Where did they keep the mules in garrison?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Anyone want to sign their Royalties over to me so I can build a lIbrary to house all these books in? :wink:

[L_CORNELIUS_CETHEGUS]

This may seem trite given the level of conversation going on in this thread, but as a (maybe) helpful observation I thought I would mention that I never knew how LOUD mules are until I lived close to a farm that had some. MAN, you can hear them from a half mile away -- especially when it's feeding time!! I think they are one of the loudest domesticated animals you can have around, except for maybe a rooster. Wherever the mules were kept, I hope they kept them away from anybody that was trying to think.

--Kelsey

[M. Demetrius]

:lol: Please limit all posts to 678,450 words or less. 8)

[Paralus]

:lol: Please limit all posts to 678,450 words or less. 8)

Personally I think we should go back to the digression on the dynamitius...

[mcbishop]

(2) Stables: I have explained that, although archaeologists have always tried to identify stables in Roman forts, the realisation that cavalrymen actually shared accommodation with their horses is a relatively new one, and stems directly from recent work at Wallsend. Johnson was not psychic; she could not have known what exciting discoveries would be made at Wallsend. This means that, unfortunately, her plan of the fort is out-of-date; for a better one, see Roman Auxiliary Forts p. 48, which shows the crucial soakaway pits in the barrack rooms. (Also, Brian Delf has created a splendid full-colour reconstruction of this feature on p. 50, Plate E.)

Anyone who thinks that Johnson "refers to the combined barrack/stable at the second century Fort at Dormagen in Germany" is mistaken. Although it turned out that such a combined barrack/stable existed at Dormagen, in 1983 it was still usual to interpret the (only fragmentarily known) building as a stable. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that Brough-on-Noe probably has the same arrangement, but no-one would have guessed this in 1983. These seemed to be stables, not the combined barrack/stable that we now recognise.

Point of information, Mr Speaker! [ducks to avoid hurled vegetables, mule excrement, and old bottles of Johnson's auxiliary baby lotion]

Whilst the Dormagen excavations were the first to explicitly sample for phosphate analysis and identify stables, Wallsend was not the first to identify the split barrack/stable. Peter Connolly had illustrated one of these in his 1988 Tiberius Claudius Maximus. The Cavalryman (spread on pages 16-17), but Wallsend was not re-excavated (for display) until 1997/8 (with Millennium lottery money) - the original Daniels excavations did not pick up on this important fact (when I was working on the Corbridge report I shared an office with the chap doing the Wallsend one... which has yet to appear, but that's another story) - so the split stable/barrack identification there came after (and was indeed derived from) the realisation of the significance of Dormagen, largely due to the excavations at Krefeld-Gellep. There is more on this in a paper by Sebastian Sommer* who attributes the popularisation of the split stable/barrack to Junkelmann and Connolly.

Coincidentally, the previous paper** in that volume is on a villa rustica possibly used as a military stud (see my earlier comments). So there you go.

Mike Bishop

Kemkes, M. and Scheuerbrand, J. (eds) 1999: Fragen zur römischen Reiterei, Kolloquium zur Ausstellung "Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz. Die Römische Reiterei am Limes zwischen Patrouille und Parade" im Limesmuseum Aalen am 25.-26.02.1998. Stuttgart
*Sommer, S. 1999: 'Wohin mit den Pferden? Stall-baracken sowie Aufmarsch- und Übungsplätze in römischer Zeit' in Kemkes and Scheuerbrandt 1999, 84-90
** Balle, G. 1999: 'Die Villa rustica von Bietigheim "Weilerlen" - ein Gestüt für Militärpferde?' in Kemkes and Scheuerbrandt 1999, 81-3

[Paullus Scipio]

Mike Bishop wrote:

Peter Connolly had illustrated one of these in his 1988 Tiberius Claudius Maximus. The Cavalryman (spread on pages 16-17), ..... so the split stable/barrack identification there came after (and was indeed derived from) the realisation of the significance of Dormagen, largely due to the excavations at Krefeld-Gellep. There is more on this in a paper by Sebastian Sommer* who attributes the popularisation of the split stable/barrack to Junkelmann and Connolly.

