Roman camps UK - is there a database or list?

[ValentinianVictrix]

'ValentinianVictrix, I thought the Dent de Lion in Garlinge was 15th century. Has new work dug up some foundations?'

You need to visit it for yourself. What's left is the remains of an obvious Norman keep that has been built on top of the the lower half of a Roman fort. It's the most bizarre location as its on totally flat ground, you would expect this type of fortification to be on a mound or hill.

I'm a little confused - not unusual. The Pastscape entry here only talks of a 15C gatehouse.

Can you point to the supporting evidence for the Roman fort?

Regards, Steve Kaye

You need to contact the Margate Historical society plus come and look at the physical evidence. The lower part of the Gatehouse appears to be much older than 15th Century, there is evidence that the upper part of the Gatehouse was built on something much older. There were walls around that the locals tore down to make the local cottages from. Its a very interesting site somewhat spoilt by the modern building built right up to the Gatehouse now.

[Nathan Ross]

My water-supply calculations for the marching legions does not include the use of wells for a number of reasons.

That's a pretty good collection of reasons! I hadn't even considered the potential health risks of using indigenous water supplies. I agree that at very best it would have to be a desperate expedient, and probably not the kind of thing that could be factored into a statistical analysis.

Anyway, I shall await the results of your survey (whenever they might appear) with great interest.

[Vindex]

Aren't wells supplied from the same water in flowing streams? Streams also more prone to fouling from dead animals (and people) than the deliberate poisoning of wells as its easier to do.

And I think the legionnaries would have worked out how to filter water quickly, don't you? Fine linen can work just as well as silk in this respect.

[66kbm]

Whilst everyone raves about the "ins and outs" as i call them of tech stuff, to go back to the original thread of camps, i think we have defined a camp but i know of many more in the southwest/Devon and Cornwall, than listed. The database grows from day to day with more discoveries coming to light. Unfortunatly many are not listed. If you require a list from this area then give me a shout, i will supply the knowledge i know. 20 years is all II AVG were here for, the south west, and boy they built some camps.
Kevin

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

A flowing stream cleans itself fairly rapidly, whereas a well holds its water from the groundwaters,
in many cases. Stagnating...festering with microbes....

Also local supplies may be in the form of cisterns.....

[Steve Kaye]

Aren't wells supplied from the same water in flowing streams? Streams also more prone to fouling from dead animals (and people) than the deliberate poisoning of wells as its easier to do.

If we take Silchester as an example then you have high ground, occupied by people, and streams and rivers around. People and animals produce manure and unpleasant residues from, for example, metal production/working. Bacteria thrive and metallic residues poison. Rain falls and carries these products into the ground, eventually reaching the water-table - 3m approx. in the case of Silchester. The ground water under the town is polluted; the well water comes directly from the most polluted ground-water.

Ground-water flows down the gravity gradient (other factors are involved). The polluted ground-water under the town flows away, being diluted as it progresses. Eventually the polluted flow reaches the river boundary/bank margin and is now entrained and vastly diluted by the quantity of river water. Can still cause problems though, as we all know. But, any litre of river-water will have a considerably lower level of pollutants than a litre of well-water.

And I think the legionnaries would have worked out how to filter water quickly, don't you? Fine linen can work just as well as silk in this respect.

Yes, I'm sure they knew how to filter and, of course, would make posca (assuming they had a vinegar supply). Drawing water from a well and filtering is entirely plausible for a small group of men but not for a legion. It's the scale of demand that strongly suggests that a legion would camp alongside the nearest river and not rely on a few, known-to-be-polluted, wells.

Regards, Steve Kaye

[Steve Kaye]

Whilst everyone raves about the "ins and outs" as i call them of tech stuff, to go back to the original thread of camps, i think we have defined a camp but i know of many more in the southwest/Devon and Cornwall, than listed. The database grows from day to day with more discoveries coming to light. Unfortunatly many are not listed. If you require a list from this area then give me a shout, i will supply the knowledge i know. 20 years is all II AVG were here for, the south west, and boy they built some camps.
Kevin

Yes please. I'll be in touch.

Regards, Steve

[Vindex]

Although I appreciate the analysis on water it would seem that if all well water - and streams too for that matter - were as polluted as you say I am suprised that anyone survived at all! Perhaps due to the amount of bacteria present in the ancien diet they had far more robust gut action than we do.

Drawing water from a well and filtering is entirely plausible for a small group of men but not for a legion. It's the scale of demand that strongly suggests that a legion would camp alongside the nearest river and not rely on a few, known-to-be-polluted, wells.

