Talk:Artoria gens

Artorius Clytholius Maximus?

I'm digging into the question of this name, which is currently disputed between two editors. The authority currently cited is Tillemont, Histoire des empereurs, p. 741 (index, 1732). This refers to a prefect of Rome mentioned on page 467, although I do not see his name on that page—it seems to be the right time, AD 361, but either I am missing it, or he is referred to obliquely rather than by name. In my judgment, Tillemont is still a valid source, if dated; but an index entry that does not correspond in form with a name appearing in the body of the work is very weak evidence. I do not see a corresponding entry in the 1720 edition. Googling the combination "Clythorius Maximus", I found this commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus:

Maximus Gouverneur, ou Prefect de Rome, qu'Onufre dans son Livre des Fastes appelle Anicius Maximus, & qui avoir succedé en sa Charge à Tertulle, qu'il appelle aussi Anicius, quoy qu'il y ait bien plus d'aparence qu'il eust nom Junius Tertullus. Toutesfois Symmachus appelle nettement ce Maximus, qui fut successeur de Tertulle, Clytholius Maximus. C'est dans la 47, Epistre de son dixiéme Livre. Id.

Which Google Translate did not handle quite as smoothly as usual, although I cannot tell if it is due to typos in my transcription, the original, or perhaps older or scholarly grammar or shorthand. But the gist of it seems to be that the name "Clytholius Maximus" comes from the letters of Symmachus. The commentary does not mention the name "Artorius", but it does mention "Anicius", which is a much more common name and which might somehow have been corrupted into "Artorius" in some intervening source (although this is just a possible explanation—the more usual occurrence would be either for a common name to be erroneously substituted for an uncommon one, or for an ordinary name misread to become something similar in appearance but highly irregular). I'm having trouble locating the text of Symmachus—book X, if I understand correctly—but if the commentary is taken literally it calls this prefect merely "Clytholius Maximus", leaving us in the dark as to "Anicius" or "Artorius".

Without any further discussion of the name as it appears in the index of Tillemont, or any Google search results for "Artorius Clytholius" or other Google results for "Clytholius Maximus", and no C-S Databank entries for "Clytholius", I'm going to suggest that its appearance is most likely an error for "Anicius", whether by Tillemont, his indexer, or one of his sources, which is not mentioned either there or in the commentary quoted above—which mentions an Onufre, whom I have not yet identified, as an editor of Fasti (perhaps in the broad sense of a list of magistrates, rather than a specific set of inscriptions). I had earlier misread the above as a reference to Tertullian—but in fact it is Tertullus, a politician contemporary with our subject.

Tillemont gives his authorities on page 467 as Ammianus Marcellinus, "Ath." (I'm guessing Athanasius of Alexandria), and the Suda, mainly Ammianus. This seems to be the relevant passage, in which our subject is called only "Maximus". None of the other Maximi listed in a search of Ammianus appear to refer to the same man. So where does "Anicius" or "Artorius" come from? It's a mystery, although I presume that "Clytholius" is from the letters of Symmachus. P Aculeius (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I was about to create a section on this as well, but you beat me to it. I had already researched the topic with the intent of perhaps improving (in an unspecified future) the article Maximus (urban prefect under Julian), whom 'Artorius Clytholias Maximus' refers to. Following is what I could find.

