Newcastle (Pons Aelius) Bridge, Vallum and Fort (info needed

[PhilusEstilius]

If you go to Google earth and pull up Wallsend fort, this is 4.5 acres so half of this is just over two. Then you have to loose 25% of that so to get a Cohort into an area of that size would be impossible, besides which the fort at the Pons Aelius was only there to gaurd the bridge no need to have a full Cohort unless we assume yet another fort on the other side of the river took the other half of the garrison.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

If you go to Google earth and pull up Wallsend fort, this is 4.5 acres so half of this is just over two. Then you have to loose 25% of that so to get a Cohort into an area of that size would be impossible, besides which the fort at the Pons Aelius was only there to gaurd the bridge no need to have a full Cohort unless we assume yet another fort on the other side of the river took the other half of the garrison.

I assume you are correct, and maybe there was a fort in Gateshead, but as of yet, this is unconfirmed. However, look at the drawing D B Campbell has provided us. It seems rather impossible that a quingenary unit be stationed there, not because it is too small, but rather because it is too big. 6 Barrack blocks fit there easily, but then there is still space vacant and I don't know what to do with it.

Like I said, to fit a quingenary unit in that fort in the typical roman fashion it becomes more quadratical and not rectangular shaped as shown in the sketch provided by D B Campbell.

[Tarbicus]

Horses as well?

[PhilusEstilius]

I don't think your wrong Yuri for I've just had another look at that drawing then at Google earth, if the dotted line is to be considered the supposed fort wall the south end would fall over not exactly what is a cliff but what is a very steep gradient. The supposed fort is just too elongated to be true infact almost twice the size it should be, I think it would be a push to even get 4 barrack blocks into.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Horses as well?

It is thought this unit was devoid of its typical equitate cohorts, at least for this particular fort.

I don't think your wrong Yuri for I've just had another look at that drawing then at Google earth, if the dotted line is to be considered the supposed fort wall the south end would fall over not exactly what is a cliff but what is a very steep gradient. The supposed fort is just too elongated to be true infact almost twice the size it should be, I think it would be a push to even get 4 barrack blocks into.

Yes that is exactly what I thought too. So im not sure whether I follow that drawing or not. Like I said, 4 barracks blocks can probably be put into the fort, but it would be nowhere near as elongated as shown in that sketch, but rather more like a square. I will expand this discussion in the forum proper to see what other valuable opinions we may have.

[PhilusEstilius]

Yuri I don't know if it will be of any help to you to consider the milecastle garrisons, for these particular small fortlets would have held around 40 to 60 men. I'm sure indeed that those on both sides of our fort may have been made up with garrisons from the fort itself, in this way we are shifting anything from 80 to 100 men out of the fort. Then if we assume a small amount of troopers on the other side of the bridge, we can almost collectively say we have a Cohort in and around the Pons Aelius. This is just one aspect we have to consider about the garrisons on Hadrians' Wall, and with the distances between forts being 6 or 7 miles many troops would never be in their forts at all.

[D B Campbell]

The fort is roughly about 1.53 acres in size ...

Remember that the sides and rear have not been located, so this is just one possibility.

... and one of the units attested as being there was The Cohort of Ulpian Cugerni ... a quingenary unit (roughly around 500, but usually below 480) consisting of six centuries although there is doubt that it would have had the additional four cavalry troops of an equitate cohort. ... It is thought this unit was devoid of its typical equitate cohorts, at least for this particular fort.

There isn't any doubt at all. An infantry cohort didn't have any cavalry.

The supposed fort is just too elongated to be true infact almost twice the size it should be, I think it would be a push to even get 4 barrack blocks into.

I don't follow how a 1.56 acre (0.64 ha) fort can be "almost twice the size it should be". What size should it be?

David Breeze reviewed the evidence in the new edition of Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall (which I referred to on p.1 above).
He writes (p. 145): "the best estimate is that the fort measured about 95 by 67 m (360 by 220 ft), covering 0.64 ha (1.53 acres), which is too small to hold either regiment attested here." He further notes that "It is possible, however, that the fort was related to the topography and was polygonal in shape, thus providing more accommodation space".
We simply don't know.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Hi Campbell,

I am not sure if you are following my other discussion regarding barrack sizes and fort layouts, but I have good reason to suspect the fort was not rectangular but rather square in shape.

It is possible to fit in 6 barracks blocks, the granaries, the CO's house and the headquarters in there, but not in the configuration hinted at by whoever did the 1986 sketch (sorry I forgot his name).

My theory also eliminates some problems the rectangular configuration created, such as the fort falling off a steep incline, not joining the wall, among other things.

Of course, as you said, we will never know untill the excavations are made (if ever), so what I have come to is conjectural, based on interpretation of evidence provided (perhaps wrongly, perhaps not) and so is not the ULTIMATE DEFINITIVE PLAN of what the fort looked like, but rather, how it MAY HAVE LOOKED LIKE.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Here is my interpretation of the fort layout, and the explanation is contained within:



Please not the Granaries, CO's house and Headquarters are in line with archaeological evidence, only the barracks are conjectural (and the walls obviously).