Regards, Steve Kaye

Thanks Steve.

My response here was made more with a view of digging wells than using existing ones.

[Steve Kaye]

Although I appreciate the analysis on water it would seem that if all well water - and streams too for that matter - were as polluted as you say I am suprised that anyone survived at all! Perhaps due to the amount of bacteria present in the ancien diet they had far more robust gut action than we do.

According to population studies many didn't survive because of polluted water - especially the young children. Those children with sufficient resilience went on to breed: those without, didn't. Evolution in brutal action. After a few generations you have a robust, local population, in-part immune to some of the local bugs but strangers/legionaries using the same well-water supply probably didn't have the same immunity.

As for the wells at Silchester - this was published (31-july-2012) in the Guardian. In it Amanda Clarke is quoted, "Clarke, after supervising the excavation of two noisome wells every season, up to six metres deep, and usually sodden and stinking at the bottom, wonders if they didn't eventually just poison all their water sources. "We've been digging down through wells which became latrines over older wells and older latrines, layer upon layer. There must have been enormous problems with contaminated water on a site like this with no river. Maybe finally they just ran out of new places to dig wells."

She is talking of the end for Silchester and speculating that the failing water supply was the cause for abandonment. Others on the dig think that the Saxons drove the inhabitants off, tumbled the walls and infilled the wells.

Either way, the well=latrine=well alternation must have produced dangerous water and it's this aspect that I think the Roman army commanders understood.

Regards, Steve Kaye

[Nathan Ross]

Roth, in The Logistics of the Roman Army at War (p.119-120) provides some literary sources for Roman armies digging wells on campaign, noting that although it was 'an exhausting job', it was certainly done when necessary:

The Logistics of the Roman Army at War

Appian, in fact, 'considered water from freshly-dug wells to be superior to that from rivers' (Civil Wars, 4.14.110). Rainwater was best, as the troops considered it a gift from the gods!

Roth also mentions the danger of an enemy polluting river sources, which suggests the important of siting a camp between the enemy and the source of the water supply. He cites Caesar and Josephus on the use of aquatores or hudreumenoi (water carriers, possibly slaves) to carry water over long distances when required.

Interestingly, in the same chapter Roth gives the minimum water ration as 2 litres per man per day - considerably less than the 9 suggested by Steve in his essay*, and a lot less indeed than the 12 apparently needed by modern troops! If this statistic is right, would it not considerably alter the calculations for Roman water requirements? :-?

*edit: I notice that Steve cites Roth in the bibliography for this essay...

[Nathan Ross]

"Maybe finally they just ran out of new places to dig wells." She is talking of the end for Silchester and speculating that the failing water supply was the cause for abandonment.

That does sound like a very plausible scenario. But you'd have to consider that the wells of Silchester clearly kept the town going for over 400 years prior to the end!

[Steve Kaye]

Nathan,

Roth's work is a wonderful source of information, with many references to ancient writers, and I have used some information in the book but not that related to water requirements.

I'm going to reply to each of your points in turn. By the way, I'm assuming that your points are raised in relation to legionary operations in Britain, the use of Silchester wells by legionaries and, of course, my study on water use and supply.

Roman armies digging wells on campaign, noting that although it was 'an exhausting job', it was certainly done when necessary

Absolutely right - 'when necessary' - which, I submit, is not the case in southern Britain with its many rivers, when on campaign and when marching away from an advancing horde of Brits (Boudica). And, even in peace-time in Britain, why would a Roman legion dig wells when marching (for example in Silchester)? It's not necessary. When is it necessary, when in extremis? Such as, when in arid areas (Syria, Spain, etc.) or when cut-off from water supplies by the enemy.

Appian, in fact, 'considered water from freshly-dug wells to be superior to that from rivers'

Would be true for most new wells dug into fresh ground except when striking, for example, alkaline deposits. It would not be true for a fresh well dug into somewhere like Silchester where the water-table was polluted. However, I do concede that the density of overlapping wells and latrines, that Amanda Clarke refers to when discussing the Silchester's end, would not pertain in the 1st century.

Roth also mentions the danger of an enemy polluting river sources, which suggests the important of siting a camp between the enemy and the source of the water supply.

