or Brazza in italian, was called in the roman time Brattia or Brettia, an alternative name used also for Britannia; what a coincidence! Why do you think that the third inscription about LAC is doubtful? It was read in Rome between XVIII and XIX century, and moved to the Louvre, probably in the napoleonic age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.201.73.159 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of the inscription are supposed to have been published in Medini, Julian, "Provincija Liburnija" (Diadora, v. 9, 1980, pp. 363-436). X. Loriot, who is a proponent of the *Armenios reading (with ligatured ME) has seen these photographs and did not remark on there being any space to the right of the M (only that there was no longer any trace of Carrara's ligatured E). Thank you for the information on Commodus - it still remains for us to prove, however, that LAC's family was of the same branch of Artorii (impossible to say, barring the discovery of new inscriptions) and that LAC lived during the reign of Commodus (I still prefer a 3rd century date for LAC). I hope that the results of the new examination of the inscription will be published soon. I know that Dr. Loriot is planning on studying it again, as well. As far as the third inscription is concerned, because there is seemingly no other information on it, I can't say for certain if we have here our LAC, or some other man of the same name.Cagwinn (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Too much

In my view there's too much original research and assertion here, and the article needs to be heavily abbreviated. In addition, I would suggest that the posited link between LAC and Arthur is far too remote to be given as much air time as this article does and should be more qualified in the text. I'd love to give some of my own hypotheses, but I will shut up. Deipnosophista (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What specific sections contain original research? The LAC-Arthur comparison chart is added because there is a great deal of interest in this among students of Arthurian legend - now, I happen to think that the connection is spurious, but it is a matter of some discussion among scholars these days and deserves to be dealt with here. Cagwinn (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Much has been published on the inscription since 1998. The publications are in Japanese, Russian, Hungarian, Italian and English. (I'm not sure if Loriot is French, but his publication is in English.) Shashtah (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

LOL, you don't even know what you're talking about and you clearly haven't read Loriot, whose paper on this inscription was written in French! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Higham drops the hammer on the ridiculous Lucius Artorius Castus hypothesis

Higham, Nicholas J., King Arthur: The Making of the Legend, Yale University Press, 2018, p. 39:

"But beyond the name, which [Lucius Artorius Castus] presumably shared with various other members of his gens, there is no good reason to think him the archetype on whom King Arthur was later based. His connection with Britain was slight, amounting to a stay of unknown length in a backroom post at York, then a poorly understood command as dux of soldiers drawn from the legions stationed in Britain on their way to the east. With that record it seems extraordinarily unlikely that any Briton of the post-Roman period will have even heard of him, prior that is to publication of the Dalmatian inscriptions in the late nineteenth century, which was what brought him to Malone's attention."

"The onus must be on those putting forward theories to come up with persuasive arguments, not their opponents to disprove them. On close examination, the case for connecting the historical L. Artorius Castus and the medieval legend of King Arthur is entirely unconvincing. We should therefore dismiss the proposal. at L. Artorius Castus was not the 'original' King Arthur is, therefore, something of which for the moment we can be reasonably confident. It is time for Arthurian scholars to release their interest in Castus back to the Classicists to whom he more properly belongs. King Arthur was not buried at Podstrana: for now that is fact." Cagwinn (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I propose we WP:WAIT. When Artie returns, we can ask.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Lucius Artorius Castus

This page appears to have been corrupted by those pushing the fringe theory of a link between this Roman equestrian officer Lucius Artorius Castus and the later Arthurian legend. Many of the changes and amendments appear to have been made by Artoriusfadianus, who may have changed their username. I suggest you look into possible conflict of interest.

Proposed changes:

The heading line above the contents includes this: “…he has been suggested as a potential historical basis for King Arthur”. As this is so speculative and debatable should it be included so prominently in the first line? It would be better to have reference to this fringe theory, and it’s many associated claims, in one section towards the end, if at all. The article should make it clearer it i snot possible to date teh stone and there is no consensus about a floruit other than an Antonine or Severan date.

Under the sub-heading: “Centurion and Primus Pilus of Legio V Macedonica"

The end of the second line reads: “so Castus served in this unit as centurion and primus pilus before 185 CE (in the inscription these nicknames are missing).” This date is hugely speculative and should be removed. It has been placed there without evidence to support a link to Sarmatians and also the later Arthurian legend. Higham dates him to c. 160s, Tomlin states the inscription is undated but the style suggests Antonine, c. AD 140-90. Caillan Davenport gives examples of similar inscriptions in the Severan period and thus dates him to the early third century. Anthony Birley places him in Armenia during the reign of Emperor Caracalla in ad 216–7 or Severus Alexander in ad 230–232. In short the style of the inscription is Antonine but the wording likely Severan. We thus cannot date his floruit with any certainty beyond a likely Antonine or Severan date, c. 140-235.

Under them sub-headings: “Adversus *Arm[oric(an)o]s or Adversus *Arme[nio]s?” Armoricanos has been accepted as too long to fit the gap in the inscription. Armatos is not attested on any similar funerary memorial. The fact this normal Latin word is found in literary sources and on one long inscription not connected to a military campaign is not proof it was ever used to describe a civil or external war.

Instead with civil wars we find the phrases rebels or public enemies used on memorial stones. An example from AD 194 reads adversus rebelles hostes publicos, ’against public enemies of the Roman people’. With external wars against a foreign enemy the tribe or people are named. Another example from the Severan period reads: duci exercitus Illyrica expeditione Asiana item Parthica item Gallica, ’Leader of the Illyrican army on the Asian, Parthian and Gallic expeditions.’ There is no example of Armatos being used on any similar inscription.

Therefore the original reading of the stone as Armenios is the most likely and supported by Birley, Tomlin, Davenport and Higham. There are three campaigns in our time period that involved a Roman military campaign in Armenia: under Lucius Verus, ad 161–6; Caracalla, c. ad 215–7; and Severus Alexander in c. ad 233. See below for more details. This section should make it clearer there is a consensus among experts that it refers to Armenia and there's no epigraphical evidence for Armatos.

“Adversus Armatos”. The first line is misleading: “On the other hand, adversus Armenios isn't attested in written or epigraphic sources and Lucius Verus's campaigns against Parthians were meant to free the allied kingdom of Armenia from the invasion of Vologases IV king of Parthians.” Firstly the epigraphical evidence contains multiple examples of a campaign against external enemies where the tribe or people are named. Secondly all three Parthian Wars involved a northern campaign into Armenia fighting against Armenian allies of the Parthians. In AD 163 Statius Priscus successfully stormed and captured the Armenian capital of Artaxata, re-instating the Roman-backed king, Sohaemus. Priscus had been governor of Britain and likely took units with him in AD 161. In AD 215, during Caracalla’s reign, the freedman Theocritus lead an army into Armenia to crush an uprising against Roman control. This army was defeated but Caracalla did eventually grant the Armenian crown to Tiridates II suggesting the war was eventually successful. At the end of his reign we also have a reference to a dux in Armenia: ‘dux Armeniae erat et item legatus Asiae atque Arabiae’. In c. 233 Severus Alexander repeated the tactics of Lucius Verus with a three pronged attack in his Parthian War. The northern army endured an ‘agonising passage’ over the high, steep mountains of Armenia. But then, plunging down into Medes, they devastated the countryside, ‘burning many villages and carrying off much loot’. The Parthia king led an army to the aid the Medes, but ‘met with little success in his efforts to halt the Roman advance’.

It is thus well attested that there were at least three occasions when Roman armies were sent into Armenia to fight against Armenians within a wider Parthian conflict. The Artorius as Arthur proponents wish to deny this purely because Armenia would undermine a plank of their theory.

This line is therefore very disingenuous: “Since Armenios is not possible”. This line is irrelevant: “since Caunius Priscus rather than Castus is the most likely officer to have been sent to Armorica”.

There is no evidence for the second part of this statement: “The Caledonii raided south of Hadrian's Wall, destroying almost half of the VI Victrix”. Cassius Dio states the following: “When the tribes in that island, crossing the wall that separated them from the Roman legions, proceeded to do much mischief and cut down a general together with his troops, Commodus became alarmed but sent Ulpius Marcellus against them … and he ruthlessly put down the barbarians of Britain”. A commander and some troops were killed, no name, legion or number is specified.

Concerning this line: “In short, there were multiple armed men causing troubles all over Britannia, and the Latin for "armed men" in the accusative form is ARMATOS. This word fits the gap in the Castus inscription perfectly.” As before external enemy would be named and internal wars referred to as rebels or public enemies. Never ‘armed men’. It therefore does not ‘fit the gap perfectly’.

Procurator Centenarius of Liburnia “In this case Castus was 'procurator centenarius provinciae Liburniae ius gladii' six times from 191 to 197”. As before he cannot be dated precisely. The above is claimed is by proponents of the Artorisu/King Arthur theory in order to place him in Britain when Sarmatians were posted there, c. 175-200.

The date of Lucius Artorius Castus's floruit

Might be useful to begin with: ‘Whilst the inscription is undated there is a consensus placed his floruit in the Antonine-Severan period between c. 140-235’.

The second paragraph has too many assumptions and unreferenced claims. For example: “In 175 when Castus was primus pilus of V Macedonica” this cannot be dated. “gave the Romans 8,000 of their heavy cavalry” Cases Dio does not specify ‘heavy’ cavalry. “From later inscriptions we know that these Sarmatian horsemen were assigned to the VI Victrix”. The only inscriptions that exists is dated to c. ad 241, and records a unit of Sarmatian cavalry at Bremetennacum, Ribchester in Lancashire. This does not prove ethnicity as units retained their original names and it does not prove where the original unit was posted in AD 175. In fact we have no evidence as to how many of the 5,500 arrived or what the Sarmatians did once they arrived. “Castus was a procurator Augusti cum iure gladii in the last part of the second century CE”. this cannot be dated.