• The page in Tillemont's index should be 463 rather than 467, but he does not call our individual "Artorius" there. The nomen as given in the index (like the page number itself) is presumably an error by the author, and is attested by no other source I know of (but see the following item).
• This article has seen significant edit-warring in the past (and might accordingly need a full review), over the usage of this (apparently) self-published source (found by typing "clytholias" on google scholar), and the editor(s) promoting it is alleged (here and here) to have been the author of the paper himself ("Alessandro Faggiani"). On page 36 Faggiani accordingly refers to Maximus as "Artorius Clytholias", but I can't find his source as using Ctrl+F doesn't work and much of the PDF is non disponible per la visualizzazione (not available for display). The article Maximus (urban prefect under Julian) cites Tillemont for the possibility that he was named "Artorius", so I'm going to assume Faggiani and the editor who posted the source here (if they are distinct people at all) took it from Tillemont as well.
• The unusual name "Clytholias" (this seems to be the "correct" spelling) comes from Symmachus, book 10, letter 54 ("Clytholiam Maximum"), but this source says it is probably a textual corruption in the surviving MS. This questionable passage is our only primary source for this name.
• I wasn't aware of the alternative nomen, "Anicius", until you mentioned it, but I think your source, Moulines (also 18th century), has likely just made another error, as did Tillemont. We know from Ammianus that Maximus was a nephew of Vulcatius Rufinus (consul 347) and thus possibly a cousin of Gallus Caesar, and so it's possible that he was related to the Anicii, another prominent senatorial family. But I checked several modern sources and none of them support the usage of either "Artorius", "Anicius", or "Clytholias". Chastagnol (Fastes de la Préfecture de Rome, 1962) suggested our Maximus to have been a "Valerius Maximus" who married Melania the Elder, whereas the authors of the PLRE were more cautious, proposing at least one other individual.

Overall, I think the case for "Artorius Clytholias Maximus" is unacceptable. The only evidence for Maximus being a member of the Artoria gens seems to be a garbled passage in the index of a 18th-century (!) source. Its obvious unreliability, as well as the condescending tone of the IP who reverted my edit, make me think he is the same person who made the previous avalanche of edits and who added the self-published source I linked to. Avilich (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I found the relevant section in Tillemont, thanks to you (I thought I had searched back to 461, but evidently I was looking for "Artorius" and missed "Maximus"). It says:

Maxime avoir encore le nom de Clytholias; mais c'est sans fondement qu'on luy donne celui d'Anice.

Which is to say, Tillemont refers to the name "Clytholias" (indeed the correct spelling here) assigned by the letters of Symmachus, but he does not comment on whether it is a corruption; he dismisses the name "Anicius" as being without foundation, i.e. as far as Tillemont could tell, it came from no writer or inscription from antiquity. The substitution of "Artorius" in the index is probably best explained as an error for "Anicius", although it is impossible to say who introduced the error—nor is it particularly important, assuming that it is indeed an error. P Aculeius (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Small caps

I am pleased you are no longer claiming that that is not how filiations worked.

It is not true to say there is no risk of confusion. The casual reader will not know what "l" is supposed to mean, and should not be expected to guess.

As for consistency, you are more than welcome to change the other three letters to small caps as well. As well as consistency and legibility, this would have the merits of

• reflecting more closely the ancient appearance of inscriptions etc, and
• consistency with the explanation that you wrote under "filiation".---Ehrenkater (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not how filiations work in published sources that aren't carved in stone. Most modern typeset works don't use small caps for filiations, and none use it solely for the letter 'l'. Any source that uses small caps uses it for all of the letters, but the majority don't use them for any. You're inventing a novel convention and demanding that this one article abide by it—or have you decided that all articles on Wikipedia need to follow your ideas, without question, comment, or deference to the other editors in the project, none of whom seem to have any problem with how filiations are given?

There is no risk of confusion whatsoever—the casual reader who does not know what 'l' means is relatively unlikely to be reading about Roman gentes, but if it happens, what it means becomes no more apparent because it's in small caps. The distinction will be completely lost on anyone who doesn't know what a filiation is or what it means. But that's why the members section of every single article about a Roman gens that contains filiations (all but the very shortest) begin with a handy template that takes readers directly to the explanation!

It is quite irrelevant whether I chose to use a different style for rendering names for a particular reason in another article—especially considering that in that article I was speaking specifically of names as they appear in inscriptions, and names as names, which is not at all what this article or any other article on a Roman gens does. All of the members sections in all articles on Roman gentes provide, as nearly as possible, a full tria nomina (plus additional names, when they exist) in the nominative case with a filiation, and without voting tribe or other data included as part of the name, although relevant information may follow it. It does not matter whether the name is rendered in this or any other form in an inscription—they're not in all caps, they have spacing, the distinguish between 'I' and 'J' and between 'U' and 'V', they have no apices, spelling variations and mistakes and non-standard abbreviations are not usually noted in individual entries. These are not intended to represent facsimiles of inscriptions, and are not limited to Roman epigraphic practices.

