Simple Question on roads

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Brian Stobbs appears to know of other examples:

it becomes strange to comprehend just how many marching camps that the Dere street goes through to the north of Corbridge. As these are temporary forts I have always tended to think of them as early structures, yet most of them have the Dere street going through them.

Would you mind telling us which camps you're thinking of?
(btw They are temporary structures, but not temporary "forts", and not necessarily early.)[/quote]

These two threads are becoming intertwined, but here is my take on the above conundrum:

I know they did not build roads as they went, but imagine this scenario. A certain part of britain has already been taken, forts (the permanent ones) established, but roads are as of yet unbuilt. Although the territorium is roman, there may still be scattered enemy groups hiding about in the forest and fields from last months major battle which the roman army has, as of yet, been unable to fully subdue.

In this case, seeing as the permament forts have already been built (the ones that were later rebuilt in stone), would it be possible road construction commenced anyway, but due to enemy presence in the area (even if light), would take extra care by building temporary forts as the road went along? The construction crews/slaves/soldiers would have to sleep somewhere, the sand, stone, pebbles, and other materials would have to be protected, might as well be in a marching camp with all that timber lying around, which, incidently was cut down to make way for the road

Off course, according to ockham's razor the simplest explanation is that put by Brian, which has it that the marching camps were built in a straight line, and so were the roads later on.

I just wanted to make sure my point is well explained before we discard it.

[D B Campbell]

I do not suggest that any 6 to 7 m road would not fit on a vallum mound, I am simply trying to point out that such a fantasticly engineered road as you would imply did not go between the fots of Hadrians' wall.

I wouldn't call a cobble foundation with cambered gravel running surface "fantastically" engineered -- just well-engineered. It is, after all, a Military Way, not a sheep track.

I just wanted to make sure my point is well explained before we discard it.

Your point is perfectly sensible, Yuri -- we certainly don't need to discard it!

Armies on the march or engaged in constructional activity appear to have built temporary camps. These naturally cluster along the main routes -- after all, once the ground has been cleared, it's only natural to continue to use the same route, and these were gradually formalised as properly engineered roads. Many camps can be demonstrated to "respect" (i.e. take their alignment from) Roman roads.

But I am skeptical that any Roman surveyor ever laid out his camp across an existing road (rather than beside it). I would have said that this never happened, but Brian Stobbs appears to have some examples. Maybe he'll share them with us?

[PhilusEstilius]

I would ask Mr Campbell just where on Hadrians' wall and between which two forts he can show this well engineered road he refers to. Then I would also ask him where in any of the posts I have made on this subject, I have said that a Roman surveyor laid out a camp across a road.

[M. Demetrius]

[inserting a parenthesis--what is a good online source for the description of the various levels and sublevels of Roman road construction?--closing parenthesis]
PM is ok, so as not to hijack the thread.
dwills 777 @ yahoo . com works, too.

[D B Campbell]

I would ask Mr Campbell just where on Hadrians' wall and between which two forts he can show this well engineered road he refers to.

My goodness -- my passing comment, correcting your misinterpretation of the Military Way as "a rough track", is in danger of derailing this thread!

You ask for details. Most of the excavation work on the Military Way was undertaken a long time ago and published in local journals. Unfortunately, I do not have easy access to the likes of Archaeologia Aeliana or Trans. Cumb. Westm. Archaeol. Antiq. Soc., where the details you request could easily be obtained. But it is well-known that the Military Way, like other Roman military roads in the north, was a properly engineered work of well-drained gravel over a cobble base.

In order to satisfy your curiosity, I have had a look through some recent issues of Britannia, in the "Roman Britain in ..." section, and I find (fortuitously) that, in 2003, "W of Benwell fort, an evaluation trench encountered the Military Way, 7.76m wide ... The Roman road was intact only 400mm beneath the modern ground surface" (Britannia 35, 2004, p. 272).

Then I would also ask him where in any of the posts I have made on this subject, I have said that a Roman surveyor laid out a camp across a road.

I am interested in your comment (which I quoted) about "just how many marching camps that the Dere street goes through".

As I said before (twice?), in my experience Roman marching camps respect existing roads. I am unfamiliar with these examples (you imply that there are several) where it seems that the camp has been laid over the road. Or the road over the camp?

Can you provide any details of these?

[Robert Vermaat]

As I pointed out above, that's not always the case.

Sorry, Robert -- I'm not sure what you mean.
(Probably my fault -- skim-reading the thread while at work!)