Birley, Anthony, The Roman Government of Britain, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005). Bruun, Christer and Edmondson, Jonathan, The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015).Cassius Dio, Roman History, book 73.9 Davenport, Caillan, A History of the Roman Equestrian Order, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019). Cassius Dio, Roman History Davenport, Caillan, A History of the Roman Equestrian Order, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019). Herodian History of the Roman Empire since the Death of Marcus Aurelius Historia Augusta Higham, N.J., King Arthur The Making of the Legend, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2018). Tomlin, R.S.O., Britannia Romana, Roman Inscriptions and Roman Britain, (Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2018). �:

• The Artorius Castus/King Arthur theory is hugely speculative. The associated claims are only made to place him in Britain at the same time as Sarmatians c. 175-2000 in order to link him to the even more dubious link between Sarmatians and later Arthurian themes. :

TonySullivanBooks (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The notion that Lucius Artorius Castus was the original figure behind King Arthur had been around since the publications of Kemp Malone, starting in 1924. The original reading of the stone, by Theodor Mommsen, was Armoricanos, not Armenios. Armenios is not attested in any form of inscription while Armatos, the most recently suggested translation (2019). The art history of the border decorations suggest a tie to either Flora or the Virgin Mary, an ambiguity that occured in the late second century. Armenios is not attested in inscriptions. The noun simply is not there. The adjectival form is there, but not the noun. Armatos is attested in two inscriptions, though they are legal and not memorial. Armatos has a long literary history, though. Sullivan is wrong; Armatos is the perfect war because the war in Britain was against both insiders and outsiders. It was not an either or choice. Again, Sullivan does not discuss the iconography of the inscriptions, which show heavy cavalry. The second inscription names the V Macedonica; the only reason to be particularly proud of that legion is that it was under the personal command of Marcus Aurelius in the late second century. The earliest references to the Sarmatian unit in Britannia classify it as a numerus, which is what it would have been when it first arrived.

Sullivan is trying to promote his own book which he just had published. There is no evidence for the Armenios reading. Shashtah (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Linda, Yann Le Bohec and Giuseppe Camodeca (whom I have already consulted) confirms that LEGG absolutely means LEGIONS and VEXILL + <list of legions> and VEXILL LEGG respectively means detachments of <list of legions> and detachments of legions and therefore LEGG does NOT means 'detachments'. 95.251.1.22 (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

LOL - you are doing the exactly that, yourself (promoting your book[s])! Tony Sullivan actually provides reliable academic sources to support his arguments; you present nothing but your own opinion. You are not even an acknowledged expert on Roman history or Latin epigraphy - your doctorate is in Folklore! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

TonySullivanBooks (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you know what Dux Armeniae means?what does this have to do with 'adversus Armneios'? Can you provide the real ancient sources of a movement of troops from Britannia to Armenia? Thanks. LOL Emryswledig (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Hello TonySullivanBooks, this is an interesting and rather complex edit request. I am willing to work with you on it going forward, but I am not a classicist, and will need some clarity on a few issues.

As a general note, it is immensely helpful if you give specific proposed text to replace or alter something in an article, rather than simply list the criticisms/inaccuracies and provide citations.That puts an uninvolved editor like me in a strange position — I do not own the books you cite, and may not be able to access all of them, so I may not have enough context from just your descriptions of their contents to turn around and write appropriately accurate replacement text. If you believe text should be deleted, that is fine as well, though if it is cited to at least one acceptable reliable source, you would need to do more work explaining why that view is unacceptable in an encyclopedic article (if a non-trivial number of scholars hold the view, it should be in the article, but it may be appropriate to qualify the inclusion as a minority view and otherwise highlight errors with the reasoning).

Let me know if you have any further questions. At present, the above request is frankly not implementable without a massive amount of time and effort by an editor, such that it is borderline impossible.

WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 03:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Closing as not done for now given user's apparent lack of interest in the edits. TonySullivanBooks is more than welcome to revive this discussion or submit a new request at any time. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 19:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't reply here earlier so I sent a message direct to person above. I can't make head nor tail out of how to use this site but I will just add the following. Pages mentioning Lucius Artorius Castus appear to have been corrupted by those pushing the fringe theory linking him to the legend of King Arthur. One of these proponents appear to be editing under the name Artoriusfadianus. These changes range between hugely speculative to demonstrably false. If you read the posts by Cagwinn above they reflect current academic opinion. I suggest you flag up posts about LAC and links to King Arthur and get someone to monitor it. Unfortunately I haven't been able to understand how to edit things properly and it's just too time consuming to spend hours trying to change things only to be told I've done it wrong or posted in the wrong place. Very happy to answer questions via email and supply references and supporting evidence if anyone is at all interested. But may take me sometime before I get my head around how go about editing erroneous statements myself. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Further to above I think Artoriusfadianus has undergone a name change. I believe Artoriusfadianus was originally one of the proponents of the theory mentioned above. Can't be 100% sure so apologies if this is incorrect. There was also a Luciuscastus making changes a few years back. In any event there are too many speculations presented as fact.You won't go far wrong if you stick with cagwinn's comments. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Any hypothesis that is accepted in Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Georgia, Iran, Turkey, Croatia, Albania, Germany, Italy, possibly France, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Canada and the US is not "fringe." That word was originally applied to the Lucius Artorius Castus hypothesis by Christopher Gwinn. Shashtah (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What a load of nonsense! Prove that your hypothesis is "accepted in Australia, Japan, China, Russia, Georgia, Iran, Turkey, Croatia, Albania, Germany, Italy, possibly France, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Canada and the US", LOL! Accepted by whom?? Academics? If so, list them all with proper citations of their reviews of your books and papers! The truth is that your fringe hypotheses on Lucius Artorius Castus - King Arthur and the Sarmatians/Alans provided the source of every medieval Arthurian tale has been firmly rejected by the majority of scholars over the past 20 years. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Could you please look at this page. Artoriusfadianus continues to make unfounded statements such as Armenios does't work when in fact it is the consensus amongst academics. They have also claimed in the recent edit that it was the Caledonii who raided south of the Wall and the Sixth lost significant numbers. There is no evidence for this. The troops stationed along Hadrian's Wall were mainly auxiliaries from well attested units. This user is continually altering pages and making edits that full in line with the many assertions of those who promote the theory Lucius Artorius Castus was the basis to teh Arthurian legend. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I am unable to reply to Artoriusfadianus as I cannot find the page to reply on. This is in danger of becoming an edit war. Can someone look at this page please. It is not true to make statements such as "Armenios does not work". This is simply not true. Most academics actually favour this interpretation such as Birley, Davenport, Loriot, Tomlin etc as explained above with references. This user is promoting the theory of a link between LAC and King Arthur. I believe the user name may be connected to one of the proponents of that theory. Here's an example of previous action: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Linda_A._Malcor TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The parenthetic statement about ME ligature needs to be removed. It is total speculation on Sullivan's part. He has never seen the stone, and I have seen it in person multiple times. There is no ligature.

Sullivan is not providing citations because he is relying on personal communication via email with various scholars. References to "Missing Pieces" are valid because it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Sullivan is editing using original research, which I don't think Wikipedia allows. Shashtah (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I've not been talking about the alleged ME ligature at this point.

But as you brought it up it is however a fact that the original reading by Carrara in 1850 claimed to see a ligature. Now he could have been mistaken but it's disingenuous to dismiss this. You are thus mistaken in stating this is somehow speculation. It is based on the first attested reading of the stone. You are also mistaken for claiming it is MY speculation. I'm merely stating facts and the opinion of most historians. It is also a fact that several academic experts (who I have referenced in earlier posts above) accept the interpretation Armenios. It would be misleading to not acknowledge this fact. It is also a fact that many of the academics who attending the conference in Croatia the writers of missing pieces attended also accept the interpretation of Armenios is the most likely. Again it would be misleading not to acknowledge this. I'm not sure how valid references from "missing pieces" are. The paper contains a large number of speculations presented as fact and some points that are demonstrably untrue. I can list them if it is helpful but it would take up a large amount of space.

But let's take one point at a time.

Do you accept that Carrara was the first reading and he claimed to see a ligature in 1850?

I'm not asking if you accept he was correct merely if you accept he claimed to see one.

Do you accept that the historians I referenced further up the thread (Birley, Tomlin, Davenport, Loriot and others that other users have posted) all find Armenios as the most likely interpretation? TonySullivanBooks (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Artoriusfadianus is Alessandro Faggiani, one of Linda Malcor's acolytes (now a co-author with her) and a frequent troll on Facebook groups and internet forums where Lucius Artorius Castus is occasionally discussed. He has used a large number of pseudonyms and sockpuppet accounts over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:81CC:48F0:A9A:E9EF (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the Lucius Artorius Castus page has been corrupted again I think by this user: 95.233.51.142

"The Caledonii raided south of Hadrian's Wall, destroying almost half of the VI Victrix." No evidence for this statement, Dio merely says there was an incursion south of the wall and a troop and their commander was killed.

"The VI Victrix and the II Augusta legions kept rebelling." No evidence as to which legions or auxiliaries were rebelling in this period.

"The word ARMATOS is used in literary sources (Livy, Tacitus, Cicero and De Bello Gallico)". It's a latin word so this is irrelevant as evidence.

"we can also find it in the inscriptions CIL 02, 05439 and SEG-53, 00617 and the last is dated 171-230 CE." These are law codes and not funerary or monumental stones listing an individual's cursus honorum.

This is going to keep happening to this page as the followers of this fringe theory have a book coming out in December and they seem to want to validate it by changing various wikipedia pages.

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no ligature. I have seen the stone in person multiple times with specialized lighting. I do not believe you have ever seen it.

The only troll I know on Facebook is you. Many of the reference in your new book are to Facebook threads, reenactors and emails.

If there was an uprising in the north and the invaders made it as far as York, that's evidence that there was an incursion into the south.

You seem to forget that Pertinax's own troops tried to kill him and that Albinus was leading the II Augusta.

The word Armatow is also in two inscriptions.

The fringe theory is the Armenios hypothesis. There is absolutely no evidence for it. Shashtah (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous! The restored reading of Arm[enio]s is now widely accepted as a strong possibility by experts in Roman history and epigraphy - it is nothing more than your biased opinion that there is "no evidence for it" or that it is "impossible".

Adversus Armatos section

In the section Adversus Armatos the following statement is unsupported: “The Caledonii raided south of Hadrian's Wall, destroying almost half of the VI Victrix”. The contemporary source Cassius Dio, (book 73.8) states: “When the tribes in that island, crossing the wall that separated them from the Roman legions, proceeded to do much mischief and cut down a general together with his troops, Commodus became alarmed but sent Ulpius Marcellus against them … and he ruthlessly put down the barbarians of Britain”. A commander and some troops were killed, no name, legion or number is specified. The troops on Hadrian’s Wall were well attested auxiliary units.

The presence of the word armatos in literary sources is simply acknowledging it's a Latin word. There's no evidence it was used in this context in funerary inscriptions to describe either internal or external enemies. In these cases the enemy was named, either the tribe's name or when a civil war scenario 'public enemies' or similar. The only example of an inscription given, CIL 02, 05439, is not a funerary or monument inscription describing an enemy. Instead it is a series of bronze tablets on which is written a law code for a town (Lex Ursonensis).