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Right,

The fort itself has been finished and I must say it is looking excellent! Not long now untill the whole thing is finished. We have done this on the assumption the fort did not connect to the wall, as MC Bishop has pointed out.

However, I was told of some type of curtain wall that connects the fort to the wall. Where would this be? The wall is about 3-7 meters in front of the fort, so how would troops leaving the fort go past the wall?

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Hmmn,

Where is Brian, Bishop or Campbell when you need them ?:

[PhilusEstilius]

Hi Yuri it's Brian I think you may have raised an interesting point on just how the soldiers would have been able to go through the Wall. It had to be such at all forts otherwise the fort would mean absoloutely nothing, for there is not a fort anywhere on Hadrians' Wall that is not attached to it in some way.The best form of defence is attack so if you can't go through the Wall, how in Hell can you defend the Pons Aelius.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Hi Brian,

I went to newcastle this weekend only to find that the Newcastle Society of Antiquaries (which houses the Archaeologia Aeliana series) is currently being refurbished and all books and such have been shipped elsewhere. It seems I will not be able to read this much needed book that deals with this fort.

I know some forts protruded outwards beyond the wall by about a third of their length, and had small gates adjacent to the walls both left and right, and then there was the main gate ahead. This gave the army more outlets to disperse should they need to get out fast to deal with a threat or defend the fort.

I do not know how it would be with Pons Aelius. The sketches seem to show it did not connect, but as you have said yourself Brian, this makes little sense and although the fort was built after the wall I see no reason why not simply join it to the wall like every other fort along its length.

[D B Campbell]

I do not know how it would be with Pons Aelius. The sketches seem to show it did not connect, but as you have said yourself Brian, this makes little sense and although the fort was built after the wall I see no reason why not simply join it to the wall like every other fort along its length.

You may be in danger of circular reasoning here, Yuri.

It is generally accepted, for various reasons, that the Newcastle fort was a later addition to Hadrian's Wall. One of these reasons (as far as I understand it) is the fact that it was not bonded into the curtain of Hadrian's Wall. Other (more important) reasons include the peculiar spacing (i.e. there shouldn't be a fort here) and the complete absence of Hadrianic material from the site.
(I am not a regular reader of Archaeologia Aeliana, so I may have missed other pertinent arguments.)

Of course, when the Romans returned to Hadrian's Wall after AD 160, having mothballed the entire system for a generation, they brought with them twenty years' experience of having designed, built and maintained the Antonine Wall. This is important because (1) none of the forts straddle/protrude beyond the Antonine Wall, (2) several are free-standing behind the line of the Antonine Wall, and (3) most are smaller than the standard Hadrianic forts.

It would be entirely logical for the Romans, upon recommissioning Hadrian's Wall, to incorporate some or all of the lessons learned on the northern frontier. In particular, the Newcastle fort (1) does not straddle Hadrian's Wall, (2) seems to be free-standing, and (3) seems to be smaller than its neighbours.

Far from "making little sense", I think this design makes perfect sense.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I do not know how it would be with Pons Aelius. The sketches seem to show it did not connect, but as you have said yourself Brian, this makes little sense and although the fort was built after the wall I see no reason why not simply join it to the wall like every other fort along its length.

You may be in danger of circular reasoning here, Yuri.

It is generally accepted, for various reasons, that the Newcastle fort was a later addition to Hadrian's Wall. One of these reasons (as far as I understand it) is the fact that it was not bonded into the curtain of Hadrian's Wall. Other (more important) reasons include the peculiar spacing (i.e. there shouldn't be a fort here) and the complete absence of Hadrianic material from the site.
(I am not a regular reader of Archaeologia Aeliana, so I may have missed other pertinent arguments.)

Of course, when the Romans returned to Hadrian's Wall after AD 160, having mothballed the entire system for a generation, they brought with them twenty years' experience of having designed, built and maintained the Antonine Wall. This is important because (1) none of the forts straddle/protrude beyond the Antonine Wall, (2) several are free-standing behind the line of the Antonine Wall, and (3) most are smaller than the standard Hadrianic forts.

It would be entirely logical for the Romans, upon recommissioning Hadrian's Wall, to incorporate some or all of the lessons learned on the northern frontier. In particular, the Newcastle fort (1) does not straddle Hadrian's Wall, (2) seems to be free-standing, and (3) seems to be smaller than its neighbours.

Far from "making little sense", I think this design makes perfect sense.

Hi Campbell,

Now that you put it that way, I do see where I may have been a bit presumptious. Something that eludes me however, was Newcastle unique along Hadrians Wall to be set apart from the wall itself? And was it the only one to be built after the wall itself? Like Brian said, the small size of the fort was offset by the milecastles and turrets nearby.

Also, I don't know much about the Antonine Wall, but how did troops garrisoned on those forts go beyond the wall? Were there milecastles?

This information would be useful as like you said, it could be replicated with the Newcastle fort.