One Fort - One Unit

[Mark Hygate]

Marcus',

I believe you've misinterpreted my argument (even as related to my little theory), for I think you're agreeing with me!

When it comes to the Cavalry Ala, my theory would not ascribe to the one unit-one fort idea. I believe an Ala would always have been brigaded with infantry (even from just a mixed unit) when placed in a garrisoning/patrolling/defending/subjugating scenario.

My theory is also fundamentally linked to my belief that the 16- & 24-Turma Ala are just too large to be tactically or operationally practicable.

I also agree completely that, particularly in the case of smaller forts, that things like roof tiles would have been made centrally and shipped to where they were needed. I would go one further and note that I am uncomfortable with the identification of buildings in 'smaller' forts as 'workshops' (fabrica) as I believe these too would have been more centralised, most likely with the Province's legion(s).

[Mark Hygate]

the auxiliary forts I am thinking of have ditches, ramparts and towers at corners, gates and even in-between; and if the defence is to be functional and at least delaying then it will take a reasonable amount of men;

Sorry, I don't see that as a Roman priority.

Duncan,

I must admit I'm quite surprised at that statement. Can I ask why?

The defences seen on all the forts & fortresses in your two books and those of Nic' Fields on Hadrian's Wall and the 'Northern Border' that I recently acquired are reasonably elaborate. Either in original timber & turf, or later in stone, they are effectively along the lines of the 'Siege of Alesia' constructions turned in on themselves. Indeed the whole reason for the Roman marching camp was to defend themselves against surprise and at least give them time to deploy.

But even: 'lilies'; double trenches: banked ramparts; curtain walls; and enfilading towers; aren't very useful without someone to defend them.

I do not believe that Romans felt secure, ever, behind their walls and it is always dangerous to allow an enemy freedom to move around and devastate the countryside if they did. So they were primarily offensive. However, there is no point at all in building defences if they didn't function through lack of anyone to defend them.

If anyone would like a modern-day almost exact parallel example, I would suggest looking no further than the 'Forward Operating Bases' in Afghanistan. An 'auxiliary' fort if I ever saw one; constructed and manned for exactly the same reasons - a place to operate from and provide security to an area.

I thought it was commonly accepted that the Roman Empire's borders after Hadrian formed what is termed a 'trip wire' defence and more secure locations from which to operate forward from when necessary. In order to function, there has to be a 'trip'. In the absence of modern sensor technology and/or mines there's only soldiers left.

[Mark Hygate]

Here's Flavian Elginhaugh (another fort plan to make us feel uncomfortable, with its 10+3 arrangement of "cavalry" rooms, rather than the Hadrianic 9)

Brilliant!

This one's perfect, thank you...

cf my ideas of the 10 x Contubernia + 3 officers per Centuriae and the 30-man including 3 officer Turmae.

Barrack blocks perfectly designed to be either. And 12 of them to boot. This one has to go in the theory exposition. 8)

[D B Campbell]

I believe an Ala would always have been brigaded with infantry (even from just a mixed unit) when placed in a garrisoning/patrolling/defending/subjugating scenario.

Actually, the vast majority of Roman auxiliary units are the "mixed" cohortes equitatae. Everyone agrees that this was probably for the reasons you have outlined -- a mix of troops is better, all round, because of its innate flexibility.

You seem to paint a picture where cavalry alae are dotted all over the place in isolated locations where, if unruly elements ever decided to attack their fort, they would be helpless. But I think perhaps you have misunderstood the context of the ala.

We've been discussing Hadrian's Wall in the Hadrianic period -- not a great example, but let's stick with it. There were three cavalry alae, five mixed cohortes equitatae, and four infantry cohortes. The alae were placed at Stanwix in the west (where the main road runs north through the Wall into Scotland), Chesters in the right-of-centre (near where the other main road -- Dere Street -- runs north through the Wall into Scotland), and Benwell at the eastern end (where another main road runs up to the Wall at Newcastle from the South). Do you see a picture emerging?

The cohortes equitatae were placed at Castlesteads (the next fort along from Stanwix in the east), Carrawburgh (the next fort along from Chesters, to the west of Chesters), Halton Chesters (where Dere Street passes through the Wall), and Rudchester (between Halton Chesters -- to go north up Dere Street -- and Benwell -- to go south down the Newcastle road). Can you see it, yet? :wink:

The infantry cohorts are concentrated along the high bit in the middle -- Birdoswald, Carvoran, Great Chesters, Housesteads -- where cavalry would be useless, but infantrymen are still needed to patrol the Wall.

If the Romans were afraid of isolating cavalry units, they certainly wouldn't have placed them astride the main roads into the wild and woolly north, where the howling hordes habitually descend to hack lumps out of the frontier! :wink:

My theory is also fundamentally linked to my belief that the 16- & 24-Turma Ala are just too large to be tactically or operationally practicable.