I would suggest this section is deleted as there is no supporting evidence. The fact it's a latin word used in literary sources and in a law code is not relevant as there are no examples of it being used in this context and multiple examples of enemies being named (either the tribe or 'public enemies') in every other example of an inscribed stone.

It seems to have been created by persons wishing to bolster the theory linking LAC to the Arthurian legend.

Alternatively the section should acknowledge this interpretation goes against the first reading of the stone and the consensus of historians and experts. And speculations and demonstrably false statements should be removed (such as the Sixth legion losing half it's strength). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonySullivanBooks (talk • contribs) 09:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The addition of the Armenios argument has been done by someone who just had a book published promoting that hypothesis. He has had no other publications on the matter. Shashtah (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

https://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi.php EDCS

What is this? It is not a source, nor is it an external link to an article (and if it is, why not in the external link s section)? Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the Clauss-Slaby database of ancient and early medieval Latin inscriptions (plus some foreign language inscriptions, such as Gaulish and Greek from within the Roman empire); it is one of the largest and most complete online databases of Latin inscriptions and is regularly updated with the latest finds published in epigraphic journals and books. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:31EF:E809:1C73:5F3 (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit War instigated by Linda Malcor and her co-authors

Let me preface this by saying I am one of the original editors of this article and curated it for many years before quitting Wikipedia. I checked back on the article recently and couldn't believe eyes on what had happened to it!

For any of you who are not familiar with the situation, there is a cabal of fringe authors (none of them are academics, though they do try to pretend they are such!) led by Linda Malcor who are hell-bend on twisting this article to support Malcor's long-since debunked hypothesis that Lucius Artorius Castus is the "real King Arthur" and that he led an army of Sarmatians that later became known as the Knights of the Roundtable. When I say debunked, I mean that it has been thoroughly trashed by every expert on Arthurian literature/legend, Roman epigraphy, and the history of the Roman Army who has bother to read Malcor, et al.'s work (which has never published in any serious academic journals - certainly never in any journals specializing in Roman history/epigraphy!). Experts in their fields such as Anthony Birley, Nicholas Higham, Roger Tomlin, et al., have all demonstrated (in print and in personal communication to authors such as Dan "August" Hunt, who has published a significant number of their criticisms on his blog Shadows In The Mist: The Quest for a Historical King Arthur) that this is a fringe theory and not to be taken seriously.

Aside from Linda, her prime conspirators - who are all Italian nationalists seeking to prove that the "real King Arthur" was ethnically Italian - are Antonio Trinchese, Alessandro Faggiani (who uses multiple sockpuppet accounts on Wikipedia and on Facebook - his favored username on WP now seems to be Artoriusfadianus), and Giuseppe Nicolini. They openly discuss changing this Wikipedia page to push their fringe theories on Linda's Facebook group "King Arthur: Man and Myth". Alessandro is the one who is primarily edit warring on this article, as the rest claim to not have the technical know-how to edit on Wikipedia. The cabal has a new book coming out later this year, so they are working overtime to insert their nonsense pet theories into this article (and other related ones!).

I do hope some moderators will see the light and not allow these bad faith editors to hijack this article. If they insist that we include this fringe material, I hope that we will at least be able to label it as "highly contested", or something of that nature. Truthfully, it doesn't belong here at all. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:493E:259E:9091:86C8 (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with this. These characters are repeatedly adding hugely speculative and demonstrably false statements.

Just one example is the repeated claim the Sixth legion was wiped out or lost 'half their force' in the 180s. In fact Cassius Do says this: 'the tribes in that island, crossing the wall that separated them from the Roman legions, proceeded to do much mischief and cut down a general together with his troops'. Cassius Dio book 73.8

So could be the commander of auxiliary units or detachments of any of the three legions stationed near the wall. Why do we allow them to keep posting this nonsense?

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 06:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

A) I am not a fringe author. I have been publishing on this matter since 1994.

B) I have not been altering the page. I don't even know how to do that, which I've told you repeatedly.

C) The Armenios hypothesis is the "fringe" theory. There is absolutely no evidence for it.

D) There are only two people who describe me as "fringe" in the Facebook lists: Christopher Gwinn and Tony Sullivan. They are both trying to erase my work here. Shashtah (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You are 100% a fringe author - this talk page only discusses a small percentage of your bizarre, fact-free, fringe theories! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

someone removed your changes so I pressed undo and reverted back to your edit.

No idea if I did it right but it seems to have worked.

regards

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Just so you know Emryswledig is Alessandro Faggiani, one of the authors of 'Missing Pieces', the article they are pushing. He's just revealed this on the facebook group King Arthur: Man and myth. They are actively discussing continuing some sort of edit war in order to get other users banned. He's just reversed your changes again which I in turn have undone TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

First, I did NOT instigate an "edit war." I don't know how to edit a Wikipedia article. I am only able to comment here because someone tossed me the link.

Second, my material is NOT "fringe." You apparently don't read works in foreign languages. It is only the British and the Americans who want to keep Arthur Celtic who identify my ideas as "fringe."

Third, the "Armenios" hypothesis was settled on by an artist in 2012 who sat in front of the stone trying to get either Armenios or Armoricanos to fit, those being the only two options at the time. He did not have either the Armoricos option or the Armatos option. The stone is mounted between a wall and a door jamb with no attempt to replicate the original space. There is no M-E ligature on the stone, and the Armenios hypothesis has exactly no evidence to support it. Shashtah (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I have requested PP, stop adding this and make a case. Slatersteven (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

That user has twice deleted the changes made by 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:493E:259E:9091:86C8 and tried to add back the hugely speculative and disputed information. He/she is getting a bit rude now.

As 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:493E:259E:9091:86C8 is one of the original authors and curators of the page I assume they know what they are talking about. The information they put is certainly inline with all the academic and original sources I've seen.

Should I'll keep reverting back to them until the page is protected then?

I don't want to get accused of being in an edit war just because bad faith actors are corrupting the page with fringe theories. TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

First, accusations of sockpuppetry and off-site coordinating are serious and should not be made lightly. If this is the case, the proper route is to file a complaint at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Note that there are no "moderators" of Wikipedia: this is an egalitarian, consensus-driven site. Administrators may institute bans once consensus is reached for such a ban. Their word has no more weight than others' in litigating content disputes such as this.

The problem with this ongoing dispute is that contrary to WP:OR and related policies, many keep insisting that by litigating the underlying Latin and whatnot in minute detail they can prove that this is indeed a WP:FRINGE theory. If it is true that been thoroughly trashed by every expert on Arthurian literature/legend, Roman epigraphy, and the history of the Roman Army who has bother to read Malcor, et al.'s work, then this should not be difficult: cite the secondary sources involved that directly contradict Malcor. The Higham citation above, which I am happy to assist in working into the article, is excellent in this regard. The best option would be to take the paragraph you want removed (and understand that it may not be removed) and reword it. "Malcor et al. argue _______. Other historians, however, say ______ and ________. According to ______, Malcor et al. erred in _______."

What is not particularly useful is e.g. the assertion in an above section that "Firstly the epigraphical evidence contains multiple examples of a campaign against external enemies where the tribe or people are named." — cited to simply to a certain "Brunn and Edmondson, 2015". A full, specific citation (and if it's not accessible online, a relevant quote, ideally), would be necessary. See more on that below.

Please remember t unless you have some sort of conflict-of-interest relationship with the subject (impossible) or are being paid to write this article, you are free to make the changes you see fit in line with reliable sourcing. But blanking large amounts of text by simply asserting that it is false is not going to be well received. The best way to use the talk page is, as noted above, explaining why you're going to replace content or remove it altogether. In this case, that burden will be higher because of the at-face substantive sourcing behind the content you are seeking to remove. It is entirely possible that it's all BS — and it's unfair that such BS could make its way here and require rigorous rebuttal! But that is how Wikipedia works, for better or for worse. At the very least, you can insert "These arguments are rejected by most scholars." with appropriate references to any of the secondary sources that supposedly reject the arguments of Malcor et al. and we can go from there.

This process can go much smoother if you use proper citations via Wikipedia citation templates; there are many tools you can use to assist with this. These produce "wikitext" that you will see when you open the source code editor. Note the built-in citation tool that should also appear when you edit. If you need assistance with editing, please refers to Help:Introduction or WP:Teahouse for specific technical questions.

I am going to go through and examine this article in more depth in the coming days as it has become clear that this is an increasingly intractable dispute. Remember, though, that I am not a "moderator". Like everyone else on this project, I'm a volunteer. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I have collected a few quotes below - I can certainly dig up many more, if necessary. I will add them when I have time.

RSO Tomlin, Britannia Romana: Roman Inscriptions and Roman Britain, Oxbow, 2018 , pp. 155-157.

"Two officers of the Sixth Legion

Fifty years almost to the day separate the deaths of Antoninus Pius (7 March AD 161) and Septimius Severus (4 February AD 211). In this half-century the tide of Roman rule in northern Britain continues to ebb and flow as on a darkling plain. In AD 161 the new emperor Marcus Aurelius – like Hadrian at his accession – is said by his ancient biographer to have been threatened by war in Britain.1 His new governor was the formidable general Statius Priscus, but Marcus sent him to the East instead to cope with a much greater threat, the Parthian invasion of Syria.2 He also reinforced the eastern armies with three legions3 from the Danube, and it is likely that he told Priscus to take legionary reinforcements with him from Britain. The evidence is indirect, this tombstone from the eastern Adriatic coast:

<7.01> Podstrana, Croatia (Epetium)

D(is) M(anibus)

L(ucius) Artori[us Ca]stus (centurio) leg(ionis)

III Gallicae item [(centurio) le]g(ionis) VI Ferratae

item (centurio) leg(ionis) II Adi[utr(icis) i]tem (centurio) leg(ionis) V M[a]- c(edonicae)

item p(rimus) p(ilus) eiusdem [leg(ionis)], praeposito(!)

classis Misenatium, [pr]aef(ectus) leg(ionis) VI

Victricis, duci(!) leg(ionum) [triu]m Britanici-

{mi}arum(!) adversus Arm[enio]s, proc(urator) centenario(!)

provinciae Li[b(urniae) iure] glad(i)I, vivus

ipse sibi et suis [... ex] t(estamento)

ILS 2770, with Loriot 1997

‘To the Shades of the Dead. Lucius Artorius Castus, centurion of the Third Legion Gallica, also centurion of the Sixth Legion Ferrata, also centurion of the Second Legion Adiutrix,

also centurion of the Fifth Legion Macedonica, also the first-ranking centurion of the same legion, acting-commander of the Fleet at Misenum, prefect of the Sixth Legion

Victrix, general of (detachments of) the three British legions against the Armenians, procurator at a salary of 100,000 (sesterces) of Liburnia with capital jurisdiction, (provided

for this tomb) by the terms of his will, for himself and his family in his own lifetime.’

