The Saxons of the Saxon Shore?

[ambrosius]

So, onto the next point: I take it, then, that if I can prove to you that
any of the Saxon Shore Forts "actually have a harbour or any other
shipping/naval facilities", then you would accept that " they were
built to answer such a sea-borne threat", to use your words? 8)
Okeydokey. I'll try: :wink:

Well, I’m sure you could add Cardiff and Caerleon (Bristol Channel), Caer Gybi (Anglesey) and Caernarfon (Menai Straights), but I’d exclude Carisbrooke because so far no remains dating to the Late Roman period have been found there.

Okay, ArVee. Time to start running with the big dogs! 8)
Forget Pearson's 2002 effort, here is a quote from: 'The Excavations
of the Roman Fort at Reculver, Kent', 2005, Brian Philp. This is the
updated primary archaeological report I mentioned. Though I should
warn you, Brian is the leader of the first county recue archaeology
unit in Britain, and knows his Saxon Shore Forts. p.221:

Carisbrooke Castle, Isle of wight:

"Here, a major rectangular (off-square) stone-walled enclosure
(480x450 ft) is sealed beneath both the 11th c. motte and the 12th c. Norman castle. A limited excavation of the internal area found a
few Roman artefacts. Long lengths of its defensive walls on the East,
South and West sides are visible, but only slight traces of the North
wall are known. The North-East and North-West corners appear
rounded, as at Reculver, Brancaster and Caister, but the central
East gate appears inturned. The wall is clearly several feet thick.
The coursing is neat, some in herring-bone style and set in a hard,
pebbly mortar, as at Reculver, though few facing stones are clear.
No trace of tile-coursing can be seen, but a small, integral bastion is
visible roughly halfway between the East gate and the North-East
corner. Slight traces of a matching bastion exist on the West side.
The East one seems to project about 3 ft from the fort wall and is
clearly much smaller than the massive bastions of the later Shore
Forts. This may in fact be evidence of prototype of bastion, marking
the transition between the earlier unbastioned forts to the later ones,
found bristling with fully developed external bastions of large size.
Any at Reculver is likely to have been robbed-away along with the
external facing-stones. Even so, it may not be a coincidence that the
unexplained repair in the East wall at Reculver occurs roughly half-
way between the East gatehouse and the South East corner, thus
matching the certain arrangement a Carisbrooke. The curious and
unsubstantiated suggestion that this massive masonry fortification
was a late-Saxon construction can be dismissed.

Of all the forts, the immediate comparisons with Reculver are the
air-photograph of Brancaster, the excavated area of Caister and
the defensive circuit of Carisbrooke. (Ref 'Rome and her Northern
Provinces', C. J. Young, 1983)"

Brian thus clearly sees Carisbrooke not only as a Saxon Shore
Fort, but as the 'fourth' of the 'Phase I' forts, alongside the three
other earliest ones. Ground plans are most convincing, as all four
forts are almost square. Perhaps Reculver and Caistor were the
first to be built (as we think) due to their internal corner towers,
and Carisbrooke is intermediate between these and the later
style of fort, with it's experimental external bastions.

You'll excuse me having to write my replies is sections, as you
say a lot, I have even more to reply with, and I have other jobs
to do in the meantime. Later dude. :lol:

Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

So, onto the next point: I take it, then, that if I can prove to you that any of the Saxon Shore Forts "actually have a harbour or any other shipping/naval facilities",
then you would accept that " they were built to answer such a sea-borne threat", to use your words? 8) Okeydokey. I'll try: :wink:

Well, I’m sure you could add Cardiff and Caerleon (Bristol Channel), Caer Gybi (Anglesey) and Caernarfon (Menai Straights).

Why thanks, ArVee. Yet more Roman forts clearly intended
for guarding vital harbours/sealanes. Though I wasn't planning to
include any of these in a scheme for defending against Anglo-Saxon
pirates, because:

A.) They are not listed in the Litus Saxonicum.
B.) They are more likely built to defend against Irish pirates.
C.) Even Stephen Johnson wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Anglo-
Saxon pirates of the 3rd c. could extend their raids as far as Wales. 8)
But, if you know something the rest of us don't... :lol: :wink:

To be serious, though, they are undoubtedly part of the same overall
continuous defensive scheme as the Saxon Shore Forts, and indeed
as you pointed out, the defensive walls built around British towns.

