Germanic Pirates and the Saxon Shore

[scotti73]

Its not just the shore forts, major cities started to have defensive walls, Londinium, Camulodunum and Ratae all have/had walls, so the "threat" must have been taken seriously.

[Robert Vermaat]

But could we be mistaken in assuming any single systematic programme behind the forts' construction?

I think that idea of a 'single program' has already been dealt with some time ago. Like you said, the forts are too far apart in time to show any original building program for all or even a large number of them.

[Longovicium]

I was struck recently when I read an article on the forts built in Pannonia which argued that their main purpose was largely as rearward supply bases for the forward forts strung out along the edges of the limes there. These former were large heavily fortified forts often of massive size and similar in design to some of the Saxon Shore forts. The ND lists garrison units which are too small to man the walls and that, coupled with the archeological remains, points to these structures collecting, hoarding and then distributing annonae and other material supplies both to the limitanei and also to the field army when the latter was engaged in campaigning. These forts were sited in areas which hid them from view or often denied them the best strategic view of the landscape.

This brings me back to the Saxon Shore forts and the question of their primary purpose. While I would be hesitant to argue that they all were designed to fulfill any single overall purpose, the fact that they were listed under a single military command does indicate that at some point they were combined under an overarching remit. If we take the Pannonian model as a base then we can see that perhaps these forts were heavily defended and large and therefore served as central reserve nodes to a largely mobile fleet presence and limitanei garrison force strung out along the coastal litus. The hypothesis that these forts were designated under a Comes to watch over an area settled by Saxons has always seemed odd to me - in that I can think of no other title or command similarly set up. Such a command would therefore be unique - certainly in terms of how it is titled in the ND.

Also, I think it is important to see the command in relation to the companion commands on the Gallic coasts - the Dux Tractus Armoricani and the Dux Belgica Secundae - as forming a larger defensive and supportive net designed to supply and defend a hugely important sea-route in the Late Empire. Ammianus at least stresses the ability of the military supplies from Britain alone to relieve military operations as far as the Rhine litoral. These last two commands may - and I stress may here! - have been a remnant of the Carausian legacy and when we remember that Ascelpiodotus and Constantius launched a two-pronged maritime invasion from the Gallic coast against Allectus (after regaining the Gallic areas) then perhaps these two commands echo the original mustering and launching areas under each seperate commander. One invaded up through the Solent which would align itself with the Armorican area while the other moved up to the Thames and later Londoninium which would place its base of muster and invasion within Belgica Secundae. If this tentative suggestion holds water then the Saxon Shore forts remain part of a larger defense network and not a command designed to police already settled Saxons.

[Nathan Ross]

Ascelpiodotus and Constantius launched a two-pronged maritime invasion from the Gallic coast... One invaded up through the Solent which would align itself with the Armorican area while the other moved up to the Thames and later Londoninium which would place its base of muster and invasion within Belgica Secundae.

One of the panegyrics of Constantius (panegyrici latini VIII) gives the launch-points for the invasion of Britain: Asclepiodotus' fleet set out from the Seine (14.4), while Constantius himself, delayed by bad weather, left from Boulogne slightly later. The Seine is the northern boundary of Armorica, so there might be a connection.

The panegyrics also contain an interesting later note about the Franks. Nazarius, in Panegyric IV (to Constantine, dated c.320), has this to say:

Those very Franks who are more ferocious than other nations held even the coast of Spain infested with arms when a large number of them spread abroad beyond the Ocean itself in an outburst of fury in their passion to make war. These men were felled under your arms in such numbers that they could have been utterly wiped out if you had not, with the divine inspiration with which you manage everything, reserved for your son the destruction of those whom you had broken (and given) the most valiant Caesar the firstfruits of an enormous victory...
(panegyrici latini IV, 17.1-2)

The date of this event is unclear, but seems to be after the battle at Milvian Bridge (Constantine is described as returning from Italy to defend Gaul), so probably c313. The 'enormous victory' of Caesar Crispus would be c317-19.

More interesting is the note about the Franks spreading 'beyond the Ocean' (ad bellum efferuesceret ultra ipsum Oceanum aestu furoris euecta, Hispaniarum etiam oras armis infestas habebant) - this appears to refer to the attack on Spain, and so maybe a crossing of the Bay of Biscay is meant, but might also refer to attacks upon Britain as well. In any case, it indicates that they were perfectly able deep-sea navigators by this date.