I'm glad to know that I'm welcome to agree with you and accept your point of view. Please, be assured that you are equally welcome to adopt mine. P Aculeius (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lucius Artorius Castus

An anonymous user 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:493E:259E:9091:86C8 states that LEGG means detachments. I found inscriptions where VEXILL LEG(G) means detachments of the legion(s). In trismegistos LEGG is an abbreviation of Legions (https://www.trismegistos.org/abb/list.php?abb=LEGG&abb_type=exact&abb_word=&abb_word_type=exact&abb_length=&abb_size=&freq=&comb=AND&search=Search). I think this user is hiding important information by saying that my last edit is a pet theory. I think that the several results for VEXILL LEG(G) different from LEGG (legionum) in EDCS and the search results in Trismegistos can reject someone's opinion that LEGG means detachments. Emryswledig (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

LOL, I have made no such statement anywhere at any time!! Not only are you a liar, Alessandro Faggiani, you are a troll pushing your fringe theories on Lucius Artorius Castus all over Wikipedia, using multiple sockpuppet accounts (including username Artoriusfadianus). Multiple editors are now having to undo the messes you have created on several articles! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:31EF:E809:1C73:5F3 (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

If you delete information about LEGG you state that LEGG means detachments. If you don't have made such statement leave these information. You hide known information.

I tell you something : I'm not interested in editing Wikipedia. If it let some user hiding information it is not a serious place as I thought.Just like the books of someone you know. Good luck.Hi S. or G. or whoever you are, dear anonymous user. Emryswledig (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The absence of VEX isn't considered significant by leading academics.

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

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 interprets it as detachments.

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 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). He also accepts detachments is teh most likely explanation.

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

Xavier Loriot in 1997 details why Armenios is the correct reading and suggests detachments. 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

One could also look at primary sources here (although I realise few have the time or inclination). Here we find vexillations is not always used in well attested campaigns.

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

If you think these world experts are wrong in their interpretation then you need to get your idea peer reviewed in a journal that specialises in Roman epigraphy rather than the Journal of Indo-European Studies which doesn't.

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The publications you cite are out of date. The Armatos reading was not published until 2019. The Armoricanos reading is possible with ligatures. The Armenios reading is not possible because Armenios is not a noun it does not date to deep in the Antonine nor deep in the Severan periods because the stone contains elements of both the Severan and Antonine periods. Shashtah (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

LOL, Armenios (the accusative of Armenii "[people of] Armenia; Armenians) absolutely IS a noun! Please stay out of this argument if you don't know simple facts such as this! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:51B9:DC32:A68D:838B (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Shashtah , Yann Le Bohec and Giuseppe Camodeca (whom I have already consulted time ago) confirms that LEGG absolutely means LEGIONS while 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) 17:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that LEGG means anything other than (genitive plural) LEGIONUM! This is a ridiculous strawman argument! What people are saying is that it would be inferred by contemporaries of Lucius Artorius Castus from his inscription that, as dux legionum [triu]m *Britannicianarum, he led vexillations drawn from the three British legions, as this is what duces legionis/legionum of this time period normally did in the 2nd century ACE. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

G., maybe it's hard to understand.

The epigraphist Camodeca also confirms that the expression LEGG + <number of legions> + <provenance> i.e. LEGG TRIUM BRITANNICIANARUM means that no detachments are drawn from the legions. LEGG in all the case means Legionum. VEXILL and VEXILL LEGG means detachments. Yann Le Bohec says that LEGG=Legionum, VEXILL = detachments.

LEGG = detachments in Castus stone is only your bizarre opinion and speculation. Le Bohec states, in his book, that after the Marcomannic war , however, a dux is a member of senatorial rank who leads detachments of legionaries and auxiliaries (see Castinus).

Recap:

- Castus was an equestrian

- LEGG means, without any doubts, Legions (Le Bohec, Camodeca)

- detachments are led by a dux from SENATORIAL rank and by a praepositus (Le Bohec and EDCS)

Castus, equestrian dux, led three legions in Britannia and NOT detachments.