I meant to give you more information about the milliary alae over on your other thread, because I think there's another misunderstanding here. These are very rare units. The one stationed in Britain was located (under Hadrian) at Stanwix. Essentially, you've got a big-ass ala primed to run up the 'western' main road north (or south), and you've got a normal-sized ala + possible assistance from two or three neighbouring cohortes equitatae primed to run up the 'eastern' main road north (or south), and you've got a normal-sized ala + possible assistance from the neighbouring cohors equitata primed to run down the other 'eastern' main road south.

I would go one further and note that I am uncomfortable with the identification of buildings in 'smaller' forts as 'workshops' (fabrica) as I believe these too would have been more centralised, most likely with the Province's legion(s).

What about running repairs?

[D B Campbell]

Barrack blocks perfectly designed to be either.

Half of them have got urine pits in the outer room! Is that in case your grunts get caught short in the night?! :lol:

[Vindex]

If anyone would like a modern-day almost exact parallel example, I would suggest looking no further than the 'Forward Operating Bases' in Afghanistan. An 'auxiliary' fort if I ever saw one; constructed and manned for exactly the same reasons - a place to operate from and provide security to an area.

I thought it was commonly accepted that the Roman Empire's borders after Hadrian formed what is termed a 'trip wire' defence and more secure locations from which to operate forward from when necessary. In order to function, there has to be a 'trip'. In the absence of modern sensor technology and/or mines there's only soldiers left.

A Forward Operating Base implies a rear one...as indeed FOBs have. Where is the Roman parallel here?

And again...the limes is one hell fo a "trip wire"!

I have cautioned before against using modern military interpretation of terms in your Hyginus cavalry thread and I think you have taken the analogy a bit too far here. (and "mutual support" became "intimate support" - both terms which the Roman soldier may have understood but we don't really see in the literaty sources, such as Hyginus).

I would also question if the Romans thought in terms of "offensive" and "defensive" as we do now. They conquered provinces for a raft of reasons some of them political (border protection/security concerns), some of them practical (natural resources) and then protected what they had from those from whom they took it. The stationing of Legions becoming fixed and more static as the Empire stabilized it's growth cannot be a coincidence, and the change into fighting units and limes guards in the later Empire would appear to support this.

[66kbm]

Here here...any doubts then please explain Devon and Cornwall...the "Dumnonni".
Forts galore and no one to man them????
Kevin

[Vindex]

Good evening Kevin

Have you got your chapters yet?

[PhilusEstilius]

Duncan.

Thank you for clearing up the point about the tiles of the Coh II Ast', I should have known for there are pieces from all over the area in the Clayton collections.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Duncan, the large camp of about 4.5 Hectares (11.119 742 166 acres)( 45000 m²) I am speaking about is the large and early fortification on the Kops Plateau next to Nijmegen which held about 12-15, and some say even 18.000 men.

There has only been found what seems to have been a Praetorium and high officers buildings. This camp was built around 18 to 10 BC. The idea is that the Praetorium would have been used by Drusus or Tiberius or both. The higher officer's quarters were also quite luxurious apparently. A large find was made of the remnants of a very luxurious meal and its discarded remnants including luxurious pottery in masses.

In none of these Principiae have been located to this time.

http://www.livius.org/no-nz/nijmegen/nij...rberg.html

http://www.wijkcomiteoost.nl/pdf_oost/kops_plateau.pdf

http://www.pansa.nl/PDF/HeemPraeDef.pdf

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstre...sequence=1

Also afterwards there is evidence of giant camps which are probably from Germanicus' attempts to conquer Germania.

The only permanent structures are from later date such as the Castra of LXG which did have a Principia.



There is also a marching camp located in Ermelo which is split down the middle :

http://www.fectio.org.uk/sites/ermelo2001nl.htm



No Principia found, but that seems logical since probably only tents were erected there.

What I mean with the notion that Vindolanda is one of the few camps in which we know for sure that what we regard as the Praetorium is in fact the Praetorium is because there extensive period documentation has been found on writing tablets. Along most of the Limes writing tablets, papyrus, or even wax tablets are not preserved. That is why I regard Vindolanda as an exception in Europe. From desert countries there exists a little more documentation, for instance the Bu Njem Ostraca.

Hope that explains why I regard Vindolanda as one of the few locations of which we really really really know who lived there and what function the housing had....

M.VIB.M.

[D B Campbell]

Duncan, the large camp of about 4.5 Hectares (11.119 742 166 acres)( 45000 m²) I am speaking about is the large and early fortification on the Kops Plateau next to Nijmegen which held about 12-15, and some say even 18.000 men.

