Medium Roman Maching camp

[PhilusEstilius]

I don't realy think that the Romans would have waisted good stakes around the outside of a ditch, infact I think they would have welcomed you into their ditch and that way you make a good target for a pilum or bowman.
Then of course in a more permanent situation there would have been all kinds of thorn bushes and nasty things in that ditch.

[Titus Quartinius Saturnal]

What the dimensions of your camp? I am building a Fortlet in Ontario Canada. The first ditch, gate house and some of the front walls are started. We have had 4 reenactments there and there are no buildings inside yet. TQS

[QVINTVS ARTORIVS CORVINVS]

Yes, yes.... dimensions... especially that Germanian fortlett... please :!:

[D B Campbell]

Yes, yes.... dimensions... especially that Germanian fortlett... please :!:

I would be interested in comparing Robert's fortlet at Marktveld with other well-known pre-Hadrianic fortlets. (Pre-Hadrianic, in order to omit the ones that are attached to frontier walls.)

• Barburgh Mill (Scotland): 29.5 x 28.5m (840 sq.m.)
  Degerfeld (Germany): approx. 25.0 x 24.0m (600 sq.m.)
  Kemel (Germany): 29.0 x 28.0m (812 sq.m.)
  Martinhoe (England): 25.0 x 24.0m (600 sq.m.)

(Details from D.J. Breeze, "The Roman fortlet at Barburgh Mill", Britannia 5 (1974), 130ff.)

But we are veering off topic ... :oops:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I don't realy think that the Romans would have waisted good stakes around the outside of a ditch, infact I think they would have welcomed you into their ditch and that way you make a good target for a pilum or bowman.
Then of course in a more permanent situation there would have been all kinds of thorn bushes and nasty things in that ditch.

As I said, I didn't build it, but hopefully they will swing my way.

As for dimensions, I would need to measure it. But not big enough really! :|

[Robert]

For some reason, I seem to have not been subscibed to this topic after my first replies.

My reconstruction drawing is WRONG, as the walls of the turf rampart are too low. The gate would seem to be a correct interpretation, the roof over the gate is artistic liberty I mistakenly took the inside area of turf and the ditches as something to go by on the reconstruction of the wall. These were however structures build to last at least one season of activity, so the defences were up to par with a "normal" castellum, so I have been told. The turf wall would be anywere between 2.5 and 3.5 hig, topped by a pallisade. The two barracks are 4,8 m wide and 21 m long, the bottom of the U was 26 m. The outside wall was about 30 by 40 meters. I am attaching the drawing of the excavation, hope it fits ....

[D B Campbell]

These were however structures built to last at least one season of activity, so the defences were up to par with a "normal" castellum, so I have been told.

Yup -- as far as we can tell, the fortlets in Scotland (for example) were occupied for 20 years.

The outside wall was about 30 by 40 meters.

So nicely within the range of other known fortlets. Thanks, Robert.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Nice reconstruction Robert, it would be nice to build something like that...

Saying the ramparts are too low Robert, then if they are bigger, correspondingly, so should the ditch?
I may be wrong but I seem to see the ramparts are always described as so-high, with a ditch of so big, but there
must be a direct relation to rampart height and ditch depth...? Assuming all the rampart material comes from the ditch?
At least on temporary marching camps, perhaps the more permanent instalations were built using different criteria?
I know there will be some areation of soil removed from the ground, but it would be pretty useless unless it was compacted again to some degree? Unless they relied on its instability as part of the method to slow and disrupt any assault on the camps?
Sorry to go ot but this has bugged me for some time....

[jvrjenivs]

I may be wrong but I seem to see the ramparts are always described as so-high, with a ditch of so big, but there
must be a direct relation to rampart height and ditch depth...? Assuming all the rampart material comes from the ditch?
At least on temporary marching camps, perhaps the more permanent instalations were built using different criteria?

Okay, the following is based on my research I did for the rebuild of a piece of wooden-earth wall in Nijmegen, but that was also about the height of the wall and depth of the ditch. There were rules how this was done, but the amount from the ditch is not directly correlated to the volume of the wall behind it. Sometimes we also see a small rampart constructed right next to the ditch (which makes the ditchrampart becoming bigger, so hard to climb). This is additional to the wall, so also earth is needed for that. Even the wall seems not always be totally filled with earth from the ditch. According to Hobley, working on the reconstruction works at 'The Lunt'

It was strongly argued that the Roman army would endeavour, if at all possible, to have circulation on the rampart walk as free from changes of level as possible

Together with vitrivius this makes the rampart of most (permanent) structures would be between 10 and 12 Rft. (about 3 and 3.6 m) The last one is also adviced by Caesar.