The lettering is very fine, but the draughtsman or the stone-cutter made some mistakes. Although Artorius Castus (in the nominative) is clearly the subject, the case shifts to the dative in noting his posts of praeposito, duci and centenario, as if he had become his own dedicatee. praef(ectus) was cut as PRAEFF, although the repeated F should indicate a plural (‘prefects’), and BRITANICIMIARVM is a blunder for Britannicianarum. It is incidentally an example of the ‘continental’ spelling Britania (see note to 8.12). The inscription is undated, but the quality of the lettering and the well-executed band of lush ornament to left and right, twining scrolls inhabited by rosettes, would suggest it was Antonine (c. AD 140–90). Artorius Castus was an equestrian, but virtually governor of Liburnia, the coast and islands of modern Croatia, the only one attested. His salary of 100,000 sesterces set him in the second grade of procurators, above those who earned 60,000 (see note to 8.13), but he also exercised special authority: the ‘right of the sword’ (ius gladii) gave him jurisdiction in capital cases and the power of ordering executions. This would have infringed upon the powers of the senatorial legate of Dalmatia, of which Liburnia was part, and it is notable that his previous mission was also of a kind more often entrusted to senators.

This handsome slab is now broken into two pieces, with an irregular band of letters lost in the gap between them, but the name of the deceased can be restored with the help of another inscription from Epetium which names Lucius Artorius Castus as first-ranking centurion (primus pilus) of the Fifth Legion Macedonica and prefect of the Sixth Legion Victrix. This guarantees the restoration of ARTORI[VS CA]STVS across the gap in the first line (not counting D M, since it was cut outside the panel), and allows the gap to be measured: it narrows to two letters in the fifth line, the beginning of [PR]AEFF, before it widens again. In most lines some three or four letters have been lost, which means that the name of the province, LIBVRNIAE, must have been abbreviated; but, more importantly, that in the line above, only three or four letters have been lost from the name of Artorius Castus’ opponents, the ARM[...O]S. His post of dux legionum (‘general of legions’) means that he actually commanded, not whole legions, but elements of them, a ‘task force’ consisting of detachments drawn from the legions of a province. But who were his opponents?

At this crucial point the first editor, Carrara in 1850, read ARME[...], which (since he did not read the right-hand piece and then restore Arme[nio]s) rather suggests that he saw the remains of E in the broken edge; but if so, they have since been lost. Mommsen, who did not see the original, restored it in CIL as ARM[ORICANO]S, which would imply a campaign, not against the ‘Armenians’, but the ‘Armoricans’ of Brittany. Since there is no other reference to such a campaign, and the seven letters required cannot be fitted into the space available, Mommsen’s restoration is difficult to accept, let alone the idea it has since inspired, the catalyst of much speculation, that Artorius Castus is the original ‘King Arthur’. Loriot was surely right to dismiss this as a modern myth when he reasserted ARME[NIO]S, even though he worked from poor photographs and (to repeat) there was no longer evidence of a decisive E. This campaign ‘against the Armenians’ has been attributed to the eastern wars of Caracalla or Severus Alexander, but the inscription looks earlier than the third century, and a more attractive attribution is to Statius Priscus’ invasion of Armenia in AD 163. This was so successful that Marcus Aurelius and his colleague Lucius Verus, the nominal commander-in-chief, assumed the title of Armeniacus (‘Conqueror of Armenia’). Statius Priscus, as already said, had just been transferred from governing Britain; that his army included British legionaries, under one of his own senior officers in Britain, Artorius Castus, is a brighter suggestion than to invoke the Celtic shades of ‘Arthurian’ legend."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:31EF:E809:1C73:5F3 (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Mommsen made a mistake on the name, calling Castus Lucius Artorius Justus; he later corrected it Dessau. He could have made a mistake on Armoricanos. You don't know the spacing on the letters. The piece is mounted between a door jamb and a wall and is designed to fit that space, not to fit your concept of the letters. There are elisions that make Armoricanos possible, though Armatos is more possible. The connection of the stone with Statius Priscus is too early. That date would not evidence the Severan features. Only a late second century date fits the combination of Antonine and Severan elements. Shashtah (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"You don't know the spacing on the letters" - I most certainly do! We have both pieces of the inscription and a good sense of the spacing that was used by the stonecutter, allowing us to judge how much room missing middle section once occupied. This, along with the rest of your comments here are pure nonsense. The style and lettering of the inscription is entirely keeping with the late 2nd century; LAC surely commissioned it as an elderly man. He quite easily could have fought in Armenia under Statius Priscus. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:51B9:DC32:A68D:838B (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

There is no ligature. That can be seen quite clearly on a photo that Faggiani has posted in multiple places which is a close up of the M with the clearly cut tops circles, showing no erosion and no damage. Shashtah (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Christopher Snyder, "Arthurian Origins", in N. Lacy (ed.), A History of Arthurian Scholarship, Arthurian Studies LXV, D. S. Brewer, 2006, pp. 15-16

"As Oliver Padel pointed out, this could also be a problem of folklore rather than one of history. Since the origins of a folk tale or folk figure are almost always non-literate and therefore undatable, a folkloric Arthur may be beyond the capacity of a historian to explain. This is the problem one encounters with the so-called ‘Sarmatian Connection’. In 1975 Helmut Nickel wrote an essay in which he briefly explored the possibility that Lucius Artorius Castus was the historical prototype of Arthur and that a unit of Sarmatian cavalry serving under him in Britain formed the basis for what would later be known as the Knights of the Round Table.71 The westernmost Sarmatians, who were related to the ancient Scythians of the Caucasus region as well as the Alans originally from the Russian Steppes, were defeated by the emperor Marcus Aurelius in Hungary in A.D. 175, and 5,500 of their heavy cavalry (cataphractarii) were sent by Rome to help fight barbarians in northern Britain. They were assigned to Castus, wrote Nickel, and fought under a windsock banner of the red dragon; their descendants, still on record in northern Britain in the early fifth century, kept the name Artorius alive as a sort of title and it became linked with epic tales brought from the Caucasus about swords in stones and magic cauldrons. These were grand and sweeping claims, obviously in need of more lengthy and detailed scholarly examination. C. Scott Littleton had also made the Sarmatian Connection independently of Nickel. From conversations with the linguist/archaeologist J.P. Mallory, Littleton went on to publish his theories first in a collaborative essay with Anne C. Thomas (1978) and then in the book From Scythia to Camelot (1994), co-authored with Linda A. Malcor. In this more elaborate form of the theory, Lancelot becomes Alanus-à-Lot (‘the Alan of Lot’), Arthur is more closely linked with Batraz and his Narts (heroes in the Ossetian epics of the Caucasus), and the Holy Grail is seen as a relic stolen from St Peter’s Basilica by the Alans in 410 and carried to southern Gaul. The result is a mixture of sound scholarship on the early Steppe nomads with inaccuracies and flights of historical and etymological fancy.

But the most serious problem with the Sarmatian Connection is that it depends upon links between second- to fifth-century historical actors (Castus, Sarmatian veterans in Britain, Alans in Gaul and Britain), twelfth- to fifteenthcentury chivalric romances, and undatable Ossetian epics recorded first in the nineteenth century. Even if these tales do go back to Late Roman Britain, they admittedly (by Littleton and Malcor) had to pass through a filter of Britons in the ninth and tenth centuries. ‘To build a bridge of tradition from secondcentury Roman Britain to ninth-century Wales’, writes Richard Barber, ‘with no other support is a daring feat of imagination, but not admissible evidence.’ Nevertheless, the Sarmatian Connection continues to be a compelling theory, drawing the attention of many scholars and even Hollywood producers."

Dr. Thomas (Caitlin) Green, Concepts of Arthur, Tempus, 2007, pp. 181-183:

[Green starts of by summarizing Malcor's hypothesis that Lucius Artorius Castus was the "original King Arthur" and briefly discusses his career] "Second, as to the idea that L. Artorius Castus could himself have been the ‘original’ Arthur, rather than simply the donor of the name (or an influence in its choice), it has to be noted that there is simply no reason to think this is the case. As has already been shown in the preceding chapters, there is in non-Galfridian tradition (aside from the ninth-century historicization of Arthur into the late fifth century found in the Historia Brittonum and the very few texts related to it) simply no trace of history. Arthur and his legend appear wholly as a product of legend, folklore and myth and there is certainly no hint that Arthur had his origins in a second-century Roman general or any other such figure. Indeed, Arthur’s lack of obvious romanitas, at least in the Arthurian legend of the early ninth century, can be argued to have been the reason for his choice as a new ‘Joshua’ for the Welsh... Having disposed of one ‘historical Arthur’ as the origins of the legend, I see no need to set up another. If Lucius Artorius Castus, or indeed any other Artorius, is to be connected with the legend then he seems to have contributed his name and nothing else to it, if that much."

Ken Dark, "A Famous Arthur in the Sixth Century? Reconsidering the Origins of the Arthurian Legend", Reading Medieval Studies 26 (2000): 77-96.

[p. 88] "Consequently, despite the recent explication of bis career by Linda Malcor, we may doubt whether he can be the basis of the later Arthurian legend. This would require some memory of him being preserved for almost 400 years before we have any trace of it and, as already mentioned, there is no reason why he should have been any more notable than any other middle-ranking Roman officer. But without Artorius Castus there no Artorii known from Roman Britain at all."

Luca Larpi, In Search of Arthur: A Talk on Methodology, Postgraduate Seminar in History and Classics, University of Manchester, 19.02.2008

"Lucius Artorius Castus. This positivist position on the historicity of Arthur is still producing a number of works which fall outside of the ‘academic’ net. The standard stance adopted by historians is to ignore this literature, but, in so doing, the academic community fails to recognise the vitality of the debate and the robustness of the ‘historical’ Arthur lobby.