I don't know if Wikipedia relies on your speculations and bizarre opinions. I am already satisfied. I was interested in learning the truth from these two authorities Emryswledig (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

You are just spouting absolute nonsense. You're not engaging in a serious debate at all! The inscription reads DUCI LEGG [...]M BRITANICIMIARUM - an expansion and restoration of it to duci legionum trium Britannicianarum "dux (leader, conductor) of the three Britannic legions" is not controversial and is in fact what I, myself, favor. You are completely and utterly wrong about it meaning that "no detachments are drawn from the legions"; this is in fact exactly what an equestrian dux of the 2nd century could be doing! Please at least do some basic research on this subject! Note that dux was not an official title in Lucius Artorius Castus' day:

Southern, Pat, Dixon, Karen R., The Late Roman Army, Routledge, London, 1996, p. 59 "Dux was originally a title given to an officer acting in a temporary capacity above his usual rank. He could be in command of a collection of troops in transit from one point to another, or in temporary command of a complete unit. In the third century the dux became a regular officer, often associated with comes as attested in the sources where the titles are listed side by side (Cod. Th. 6.14.3; 7.1.9)."

See also:

R. E. Smith, Dux, Praepositus, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 36 (1979), pp. 263-278:

"The next stage in the development of the special command comes with Septimius Severus, and introduces us to the use of dux beside that of praepositus. The word dux had been used from time to time from the first century onwards and had carried slightly different connotations on different occasions, depending on the context. In the case of Velius Rufus, whom Domitian put in command of a group of soldiers from Africa and Mauretania to deal with some rebellion or border trouble in those parts, the title dux was used to indicate that he was in charge of the operation, but that as a non-senator he could not be called legatus. It was an exceptional commission to be entrusted to a primipilus, and he was given a title, if it was his official title, that would indicate his special position. It was also used in an honorary capacity without any technical implication, as in the case of Claudius Fronto, who is referred to c. 169 as fortissimo duci, amplissimo praesidi, neither dux nor praeses being at this time technical terms for an army commander or a provincial governor. Rather similarly Sex. Cornelius Clemens is referred to as cos. et duci trium Daciarum, though his immediate predecessor, the Claudius Fronto of the previous discussion, was called leg. Aug. pr. pr. trium Dac. et Moes. Sup.; the inscription is intended to form a somewhat eulogistic dedication rather than to give a full career, and Clemens is called merely consularis et dux, the dux being a non-technical word used to indicate that he was governor and commander of leg. XIII Gemina and leg. V Macedonica and had been consul. Up to the end of the Antonine period the word had a certain currency as a general term which meant 'army commander' without its having a special or specific technical connotation. But from the time of Severus its use becomes more frequent, and this trend continues throughout the third century, until by the time of Diocletian it is established as the official title of certain army commanders."

Another important study is:

Gilliam J. F. 1941 The Dux Ripae at Dura. In TAPhA 72: 157-175.

p. 162-163, "The title [dux] seems on occasion to have been given to a provincial governor or to some other official in order to indicate distinction gained in active campaigning during his term of office. It occurs with this force as early as the reign of Marcus Aurelius in the case of two governors of Dacia and in that of a procurator of Mauretania Tingitana.[18]"

["18. In ILS 1097 a legatus Augusti pro praetore trium Daciarum et Moesiae superioris is addressed as _fortissimus_dux_ (A.D. 169/70); ILS 1099 was set up to a _consularis_et_dux_trium_Daciarum_ (A.D. 170); the procurator is also fortissimus dux (ILS 1354, probably from the same period)."]

"At times dux was also employed, more technically, to designate the commander of troops temporarily assembled for a campaign or some extraordinary mission. As early as the end of the first century one discovers a _dux_exercitus_Africi_et_Mauretanici_ad_nationes_quae_sunt _in_Mauretania_conprimendas_ who held this office in the course of a long career in which he rose from a primus pilus to procurator Raetiae. Of more exalted rank was Iulius Quadratus, a prominent figure of the time of Trajan, who in an inscription from Pergamum is called [Greek: stratelate:s genomenos Dakikou polemou] = dux exercitus." 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:51B9:DC32:A68D:838B (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I had to contact those two experts because Sullivan said that Castus led detachments. But in the stone everybody sees LEGG and not VEXILL.