[Longovicium]

Thank you for the reference to the panagyrici latini. That would lend credence of a tentative nature to the hypothesis that these two Gallic commands were echoes of an original re-organisation under Constantius after his reconquest of the those areas previously held by Carausius.

As for the Franks and Saxons being seafarers, I have no reason to doubt their deep sea abilities but with some reservations: given the location of the Gallic and British commands (if that is what they are) then it would indicate that the raiders were primarily coastal sailors with a limited ability to raid over deeper waters. The Franks moved southwards into the Hispanic waters across the Bay of Biscay as you suggest while the Saxons also raided the Gallic coasts and the southern British ones. This last area seems to indicate that the Saxons would break free of the coastal regions at the shortest and most easily navigable points. My understanding of the more northern Theodosian watch towers is that they were designed to act as advance warning posts for southerly Pictish incursions flanking the Vallum in the north but I do not believe that there is proof either way on this!

If this is the case, then we would expect heavy Saxon and Frankish raids exactly in the areas covered by the three litoral commands - especially given the presence of large inland rivers in these areas which would allow the raiders to penetrate deep inland. Ammianus describes a Saxon incursion and how devastating it was in the Gallic area and how these Saxons were eventually overawed into surrender and then slaughtered by Roman troops in a subsequent ambush. Of particular note in that episode is the presence of Roman cataphract cavalry.

If these raiders were primarily using the coasts and then the short crossings between Gaul and Britain, then I wonder if the sail debate is neatly side-stepped here? There would be no long deep sea journey and hence no need for sail-powered vessels. It is interesting that the Saxon Shore command covers exactly that short-crossing area and does not extend at all up to the Vallum where sail-powered vessels may reasonably expect to make landfall. Another point to raise here is also the possibility that the Saxons and Franks used captured merchant vessels to transport goods/slaves back while the war keels remained to threaten and distract the Roman response. I speculate here of course!

It is interesting to note that the English word for ship ' keel' is supposedly the earliest written English word in Latin - cyula - and would seem to indicate the impact these vessels had on contemporary minds.

[Nathan Ross]

given the location of the Gallic and British commands (if that is what they are) then it would indicate that the raiders were primarily coastal sailors

Yes, and to make the crossing to Britain they'd have to be sure that there was something there that they couldn't get more easily by coastal and riverine raiding. However, we know that Britain was fairly wealthy during this period, and Gaul by contrast seems to have had quite a lot of agri deserti.

What's also striking in these sources is the apparent ubiquity of barbarian attacks during this period. Even allowing for the necessary exaggeration of the panegyric form (the ludicrous idea above, for example, that Constantine had deliberately left a few Franks alive so his son could have the glory of slaughtering them later!), it does seem that Gaul was threatened by an inexhaustible supply of enemies: this or that emperor would massacre them in droves, only to have the same lot pop back up, like the villain in a bad horror movie, to be killed again the next year! Constantius, I think, proclaimed himself Germanicus Maximus repeatedly between about 288 and 305...

Given that the Franks, for one, had the ability to cross oceans, this might mean that the idea of large-scale barbarian sea raids on Britain during this period is not so outlandish after all!

It is interesting that the Saxon Shore command covers exactly that short-crossing area and does not extend at all up to the Vallum where sail-powered vessels may reasonably expect to make landfall.

Ammianus calls the post Comes tractus maritimi, which might have been an earlier name for the same thing - Pearson (I think) wonders if the North Sea was referred to as the 'Saxon sea' later in the fourth century, which would perhaps partly explain the new title.

[Robert Vermaat]

It is interesting to note that the English word for ship ' keel' is supposedly the earliest written English word in Latin - cyula - and would seem to indicate the impact these vessels had on contemporary minds.

Perhapos that's exactly what signifies germanic influence on shipping. I'm not sure whether cyula is indeed the first English word in Latin, or that it's a Germanic shipping term that had already entered Latin before than Gildas finally wrote it down (early 6th c.).

For those who see this as a sign of heavy Saxon sea-borne raiding I would like to add that modern English has a lot of Dutch shipping terms - I hope that's not seen as proof for heavy Dutch raiding of the English coasts either.