A clear example of this is the success of Linda Malcor’s theory concerning the identification between Arthur and a Roman officer of the second century AD, Lucius Artorius Castus. This identification, first proposed in 1925 by Kemp Malone, was later developed by Malcor and became widely known thanks to the last movie on Arthur in 2004, of which Malcor herself was the “scientific expert”.

The core of this theory was first developed in a book published by Malcor and C. S. Littleton in 1994, From Scythia to Camelot, where it was proposed that the medieval Arthur derived from the folklore of the Sarmatians or Alans via service in the Roman army. Basically, this was an attempt to explain the superficial similarities between the (reconstructed) Sarmatian legends and the (late) “tradition” concerning Arthur.

In two articles published online (Heroic Age) in 1999, Malcor developed her view on Lucius Artorius Castus. The existence of this Roman official is confirmed by an inscription from Croatia (CIL 3 1919), which describe his cursus honorum. Malcor’s translation and comment on this epigraphy is mainly fictional, aimed as it is to prove that (a) Castus had a deep knowledge of the Sarmatian tribes and (b) he was the commander of a Sarmatian auxiliary force during the Pict invasion of Britain in 180-185 AD. This reconstruction is based on a series of unacceptable assumptions: to make just one example, Malcor believed that Castus’s title that appears on the epigraph, dux legionis co[hortium alarum] Britanici[n]iarum adversos Armoricanos, which she translated as “dux of the legions of cohorts of cavalry from Britain against the Armoricans” was the source both of Arthur’s title dux bellorum found in the Historia Brittonum, and of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s story of Arthur’s expedition against the Romans on the Continent. This is not exact. First of all, Castus’s title is almost exceptional in the context of the Roman army of the second century AD, and in all probabilities mirrors the exceptional nature of the expedition to Armorica (probably a punitive expedition following a rebellion of some sort); second, the translation of dux legionis cohortium alarum as “commander of the legions of cohorts of cavalry” is completely wrong, since a “legion of cohort of cavalry” never existed: instead, this is the indication that he was leading a mixed force of cohortes and alae, probably formed by some detachments (vexillationes) from the British army (the fact that Malcor insists that Castus was a leader of cavalry is indicative of her will to link this officer with the Sarmatians as a confirmation of her theory concerning Arthurian legends and these barbaric tribe); thirdly, is highly improbable that dux bellorum reflects a Roman title, since the author of Historia Brittonum does not know anything of the Roman army: on the other hand, as Higham showed, an almost identical definition (dux belli) is found in the Book of Judges as a description of Joshua, a character on which the Arthur of Historia Brittonum is modelled (biblical derivation); finally, it would be extremely risky to link an epigraphical source of the 2nd century with a fictional work of the 12th century, as Geoffrey’s Historia Regum Britanniae clearly is.

This shameless use of late sources is confirmed by Malcor herself in the second of her articles, where she she listed the work she used: Historia Brittonum (9th century); Annales Cambriae (10th century); William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum Anglorum (ca 1125 AD); Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae (ca 1136 AD); Wace, Roman de Brut (1155 AD); Giraldus Cambrensis, De Principis Instructione (ca 1195 AD); Latamon, Brut (ca. 1205 AD). She justifies this approach in this terms:

“When studying the primary Arthurian texts, great care must be used. As von Sydow pointed out, the earliest known variants of a traditional story are seldom either the most complete or the best. ::Tales may be far older than the manuscripts in which they appear. (...) Legends, in the early stages of their transmission, are generally interjected into discussion to prove a point. Legends are told as if they are factual accounts, whether or not the events recounted actually happened. As part of the verisimilitude, legends are attached to places or people familiar to the audience. The importance of this familiarity is underscored by the fact that (...) legends do not transmit easily beyond the region of their creation. Such transmission, however, while uncommon, does happen from time to time. The Arthurian legends are an example of this type of transmission. (...) The important point is that what emerged as the twelfth- and thirteenth-century [Arthurian] romances was a full-blown tradition, complete with the historical elements and folktales incorporated from a variety of sources.”

Von Sydow’s article is contained in A. Dundes, The study of Folklore (1965); as its title clearly shows (‘Folktale studies and philology: some points of view’), this article concerns mainly the study of the evolution of tales and legends through the centuries, and describes the methodologies which should be used to trace the origin of a particular story. We are in the reign of oral tradition here, a matter which should be handled with extreme care. First of all, as some examples made by Von Sydow himself show, we are on firm ground only when we have some ancient documents testifying that a particular variant of a specific legend was told in a certain time and place: if not, the relationships between “variants” are purely speculative. Secondly, in this kind of studies it is often assumed that the written sources we have │ report mechanically a story or a legend heard somewhere: in so doing, it is excluded the possibility that the author of the source itself could have made the story up. The results of this approach are quite evident when we consider Malcor’s case: here the so-called “Arthurian Legends” are taken without any attempt of understanding the context in which the authors were writing. Malcor fails to see that all these sources are in fact edited texts, written with a specific purpose in mind, and that, as a consequence, they are extremely suspicious. The progresses made in the understanding of these works (thanks to Dumville and others), are here completely ignored."

Anthony Birley, The Roman Government of Britain, Oxford, 2005, p. 355 [Doesn't mention Malcor by name, but obliquely references her LAC = King Arthur hypothesis and concludes that "it must now lapse"; Birley is certainly aware of Malcor and has made negative comments about her LAC hypothesis in personal communications with Dan Hunt, some of which he has published on his Shadows in the Mists blog]:

"A funerary inscription from Epetium, near Salonae in Dalmatia, records the career of Lucius Artorius Castus, who had been prefect of the legion VI Victrix and then commander of a task force of two British legions against a people whose name used to be restored as Arm[oricano]s, that is, the Armoricans of western Gaul:

LCIL iii. 1919+add.=ILS 2770+add.=Pflaum, CP no. 196=X. Loriot, BSNAF (1997), 855ff: D(is) M(anibus) | L(ucius) Artori[us Cas]tus, 7 le[g(ionis)] | III Gallicae, item [7 le]g(ionis) VI Ferra4|tae, item 7 leg(ionis) II Adi[utricis, i]tem 7 leg(ionis) V M[a]c(edonicae), item p(rimus)p(ilus) eiusdem [leg(ionis)], praeposito | classis Misenatium, [item pr]aef(ecto) leg(ionis) VI Victricis, duci legg(=legionum) [duaru]m Britanici|miarum (sic) adversus Arme[nio]s, proc(uratori) cente|nario Lib[urniae iure] gladi, vi8|vus ipse sibi et suis [ . . . ]st.

To the divine shades. Lucius Artorius Castus, centurion of the Third Legion Gallica, also centurion of the Sixth Legion Ferrata, also centurion of the Second Legion Adiutrix, also centurion of the Fifth Legion Macedonica, also chief centurion of the same legion, in charge of the Misenum fleet, prefect of the Sixth Legion Victrix, commander of two British legions against the Armenians, centenary procurator of Liburnia with the power of the sword. He himself (set this up) for himself and his family in his lifetime.

This command over the task force of British legions has frequently been dated to the reign of Commodus and associated with the ‘deserters’ war’ in that reign.[80] However, the improved reading by Loriot shows that Arme[nio]s, the Armenians, must be restored in line 7. Hence the context is an eastern expedition, most probably either under Caracalla in 215 (cf. Dio 77. 21) or Severus Alexander."[81]

"80. See e.g. Pflaum, CP, no. 196, followed by Dobson, Primipilares, no. 151, and others. K. Malone, Modern Philology 22 (1925), 367ff., even suggested that Artorius Castus’ supposed expedition to Armorica might be the historical kernel of the Arthurian legend. The idea still seems to be viewed positively e.g. by N. J. Higham, King Arthur: Myth-Making and History (2002), 75 f., 96, cf. 268. It must now lapse."

"81. X. Loriot, BSNAF (1997), 855ff., refers to the photograph published by J. Medini, Diadora, 9 (1980), 363ff. For operations in Armenia under Severus Alexander he cites IGR i. 623=ILS 8851, Tomi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:31EF:E809:1C73:5F3 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Some of the Sarmatians were in the Roman army. Many were not, and most of the Alans were not. "dux legionis co[hortium alarum] Britanici[n]iarum adversos Armoricanos" is not what the hypothesis says at all. "Dux of the three British legions" is the reading. Geoffrey says that Arthur fought the Picts, who were the descendants of the Caledonians. I see that Dan Hunt's blog was used as a source, not a peer-reviewed publication. There is no evidence for Loriot's reading of Armenios. Shashtah (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is so tiresome - you are completely oblivious to the literature on this inscription! Not only have you not read Loriot (confirmed by your comment above), but you seem to not be aware of the fact that "dux leg[ionis] co[hortium alarum] Britanici[n]iarum adversos Armoricanos" was Mommsen's 1873 expansion of the text in CIL 3, 1919! Secodnly, Geoffrey [of Monmouth[ was an early 12th century author of historical fiction, it's bizarre that you would cite him in a historical argument such as this! His work is completely irrelevant! Thirdly, the personal communications from Birley, Tomlin, et al., published on Hunt's blog hardly require peer review; they are direct quotes from leading experts on Roman history and Latin epigraphy and hold much weight. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. This is strong evidence that makes clear to a lay-reader (including myself) that the LAC as Arthur hypothesis is not widely accepted, or at the very least, controversial among relevant scholars. Given that, absent additional evidence presented to the contrary — namely, of others treating the hypothesis seriously outside of Malcor and her immediate coauthors — I'm more comfortable labeling the article as-is an example of WP:FRINGE. I have notified of Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome of this discussion, and editors there may decide to help restructure the article. I will also notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology. I do not have a whole lot of time to immediately take care of this but am happy to help in the coming weeks. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 00:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank your for taking the time to dive into this! I'm sorry to report that this debate has metastasized onto the Artoria gens talk page, where Alessandro Faggiani (Emryswledig, Artoriusfadianus, et al) and Linda Malcor (Shashtah) are re-posting all the same nonsense. The only upside is that a lot of primary and secondary sources on Lucius Artorius Castus are now being cited and quoted, in case anyone is desperate to learn more about this man and his career! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:6451:A5EC:10E5:7C45 (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The word "Armenios", never mind Adversus Armenios, does not, to my knowledge, occur in any inscriptions. Adversus Armatos does occur in two non-memorial inscriptions.

Anything published before 2019 did not have Armatos as an option to discuss.