So, Sullivan states that in the Castus stone LEGG means detachments. But my experts state that LEGG means,in all the cases, 'legions' and VEXILL and VEXILL LEGG denote 'detachments'. 95.251.1.22 (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a little background: The Armenios hypothesis was invented by an artist in 2012. He was trying to make the plaster cast of the LAC inscription and couldn't get Armoricos to fit (That was Mommsen's choice.). The only other choice at the time was Armenios, which has zero evidence for it. People tied themselves into knots trying to make that work until 2019, when Armatos became an option. There is evidence for Armatos, and it does describe what the three British legions were doing in the late second century. Shashtah (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop! You are spreading noting but disinformation! The earliest known suggestion that Lucius Artorius Castus (before even his full name was properly known!) fought against the Armenians comes from Johan Gabriel Seidl, II. Beiträge zu einer Chronik der archaeologischen Funde in der österreichischen Monarchie, Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen, Herausgegeben von der zur Pflege vaterländischer Geschichte aufgestellen Commission der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Dreizehnter Band, Wien, 1854, pp. 142-143 (who suggested that the expedition took place under Trajan):

"Die drittletzte Zeile der Inschrift spielt auf eine Expedition gegen Armenien an, vielleicht auf diejenige, welche im J. 115 n Chr unter Trajan stattfand."

[1]https://books.google.com/books?id=HgTquJxVj7cC&pg=RA1-PA142#v=onepage&q&f=false

This was also repeated by Emil Hübner, Exercitus Britannicus, Hermes XVI, 1881, p. 521ff., though Hübner also allowed for LAC traveling to Aremorica: [2]https://books.google.com/books?id=MoEOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA35

After that point, based on Mommsen's expansion from the CIL, adversus Armoricanos became the scholarly consensus. It wasn't until Xavier Loriot, “Un mythe historiographique : l’expédition d’Artorius Castus contre les Armoricains” (Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France‎, 1997), Pg. 85-86, that the original proposal of adversus Armenios was once again revived. It had already become a popular suggestion on the internet by 2008, when Loriot's reading made it into the French version of the Wikipedia article on Lucius Artorius Castus. From there it spread to the English version around 2010.

If you don't know any of this information, why do you make the ridiculous claim to be an expert on Lucius Artorius Castus? Stick to folklore, Dr. Malcor! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:6451:A5EC:10E5:7C45 (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Members

This page counts around 146 members of Gens Artoria. I entered some entries as 'Luciuscastus' (lost account) after I wrote my work. In my self-published work of 2015 I listed 250 members. A part of this work was presented in the Croatian conference in 2019. Too bad I can no longer enter the other members of the gens Artoria that I found. There are some users hiding true information.Good research. Emryswledig (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:805:1FC9:C11A:B661 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Non mi interessa cosa dici Gwinn. Un articolo peer revieved è una ricerca originale? 95.251.1.22 (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Your article in the Journal of Info-European studies is not peer reviewed by scholars of Roman epigraphy.

You cannot claim that the top experts are all wrong without substantial evidence.

So far virtually everything you have claimed about Artorius Castus has gone against the opinion of all the leading experts, Tomlin, Birley, Davenport, Higham, Loriot etc.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

TonySullivanBooks (talk) TonySullivanBooks (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea who peer-reviewed the article for JIES. No one does. Reviews are anonymous.

Your "top experts" published well before the Armatos hypothesis was published.

You dismiss evidence provided by proponents of the Lucius Artorius Castus hypothesis while failing to hold yourself to the same standards.

