05-07-2008, 11:53 PM
Quote:I think I have to agree with Marcus that when Mr Nolan made his projected map of the fort he did get a bit carried away, for he shows the fort far to long infact as I have mentioned in your other thread it is too elongated and the south end would fall over a cliff. Well not so much a cliff but a VERY STEEP incline down to the swing bridge area, infact if archaeologists are wanting to quote 1.53 of an acre as it's size one would think they should at least get such a drawing to match that. What it shows here is around 3acres at least but there again where in the world do they even get the figure of 1.53 from, for all that has been found is a part of the north wall the east west and south walls have never been located yet so how can anyone start quoteing size. I have shown also in your other topic how you can get 100 soldiers out of the fort, and even more so at other forts along the Wall when we consider the Milecastles that had to be manned.
Hi Brian,
I absolutely agree with you and the coloured sketch I made adresses these problems. The fort would have to be rather square-ish in shape, and maybe the barracks made smaller.