And, again, I am not posting anything! I don't know how to! Stop lying about me! Shashtah (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Armatos

Regarding Armatos: Personally it’s such a fringe theory I’d be happy to delete it entirely. However if it’s felt it has to be included it should come with a warning that it is not supported by academic consensus or any evidence. Here’s the reasoning below: Funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions such as the one for Castus would always name the enemy. Internal enemies would be called public enemies, defectors or rebels. External enemies would be named, e.g. Parthians. There are only two known names beginning ARM. 1. ARMORICANOS 2. ARMENIOS The first seems too long for the missing gap and the regional name is not attested until much later. Still perhaps a form ARMORICOS could have been used. The second is seen as most likely as we do indeed have 3 campaigns in Armenia against Armenians. We have coins depicting this, emperors taking the title Armeniacus, and inscriptions referencing the 233 war:’expediteone Partica et Armeniaca’. Plus we have the first reading in 1850 which claimed to see signs of an E as the fourth letter. The stone has since been weathered. No other alternative tribal or peoples’ name has been found to date but that option remains open. The pro-Artorius Castus =King Arthur proponents reject the first reading and claim because ARMENIOS is not found anywhere else it must be impossible. In fact references to Armenia (Armeniacus) are found on dozens of inscriptions. They have suggested ARMATOS, armed men. But this is too vague and not found on any similar inscription. It doesn’t even specify if it’s an internal or external enemy. Also the two examples they have offered of ARMATOS are not funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions listing a cursus honorum or tres militiae military career. One is a law code written on 9 bronze tablets concerning a town in Spain, The second is in a similar context on stone in Macedonia Both are embodied in text and relate to the carrying of arms. Neither are a monument listing an individual’s career. Literary examples are irrelevant as it’s a Latin word. Obviously all these are merely examples of it’s use in normal writing and not on a memorial stone. Their insistence the most likely options are ‘impossible’ and every historian who has looked at it is wrong is just bizarre. We do indeed have individuals who travelled from Britain to the other side of the empire. The governor of Britain, Priscus, was sent to Armenia and he captured the capital in 163. To deny even the possibility he was accompanied by units from Britain is not reasonable. TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I should add the first reading in 1850 interpreted it as ARME which strongly points to Armenia. Regardless of whether there was a ligatured E that has since been weathered all the expert opinion, Birley, Tomlin, Loriot, Higham etc support ARMENIOS as most likely interpretation.

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Please provide secondary sources that make this argument (see the above reply). Once you have properly cited secondary sources, I am more than happy to assist modifying the article accordingly. I understand that you are clearly highly specialized and knowledgeable in this field, but keep in mind the context: Wikipedia is an anonymous, open-for-all encyclopedia. That has enabled it to become one of the most widely used reference works in human history, but one of the unavoidable pitfalls is that I cannot take you for your word. The assertion that e.g. Funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions such as the one for Castus would always name the enemy. is not something any editors can just take at face value. Thus, a core pillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability, as mediated through other sources, preferably not primary ones. In this case, I assume that will be academic journals or books, primarily. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 22:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Specifically on the the statement: 'The assertion that e.g. Funerary, dedication or monument inscriptions such as the one for Castus would always name the enemy.'

Firstly you asked for secondary sources that explain the reasoning. Here are some leading experts:

Tomlin is described as ‘The leading European scholar on the analysis of Roman inscriptions’.

The article would probably benefit from his translation and comments at the start.

He explains why the correct reading is Armenios.

And why it implies detachments rather than entire legions.

He also dismisses arguments linking LAC with Arthurian themes describing it as ‘difficult to accept’.

Dates him to Armenian campaign of Lucius Verus c. 163

Tomlin, 2018: 155-7

Tomlin, R.S.O., Britannia Romana, Roman Inscriptions and Roman Britain, (Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2018).

Professor Anthony Birley was also a leading expert in Roman history and specifically Roman Britain.

He also explains Arm(enio)s ‘must’ be restored rather than the longer Arm(oricano)s.

He also dismisses the Arthurian theory stating ‘it must now lapse’.

He dates his career to the early third century and Armenian Campaigns of Caracalla and Severus.

Birley, 2005: 355

Birley, Anthony, The Roman Government of Britain, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2005).

Davenport, the leading expert in the Roman Equestrian Order agrees with Birley dating him to the early third century.

Davenport, 2019: 491-3

Davenport, Caillan, A History of the Roman Equestrian Order, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2019).

Professor Halsall also accepts Armenios and dismisses any links with Sarmatians or Arthurian legends.

Halsall, 2013: 147-151

Halsall, Guy, Worlds of Arthur, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014)

Professor Higham devotes a chapter to Artoius Castus (Higham, 2018: 13-39) and explains specifically why Armenios is the preferred reading and why the other alternatives are ‘implausible’ (Higham, 2018: 21)

Higham, N.J., King Arthur The Making of the Legend, (Yale University Press, New Haven, 2018).

Istvanovits and Kulcsar, leading experts on Sarmatian people don’t cover LAC but do describe the parallels between 19th century Nart tales and Arthurian legends, They describe them as ‘controversial' but offer no support for the theory.

Istvanovits and Kulcsar (2017: 414)

Istvanovits, Eszter, and Kulcsar, Valeria, Sarmatians, History and Archaeology of a Forgotten People, (Romisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, Germany, 2017).

Xavier Loriot in 1997 details why Armenios is the correct reading. Loriot, Xavier, Un mythe historiographique : l’expédition d’Artorius Castus contre les Armoricains (Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, 1997), Pg. 85-86

Secondly one could look at primary sources here (although I realise few have the time or inclination):

Bruun, Christer and Edmondson, Jonathan, The Oxford Handbook of Roman Epigraphy, (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015).

https://db.edcs.eu/epigr/epi.php?s_sprache=en

In the above you will find all examples of campaigns name their enemies;

Internal foes are called rebels, public enemies or defectors

External enemies are named e.g Parthians, Britons etc.

Armeniacus is found on dozens of memorial stones referencing an ‘Armenian’ war (you can type it into search engine in link above).

Armatos is not found on a single similar memorial stone regarding a campaign against an enemy within an individual’s career. Only in the text of two law codes/instructions.

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The best explanation of the identity of LAC's opponents is in Tomlin, 2018: 157

Very difficult to claim the leading expert in Roman inscriptions is simply wrong.

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There is not a single example of the phrase adversus armatos ("against armed men") on any Latin inscription (easily verified by searching the online Clauss-Slaby database of Latin inscriptions - simply type the phrase adversus armatos into the "search text 1" field). The word armatos, in fact, is only found in a single military-related inscription with mixed Latin and Greek text (Class-Slaby searches can be sorted by type, including military-related inscriptions, via the "inscription genus / personal status" field; select "milites" for military-related inscriptions):

SEG-53, 617 = AE 2014, 1178 = Haensch-2019b, p 255; from Pella, Macedonia, dating to c. 171-230 ACE:

[Exemplum ep]istulae scriptae praef(ecto) c(larissimo) v(iro) a Messala / [Rutiliano] frequenter domine ordo spledidissi/[mus coloni]ae Pellesium provinciae Macedoniae / [et nunc dem]um questus est non sufficere rem / [publicam s]uam impendiorum oneribus in iis quae / [commean]tes armati exsigunt quos cum a<d=T> / [proc(uratorem?) rett]ulissem novissime has a<d=T> me litteras / [miserun]t quarum exemplum subdidi tua do/[mine auc]toritas instruet me qui<d=T> agere // [debeam] exemplum epistu/[lae scrip]tae Messalae Rutiliano a praef(ecto) prae/[torio ci]rca armatos et circa ceteros comme/[antes sat]is provisum est principalibus consti/[tutionib]us quas certum est t(e) non ignora/[re 3s]ecundum ea(s) partibus tuis functus / [eris nequ]e diplomatibus commeantes neque / [cives(?) v]el stabularii iniuriam patientur /

"Copy of the letters to Messala Rutilianus written by the pretorian prefect. Concerning those bearing arms and other travellers, the imperial constitutions, which you surely know, take ample care of; if you perform your duties accordingly, neither those travelling with a diploma nor the peasants nor the station personnel will suffer any wrong” (translation: Anne Kolb, Transport in Thracia, 2018, Bulletin of the National Archaeological Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Science 44 (2017), 1-9. [1]https://www.academia.edu/38242965/Transport_in_Thracia).

Of course, this is a legal text and not a cursus honoroum (a detail of a soldier's career), such as Lucius Artorius Castus' main inscription, so it is completely irrelevant. It is obvious to anyone who has studied Roman history that no career soldier would point on on his cursus honoroum would specify that he fought a battle against "armed men" - all battles were fought against armed men, LOL! It would have been rather disgraceful to fight against unarmed men, anyway, so no soldier would need to add such a ridiculous clarification.

If you search Clauss-Slaby for adversus and filter for military-relayed inscriptions, there are 20 results. I'm not going to post them all here, but if you search for them you can see that most follow the formula of either adversus + personal or ethnic name in the accusative (Aedemonem, Germanos, Dacos, hostes Getas, Arabes, Castabocas et Mauros, Ituraeos), while a smaller number identify the enemy (all internal to the Roman empire, as opposed to external/foreign peoples) with technical terms such as "rebels" (rebelles), "deserters/defectors" (defectores), or "public enemies" (hostes publicos). This "Armatos hypothesis" is a complete non-starter; it has zero logic behind it and reeks of desperation by the Malcor camp, once word of the "Armenios" reading of LAC's inscription became widely known (thanks in no small part to this WP article!). Previously (and for many years!) Malcor and crew insisted that Armoricanos was the only possible reading and they would verbally attack anyone who disagreed! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:31EF:E809:1C73:5F3 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

You still have no reference for Armenios in funerary inscriptions, as you insist for Armatos, and the art history does not date to the Severan period. It is Antonine. Shashtah (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It's nothing to with with anyone on here insisting anything. That's irrelevant.

All the leading academics listed above interpret the inscription as Aremnios.

As an aside Armeniacus is listed dozens of times so Armenicos is very likely.

Armatos is too vague as explained above and there is nothing similar. Your two examples are on law codes and they are not memorial stones listing a career like with LAC.

What is important is several experts in Roman inscriptions have all interpreted the wording as Armenios. That is the current consensus among leading scholars. And the first reading claims to have seen ARME- which backs this up, a point you dismiss for no reason other than it doesn't support your position.

I would suggest you need to do two things.

First come up with a reason as to why all the leading experts are wrong about Armenios.

And then get your idea, Armatos, peer reviewed by experts in Roman epigraphy rather than the JIES.