The scholars you list do not know how folklore works. Oral tradition can pick up the stories of everyone named Arthur after the first individual. The only way you can disprove the hypothesis is to find a figure named Arthur who lived before Castus. Shashtah (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It is virtually guaranteed that none of the people who reviewed your paper on behalf of the Journal of Indo-European Studies (JIES) were experts in Roman history or Latin epigraphy! Despite the fact that many of them are fine scholars in their own right, none of the members of their editorial board are associated with either field. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Sono italiano e noi abbiamo sempre combattuto la dittatura! Il comportamento di wikipedia non mi piace. Eviterò di dare il mio contributo. Nel 2015 come dicevo ho trovato circa 250 membri della gens e la pagina poteva crescere. Non potrò aggiungere gli altri 100 membri perchè non credo che wikipedia sia un posto serio. Ci sono un gruppo di persone che decidono cosa inserire e cosa no. Non considerate attendibile un articolo sottoposto a revisione figuriamoci un lavoro minuzioso fatto leggendo tutta la EDCS e trovando per ciascun membro fornti attendibili. Translate this in English. Emryswledig (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ecco come funziona Wikipedia. Se non ti piace, crea la tua enciclopedia! Devi seguire le regole, se vuoi contribuire qui. La ricerca originale non è consentita qui; tutti i contenuti devono citare fonti affidabili. Linda Malcor non è una fonte affidabile! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, that isn't a source that can be trusted. The number one leading expert in Europe on this topic is R.S.O. Tomlin. His interpretation of the LAC inscription is supported by several other leading academics: Birley, Loriot, Davenport and Higham.And they all state LAC led detachments to Armenia.

Tomlin, 2018: 155-7

Tomlin, R.S.O., Britannia Romana, Roman Inscriptions and Roman Britain, (Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2018). TonySullivanBooks (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I always cite reliable sources. there are not only tomlin, davenport or higham, Birley, sources you Brits rely on. I consult Elliot, Le Bohec, Barbero. Galimberti, Keppie, Migliorati and so on.

Linda has a Ph.D. and you say she is not reliable. An owner (a guy named G...) of a blog cited in the Castus page or a firefighter who collects emails, FB threads wrapped in a cover and write 'obscure' books (someone is reading the last book), are they reliable sources?

Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, It's not true.It belongs and it is ruled by you Brits.

I have other members of the gens to add but since I found them on google books and on EDCS, I am not a reliable source and therefore I cannot leave my contributions. Thank you for your opinion. But I don't agree. Good research. I really thank you, guys. Emryswledig (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Alessandro,

Tomlin is THE leading European expert in Roman inscriptions.

Linda told me she has a PhD in Folklore. She's certainly not an expert in Roman inscriptions.

Academics like Birley, Davenport and Loriot are.

There are academic journals that specialise in Roman history and specifically epigraphy. The Journal of Indo-European Studies is not one of them.

The article in that journal is hugely speculative and in my opinion riddled with errors.

If you get these claims peer reviewed by someone like Tomlin then that would be fair enough.

It's nothing to do with anyone's opinion. References to blogs or user's jobs are irrelevant. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You are not an expert in the topics of areas you demand others to be experts in.

Your book is using blogs, Facebook threads and emails, not published sources, as references on many topics.

Tomlin can't know about the Armatos hypothesis because he wrote in 2018 and the Armatos article wasn't published until 2019. Shashtah (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

You keep making this personal. It's nothing to do with me or anything I may have worked on.

The current up to date scholarly opinion is that the LAC stone references detachments to Armenia.

This is a fact.

You may well disagree but you are not an expert in Roman epigraphy. Tomlin is. So is Loriot, Birley and Davenport. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Tomlin is certainly aware of your ridiculous armatos argument now! Hunt has published on his blog personal communications from Tomlin concerning it - here are a few examples:

[3]http://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/05/how-fragmentary-arms-of-l-artorius.html

[4]http://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/03/armatos-still-deemed-unacceptable.html

[5]http://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/07/lucius-artorius-castus-no-sarmatian.html

[6]http://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/04/officially-bestowed-pay-grades-and.html

2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:C9A5:8FD4:6CB6:EBF2 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Is a blog a reliable source? You are ridiculous. Emryswledig (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The blog contains direct quotes from personal communications between Hunt and various experts in Roman history and epigraphy. There is no reason to believe that Hunt has altered or otherwise misrepresented these quotes, but if you suspect that he has, I suggest that you contact Birley, Tomlin, et al., and ask them to review the quotes for accuracy. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:51B9:DC32:A68D:838B (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Our article also contains quotes to reliable books and writers/scholars in the footnotes and bibliography but the blog is accepted but the JIES article isn't. I also have personal communication with authorities as Le Bohec and Camodeca. I contacted these two persons who don't agree with Tomlin and company and they said the truth: LEGG is NOT detachments. 95.251.1.22 (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding what Tomlin, Birley, Le Bohec, Camodeca and now Skeen are saying.

