+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Allies & Enemies of Rome (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore (/showthread.php?tid=19872)
Pages:
1
2
Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - Nathan Ross - 11-27-2011
Did Germanic peoples (Franks, Saxons, Frisians) raid the British coast in the third and fourth centuries?
The simple answer used to be yes, of course: the British coastal forts of what later became known as the Saxon Shore were obviously intended as a defence against seaborne attackers. More recently, historians have doubted this: Cotterill (1993) claims that there is no literary or archeological evidence for sea raids against Britain before the fifth century (Carausius was sent to stop raiders attacking Armorica and Belgica, the Saxons of the 'Barbarian conspiracy' only attacked Gaul, British coin hoards more probably date to periods of economic crisis than attack, and so on). Further, the earliest forts (Brancaster and Reculver) date to the 230s, and at least one (Burgh) seems to have been abandoned c350.
Cotterill goes on to say that Germanic peoples of the 3rd-4th centuries lacked the technology to cross the north sea easily enough to mount effective raids. Basing his estimates on the Nydam boat and rowing speeds, he claims that only the straits of Dover offer a quick enough passage not to leave the potential raiders gasping over their oars... (but did their ships have sails? This writer thinks they did...)
However, back in 1991 John Haywood (Dark Age Naval Power) made much of the stories of Franks capturing ships in the Black Sea and on the Spanish coast and terrorising the Mediterranean - clearly these men were familiar with sailing and deep-sea navigation.
Bill Leadbetter (Galerius and the Will of Diocletian, 2009) seems in no doubt that Saxons were sea raiders, and the shore forts were built to counter their predations - he claims archeological evidence (burnings) showing sea raids from the late second century onward. Unfortunately the only reference he gives is Johnson's book on the forts, from 1976...
It seems convincing evidence either way is lacking, so we're down to (informed) opinion. What do people here think? :?:
- Nathan
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - Redwald - 11-27-2011
On the use of sails by Saxons and others from around the North Sea, I must say that I do find Haywood's arguments convincing. However, it must be said that Procopius tell us that the Angles did not use sails but rowed - I think that he also tells us that Britain was the home of the dead and that there were no horses on the island. But Sidonius Apollinaris, writing around 473 A.D., tells us that the Saxons used sailing ships and that they practised human sacrifice to their gods by killing some of their prisoners before they embarked on their return voyage. Many subsequent writers seem to have followed Procopius rather than Sidonius. Not quite sure why.
The North Sea peoples will certainly have seen sails on Roman ships, so why wouldn't they use them? They were quick to adopt other aspects of Roman culture, such as weaponry, when it was to their advantage. Gunilla Larsson of Uppsala Univesrity in her book: Ship and Society: Maritime Ideology in Late Iron Age Sweden (2007)(pages 85 and 92.)puts the adoption of the sail in the North Sea and Baltic areas back to the 4th century based on evidence from picture stones from Gotland.
Paul
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - D B Campbell - 11-28-2011
Have you seen Andrew Pearson's "Piracy in Late Roman Britain", Britannia 37 (2006), pp. 337-353 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/30030524)?
He believes that piracy and raiding were minimal, and that the forts of the Saxon Shore were not designed as a system to counter raiding. (I haven't seen his book: The Roman Saxon Shore Forts, Stroud, 2002.)
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - Nathan Ross - 11-28-2011
Quote:Sidonius Apollinaris, writing around 473 A.D., tells us that the Saxons used sailing ships and that they practised human sacrifice to their gods by killing some of their prisoners before they embarked on their return voyage.
That's quite an odd letter from Sidonius - he's supposedly writing to Namatius, who's commanding a Visigothic fleet on the Gallic coast. So why does the landsman Sidonius lecture the sailor Namatius on the habits of the Saxons? Bit 'owls to Athens', perhaps! I don't know what the context of Sidonius' letters might be (whether they were genuine letters or rhetorical pieces), but perhaps this is just a hoary old trope about Saxons added for the amusement of his more urban readers?
Also, the translation I've seen mentions the Saxons 'setting sail', but also 'oarsmen' - is there something in the original that specifically refers to sails? - 'setting sail' could just be a lazy translation of 'putting to sea'.
Quote:The North Sea peoples will certainly have seen sails on Roman ships, so why wouldn't they use them? ...Gunilla Larsson... puts the adoption of the sail in the North Sea and Baltic areas back to the 4th century based on evidence from picture stones from Gotland.
I agree that Haywood's ideas about the Franks (for example) adopting Roman maritime skills could be apt. And perhaps the Saxons too had developed the sail. But that would suggest that the most obvious candidates for sea raiding in the 3rd-earlier 4th century would be the Franks - they had the skill, and probably the knowledge of Britain too (many of them were employed as mercenaries by Carausius).
Quote:He believes that piracy and raiding were minimal, and that the forts of the Saxon Shore were not designed as a system to counter raiding.
I have seen that one, yes. It's interesting, although Pearson spends most of his time discussing Vikings. I like his idea of the shore forts protecting large Imperial estates too - which might to some extent support Cotterill's idea of fortified supply depots, for the collection of grain and revenue from the estates and (we might infer) their removal by sea.