Ambrosius/Mike


[/quote]

[ambrosius]

So, onto the next point: I take it, then, that if I can prove to you that any of the Saxon Shore Forts "actually have a harbour or any other shipping/naval facilities",
then you would accept that " they were built to answer such a sea-borne threat", to use your words? 8) Okeydokey. I'll try: :wink:

You boldly state that ‘this fort guarded that piece of water’, but where’s your evidence? Sure, I agree that boats could be beached at almost any fort site or close to them. And I’m sure that boats were indeed beached there, for various reasons. Does that make them military naval installations? Of course not.

Now ArVee, you're being a little bit silly, don't you think?
You sound just like Sakal on Arthurnet, demanding why we should
believe the historical and archaeological evidence that 5th c. Britons
were still heavily Romanised and Christianised, just because he wants
to claim a Celtic, Pagan ancestry for himself. :lol: It's not me who is
'boldly stating' anything; it's you, in going against the evidence:

"The Saxon Shore Forts were not an answer to a
threat from the sea, we know this because they were built over a
200-year period (Okay, you meant to say 100-years)
and when the last were built some of the oldest had already been
abandoned. (I don't suppose you'd like to support that
assertion with any evidence... :wink: ) Whilst their impressive
walls certainly point to impressive defensive measurements, none
actually have a harbour or any other shipping/naval facilities that would
prove they were built as an answer to such a sea-borne threat.

Well I know how much you enjoy trying to make me repeat myself on other lists, ArVee, but really, I destroyed your last statement
above in my post of the 13th, when I gave you a comprehensive list
to show that all the forts (except, perhaps, for Carisbrooke) had
"a harbour or shipping/naval facilities". You know that Pevensey
originally had its own fleet. You know that Dover was the base of the
entire British fleet, until that was disbanded - most logically to provide
flotillas for all the other forts to patrol their harbours/estuaries.

IF a fort is used to a) guard against threats from the sea, or b) function as a naval installation, then what would you expect? Either cavalry units that can react fast to any raid, or naval units that so to sea. And what do we find, at a moment when the Notitia Digninatum lists several of these coastal installations under one command?
Just two cavalry units: the equites Dalmatae Branodunenses at Branoduno (Brancaster) and the equitum stablesianorum Gariannonensium at Gariannonum, possibly at Burgh Castle.

Well you have a valid point there; one we've discussed
before. But even if there weren't cavalry units at each fort (and we
can be sure that each fort would at least have had its own cavaly
for carrying messages to other forts etc, even if that was the case,
the 500-1,000 infantry at each fort are perfectly capable of patrolling
the vulnerable beaches between adjacent forts to seal the gaps. If they
are outposted to the beaches between the forts (like 18th c. coastguards)
then you have a continuous frontier. Having said that, do you know that
the infantry units listed were not partially made-up of cavalry?

But to come to the interesting case of the unit at Gariannonum, you
do know (of course) that Gariannor was not the name of Burgh
Castle (as is so very commonly assumed by so many) but was actually
the name of the 'Great Estuary' (the modern river Yar - Yarmouth).
And so, as I suggested before, the advent of the building of Burgh
Castle most certainly does not imply the closure of Caister, since both
forts would be needed to adequately defend the approaches to this
river which was (in Roman times) a mile wide (wider than the Thames).
So the description of this cavalry unit in the N.D. at 'Gariannor' implies
that it is based 'on the Great Estuary' and not solely at Burgh
Castle. We can thus see it being split equally between Burgh and Caister.
After all, if the Saxons landed on the North shore of the Gariannor,
and all your cavalry are at Burgh, then (as you rightly pointed-out above)
you'd be stuffed. But if half a cohort was based at each fort, then they
can patrol the coast both North and South of the river (otherwise, the
horses have got a bloody long swim to get to the other bank). :lol: So
I hope you can see that, from this analysis, there are three forts
with a cavalry unit, not just two. :wink:

As for your hypothetical lack of naval units - see above. The British
fleet was most likely distributed among all the Saxon Shore Forts. 8)

Ambrosius/Mike

[ambrosius]

In another chapter however (chapter 7 or the distribution), the Gariannonum garrison has already been commanded off to the field army of the Comes Britanniarum.