Absolutely correct. Which is why in my Boudica study there are very few possible battle sites where the river flows towards the Romans and any that do remain have been down-weighted as a result. But, flip the prospect of the enemy polluting a river the other way around: did the Romans waiting for Boudica pollute the river that flowed away from them? From my water/logistics piece:-

"The Boudican horde needed a supply of at least 0.05cumecs if, having already passed through Roman lines, the river supplying water was flowing towards them. Clearly this situation would strain the horde, not least because it is possible, even probable, that the Romans would interfere with the supply and maybe pollute it with their effluent. Consequently a normalised value of 0 is nominally the most advantageous to the rebels, but may not have been in practice. This consequence has not been calculated, or allowed for, but should be borne in mind when examining each battle site."

Interestingly, in the same chapter Roth gives the minimum water ration as 2 litres per man per day - considerably less than the 9 suggested by Steve in his essay*, and a lot less indeed than the 12 apparently needed by modern troops! If this statistic is right, would it not considerably alter the calculations for Roman water requirements?

If the statistic was right then it would result in there being little water supply problems for either Romans or Brits (I'm generalising, not having done the calculations.) Actually, what Roth writes is, "Each and every member of the army required a minimum of two liters of water per man per day, in addition to the two liters a day consumed through food and absorbed by breathing air" (p.119). You've missed the significance of 'in addition' which brings Roth's total to at least 4litres/man/day. Figures on inhaled water-vapour are hard to find but seem to range between 0.25-0.5litres/day (for obvious reasons they are very variable). So that brings Roth's figures to 4.5litres/man/day. But this is still too low, probably because Roth is relying on his external references. For the avoidance of doubt,I am not criticising Roth at all.

Roth's problem was the same as mine when I started the water study. Namely, there are many sources for figures on the daily water requirements for men but what do they mean and was there any scientific measuring? For a legionary we need a figure that relates to a man carrying approx. 44kg (clothing, armour, arms and pack etc.), walking 29km/day, in a temperate climate in Summer, walking on a hard surface, stopping at the end of the day and then digging ditches, ramparts, and then patrolling the camp wall in his turn. Of course I'm leaving out details here. And, for Suetonius' legionaries, probably fighting the occasional skirmish. Now repeat that for day-after-day.

Therefore I decided to base my figures on modern, scientific, military sources - mostly the US Army because it publishes its figures.

Heat Stress Control and Heat Casualty Management, HQ Depart. of Army and Air Force, 2003 is one such document. In it is a chart (page 13) which relates temperature, work rate and water requirement for the modern soldier. From that we can safely assume that the legionary described above would have done 'Hard Work' (march at 3.5mph = 5.63km/hr, etc.) for which the chart recommends 1 USqt/hr (= 0.946353 litres). This equates to 4.86 litres/legionary/day. Actually, our legionary is working harder because he carries 44kg (90lbs) while the chart only specifies a load weight of =>40lbs. Actually this apparent disparity in the meaning of weight carried is common and plagues such studies. For some reason there is not a common approach which does make comparisons between studies very difficult. Anyway, our naked legionary carried a load of 44kg.

In the same document are tables relating work-rate (kcal/day), temperature and the water requirements (p.20-21, see image below). The legionary would probably have expended at least 4,500kcal/day while marching which, at a temperature of 25C, gives a daily, total water requirement of 10 USqts (9.46353 litres/legionary/day). I would argue that the legionary probably expended 5,500kcal/day which equates to a need for 12 USqts/day (11.3562 litres). Either way, from looking at the chart you can see why a figure of 9litres/legionary/day would be perfectly feasible for a temperature range of 20-25C and a work rate of 4500-5500kcal/day.


[attachment=4816]work-rate-water.JPG[/attachment]


But there is a problem, because all I've written of so far is just about the water requirement while marching, i.e. what goes down a soldier's throat: it doesn't include that needed for food preparation, cleaning and sundry other needs.

For that we can turn to the US Armies, 2008, Water Planning Guide. Briefly, this guide estimates the minimum and sustaining water requirements (everything = total water requirement) of soldiers in temperate climates. The sustaining rate is 19.9 litres/day and the minimum is 12.18.

On sustaining and minimum requirements the document says:-

'Minimum factors are based on The Surgeon General’s recommendation of one shower and 7.2 pounds of laundry per week, shaving(males) and brushing teeth once per day, washing hands three times per day, and sponge bathing five times per week. The Army goal is two
showers and 15 pounds of laundry per week. Sustaining factors are based the Army goal of one shower and one field expedient shower and 15 pounds of laundry per week, shaving (males) once per day, brushing teeth three times per day, washing hands six times per day, and sponge bathing five times per week.'

Interesting that the US Army feels it necessary to stipulate that the 'shaving' relates to males only!