Even so, such massive fortifications seem designed to repel serious assault, not just a bit of limited brigandage from land or sea. This doesn't mean that such assaults actually took place, I suppose - Aurelian's Rome wall (of around the same era) was the response to a possible threat rather than an actual one. But I think it's still worth wondering how much of a 'possible' threat sea raiding might have been at this time...
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - garrelt - 11-28-2011
Came across this site
http://dark-age-boats.co.uk/index.php
Might be interesting.
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - authun - 11-29-2011
Quote:The North Sea peoples will certainly have seen sails on Roman ships, so why wouldn't they use them?
I think there is probably a little too much focus on the Nydam ship, which was a rowed vessel, understandably because it is one that we do have. If you put a mast on it, it would probably capsize under sail. A ship has to be designed to take a mast.
But, ships with keels designed to take masts are not difficult to build for those who know how to make ships. Nydam is long and narrow and designed to be reversible. It was rowed up river, the tholes reversed and the side hung rudder taken to the other end of the boat. It was designed to be used up rivers which were narrower than it was long. It's well thought out. I cannot see the builders having a problem building keeled boats. They only had to look at a few. It may have taken a couple of centuries before bigger masts and bigger sails could be developed but there is definitely room for rigs for simple downwind sailing.
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - authun - 11-29-2011
Quote:Cotterill (1993) claims that there is no literary or archeological evidence for sea raids against Britain before the fifth century
Does he have anything to say about the roman signal stations on the Yorkshire coast? They were constructed in 369 after the attack on Malton in 367. They surely must have felt a potential threat from the sea else why build them? They served no other purpose.
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - Nathan Ross - 11-29-2011
Quote:Does he have anything to say about the roman signal stations on the Yorkshire coast?I don't know if Cotterill specifically mentions the Yorkshire stations, but I can check if you like. I know there were human remains found there, and evidence of destruction, but I don't know if a secure dating is possible - early fifth century is perhaps likely. I read elsewhere (possibly in the Pearson essay Duncan mentioned) that the signal towers might have been intended to watch for Pictish coastal raiders from the north, rather than attackers from continental Europe. That would make sense, as we know the Picts were also a maritime people, active on the east coast.
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - Robert Vermaat - 11-29-2011
Quote:I can add to this the Goths who reached the Crimea, took over the fleets there or built their own fleets, and began to harass Greece and Asia Minor. Now, of course both those Franks going home, as well as the Goths reaching the Black Sea, could simply have forced the crews of the vessels to do their bidding. But I agree with those who think that both groups must have had at least some knowledge of shipping, and take to the ater with more ease than expected.Redwald post=300636 Wrote:The North Sea peoples will certainly have seen sails on Roman ships, so why wouldn't they use them? ...Gunilla Larsson... puts the adoption of the sail in the North Sea and Baltic areas back to the 4th century based on evidence from picture stones from Gotland.I agree that Haywood's ideas about the Franks (for example) adopting Roman maritime skills could be apt. And perhaps the Saxons too had developed the sail. But that would suggest that the most obvious candidates for sea raiding in the 3rd-earlier 4th century would be the Franks - they had the skill, and probably the knowledge of Britain too (many of them were employed as mercenaries by Carausius).
Quote:I agree - even when the Shore forts system was primarily meant to be logistical, gathering taxes and so on, why these fortifications? the same goes for some small towns in the interior, such as Cunetio - massive walls, far too thick to be 'just' a simple fortification against bandits and raiders. One hardly invests in such things if it's not in response to a real threat.D B Campbell post=300649 Wrote:He believes that piracy and raiding were minimal, and that the forts of the Saxon Shore were not designed as a system to counter raiding.I have seen that one, yes. It's interesting, although Pearson spends most of his time discussing Vikings. I like his idea of the shore forts protecting large Imperial estates too - which might to some extent support Cotterill's idea of fortified supply depots, for the collection of grain and revenue from the estates and (we might infer) their removal by sea.
Even so, such massive fortifications seem designed to repel serious assault, not just a bit of limited brigandage from land or sea.
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - Redwald - 11-29-2011
That would make sense, as we know the Picts were also a maritime people, active on the east coast. and probably used sails, too.
I agree that the Saxon Shore forts do seem to be a real indulgence if there was no credible threat. Is there evidence elsewhere that the Romans expended vast resources that were, in effect, just for show and not of actual miltary use?
I would suggest, as I believe Haywood does, that the terms 'Franks' and 'Saxons' weren't used particularly accurately when the Romans were writing about Germanic pirates -- the offending raiders may have been from any grouping based around the North Sea. I must say, too, that the story related by Haywood concerning the revolt of the Usipii in ad 83 when they stole three Liburnian galleys and sailed around the north coast of Britain seems a good indication that the Usipii at least, like the Goths that Robert mentions, were quite familiar with the uses of the sail.