As for dating Tomlin and Higham do indeed place the end of his military career in the second century in the Armenian campaign of 163.

However Birley, Davenport and Loriot date him to the early third century and the Armenian campaigns of Caracalla of Alexander. So on dating there is still some dispute. What they don't do is insist he can definitely be dated to a specific decade. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Wrong. See: CIL 3, 3109 (p 1038); dating: 201 to 300 ACE; province: Dalmatia; place: Solta, Otok / Solentia: "Aur(elius) Kamines / natione Armenius / qui vixit an(nos) XXVIII". Here is is used in the nominative singular (as opposed to the accusative plural in LAC's inscription). 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

"You still have no reference for Armenios in funerary inscriptions, as you insist for Armatos" As stated above there are dozens of references to adversus xxx (insert name of external or internal enemy). Aremnios is an example of an ethnic name and thus likely. The fact the word armeniacus does appear on several memorial stones strengthens this.

The reason why armatos is not accepted is because it is too vague and no version of it appears on similar memorial stones. Examples from a law code and letter are not memorial stones. So whilst it may appear to some different standards of evidence are being applied they aren't.

"the art history does not date to the Severan period. It is Antonine". The leading expert Tomlin does indeed suggest it is more likely Antonine but he does not express the certainty you do. Since other experts such as Birley, Davenport and Loriot place him in the Several period (again not expressing certainty) we must accept there is no academic consensus as yet. Thus the article should reflect this and acknowledge bot timeframe are possible. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Adversus Armatos" occurs in several literary texts, such as The Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar and Works by Tacitus. I am not aware of any reference to "Adversus Armenios" in inscriptions or in literature.

If I am remembering my Latin correctly, Armenios is an adjective, not a noun. You would need to have Armenios XXX, such as the Armenian People. The required noun won't fit the space.

Sullivan also references sources such as emails from the people he is mentioning to Dan Hunt (personal communication) which Hunt then posted on his website. That is not a proper scholarly source. Shashtah (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion that will enable the ARM[ATO]S suggestion to be mentioned, whatever one thinks about its plausibility? It has been published - albeit in a journal not known for dealing with Roman epigraphy - but it is a signficant peer-reviewed contribution to the debate. Would it be possible to alter the subheading 'Adversus *Arm[oric(an)o]s or Adversus *Arme[nio]s?' to read 'Adversus *Arm[oric(an)o]s, Adversus *Arm[enio]s or Adversus *Arm[ato]s?' and then add, at the end of the section, the following: 'A third reconstruction of ARM[…]S has been proposed by Linda Malcor and her collaborators, who see it as *Armatos, ‘armed men’ [reference to Missing Pieces’]. Although the word would fit, it is not otherwise found on monumental inscriptions apart from CIL 02, 05439 and SEG-53, 00617; the first is a legal text and the second cites a letter. No other examples of its use in a cursus honorum are known, but proponents of the *ARM[ATO]S reading point out that no examples of *ARM[ENIO]S are recorded, either.' The reference to Missing Pieces is: Malcor, Linda A, Trinchese, Antonio & Faggiani, Alessandro "Missing Pieces: a New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription", Journal of Indo-European Studies, vol. 47, 2019, 415-437 The suggestion regarding *Arm[ato]s is on page 429. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjmatthews (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

While yours is a reasonable and generous suggestion, it still breaks Wikipedia's guidelines regarding Reliable sources and undue weight, "[t]o give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.". The armatos hypothesis is ludicrous on the face of it (as Birley, Tomlin, and one or two other experts have personally communicated to Dan Hunt, which Hunt has published on his blog). I don't think it belongs here, but if it is to be added, we need a stronger explanation as to why it is a completely unlikely restoration of the mutilated text. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:51B9:DC32:A68D:838B (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that my proposed edit breaks the Reliable sources criterion. The Journal of Indo-European Studies is a reliable, peer-reviewed international journal of record, even if it is not one that usually carries studies of Latin epigraphy. The proposal to read *Arm[ato]s is novel, but entirely within the remit of an article discussing the inscription under debate and will no doubt be picked up by other writers (indeed, I shall cite Tony Sullivan's recent book).

May I therefore propose the following expanded version of what I submitted earlier?

'A third reconstruction of ARM[…]S has been proposed by Linda Malcor and her collaborators, who see it as *Armatos, ‘armed men’ [reference to Missing Pieces’]. Although the word would fit, it is not otherwise found on monumental inscriptions. Malcor et al. cite CIL 02, 05439 and SEG-53, 00617 in support of the reading, but the first is a legal text and the second cites a letter. They are, therefore, not good parallels. No examples of its use in a [i]cursus honorum[/i] are known, but proponents of the *ARM[ATO]S reading point out that no examples of *ARM[ENIO]S are recorded, either, although Armenius (singular) is found. A major objection to the reconstruction is the vagueness of the term: a legionary force would, almost by definition, be fighting ‘armed men’, and we should expect a more specific term (such as an ethnonym or a word such as [i]rebelles[/i] (‘rebels’) or [i]hostes[/i] (‘enemies’) in this position [reference to Sullivan 2022].'

The reference to Sullivan 2022 is Sullivan, Tony, "The Roman King Arthur? Lucius Artorius Castus", Barnsley, 2022, p. 8

Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I will be very happy with whatever you two decide. Sounds like you will come to a good balance between accuracy and fairness.

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

While I still believe that the armatos reading, which is about as fringe as one can get, doesn't belong here (per Wikipedia standards on Undue weight), your expanded version is a reasonable compromise. Let's see if we can get some other editors to weigh in. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:51B9:DC32:A68D:838B (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the reconstructed *ARM[ATO]S is likely wide of the mark, but it is being touted as a reasonable alternative reading (which it is if one doesn't take the context into account), and it will be only a matter of time before it starts appearing in more publications. I also feel that it's important to refer to Malcor et al.'s 'Missing Pieces' paper, as that is a substantive contribution to the analysis of the inscription; as this page wouldn't exist with the inscription, the most recent work dealing with it can hardly be ignored. It might also serve to bring it more to the attention of those better placed to judge it.

Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

So be it. By the way, have you seen Bradley Skeen's review of Malcor's Missing Pieces in JIES Vol. 48, Iss. 1/2, (Spring/Summer 2020): 61-75? I'm not a subscriber and haven't had a chance to read it yet. Just wondering what Skeen's reaction was - I think it's the first (and maybe only?) review. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:51B9:DC32:A68D:838B (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Bradley Skeen’s article, L. Artorius Castus and King Arthur, in the same journal responds to the claims made in the article by Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trínchese, and Alessandro Faggiani, in their 2019 article, Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription. It severely undermines their position.

He confirms LAC's post was a praefectus castrorum of Legio VI Victrix. He accepts there is no way to assign dates beyond Antonine to Severan but suggests an earlier date before 170 is more likely.

Regarding the claims by Malcor et al:

Malcor’s reading of the text confuses dative and nominative case leaving their interpretation "without parallel in Latin epigraphy”.

Malcor’s position on praepositus is "entirely unsupported”.

Regarding dux they have a "misunderstanding about the term".

Regarding date there is "very little foundation" for Malcor's chronology.

Malcor’s reading of the last two lines of the inscription are "simply without precedent” and “it is impossible to accept this reading”.

Concerning Armatos it has "little justification”.

He notes their dismissal of the initial excavation report by F. Carrara (1851/52) which showed that the M before the break is in ligature with an E. Skeen agrees with Tomlin, Birley, Loriot and others in finding the reading of ARME[NIO]S "secure".

And it follows the most likely scenario is he led detachments rather than whole legions.

Concerning alleged contact with Sarmatians Skeen states the cursus lacks any such appointment and "there is no other evidence for any part of the assertion".

The wider theory involving LAC leading Sarmatian warriors is "entirely unsupported since there is no evidence of any such campaign".

The connection between LAC and Sarmatians "can only be asserted without evidence".

Even "more damning for Malcor et al.’s interpretation” is the absence of reference to dux on the sarcophagus inscription. Which strongly suggests their interpretation of the inscription and his career is untenable.

Finally he concludes Malcor et al.’s contention that the genesis of Arthurian mythology was the repurposing of national Sarmatian mythology (cognate with the Nart sagas) as praise of Castus is "no more convincing than it ever was".

Skeen, Bradley, L. Artorius Castus and King Arthur, JIES Vol. 48, Iss. 1/2, (Spring/Summer 2020): 61-75 TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Excellent - another scholar to add to the list of those who fully reject Malcor's fringe theories. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:6451:A5EC:10E5:7C45 (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

My theories are NOT "fringe." You just don't read foreign languages. Shashtah (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem with "expecting a more specific term" is that there was nothing "specific" going on in Britannia in the late second century. The Caledonians and their allies were invading from north of the Antonine wall. The Brigantes and other tribes south of Hadrian's Wall were rebelling. Soldiers were trying to murder leaders like Pertinax. What is required is a word that covers a multitude of meanings, and we have such a sequence used by Caesar and Tacitus and the like: "adversus armatos." Shashtah (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The first inscription

Hi,

wikipedia deleted information about the article of JIES Missing Pieces. Ok.

But there are stil some information related to the Malcors & co's reading:

"****The words Praeposito, Duci, Centenario are in the dative case and therefore "centurioni" and all the offices are. In fact, Castus dedicated this inscription to him and his relatives. The mixed use of the dative and the nominative for his offices, in the other expansions, is grammatically incorrect and makes no sense."

I think there is no point in keeping this information since it refers to an old revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lucius_Artorius_Castus&oldid=1084994672

This information (****) belongs to

Linda A. Malcor and her colleagues offered a different expansion:

D(is) M(anibus) L(ucius) Artori[us Ca]stus (centurioni) leg(ionis) / III Gallicae item [(centurioni) le]g(ionis) VI Ferra/tae item (centurioni) leg(ionis) II Adi[utricis i]tem (centurioni) V M(a) / c(edonicae) item p(rimo) p(ilo) eiusdem [leg(ionis)], praeposito / classis Misenatium, [pr]aeff(ectis) leg(ionis) VI / Victricis, duci legg(ionum) [triu]m Britanici / miarum adversus Arm[ato]s, proc(uratori) cente / nario provinciae Lib[urn(iae) iure] gladi vi / v(i)v(u)s ipse sibi et suis [posui]t

which translated becomes:

"To the Spirits of the Departed, Lucius Artorius Castus, for himself, the centurion of the leg. III Gallica, also the centurion of the leg. VI Ferrata, also the centurion of the leg. II Adiutrix, also the centurion of the leg. V Macedonica, also the primus pilus of the same, praepositus of the classis Misenensis, twice the praefect of the leg. VI Victrix, the Dux of the three British legions against armed men, the procurator centenarius of the province of Liburniae with 'ius gladi' six times, he himself while alive built this for himself and his family.****"

And this part is no longer presente in the last revision.