....Indeed, and Connolly in turn utilised the same diagram of the building with its hearths and pits ( redrawn ) on p.16 of "The Cavalryman" as had appeared on P.178 of Anne Johnson's "Roman Forts" (1983), along with her comments regarding these combined stable/barracks at Dormagen that I quoted before and which Duncan keeps denying; "...housed both men and their horses, each in similar sized rooms on either side of the longitudinal partition wall..." These 'split quarters' were identified by the drainage pits on one side, and the simple hearths on the other. As previously mentioned the existence of combined A.k.A 'split' barracks/stables was noted by Schulten (1929 P.66 ff) at Numantia, (e.g. building row K, Lager III ) and ultimately goes back to the layout of Polybius' camp. As well, being noted at Dormagen (Muller 1979) and A.Johnson (1983), Krefeld-Gellep(Reichman;Pirling 1986), Usk (Marvell 1989) Oberstimm (1978 re-interpreted) and finally at Wallsend and South Shields (Hodgson 2002; Hodgson and Bidwell 2004).
Such items are hardly 'new" then......

[D B Campbell]

Anne Johnson's "Roman Forts" (1983), along with her comments regarding these combined stable/barracks at Dormagen that I quoted before and which Duncan keeps denying

You're a terrible one for the hyperbole, Paul. Looking back over this thread, I see that I mentioned Dormagen once, and then only to point out that:

Anyone who thinks that Johnson "refers to the combined barrack/stable at the second century Fort at Dormagen in Germany" is mistaken. Although it turned out that such a combined barrack/stable existed at Dormagen, in 1983 it was still usual to interpret the (only fragmentarily known) building as a stable.

So, looks like we've sorted out the cavalry. Now ... where did they keep the mules?

[Paul Elliott]

Surely an army in garrison has need of only a moderate number of mules, compared to on the march when the regiment was fully mobilised. I had always envisaged a general military round-up of civillian animals in the surrounding area ready for a campaign.

[D B Campbell]

Surely an army in garrison has need of only a moderate number of mules, compared to on the march when the regiment was fully mobilised.

Hence my reason for pointing out:

Many legions would've had absolutely no use for mules, in any case.

... that suggestion is most improbable. Of course, on occasion there might be a shortage of mules, but it would be fairly safe to say that mules were present in all Roman Armies, and that their total absence would be an extreme rarity, if it ever occurred.

But this idea was abruptly shot down as "most improbable". :|

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Possibly, the need for mules for a campaign, would be met when the need arose?
Therefore, a smaller number of mules would be needed, possibly, say, for moving supplies from the main forts to the milecastles etc, on Hadrians wall, as a possible possibility out of many possiblities that could possibly, theoretically arise, for a garrison on a frontier. Possibly?

[D B Campbell]

Therefore, a smaller number of mules would be needed, possibly, say, for moving supplies from the main forts to the milecastles etc, on Hadrians wall

An interesting thought. Of course, one of the reasons for building roads was to enable the use of waggons for heavy or bulky loads.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Therefore, a smaller number of mules would be needed, possibly, say, for moving supplies from the main forts to the milecastles etc, on Hadrians wall

An interesting thought. Of course, one of the reasons for building roads was to enable the use of waggons for heavy or bulky loads.

Yes of course, but then the wagons may have been utilized for the heavier duties of moving supplies up to the forts?
Or perhaps the wagons ran down the roads, the small garrisons along the wall went down to the road and picked up their supplies from the drop off points with a mule? A lot of possibilities.

[Paullus Scipio]

D. Campbell wrote:

But this idea was abruptly shot down as "most improbable".

....and deservedly so, on this occasion ! :lol: :lol:
You have quoted me out of context, what I actually wrote was this:

Since the preferred pack-animal of the military has universally been the Mule from time immemorial right down to the present ( both sides use mules in Afghanistan, for instance), and since there are many references to mules in the Roman Army, that suggestion is most improbable. Of course, on occasion there might be a shortage of mules, and donkeys or camels substituted, but it would be fairly safe to say that mules were present in all Roman Armies, and that their total absence would be an extreme rarity, if it ever occurred.

In addition you have also sought to justify your comment by quoting Paul Elliott.He actually wrote that a garrison 'has need of only a modest number of mules' compared to the field, not that a garrison needed no mules at all, as you suggested.