Then about the ditch(es). It should always be constructed in such a way that the bottom of all ditches are visible from the walkway of the rampart. This is where the correlation between wall rampart and ditch size are connected.

[Robert]

Salve Byron,

That was my mistake! Like Jurjen said, there seems to be no direct correlation between ditch size and rampart height. The base of the wall would be about 4 meters. The walkway at the top would be about 2 meters, the frontslope being steeper then the backslope. The steeper frontslope is achieved by using the turf sods stacked, at the back, compacted earth will hold its shape as the incline is less, thus being more stable.

We are aiming to build the shown fortlet in our park (if that ever comes to pass :roll: ), which is why I am doing the reconstruction. In the UK, there are milecastles and fortlets as part of the permanent defence system of the borderwall. In Holland the Rhine river was the main "moat". The Marktveld forlet is only a mile from the castellum and dated at around 100, thought to have housed a vexillatio working on the road. In Germany, these small forts are found at different positions dotted behind the Limes as well. They often as not have two barrackblocks. Sizes vary, some larger ones will have housed a numerus (two century). Later on, as the Romans change to a depth defence, more permanant small forts are seen, housing numerii and turmea of cavalry, like rapid respons units.

These would not class as a marching camp, more as (temorary) housing for units on a designated task. In a marching camp, I would suppose the correlation between ditch and rampart to be more direct, the wall Jurjen has shown is very believable for a marching camp, thrown up in a hurry, sharpened stakes stuck in the front, sudes placed at the top and tied together in two's or three's, perhaps with cross bracing between the sudes with small trees forming a barrier.

[D B Campbell]

These would not class as a marching camp, more as (temporary) housing for units on a designated task.

I see the notion of "temporary" accommodation creeping in again, Robert! :wink: I think it's the fact that some sites have turf-and-timber/earth-and-timber fortifications that suggests "temporary" to some folks. The Romans do not seem to have shared our ideas of "temporary" building materials. Turf-and-timber/earth-and-timber sites were frequently refurbished and maintained to enable permanent year-round accommodation, for years on end. The reconstruction at The Lunt stood for thirty-odd years before it required drastic rebuilding. For me, its the provision of internal buildings that's the giveaway. That, and a proper gate structure.

In this part of the world, fortlets are usually seen as intermediate roadposts. Small signs of officaldom dotted along the arteries of the empire to show the flag and keep the traffic moving. One of my favourites, at Oxton in the Scottish Borders (see below), is right beside a Roman road (naturally) and has an enormous annexe tacked onto the side, like a big waggon park.
[attachment=0:276sm92q]<!-- ia0 Oxton_fortlet_plan.JPG<!-- ia0 [/attachment:276sm92q]
But we are drifting again ... :oops:

[Robert]

Oh no, the temporary is between brackets because I too believe these stuctures were around for at least a few years and perhaps even decenia. The small fort at Valkenburg is dated around 100 and is gone by 110, as is the watchtower found close by. Perhaps I am confusing the issue here, as I tend to look at the castella, who all seem to have had a very similar evolution in Holland, ending up as stone walled forts. So when I say temporary, it is more in relationship to fortifications staying around for a much longer period.

Nice info on that waystation! It may be OT, but this thread is very informative!

[Redguru]

Byron. Those pictures look impressive as do those of Jerjen however I have always wanted to raise the point about those stakes ( no pun intended ) that from my days in military we always used to put Three of those together ( angle iron ones welded of course ) which behave very much like a caltrop.
I have not found so many re-enactors who do it that way but I do have to say that the hand grip of those things has always said to me it's not just a hand grip but a position where Three have to be put together.
Infact if one thinks of a Marching Camp mound with them on top like caltrops just how difficult it would be to get thro' in a hurry with shield spear or sword filling both hands. ??

Having said all that the efforts do look good. !!

You mean similar to a Czech Hedgehog?

[jvrjenivs]

Byron. Those pictures look impressive as do those of Jerjen however I have always wanted to raise the point about those stakes ( no pun intended ) that from my days in military we always used to put Three of those together ( angle iron ones welded of course ) which behave very much like a caltrop.
I have not found so many re-enactors who do it that way but I do have to say that the hand grip of those things has always said to me it's not just a hand grip but a position where Three have to be put together.
Infact if one thinks of a Marching Camp mound with them on top like caltrops just how difficult it would be to get thro' in a hurry with shield spear or sword filling both hands. ??

Having said all that the efforts do look good. !!

You mean similar to a Czech Hedgehog?

Yes, that's what is meaning. Here a picture of the Ermine Street guard using them that way:

[D B Campbell]

You mean similar to a Czech Hedgehog?

Wow, you must have big hedgehogs in Czech Rep!