They are all saying LEGG is legions and VEXILL is vexillations. No-one is saying LEGG means detachments.

What they are all saying is the absence of VEX doesn't mean it isn't detachments (see example of Fronto CIL vi 41142).

And they are all saying because the reading of ARMENIOS is now secure it is unlikely to mean all the legions in their entirety.

It thus follows that he led detachments in an ad hoc temporary command.

This is supported by it's absence on the second inscription. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop, Alessandro. You are arguing in extreme BAD FAITH! Literally no one is saying that LEGG means anything other legionum "of the legions". What people are saying is that Lucius Artorius Castus, by describing himself as dux legionum [triu]m *Britan[n]icianarum adversus Arm[enio]s led detachments from the three British legions against the Armenians. This is what duces in the 2nd century typically did, so LAC did not need to add any of the words for detachments, because it was already implied. Space was at a premium on the stone inscription anyway, so the stonecutter was keeping things brief and using many space-saving ligatures. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:6451:A5EC:10E5:7C45 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sullivan always said that Castus led detachments. But in the stone we see LEGG. 95.251.1.22 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not an entirely accurate statement about my position.

And it's largely irrelevant compared to the academic consensus of several experts.

Tomlin, Birley, Higham, Davenport, and now Skeen all accept ARMENIOS reading as secure.

I believe Le Bohec and Camodeca do the same and you are trying to use what they, and everyone else, say about LEGG and VEXILL in general to misrepresent their position as to the interpretation of the whole inscription on this specific stone. TonySullivanBooks (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

their position is what I said: LEGG is legions also in the Castus stone and VEXILL and VEXILL LEGG is detachments. I have contacted them, not you. Today I contacted again. I have their email I can post screen shots. Emryswledig (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I modify Castus entry and you deleted. Castus led LEGIONS. 'Adversus Armenios' is not an assumption. You all need to prove it. Camodeca and Le Bohec says the truth about LEGG and never said that Castus led detachments. You need to stop with lies. 95.251.1.22 (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely unhinged! You are also clearly misrepresenting Camodeca and Le Bohec's position; surely neither one of them would dare suggest that Lucius Artorius Castus led the three British legions out of Britain - that's absolute nonsense! I will contact them both, myself, so that this madness can stop. 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:6451:A5EC:10E5:7C45 (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

In fact, they never said that Castus led British legions out of Britannia. And they said that LEGG means Legions and not detachments. So, forget that Castus led 'vexillationes' in Armenia. Artoriusfadianus (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Many of these arguments have already been covered by Higham, Halsall, Tomlin, Birely and Davenport.

The latest article by Skeen should put it to rest one and for all.

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.

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) 09:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

If you say that Castus led detachments you state that LEGG (without VEXILL) means detachments. Emryswledig (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You have no idea what you are even talking about and, thus, you have no business editing various Wikipedia articles that relate to Lucius Artorius Castus. Leave it to those of us who have actually spent decades researching this, OK? 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:6451:A5EC:10E5:7C45 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

May I ask you, do you have mental problems, or do you simply not understand English? Not only has this been explained to you numerous times on this Talk page as well as the Talk page for Lucius Artorius Castus, it has also been explained to you by a half-dozen people, at least 50 times or more, on Linda Malcor's King Arthur: Man and Myth Facebook group (and other groups) over the past 10+ years! I have no idea why you refuse to listen and pretend that this hasn't already been explained to you in minute detail over and over and over again! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:6451:A5EC:10E5:7C45 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hunt never shows the questions to Tomlin and the answer he gave to Hunt. They have been manipulated. Emryswledig (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a serious accusation - you had better be prepared to offer evidence of this! 2603:8000:CF40:2EDB:51B9:DC32:A68D:838B (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)