[Redwald]

Robert, surely you haven't forgotten about those rather nasty Dutch raids on England during the 17th century. And no, we haven't forgiven you either!


Paul

[Longovicium]

For those who see this as a sign of heavy Saxon sea-borne raiding I would like to add that modern English has a lot of Dutch shipping terms - I hope that's not seen as proof for heavy Dutch raiding of the English coasts either.

Agreed - it does seem to point to the impact of Germanic seafaring in that the word in its native form was co-opted into Latin rather than being translated into a native Latin one. The question is what form that impact had: I doubt it was a large trading presence which led to the Germanic/English ship word becoming adopted but rather its war presence in the British and Gallic waters.

However, as Gildas is the first to use it, I agree it is no more than a tentative clue to the earlier presence of Saxon and Frankish seafarers. It may be anachronistic to project Gildas' use of the word back into the 3rd and 4th Century!

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert, surely you haven't forgotten about those rather nasty Dutch raids on England during the 17th century. And no, we haven't forgiven you either!

Good! :twisted: Neither did we ever forget the English occupation of Walcheren or the raiding of Terschelling!!!

[Robert Vermaat]

It may be anachronistic to project Gildas' use of the word back into the 3rd and 4th Century!

It may be, and yet it may not. Fact is, we just don't know when this word enetered Latin, just that it was Gildas who first used it. the word may have been known to Latin-speakers in NW Europe much earlier, but that's of course theory. It might indeed only have been entering Latin in Gildas' time, and therefore be a local British phenomenon.

[Longovicium]

Yes, it is interesting that Gildas qualifies the word with the phrase: 'as they call warships in their language' so that we have the native early English/Germanic word sitting in the same sentence as the Latin for warship - 'longis navibus'. I wonder if this is Gildas using a Latin/Roman superiority to contrast with the pagan Saxon barbarians? If so then it would seem to indicate a relative newness to the word.

[Longovicium]

I've just noticed in re-reading Gildas in Winterbottom's translation that the English simply reads as follows: 'Then a pack of cubs burst forth from the lair of the barbarian lioness, coming in three keels, as they call warships in their language . . .'

The available online translation dated 1899 however is written as follows: 'Then there breaks forth a brood of whelps from the lair of the savage lioness, in three cyulae (keels), as it is expressed in their language, but in ours, in ships of war under full sail . . .'

The original Latin is as follows for those here who may be able to state which is the more accurate of the two: 'Tum erumpens grex catulorum de cubili leaenae barbarae, tribus, ut lingua eius exprimitur, cyulis, nostra longis navibus . . .'

I expect the 1899 translation is a fanciful gloss where it mentions the sails but as I don't read Latin . . . !

[authun]

And there is the problem of interpolation as these accounts are copied. In Sidonius Book 8 for example:

half naval duties of yours were coasting the western shores on the look-out for curved ships; the ships of the Saxons, in whose every oarsman you think to detect an arch-pirate.

which seems to indicate rowed vessels only but in the same also:

Moreover, when the Saxons are setting sail from the continent,

which would indicate the presence of an actual sail but could simply mean getting ready for the journey.

The interesting point is "look-out for curved ships". According to etymonline.com. old english ceol means "ship's prow," which suggests it was distinctive. It is of course an extension of what we call the keel today, but the curve was the feature which made it stand out. From Bosworth Toller: "brante ceóle, heá hornscipe" - steep keel, the high pinacled ship.

[Redwald]

Harry may be on to something with 'keel'; because the prehistory of the word is unclear, we can’t tell what the underlying idea was in giving the name ‘ceol/keel’ to a ship.

Thier (2006) says that the Proto-Germanic *keulaz is from Pokorny’s root *geu (and ablaut variants) with the meaning ‘bend, curve’, but possibly a loanword from another (unspecified) language also appearing in Greek ‘gaulos’ (freighter).

Their, K. Altenglische Terminologie fur Schiffe und Schiffsteile. Archaeologie und Sprachgeschichte 500-1100. BAR Int.Ser.1036, 2006

However, going back to earlier posts - there does appear to be evidence that Saxons/Franks/Frisians, whatever had experience of sails and were using them at least by the 4th century and probably earlier.


Paul