Paul
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - Nathan Ross - 11-29-2011
Quote:Is there evidence elsewhere that the Romans expended vast resources that were, in effect, just for show and not of actual miltary use?Well, the walls of London were built in the early third century, around the time of the first shore forts - then there's the walls of Rome in the 270s. So there seems to have been a spate of wall building at the time. Not necessarily for show though - as I say, it was surely a response to a perceived threat. As a slight analogy, archaeologists of the future excavating anti-nuclear bunkers in Europe might wonder whether there was in fact a nuclear exchange in the 1980s... :wink:
If we consider that most of the forts were built around the 270s, this was a period when large barbarian armies were sweeping through mainland Gaul and Spain - the aforementioned Franks, for example, who seem to have had no trouble putting to sea when it suited them. Quite possibly the forts were built as a line of defence against this sort of massive invasion from the continent (similar to Aurelian's Rome wall and the threat of the Goths), rather than smaller raiding bands from further north. Perhaps by the 350s, after the Rhine defences were rebuilt by Constantine, this sort of large-scale invasion was felt to be less likely, and so the forts fell out of use.
Quote:the story related by Haywood concerning the revolt of the Usipii in ad 83 ... seems a good indication that the Usipii at least, like the Goths that Robert mentions, were quite familiar with the uses of the sail.Interestingly, Tacitus has the starving Usipii shipwrecked on the coast of the Frisii and 'Suebi' (Saxones?), who might have interested in their seagoing exploits... before enslaving the lot of them!
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - Redwald - 11-29-2011
Interestingly, Tacitus has the starving Usipii shipwrecked on the coast of the Frisii and 'Suebi' (Saxones?), who might have interested in their seagoing exploits... before enslaving the lot of them! He does, but this doesn't mean that the Usipii were poor sailors - Tacitus, as a Roman, was trying to make them seem incompetent but the renegades had sailed all the way around the top of Britain and well down into the North Sea before they met with a mishap. I seem to remember an armada of very experienced sailors having similar problems in the same area a bit later on in history. I am sure, too, that Romans from time to time had problems in the northern seas.
Paul
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - D B Campbell - 11-29-2011
Quote:Even so, such massive fortifications seem designed to repel serious assault, not just a bit of limited brigandage from land or sea. This doesn't mean that such assaults actually took place, I suppose - Aurelian's Rome wall (of around the same era) was the response to a possible threat rather than an actual one. But I think it's still worth wondering how much of a 'possible' threat sea raiding might have been at this time...Heresy warning :wink: : I think there is still some mileage in the old idea that Carausius may have played a significant fort-building role, with a view to protecting his breakaway empire. Rather than being demolishing after they had outlived their intended role, his forts were simply absorbed into the "Saxon shore" system.
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - Nathan Ross - 11-29-2011
Quote:Heresy warning :wink: :
mile: But is it heretical at the moment to suggest that the forts were for shore defence, or not? The Carausius angle is probably relevant: one of the forts was, I think, built c293, around the time that Constantius captured Bologne, and after he'd already threatened seaborne invasion once, only to be mysteriously trounced...
But could we be mistaken in assuming any single systematic programme behind the forts' construction? The earliest, c.230, may indeed have been intended to defend coasts and estuaries, or as supply bases for the classis britannica, which still existed until mid-century. Later forts may have been built to guard against the threat of the barbarian armies ravaging the continent in the 270s. Carausius may have expanded the number in response to imperial attempts to oust him from Britain - later, following the fall of Magnentius perhaps, or after the refortification of the Rhine, central government may have felt the upkeep of the forts to be a waste of resources, and a potential defence line for British usurpers, and 'decommissioned' at least some of them.
Only later, by which time seaborne invaders from north of the Rhine may have become a real problem, were the forts reused as part of a unified command structure, the 'Saxon Shore'.
Alternatively, of course, they could just have been grain silos :wink:
Re: Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore - authun - 11-29-2011
Quote:authun post=300727 Wrote:Does he have anything to say about the roman signal stations on the Yorkshire coast?I don't know if Cotterill specifically mentions the Yorkshire stations, but I can check if you like. I know there were human remains found there, and evidence of destruction, but I don't know if a secure dating is possible - early fifth century is perhaps likely.
They lasted into the first couple of decades of the 5th cent., according to Herman Ramm and Neil Faulkener. The two bodies in fire and the bodies in the well were at Huntcliff. The interesting aspect here is that they included children and it mirrors what is found at Malton, where civilians appear to have been moved into the fort.
Most of the villas shut down in Yorkshire, not necessarily because of the raids but because the port of Brough silted up in the North Sea Marine Transgression. It was both a naval base and their port of export, judging by the finds of lead pigs. Brough appears to have contracted and men moved to Malton.
As you write, we don't know who the attackers were but it's a long way from northern Scotland to Yorkshire by sea. It's not a great deal shorter than some possible routes from the Continent. Additionally, a direct sea crossing from the Netherlands to East Anglia is comparable to a crossing of the Skagerrak, also difficult waters. If we accept that people could cross the Skagerrak, we have to accept that people could cross the north sea at a latitude say of that of Amsterdam. Personally I don't see a problem. According to Caesar, Britons were crossing to Britanny.