Barracks at York

[Nathan Ross]

I've now got hold of Ottaway's 1993 edition of Roman York, which has a detailed plan of the fortress. The positioning of the barracks appears unusual - I don't know quite how unusual... Basically, it doesn't appear possible to fit the standard 12 barrack blocks into the range at each end - there's room for them, but the blocks themselves are too big and too widely spaced.

Originally, Ottaway says, the wooden barracks of the old fortress were about 258ft long by 82ft for a pair, and 12 could have fitted into the space easily, but when they were rebuilt in stone (mid 2nd century?) the intervallum was widened. The new stone barracks (identified, I think, by spaces between the buildings on the intervallum side) were only 216ft long, and widened to 103ft for a pair.

As Ottaway says (p55): 'it is clear that the usual six pairs could not be fitted in if they were all of the same size. How the problem was resolved is unknown, but it must remain a possibility that there were fewer barracks in the replanned fortress than there had been previously.'

Here's the plan (south-east corner of the praetentura):

[attachment=4294]YorkBarracks.jpg[/attachment]

As you can see, with the blocks spaced like that it's impossible to fit 12 into each corner of the fortress - only 10-11 at best.

But if there were indeed fewer barracks, could this mean that the legion (VI Victrix, presumably) had only five centuria in a cohort? (there are, incidentally, six double-sized barrack blocks shown for the first cohort!).

Alternatively, could the plan reconstruction be wrong? Or might the 'extra' barrack(s) have been placed somewhere else, out of the main range? Or are there other examples of forts with less than the usual number of barracks?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Or perhaps the stone barracks had more than one floor...allowing bigger accomodation and troops to be accomodated?

[Nathan Ross]

Or perhaps the stone barracks had more than one floor...allowing bigger accomodation and troops to be accomodated?

Now that's something I hadn't considered - double decker barracks!

[Robert Vermaat]

Or perhaps the stone barracks had more than one floor...allowing bigger accomodation and troops to be accomodated?

Indeed why not? Seeing that civilian buildings could be even higher, why not theorise about barracks being multi-floored as well? It could play havock of course with the current estimates of troops housed in such forts...

I guess it's up to archaeologists to look at the foundations for such estimates?

[Mark Hygate]

............
But if there were indeed fewer barracks, could this mean that the legion (VI Victrix, presumably) had only five centuria in a cohort? (there are, incidentally, six double-sized barrack blocks shown for the first cohort!).........

If that barracks spacing is true - then perhaps the cohorts had 'swapped places' for some reason - given that First Cohorts are commonly suspected of having 5 centuria-pairs rather than 6, whilst 'normal' cohorts were 6 centuria.

That said, and whilst I personally find Vegetius' numbers and organisation a bit spurious/misinterpreted - he also wrote about a 5 centuria structure. If that was true, whilst normally assumed to be later, could support your original contention.

Just for thought - that different spacing and different numbers of barracks could also be explained by re-locating the pair of cohorts that were there and replacing them by one (the 2nd cohort?) and the 4 cavalry turma - neatly positioned for access to the gate.

It's more than possible to juggle the positions and numbers given the lovely regularity of roman camps/fortresses.

Another one? - a pair of legionary cohorts have been detached, its decided that's permanent, and their place is taken by a 10 sub-unit auxiliary unit? Ahhh, the possibilities.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Or perhaps the stone barracks had more than one floor...allowing bigger accomodation and troops to be accomodated?

Indeed why not? Seeing that civilian buildings could be even higher, why not theorise about barracks being multi-floored as well? It could play havock of course with the current estimates of troops housed in such forts...

I guess it's up to archaeologists to look at the foundations for such estimates?

Possibly the upper levels were timber? Cavlary units wee known to keep horses in the barracks
in some forts I recall. The troops them selves could be in the upper?
Equipment stored in the lower levels, the troops again sleeping in the upper.