Yeah, sure, fine, ArVee. Maybe the Comes did what you are
implying he ought to have done all along - redistributed the cavalry in
this unit across the whole of the Saxon Shore. The Comes was, after
all, in charge of the mobile field army, n'est ce pas? And so they'd be
in a better position to defend the entire coastal zone under his command,
would they not? :wink: :lol:

No naval troops are attested at the time of the Notitia Dignitatum.
The last sign of the Classis Britannica is a dedication at the time of Philip I (244-9). It has been suggested that there was no need for a shore fort system before, just because the British Fleet existed.

Yeah. And it's also been suggested that the Classis
Britannica was redistributed amongst all the new Saxon Shore Forts. :lol:
After all, Dover retained its harbour after the Classis Britannica fort
was demolished. And how many times do I have to tell you that it was
replaced by a larger Saxon Shore Fort slightly nearer to the harbour.
So tell me and everyone on this list that the Classis Britannica wasn't
dispersed among all the Shore Forts. And if so, why would there need
to be a separate naval unit attested at each fort to operate these ships?
If they could all have had at least some cavalry at these nominally
infantry forts, then why not some of those infantry also double-up
as marines?

That would indeed explain some building activity in the period after the fleet seems to disappear, even though the next fort (Richborough) is built around 280.

[color=blue] Now ArVee! You keep twisting the facts. :lol: You're taking
the middle of the possible date-range for construction at Richborough,
when it could have started at ay time from 260, not 280. And don't
forget what I told you about the probable dating of Carisbrooke: If
Carisbrooke is intermediate between Brancaster and Richborough etc,
then the possible date-range for construction could fill-in that gap which
you seem to be so concerned about in the middle of the 3rd c. So you
see, there need have been no apparent 'halt in construction' in this
defensive scheme, at all. Maybe it was seamless from Brancaster-
Carisbrooke-Richborough (with a few years off while the Gallic Empire
sorted-out its priorities. 8)

Anderita (Pevensey) may have had a naval unit attached at some point (even though it was the last to be built), because a century after its construction we find a Classis Anderitiana at Paris and milites Anderetiani at Mainz. When and why they were removed is not known.

Bingo.

Lemanis (Lympne) also had connections with the Classis Britannica, as had Richborough, but that was in time that far preceded the construction of the Saxon Shore forts.

No it wasn't! Look at the date of the last recorded dedication
for the Classis Britannica (which, of course, may not be the last which ever existed, since we always have only a partial record of these things) which you gave us, above: 244-9, Philip I. 8) But it's interesting that you mention, above, that Richborough
"had connections with the Classis Britannica" which "far preceded
the construction of the Saxon Shore Forts". So you are now
acknowledging that Richborough was a military base long before
the Saxon Shore Fort was built there. In fact, the 1st c. Monumental
Arch was converted into a fortified watch-tower by the middle of the
3rd c. at least. So there goes your hypothesised hiatus in construction
of this single defensive scheme. There was an ad hoc
Shore Fort at Richborough long before 280. 8)

Concluding, no naval forces and just two cavalry units, one of which already removed by the turn of the 5th. C. And that at the only time when have any evidence that the forts would have belonged to a ‘single defensive scheme’ and when we are fairly sure that Saxon raids must have been heavy?

See above for all the counter-arguments. It looks like
both the fleet and the cavalry were spread across all the forts by
400 AD (at least, that's one more valid interpretation).

In my opinion that makes these forts a) part of a military system, sure, of course, but b) no coastal defence system.