Now some of that activity our legionary will have indulged in but probably not to the same extent and, in Britain, he would have used streams and rivers for bathing etc., not water collected and then transported to him. He was undoubtedly a much tougher individual than the ordinary, modern soldier; very fit, trained to withstand repeated daily marches of 29km and probably very capable of maintaining his health and fitness on less water than the modern equivalent. Which is why I use a figure of 9 litres/legionary/day for his total water requirements (also remember this figure matches the work-rate calculations covered above).

Could a legionary cope with less than 9litres/day? Probably, but not for long before his effectiveness would have been reduced (I'll spare you the references and details on the effects of dehydration). And surely, Suetonius would not have stressed his troops more than was immediately necessary to extricate them from a disaster. Of course, in my essay I put forward the idea that S. fully understood the need for water and used this knowledge to weaken his enemies by leading them into water-poor regions.

In summary, 9 litres/legionary/day over the length of a long campaign is a reasonable figure and errs on the side of caution.

Regards, Steve Kaye

[Steve Kaye]

Nathan,

Roth's work is a wonderful source of information, with many references to ancient writers, and I have used some information in the book but not that related to water requirements.

I'm going to reply to each of your points in turn. By the way, I'm assuming that your points are raised in relation to legionary operations in Britain, the use of Silchester wells by legionaries and, of course, my study on water use and supply.

Roman armies digging wells on campaign, noting that although it was 'an exhausting job', it was certainly done when necessary

Absolutely right - 'when necessary' - which, I submit, is not the case in southern Britain with its many rivers, when on campaign and when marching away from an advancing horde of Brits (Boudica). And, even in peace-time in Britain, why would a Roman legion dig wells when marching (for example in Silchester)? It's not necessary. When is it necessary, when in extremis? Such as, when in arid areas (Syria, Spain, etc.) or when cut-off from water supplies by the enemy.

Appian, in fact, 'considered water from freshly-dug wells to be superior to that from rivers'

Would be true for most new wells dug into fresh ground except when striking, for example, alkaline deposits. It would not be true for a fresh well dug into somewhere like Silchester where the water-table was polluted. However, I do concede that the density of overlapping wells and latrines, that Amanda Clarke refers to when discussing the Silchester's end, would not pertain in the 1st century.

Roth also mentions the danger of an enemy polluting river sources, which suggests the important of siting a camp between the enemy and the source of the water supply.

Absolutely correct. Which is why in my Boudica study there are very few possible battle sites where the river flows towards the Romans and any that do remain have been down-weighted as a result. But, flip the prospect of the enemy polluting a river the other way around: did the Romans waiting for Boudica pollute the river that flowed away from them? From my water/logistics piece:-

"The Boudican horde needed a supply of at least 0.05cumecs if, having already passed through Roman lines, the river supplying water was flowing towards them. Clearly this situation would strain the horde, not least because it is possible, even probable, that the Romans would interfere with the supply and maybe pollute it with their effluent. Consequently a normalised value of 0 is nominally the most advantageous to the rebels, but may not have been in practice. This consequence has not been calculated, or allowed for, but should be borne in mind when examining each battle site."

Interestingly, in the same chapter Roth gives the minimum water ration as 2 litres per man per day - considerably less than the 9 suggested by Steve in his essay*, and a lot less indeed than the 12 apparently needed by modern troops! If this statistic is right, would it not considerably alter the calculations for Roman water requirements?

If the statistic was right then it would result in there being little water supply problems for either Romans or Brits (I'm generalising, not having done the calculations.) Actually, what Roth writes is, "Each and every member of the army required a minimum of two liters of water per man per day, in addition to the two liters a day consumed through food and absorbed by breathing air" (p.119). You've missed the significance of 'in addition' which brings Roth's total to at least 4litres/man/day. Figures on inhaled water-vapour are hard to find but seem to range between 0.25-0.5litres/day (for obvious reasons they are very variable). So that brings Roth's figures to 4.5litres/man/day. But this is still too low, probably because Roth is relying on his external references. For the avoidance of doubt,I am not criticising Roth at all.

Roth's problem was the same as mine when I started the water study. Namely, there are many sources for figures on the daily water requirements for men but what do they mean and was there any scientific measuring? For a legionary we need a figure that relates to a man carrying approx. 44kg (clothing, armour, arms and pack etc.), walking 29km/day, in a temperate climate in Summer, walking on a hard surface, stopping at the end of the day and then digging ditches, ramparts, and then patrolling the camp wall in his turn. Of course I'm leaving out details here. And, for Suetonius' legionaries, probably fighting the occasional skirmish. Now repeat that for day-after-day.

