Barrack Sizes and fort layouts

[D B Campbell]

This fort was believed to hold roughly about 480 men, so therefore about 6 barracks if my above observations are correct.

Not so. The fort is generally thought to have been far too small to accommodate an entire infantry cohort.

But (as I noted on your other thread) the size of the fort isn't actually known! So we are in danger of going round in circles here.

By the way, was a barrack block 9 rooms (one for centurio and 8 for 10 soldiers) or 11 rooms (one centurio and 10 for 8 soldiers?) I thought a contubernium was 10 soldiers.

Known examples of auxiliary barrack blocks have usually been selectively excavated, so their plan has to be reconstructed by "joining the dots".

One exception is the Flavian fort at Elginhaugh, which was completely stripped. Most of the barrack blocks were found to contain 10 pairs of rooms and a large "suite" at one end, presumably for the centurion.

It would be nice to think that this equates to 10 units (contubernia) of 8 men per block, but Elginhaugh had nine of these blocks! So were there fewer men per room? Or was the garrison somehow augmented?

Also the so-called granaries and CO's quarters are highly debatable. Personally i think the archeologists or whoever made this sketch (not your reconstruction) were in a wishful thinking modus!!

I disagree.

The buildings interpreted as granaries (horrea) have the unique and immediately recognisable groundplan of this type of building. There is no other building known from Roman military archaeology with this kind of groundplan. I would say the case is closed on the granaries!

Only a corner of the building interpreted as the commanding officer's house (praetorium) was investigated. But it was found to incorporate a hypocaust -- outside of a bathhouse, a hypocaust is usually only found in the high-status CO's house -- and appears to lie in the fort's central range, which is the "correct" position for this building.

i found this text on the net

I hope you'll forgive me if I prefer the opinion of a scholar who has been working on and around Hadrian's Wall, and Roman military archaeology in general, for the last 40 years! :wink:

Typical layout of Roman Fortress.

Unless I am mistaken, you have posted a plan of Pen Llystyn, a Flavian turf-and-timber fort. As we are dealing with a situation at least 50 years later (and probably longer, if we accept that the Newcastle fort isn't primary), it might be more appropriate to look at later examples.

btw It is usual to reserve the term "fortress" for the large legionary bases. Just an English-language idiosyncracy.

As you can see the Horrea are not in front of the buildings as you have drawn them.

It is true that the majority of excavated forts have their granaries in the central range, but we cannot be too dogmatic. Beckfoot (Hadrianic) and Bearsden (Antonine) both have a granary in the praetentura. The main consideration would be allowing unloading access by heavy wagon.

... you cannot guess or even deduct where the original wall must have been, let alone know its outlines.

Quite so.

This area would seem to be unduly problematic for a reconstruction. Wouldn't you be better choosing a fort where the evidence is rather better?

Just for the record, here's the conjectural plan of this highly problematic site, provided by Professor David Breeze.