:lol: :lol: :lol: You have to be kidding me, right! 8)
A dozen or more forts built on the coast - then what the Hell do you
suggest they were defending against? I suppose you would
say that Hadrian's Wall was defending the River Danube, then :lol:

Then what? Border control? Coastal patrols by infantry units, as on Hadrian’s Wall? Why not? After all, most units were limitanei.

Sweet Jesus, we got there in the end! 'Coastal patrol by
infantry units as on Hadrian's Wall' (with cavalry and naval support).
So what the Heck have we just spent two weeks arguing about, then?
And this may come as a shock to you, ArVee, but frontier guards were
quite often called limitanei. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Ambrosius/Mike
[/quote]

[ambrosius]

And you also know full well that there are 11 so-called ‘Saxon Shore forts’ between Brancaster in the North and Portchester in the South, but that only 9 of them were c. 394 AD actually listed in the Notitia Dignitatum, meaning 2 of them had already dropped out.

Erm... No, I don't think we can say that. All we can say is
that only nine of them are listed in the N.D. We have entire pages of the N.D. missing for Wales, the West coast etc, don't we? So that means
that if pages were missing with two Saxon Shore Forts on them, or if
the compiler missed a couple out, they may not have been recorded
in the copy of the N.D. that's come down to us. That's Historical Document
Studies 101, surely? :wink: And we can be sure that there were not as
few as 11 forts in the chain as originally built, in any case. Carisbrooke
makes twelve, and if Brancaster was twinned with another fort at
Skegness (as many believe it was - to guard the mouth of the Wash)
than that makes 13. Another one at Bittern makes 14. So we've got at least five missing forts in the N.D. - none of which may have yet gone
out-of-use by c. 400. 8)

And of these 9, Lemanis (Lympne) has shown no evidence of any occupation after 378 AD, military or civilian (probably due to grouns slippage which has now completely destroyed the fort).

Very possibly due to subsidence. That's true. It's also
possible that it continued in use into the 5th c. like Reculver or
Richborough, which also show latest coin-evidence c. 400. But again,
surely the only safe conclusion we can draw from this is that coinage
ceased to be imported much beyond c. 400, not that it ceased to be
used by the natives. That, again, is Terminus Post Quem, or - Ancient
Coinage Studies 101. 8)

Besides, excavation has shown that some completely lack evidence of barracks, while on the other hand remain of civilian occupation have been found. There is a school of thought that sees in them not defensive forts but strengthened ware-houses for the gathering of taxes. I would not know how to prove this, but it seems not totally illogical.

:lol: 8) You don't say! Well Bradwell and Walton Castle completely lack evidence of barracks. Mind you, both are now under the North Sea. But perhaps you could give us details of any others...

Well Mike, I can assure you that Bradwell is still very much with us – but maybe you have knowledge of an immediate sea level rise? Something to warn the neighbours about? :lol: [/quote]

I'm afraid it's not. I've been there. :lol: There're stumps of
two of the Western bastions left, but two thirds of the fort has been
eaten away completely by salt-marsh. Of the remaining Western portion,
nothing remains above ground. But a 7th c. Saxon church stands over
the Western Gateway - built by robbing stone from the fort walls. Now
why do you suppose they'd want to go and do a thing like that, Arvee?
Was this a Saxon attempt to destroy the evidence!?! (To help you in
your future claim that there were no anti-Saxon defences?) :lol:

I can tell you that the 4th c. civilian occupation at Portchester was most
definitely accompanied by barracks.

That’s very interesting, maybe you can divulge the reference. Last I heard was that Cunliffe excavated the place, and found nothing but gravel-surfaced ‘roads’, wells, and rubbish- and cess-pits. Little convincing evidence for contemporary structures was found. Even though ploughing may have destroyed those remains, or maybe they are still to be found in other parts, no traces of any regular structures like barracks were found by Cunliffe. (Pearson, Andrew (2002): The Roman Shore Forts, Coastal Defences of Southern Britain, (Tempus, Stroud), pp. 37-8.)