[Robert Vermaat]

Possibly the upper levels were timber? Cavlary units wee known to keep horses in the barracks in some forts I recall. The troops them selves could be in the upper?

Sounds logical to me. we know the Romans could build well, but as forts go, most reconstructions seem to start with the image of tents, which were then repaced with wooden and eventually stone buildings. But at some point, that last phase could have been changed as well, of course.

Equipment stored in the lower levels, the troops again sleeping in the upper.

Or the other way around?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I don't know. To me the logica lplace would be nearer the exit, so if called up , you head down and kit up. But logic may not have been part of their logic... mile:

[Vindex]

I'm in favour of the double storey barracks theory as a shere necessity but proving it is another matter.

Perhaps the rebuild of the barracks into stone gave an opportunity to move the cavalry out altogether into their own fort as yet undiscovered - there is evidence for an auxiliary fort (although not necesarily cavalry) across the river in London. It takes the pressure off water provision for a start.

Without evidence, of course , it's all wild speculation but such fun :wink:

[Nathan Ross]

I guess it's up to archaeologists to look at the foundations for such estimates?

I believe the only part of the fortress excavated in detail is the cruciform structure shown on the plan upper left - Ottaway interprets this as officers' housing, but the wall foundations appear quite hefty enough to support two storeys.

Actually, it occurs to me that this building is almost the same width as the barrack blocks shown - could it be the remains of another barrack, orientated left-right, with the centurion's quarters up against the via praetoria? Six 'horizontal' blocks could be fitted into this space with ease. What would happen with the blocks in the retentura, though, I don't know.

Another thought - the stone rebuilding supposedly occurred around the same time as the construction of Hadrian's wall. Could it be that auxiliary units previously accommodated in the fortress were moved out to their own forts on or near the wall, and the legion cohorts spread themselves out into the vacated areas of the fortress?

[66kbm]

Hi all
All of the above i can relate to with my understandings/mis-understandings and headaches of Exeter and II AVG.
Maybee no two Legoinary Fortress's were built to the same layout in Britan as they were on the continent, so there is no general "plan" of the buildings within the ramparts as we presume. I reckon they made it up as they went along and built what was needed for that moment in time at the point of construction. The more we learn the less we wish we knew....
Good shout from Moi on as yet undiscovered forts/fortlets within the vicinity of the main Legionary Fort....St Loyes site at Exeter is a possible example.
Looking forward to following this thread and the info it produces as i know very little of Roman York.
Kevin

[D B Campbell]

Alternatively, could the plan reconstruction be wrong?

Perhaps Ottaway changed his mind. This is a picture from the 2004 edition, I think. You can see that the full complement of barrack blocks has been restored.
[attachment=4310]York-Eboracum_3rdC.jpg[/attachment]

[Nathan Ross]

Perhaps Ottaway changed his mind.

Curiouser and curiouser! Or perhaps artist and excavator were at odds here - the fortress baths (1st century stone construction) were north-east of the barracks, and the plan in my original post shows an apsidal structure just above the interval road (this is one of the few bits of the internal fortress still on view, in the cellar of the Roman Baths pub!). However, the illustration appears to show the bath building much further to the north, with an open palaestra where the apse should be...

Does this 2004 edition have an updated plan, at all? :?

[Paul Elliott]

Nathan, I've just checked the 2004 edition. The barrack blocks do not appear on the plan at all (pg 32). Only the principia and roads are marked overlain ontop of the modern road layout.... sorry!

[Nathan Ross]

Following Paul's last post, I wrote to Dr Ottaway and asked about the apparent anomalies in the number of barracks. He's now replied, saying that 'although some more evidence has come to light since I last looked at this in detail and I need to review this', it still appears that there were less than the usual number of blocks in the south-east side, south-west of the via praetoria.

So it would seem that the plan given in the original edition of the book is still correct based on current evidence, but that possibly things might change... No idea, meanwhile, why the illustration in the later edition shows twelve blocks filling the space! :-?