Thanks. Emryswledig (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this in response to Skeen's recent article and criticism of the translation and interpretation of the stone put forward by Malcor on these pages and in the Missing Pieces article? TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying that thepart (****) was added by me when I put Missing Pieces information. You deleted this information and you forgot to delete that part too. It is referred to valid but no longer existent information. Emryswledig (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't care about this article of Skeen like you don't care about our article. I respect your 'opinion' but you don't respect ours. Thank you Tony. Emryswledig (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Skeen is a respected academic, as is Tomlin, Birley, Loriot, Higham and Davenport. Your article in JIES went against every expert and evidence to date. It was thus quite rightly questioned. It has now been thoroughly dealt with by Skeen, as you previous ideas were by Higham (2018), and your translations and interpretations of the stone fatally undermined. As have the theories stemming from your erroneous interpretations. I hope this is the end of the matter and you will desist in unilaterally changing articles on wiki and pushing your theory or promoting Linda's upcoming book. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Opinions only opinions not supported by evidence. I rely on my authorities plus Elliot, Southern, Migliorati, Barbero Keppie and so on. I don't know Tomlin (not better than Camodeca), Higham and so on. Maybe I will read Skeen. I like his name. Good job Tony. Go on. You'll become a respectable researcher. LOL.

I repeat: I don't care what you say since you say false things in you book. (someone read it and there are things which your authorities would have laugh about). If this encyclopedia also mention Gwinn blog, Hunt's emails and full-of-errors books is not a reliable encyclopedia.

P.S: You don't deserve our article. A suggestion: learn Latin, linguistics and history. I really appreciate you all. Thanks so much. Emryswledig (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, I don't know how to change articles. I am only able to talk here because someone showed me how and because I have been told that this is where I should be talking.

Your book is indeed riddled with errors, and I can only suppose that you presented this information to your sources before receiving their replies via email. Birley explicitly published the opposite of what you said. You are the one promoting your book, which I think is also not allowed on Wikipedia. Shashtah (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm collaborating with you all(owner of Wikipedia). I'm helping you to remove all the Missing Pieces information because you don't deserve our valid research. Mention Gwinn blog, Hunt's emails and the full-of-errors book. I have to thank you all. I appreciate you all. Emryswledig (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The information should not be removed. It in part inspired the film King Arthur (2004) and I have had many people tell me that they have referred to this article for more information about the Castus hypothesis. Shashtah (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The wording should be kept but explained in the article. Lucius Artorius Castus is in the nominative. The rest of the inscription is in the dative because he built the tomb for himself and his family in his lifetime. Shashtah (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Adversus *Arm[oric(an)o]s or Adversus *Arme[nio]s?

About Grunewald and Birley: adversus Armoricos Emryswledig (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to post the close up of the M here so everyone can see that there is no, and has never been an, elision? The photo with the circles.

Birley uses the spelling Aremorica. There is definitely not an E before the M in any of the sources. That suggests to me that he never saw the stone in person. I have. There is no E on either side of the M.

Birley also gives the date that Castus was dux as after 181, with which I agree. Additionally, he agrees that an Equestrian could lead more than one legion. (He says two; I say three. Trium fits the space on the inscription better than Duarum.) He has Castus taking two British legions to the Continent to fight the Armoricans. The only troop transfer that we know of is 1500 "javelin men" from Britannia to Rome. There is no evidence that two legions ever left Britannia. That means the legions were being used inside Britannia and that the word should be Armatos, which covers all the rebellious tribes, defecting soldiers and invading forces from north of the Antonine. Shashtah (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

"There is no evidence that two legions ever left Britannia".

1. Clodius Albinus used British legions at the battle of Lugdunum in 197.

2. Caracalla and Geta returned to Gaul in 211 after their father's death taking the troops from Britain that had been sent there in c. 208.

3. Plus we have evidence of troops with a similar spelling to Britanicimiarum on the Rhine.

4. It's not certain at all the word means the 3 known legions in Britain.

5. The academic consensus is the inscription can be interpreted as leading detachments of two or three British legions to Armenia.

There is debate over whether the missing word is alarum (cavalry wings), or two or three (referring to legions).

There is a debate over whether Britanicimiarum means units IN Britain or OF/FROM Britain.

Skene has dealt with armatos as noted above and many others on here. I will summarise again:

Malcor’s reading of the text confuses dative and nominative case leaving their interpretation "without parallel in Latin epigraphy”.

Malcor’s position on praepositus is "entirely unsupported”.

Regarding dux they have a "misunderstanding about the term".

Regarding date there is "very little foundation" for Malcor's chronology.

Malcor’s reading of the last two lines of the inscription are "simply without precedent” and “it is impossible to accept this reading”.

Concerning Armatos it has "little justification”.

Given the academic consensus that does exist and the points raised previously about enemies being named on memorial stones I personally would dismiss armatos.

I would have allowed it before as I stated much earlier, although with some major caveats added.

However the insistence that this is the only possibility, and the wish to portray the other options as 'impossible' is a step too far for me.

And now that Skene has dismantled the entire basis of their translation and interpretation of the stone I'm erring towards not including it in the article. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Rhine is not Armenia.

2. There's no evidence of troops from Britannia to far Armenia.(please find evidence)

3. In the Castus stone we have words in the dative case (Praeposito, Duci).

4. The last line says: When he was still alive set this stone for him and his family.

5. The stone is dedicated to only one person : Castus himself. (only the first line is in the nominative case because Castus dedicated to his family and himself )

6. You cannot refer to the same person switching from nominative and dative .

7. Birley says that Castus was dux after 181 (Grunewald 2004)

8. Birley states that Tacitus refers to the governors of Britain as consularis... and sometimes dux.(Birley 2005)

Regarding the last two why don't you agree with your authority?

P.S: Skeen (not Skene) didn't dismantle anything since he doesn't know the point 3,4.5.6. Emryswledig (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"3. Plus we have evidence of troops with a similar spelling to Britanicimiarum on the Rhine."

On the Rhine. So, Castus fight a war against 'Armanios' i.e. Garmani, Germani. After 181 as Birley says?

"There is no evidence that two legions ever left Britannia" = Yes, there is no evidence that two or three legions ever left Britannia and went to Armenia.

Please, don't misrepresent what you are told. Your leitmotiv is Armenia. We know that 1500 javelin men went to Rome and we know about the Battle of Lugdunum (Castus was not dux in 197) and nobody knows about the 'british' troops sent to Armenia. Emryswledig (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I meant that there is no evidence that two legions ever left Britannia under the command of Lucius Artorius Castus and tramped across the entire empire to fight in Armenia. Troops left for Gaul under Albinus but promptly returned to Britannia if they supported Septimius Severus--if they didn't, they were slaughtered. They were likely auxiliaries rather than the main legions. No legions left Britannia under Caracalla and Geta.

The troops on the Rhine were Brigantes who were settled their as numeri because they were rebelling against Rome. They were not legions from Britannia. They supported the Rhine legions, not the British legions.

Duum doesn't make sense. Everyone knows there were three legions in Britannia.

The "academic consensus" is wrong. Sullivan only considers British scholars, not international scholars. His sources are mainly emails, reenactors and Facebook threads.

There is no confusion between the nominative and the dative. The inscription is known for having oddities, and this is one of them.

My "position on praepositus"? What does that even mean?

There is no misunderstanding of the word "dux". Birley, whom Sullivan relies so heavily on, says that governors of Britannia could be called dux.

As for the timeline, Birley also says that the point at which Castus served as dux was after 181.

VVS os the last line. It means "In his lifetime", which is what he said.

"Armatos" is not well known in the UK yet, which is where Sullivan writes. It is better known in Croatia and Italy, but there are those in other countries who support it--papers yet unpublished because the Proceedings book has had its publication delayed by Covid.

He notes their dismissal of the initial excavation report by F. Carrara (1851/52) which showed that the M before the break is in ligature with an E. Skeen agrees with Tomlin, Birley, Loriot and others in finding the reading of ARME[NIO]S "secure".

That there is no elision is shown clearly in the photograph taken in 2019 that I have requested that Alessandro post. Also, Birley spells the name Armoricos as Aremoricos, and it is blatantly obvious that there is no E before the M.

There is no VEX on the stone. LEGG stands for legions. Many scholars agree with that, including Birley.

Skeen is simply wrong. The equestrian cursus includes someone being put in charge of a numerus or auxiliary unit of cavalry. The Sarmatians supported the Sixth, so one of the Sixth's praefects would likely be in charge of them. They were definitely horsemen, and Castus's prior ranks put him in repeated contact with them. He would be a good choice for the job.

"entirely unsupported since there is no evidence of any such campaign"? Are you saying that the Caledonian invasion did not happen and that no one fought them off?

Even "more damning for Malcor et al.’s interpretation” is the absence of reference to dux on the sarcophagus inscription. Which strongly suggests their interpretation of the inscription and his career is untenable.

The absence of dux on the smaller inscription is because Castus probably figured that being Marcus Aurelius's primus pilus and that fighting off the Caledoians were more important achievements.

Finally he (Skeen?) concludes Malcor et al.’s contention that the genesis of Arthurian mythology was the repurposing of national Sarmatian mythology (cognate with the Nart sagas) as praise of Castus is "no more convincing than it ever was". That is entirely drivel. It confuses "The Sarmatian Connection", which is about how the knights looked, carried a dragon banner, fought with lances, etc., with the parallels of the worship practices and stories of the fifth century Alans, and the Lucius Artorius Castus hypothesis that suggests not that he was the only Arthur but that he was the first Arthur. If you think Arthur was a Celtic name, show me one instance of it being used before Castus. If you can do that, I'll change my mind. But I've tried for decades and cannot find one. Shashtah (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say that Grunewald 2004 not Birley said that Castus was dux after 181.

This line was by Sullivan and not be in my reply (I was copying and pasting his extensive post): He notes their dismissal of the initial excavation report by F. Carrara (1851/52) which showed that the M before the break is in ligature with an E. Skeen agrees with Tomlin, Birley, Loriot and others in finding the reading of ARME[NIO]S "secure". Shashtah (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)