Therefore I decided to base my figures on modern, scientific, military sources - mostly the US Army because it publishes its figures.

Heat Stress Control and Heat Casualty Management, HQ Depart. of Army and Air Force, 2003 is one such document. In it is a chart (page 13) which relates temperature, work rate and water requirement for the modern soldier. From that we can safely assume that the legionary described above would have done 'Hard Work' (march at 3.5mph = 5.63km/hr, etc.) for which the chart recommends 1 USqt/hr (= 0.946353 litres). This equates to 4.86 litres/legionary/day. Actually, our legionary is working harder because he carries 44kg (90lbs) while the chart only specifies a load weight of =>40lbs. Actually this apparent disparity in the meaning of weight carried is common and plagues such studies. For some reason there is not a common approach which does make comparisons between studies very difficult. Anyway, our naked legionary carried a load of 44kg.

In the same document are tables relating work-rate (kcal/day), temperature and the water requirements (p.20-21, see image below). The legionary would probably have expended at least 4,500kcal/day while marching which, at a temperature of 25C, gives a daily, total water requirement of 10 USqts (9.46353 litres/legionary/day). I would argue that the legionary probably expended 5,500kcal/day which equates to a need for 12 USqts/day (11.3562 litres). Either way, from looking at the chart you can see why a figure of 9 litres/legionary/day would be perfectly feasible for a temperature range of 20-25C and a work rate of 4500-5500kcal/day.


[attachment=4816]work-rate-water.JPG[/attachment]


But there is a problem, because all I've written of so far is just about the water requirement while marching, i.e. what goes down a soldier's throat: it doesn't include that needed for food preparation, cleaning and sundry other needs.

For that we can turn to the US Armies, 2008, Water Planning Guide. Briefly, this guide estimates the minimum and sustaining water requirements (everything = total water requirement) of soldiers in temperate climates. The sustaining rate is 19.9 litres/day and the minimum is 12.18.

On sustaining and minimum requirements the document says:-

'Minimum factors are based on The Surgeon General’s recommendation of one shower and 7.2 pounds of laundry per week, shaving(males) and brushing teeth once per day, washing hands three times per day, and sponge bathing five times per week. The Army goal is two
showers and 15 pounds of laundry per week. Sustaining factors are based the Army goal of one shower and one field expedient shower and 15 pounds of laundry per week, shaving (males) once per day, brushing teeth three times per day, washing hands six times per day, and sponge bathing five times per week.'

Interesting that the US Army feels it necessary to stipulate that the 'shaving' relates to males only!

Now some of that activity our legionary will have indulged in but probably not to the same extent and, in Britain, he would have used streams and rivers for bathing etc., not water collected and then transported to him. He was undoubtedly a much tougher individual than the ordinary, modern soldier; very fit, trained to withstand repeated daily marches of 29km and probably very capable of maintaining his health and fitness on less water than the modern equivalent. Which is why I use a figure of 9 litres/legionary/day for his total water requirements (also remember this figure matches the work-rate calculations covered above).

Could a legionary cope with less than 9 litres/day? Probably, but not for long before his effectiveness would have been reduced (I'll spare you the references and details on the effects of dehydration). And surely, Suetonius would not have stressed his troops more than was immediately necessary to extricate them from a disaster. Of course, in my essay I put forward the idea that S. fully understood the need for water and used this knowledge to weaken his enemies by leading them into water-poor regions.

In summary, 9 litres/legionary/day over the length of a long campaign is a reasonable figure and errs on the side of caution.

Regards, Steve Kaye

[Steve Kaye]

"Maybe finally they just ran out of new places to dig wells." She is talking of the end for Silchester and speculating that the failing water supply was the cause for abandonment.

That does sound like a very plausible scenario. But you'd have to consider that the wells of Silchester clearly kept the town going for over 400 years prior to the end!

Humans behaviour can be perverse, even knowingly self-destructive or life-limiting. Maybe the inhabitants of Silchester shared such behaviour with those of London, prior to the Victorian sewerage and water supply reforms, which ended the mass-deaths due to disease caused by drinking water from heavily polluted wells and pumps?

There is one aspect of the water supply issue at Silchester that has not been raised, namely, might there have been slaves or low-caste servants tasked with fetching water from the rivers only 1km or so away? That action would have limited the effects of the dangerous wells.

Regards, Steve Kaye

[Vindex]

May I ask what you would see the legionnary using his nine litres for?