You rely on Pearson too much. :wink: There's a 3-d
reconstruction in the museum at Portchester. I was under the impression
they'd used Geophysics. But none of this changes the fact that, on
'Britain AD', Francis Pryor ignored the spearhead and balista-bolt from
the same level as the women's and children's jewellery, dismissing the
possibility of a garrison there.

But the fatal mistake Andrew Pearson makes,
in the Tempus book in which you read that theory, is that he blindly
insists that that is the only thing they could have been! My God!
What is the problem with them being garrison forts AND warehouses
AT THE SAME TIME?

Nothing whatsoever. In fact, I’m all for that idea. But so far, the military part of it seems to be blindly seen as ‘nothing but’ a naval defence system.

Well it's not seen that way by me. Of course each fort had
its own warehouses - if only to feed its own garrison. But if British
wheat was still being exported to feed the Rhine army, then it makes
sense to hold it safely within the Shore Forts before ships can take
it safely across the Channel. And if the local farmers are paying their
taxes (to fund the garrisons that protect them) as Anonna - ie as
wheat or other produce - then it makes sense for them to sell their harvests to the forts - to be stored safely within them - and then to
buy it back periodically through the Winter, as and when they need it.
It makes sense to me. But you also need the soldiers to protect it. 8)

Honestly, I have no clue what Merrie Englande means, really.

Yes you do. I gave you a nice quote from Neil Faulkner on
the subject on the other thread (5th c. Saxons). 8)

Ambrosius/Mike[/quote]

[Peroni]

Walton Castle guarded the entrance to the Orwell & Deben rivers.

I live 500 metres from the site of Walton Castle (Now only ruins can be seen at low tides).

I have some old antiquarian sketches and engravings of the extant remains during the 1700's.

It too had a harbour/port and large settlement surrounding it. It was a port long before it was the site of a shore fort.

[Robert Vermaat]

Walton Castle guarded the entrance to the Orwell & Deben rivers.

I live 500 metres from the site of Walton Castle (Now only ruins can be seen at low tides).
I have some old antiquarian sketches and engravings of the extant remains during the 1700's.
It too had a harbour/port and large settlement surrounding it. It was a port long before it was the site of a shore fort.

You lucky man! But was it anything as old as a Roman port? So far, from what I've read about the remains or depictions of the remains, no harbour features seem to have existed.

[Magnus]

Why is the ruins of the fort/castle submerged? Have water levels risen due to the ice caps melting in the last while or something?

[Robert Vermaat]

Several reasons, but two main ones.
1) During the last ice Age, Scandinavia was 'pressed down' by the weight of a zillion tons of ice. Since that's melted, Scandinavia veers up again, at the cost of these regions. that geological process is still continuing, and also a reason why Dutch dykes need to get higher and higher.
2) Coastal erosion. The North Sea is a very damaging lady, taking bits and pieces of astern English coastline with her each year. Coastal defences must prevent that erosion. However, higher sea levels, partly due to geological reasons (see 1), partly due to expanding water volumes (global warming has not so much influence through melting ice caps but far more through expanding seawater volume), make that battle more and more difficult.
The forts were near the coastline to begin with, so...

[Peroni]

Robert wrote..

You lucky man! But was it anything as old as a Roman port? So far, from what I've read about the remains or depictions of the remains, no harbour features seem to have existed.

The Roman road that enters the settlement bypasses the fort site and continues down the (now crumbled and eroded) cliff face to somewhere in front of the site of the fort.

I can only assume that the road led down to a port/harbour. I will email you a map with some overlays on Robert. The road is still in use, but takes a turn from its original route to the beach.

There is also a dry river bed that ran past the north of the fort into the sea. The coastline has changed a lot since then!

[Robert Vermaat]

Thanks for the map Adrian.
Somehow I think that all coastal installations (Saxon Shore or elsewhere) would have had at least some harbour, natural or otherwise, if only for provisioning. Beaching a ship is not ideal so if you have a harbour that's so much easier.
Of course, that does still not mean that a navy flotillla was based at each fort, as some authors propose.

[Mithras]

That certainly made painful, but fascinating reading!