The Mule was universal in the Roman world, and was the equivalent of 'motor vehicles' in ours, in that Roman society could not have existed without them. According to Varro (De Re Rustica II.8.), nearly all road transport was pulled in carts or wagons pulled by pairs of mules. They were extremely valuable too.
Columella (VI.27) divides horses into three classes. Firstly the thoroughbred stock for the Circus(chariot racing) and the Sacred Games; next the stock for breeding mules ( rated almost as high as the noble stock); finally normal riding animals. In the Army, a thief who stole weapons was scourged, but a thief who stole a pack-animal had his hands cut off, on the grounds that 'weapons are only useful in battle, while pack animals are useful at all times' ( "Roman Military Law" C.E. Brand University of Texas 1968) - incidently this implies pack-animals were present all the time.

In Diocletian's "Edict' on prices (X.1) a military saddle is priced at 500 denarii, whereas a mule saddle is 800 denarii; a pack-saddle for a donkey is 250 denarii and for a mule(hinny) 350 denarii.

The baggage animal handlers in the army ( and civilian life too) were called 'muliones' - which speaks for itself and specialist vets called 'mulomedici' existed.......... need I go on?

The idea that "Many Legions would have absolutely no use for mules, in any case" is about as probable as a modern Western army having absolutely no use for motor vehicles.

[Paullus Scipio]

Therefore, a smaller number of mules would be needed, possibly, say, for moving supplies from the main forts to the milecastles etc, on Hadrians wall

An interesting thought. Of course, one of the reasons for building roads was to enable the use of waggons for heavy or bulky loads.

....Indeed one might go further, and point out that the primary purpose of going to the trouble and expense of building roads is to allow wheeled traffic, which requires a hard surface. Certainly it has usually been assumed that roads were built to allow the Legions etc to move about quickly, but this is something of a myth. Neither Infantry nor Cavalry move significantly faster on roads (tactically) but roads for transport allow the army as a whole to move more quickly and easily.(strategically)
Roads are hard on animal hooves, and infantry feet (think of hob-nailed caligae or modern boots on hard surfaces) and throughout military history, Infantry and Cavalry units have preferred to march alongside roads, depending on terrain conditions.

As to wagons, they are extremely useful for carrying heavy loads - a cart could carry 2.5-3 times the load of a mule for example, and a wagon up to 5 and maybe 10 mule loads. It was this heavy load carrying ability that justified the expense of building roads.....

Large wagons were often pulled by oxen, at least in civilian life. The disadvantage militarily was that oxen were slow - able to cover a maximum of 20-25 miles only per day on flat terrain. It is unlikely that the Roman Army maintained oxen as baggage animals as a general rule, since references to them are few compared to mules - they were more likely to be requisitioned as needed.

Speaking of requisitioning...

Paul Elliott wrote:

I had always envisaged a general military round-up of civillian animals in the surrounding area ready for a campaign.

This is certainly the case, though care had to be taken in 'friendly' territory. It was not unusual for patriotic citizens to bear the expense of supplying the Army, and when the Army requisitioned supplies from civil sources, it was normal for the civilians to transport them at their own expense, using their own transport.
Requisitioning 'transport' was not limited to animals either - the Army on occasion conscripted porters as pack-animals too.
Plutarch reports (Antony 68:
"My great-grandfather used to tell how in Antony's last war the whole of the citizens of Chaeronea were put in requisition to bring down grain to the coast at Anticyra, each man carrying a certain load, and soldiers standing by to urge them on with whips."

Clearly this was an emergency, and the citizens - starving because of Antony's grain requisitions - were spared when news arrived of Antony's defeat at Actium, ending the war. Octavian allowed them to keep the grain for themselves, and thus avoid widespread famine. ( generous of him since it was theirs in the first place! )

[D B Campbell]

The idea that "Many Legions would have absolutely no use for mules, in any case" is about as probable as a modern Western army having absolutely no use for motor vehicles.

Of course, this is a false analogy, as anyone who gives it even a moment's thought can see. A "modern Western army" is paralysed without motor vehicles, which are ubiquitous in society at large. But the mule was not the only beast of burden known to the Romans.

I concede that it was rash of me to suggest that a legion might have "absolutely no" use for mules. After all, the commander's wife would need a mule carriage to ferry her around. But I simply cannot imagine, say, the Sixth Victrix at York messing about with mules when one or two ox waggons could bring the day's wine ration up from the docks.

I admit that I am guilty of exaggeration. But there must be something in the air -- this thread seems to encourage exaggeration:

For the pre-Flavian Legion of 60 centuries; some 1400 mules ( with a carrying capacity of around 175 metric tonnes)
For the post-Flavian Legion of 59 centuries ( with "double" First cohort); around 1525 Mules ( with a carrying capacity of 190 metric tonnes).