Thanks, H.-J. I bow to your local knowledge. I only have Enckevort's 1995 summary of the "Frührömische Lager in Nimwegen". Incidentally, he says that the site encloses 3.5ha (= 8 [sup]1[/sup]/[sub]2[/sub] acres, "large fort" size -- I would say that your estimate of 12-15,000 men could be out by a factor of 10, but that is only my opinion).

From Enckevort's published plan, it seems that the internal cross-roads -- the classic location for the HQ building -- has not been investigated. The (much larger than normal) commander's house (thought to be an imperial palace, as you know) is offset to the east, as if to gain a better view point. Enckevort does not seem to express surprise at the "absence" of an HQ -- either because it would lie in an area that has not been investigated, or because the whole camp is very odd, so it would be unlikely to conform to the norms set by other contemporary camps (e.g. Haltern, Oberaden, Marktbreit).

There is also a marching camp located in Ermelo which is split down the middle.

I was hoping that some of your fellow countrymen might add to this thread, on that very subject, H.-J. :wink:

What I mean with the notion that Vindolanda is one of the few camps in which we know for sure that what we regard as the Praetorium is in fact the Praetorium is because there extensive period documentation has been found on writing tablets.

The buildings in the same locations in other forts conform to the same design to such an astonishing degree that we can be perfectly sure that they represent the praetorium (commanding officer's house) and the principia (HQ).

You may be interested to know that the reason we know that the HQ was called the principia is because of an inscription found in the Antonine fort at Rough Castle, here in Scotland (RIB 2145). So we don't really need the evidence of the Vindolanda writing tablets to confirm it. (Note that the Vindolanda tablets weren't found anywhere near the visible stone HQ, which belongs to a later phase.)

Hope that explains why I regard Vindolanda as one of the few locations of which we really really really know who lived there

Agreed. The Vindolanda tablets (and those from Carlisle) certainly give us interesting information about the occupants.

[Mark Hygate]

.......
You seem to paint a picture where cavalry alae are dotted all over the ....... I think perhaps you have misunderstood the context of the ala.

Duncan,

My apologies, when it comes to the use of the garrison troops and the decisions on where to place Alae (larger units still in my 'theory' than Cohor Equitatae); no I entirely agree with you.

I would go one further and note that I am uncomfortable with the identification of buildings in 'smaller' forts as 'workshops' (fabrica) as I believe these too would have been more centralised, most likely with the Province's legion(s).

What about running repairs?

Again my apologies as I wasn't detailed enough - it's where there seem to be several buildings identified as fabricae in smaller forts, rather than perhaps the one (for running repairs, perhaps even stores of extras too) that I would be more comfortable with.

Back to the other subject, however, if you could indeed add anything to the 'Hyginus' Cavalry thread on milliarae units I would be most grateful.

[Mark Hygate]

Barrack blocks perfectly designed to be either.

Half of them have got urine pits in the outer room! Is that in case your grunts get caught short in the night?! :lol:

:lol:

No - they're for the cavalry. (Although I look back on my army days and can assure you that 'people' have been known to: go into wardrobes; use bins; sinks; and various other closer places.....)

In fact, that fort plan and detail you've posted is just so perfect for me I'll just have to give away part of the summary of my planned little treatise...

I believe it's an exact example of what I would look for, a perfect fort of 12 barrack blocks: half for the Coh D; and the other half for the Ala D. :wink:

[Mark Hygate]

A Forward Operating Base implies a rear one...as indeed FOBs have. Where is the Roman parallel here?

In simplistic terms my answer would have to be - the legionary fortress.

And again...the limes is one hell fo a "trip wire"!

In what way? If you mean in terms of its size and grandeur, then perhaps, but then so (and I'll be naughty and use another more recent example) was the old Inner German Border that I used to patrol years ago. None of them could completely prevent people going over them and all, therefore, were only 'trips' of varying effectiveness. Having checked and designed defences for modern military barracks myself, I can assure you that the fundamentals for security have not changed in ~3000 years; especially when reviewing my copy of Aeneas on Sieges recently.

I have cautioned before against using modern military interpretation of terms in your Hyginus cavalry thread and I think you have taken the analogy a bit too far here.....

Yes indeed, but I don't believe I'm guilty here, but I do take it to heart. I am a product of Cold War soldiering and am aware that it will colour my thinking, but only when it comes to trying to determine parallels that are as accurate as possible when describing to a wider audience. For example, I don't equate Elephants to Tanks! :roll:

[Mark Hygate]

Here here...any doubts then please explain Devon and Cornwall...the "Dumnonni".
Forts galore and no one to man them?

Kevin,

Please forgive me, but I'm not sure I follow.

Lots of fort sites in the South-West that are abandoned? For if so, then that would have naturally occurred as the South-West was 'pacified' and the units moved North.