I meant this, you skimmer!

Conversely, could it be they also built forts while the roads were being laid proper? As I explained above, as a means to protect the material and for use as a supply base?

As far as we understand it, the forts come first. Once the garrisons are planted and in place to properly control (and exploit) the territory, the army can then direct its efforts to road-building.

You stated that the forts came first, I pointed out that in the case of the 'burgi' along Watling Street, the road clearly came first.

[D B Campbell]

You stated that the forts came first, I pointed out that in the case of the 'burgi' along Watling Street, the road clearly came first.

Interesting and unique sites, Robert.
However, I note that Gould (Britannia 30, 1999) concludes that "it is misleading to style any of them burgi".

In fact, although interesting in their own right, these four sites are not strictly relevant to our theme. Gould writes that "the Watling Street enclosures were civilian", and interprets them as the 4thC defences of small communities; i.e. towns (townlets?) Of course, we'd expect roads to run through towns.

[Robert Vermaat]

You stated that the forts came first, I pointed out that in the case of the 'burgi' along Watling Street, the road clearly came first.

Interesting and unique sites, Robert.
However, I note that Gould (Britannia 30, 1999) concludes that "it is misleading to style any of them burgi".

In fact, although interesting in their own right, these four sites are not strictly relevant to our theme. Gould writes that "the Watling Street enclosures were civilian", and interprets them as the 4thC defences of small communities; i.e. towns (townlets?) Of course, we'd expect roads to run through towns.

Like I said above, White does not necessarily agree with Gould, as he thinks the plans of the sites too similar to be constructed by civilians. The construction would therefore would have been a goverment project.

White does not say they were stricktly defensive sites, either, but proposes that they were military indeed, although possibly used to fascilitate taxation. But no matter if built for taxes or the control of the road, it was the military who guarded them in both events.

Either way, that makes them relevant to our theme.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I think there may be a misunderstanding happening here.

The forts where roads go through them that Brian is referring to are the marching camps, that you, Campbell, kindly explained to me only have roads running through them because the forts were built in a straight line to start with.

I think this is the issue here.

Also, ''Gentlemen! You cannot fight in here! This is the WAR ROOM!''

[PhilusEstilius]

I do think Yuri that I may be the cause for any misunderstanding, from when I made any comment about the Dere street. It would appear that Mr Campbell D B and not Richard has like I got the thread and will not let go. I most surely agree we should not fight in the WAR ROOM.

[M. Demetrius]

Yes, give it a rest. Go to the Rest Room.
:lol:

[Epictetus]

In another thread there was a mention of roads and their military / civilian use that piqued my interest. After doing some searching I found this old topic which was very helpful.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know of ancient writers that speak of road-building or use? I found some instances in Vitruvius and in Pliny's Natural History, but they were mostly casual mentions during a passage on another topic.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Out of curiousity, does anyone know of ancient writers that speak of road-building or use?

I think Caesar refers to roads being built in his BG, but I could be mistaken.

[Epictetus]

Yes, based on the results of a quick search it looks like Caesar mentions it to some extent. Anything is good, but I was specifically interested in any passages regarding civilian / military use of roads.

I thought this was a good quote:

Special pains should be taken that there be no easy avenue by which to storm the wall. The roads should be encompassed at steep points, and planned so as to approach the gates, not in a straight line, but from the right to the left; for as a result of this, the right hand side of the assailants, unprotected by their shields, will be next the wall.

Vitruvius, 5.2

This shows that Vitruvius, at least, had military aspects in mind when planning the roads into a walled town.

[mcbishop]

This shows that Vitruvius, at least, had military aspects in mind when planning the roads into a walled town.

Here's Vegetius (Epitoma Rei Militaris 3,8) on the subject of roads:

Amongst the things for which it is thought a commander must make provision, whether based in castris or in a city, are that pasturage for the animals, the transport of grain and other things – watering, gathering of wood, and foraging – are rendered safe from attack by the enemy. Because otherwise, if garrisons (praesidia) are not distributed at appropriate points, whether these should be cities or walled forts (castra murata), our supply convoys cannot pass to and fro. If suitable places have not been fortified previously, they are strengthened; forts (castella) in such places are quickly surrounded by large ditches. For forts (castella) are named from the diminutive term for camps (castra). The many infantry and cavalry based in these are responsible for maintaining a safe route for convoys.

If you follow Schenk, he is probably using a 1st-century AD source (Frontinus).

Mike Bishop