What types of military installation are represented in the archaeological record, and what were their functions?
Jenny Dingsdale Dr J. Coulson Essay 1 4. What types of military installation are represented in the archaeological record, and what were their functions? The Roman army was one of the largest and most successful institutions in history. As such, it has left a wide variety, over a huge area, of archaeological evidence of its existence, its development, and its activities. Much of this evidence exists in the form of fortifications, such as camps, forts, fortresses, roads, walls and frontier lines. By supplementing the archaeological evidence with literary and epigraphic evidence, a clear picture of the Roman army can be formed. A great deal of the information left in the archaeological record is found in Britain. These military remains may be divided into temporary and permanent. Temporary remains include the various field-works raised during campaigns, whether to hold an army during a camp for several days, to serve as a legions winter quarters. Permanent remains include the great legionary centres of York and Chester and the many fortresses of the garrisons that maintained order and defended the frontiers, as well as the walls of towns. In general, temporary remains are often barely visible with an absence of buildings within their defensive lines; whereas permanent installations are among the most conspicuous and notable remains of Roman Britain. The sites of these more permanent garrison stations are usually well defined and easily recognized. The ridges of their ramparts, whether of earth or built-stone, are often easily detected. The ditches are rarely filled to such a degree that their hollows can not be seen. The positions of the gates generally show as breaks in the continuity of the ramparts. If the interiors have not destroyed by ploughing, the lines of the chief thoroughfares and the sites of the buildings may often be traced, and sometimes these surface indications may be obvious enough see plans showing all the most important features The marching camps built by the Roman army on campaigns seemed so perfectly organised, that the style was copied for the more permanent camps, and forts. Many of these forts can be found in good condition on Hadrian’s Wall. They were permanent bases for the legions, and also served as crossing points of the Wall, around which grew civilian settlements. A good example of this model can be seen in Housesteads fort on Hadrian’s Wall, a diagram of which is shown below. This was a rectangular fort with a stone wall 5ft thick. There were square towers at each angle and side of the fort and on each side of the four gates, each with a double carriage way, which was closed by a two leaved door working on pivots. The stone in the centre on which the doors were closed, and the stones with the socket holes for pivots still remain today. Immediately inside the north gate of Housesteads is a large water trough and a circular tiled hearth, which indicates that there was a smithy there at the time of the forts occupation.[1] There were barracks that could accommodate an infantry regiment of around eight hundred men, but the number of soldiers based there varied over time. For much of its history, auxiliary soldiers, who were recruited from the conquered areas of the Empire, garrisoned the fort. There is some archaeological evidence suggesting that it might have been garrisoned with Tungrian troops for nearly three centuries.[2] The fort was in use right up to the end of the Roman
occupation of Britain, in the early years of the fifth century. Housesteads is but one of the many military installations represented on Hadrian’s Wall. The wall itself was built between 122A.D. to 125A.D. It is mostly about 7½ ft thick, but between the North Tyne and Newcastle it is up to 9½ ft thick with a height of roughly 15ft. There were sixteen forts along the wall, at intervals of roughly four miles, interspersed with mile castles, at every Roman mile between the forts.[3] These were rectangular buildings, which were roughly 60ft by 70ft guarded by at least eight men. ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
occupation of Britain, in the early years of the fifth century. Housesteads is but one of the many military installations represented on Hadrian’s Wall. The wall itself was built between 122A.D. to 125A.D. It is mostly about 7½ ft thick, but between the North Tyne and Newcastle it is up to 9½ ft thick with a height of roughly 15ft. There were sixteen forts along the wall, at intervals of roughly four miles, interspersed with mile castles, at every Roman mile between the forts.[3] These were rectangular buildings, which were roughly 60ft by 70ft guarded by at least eight men. Between mile castles were two 13ft square equidistant turrets where sentries kept watch. This meant the movement of goods; people and animals crossing the frontier could be closely watched, as the purpose of the barrier was to regulate and control movement, not to completely stop it.[4] There are three outpost forts built north of the wall at Bewcastle, Netherby and Birrens. The purpose of these forts seems to have been to guard the barbarian territory as the wall would hinder the arrival of assistance from troops from the south.[5] The northern boundary of the Empire was replaced for a time by the Antonine Wall from AD 140 to 163. This wall was built between the rivers Forth and Clyde, and was very steep on both sides, defended by a ditch. It was probably about 10ft high, and 14ft wide, made of a stone base and a turf rampart. There were no mile castles, but the forts were only two miles apart, so there was less need for other installations in between. Hadrian’s Wall was by no means the only wall built on a frontier line, it is simply the best preserved and most famous of the walls built all round the empire, even in Africa, where the Fossatum Africae is built. Another good example of this is the 300mile German frontier line of fortifications between the Rhine and the Danube. This was called the Limes Germanicus and was built in the early years of the 3rd century A.D. There are two clear types of work on this frontier, the first being in the west and consisting of an earthen mound and a ditch, and called Pfahlgraben, meaning pale. The second part of the wall is in the east, and is called Teufelsmaur, meaning devil’s wall. This is because it was made of stone, and was 4ft thick. Signal towers and rectangular stone built camps strengthen both sections at frequent intervals, following the normal Roman method.[6] Similar limes are found along the east and south boundaries of the empire, all consisting of lines of large and small forts connected by walls and ditches. Forts and similar installations are by far the most common types of site still preserved in the archaeological record, many of which are found in Britain. In the early empire forts were secure bases for legions and their equipment. In wartime the enemy was fought in the field, while at times of relative peace the garrison would have patrolled well beyond the frontier to support allied tribes and gather intelligence. Until the end of the Flavian period the army in Britain spent the summer almost continually campaigning in enemy territory until the frontier reached well into Scotland. In the pre-Flavian period, before the legions had established their permanent fortresses, they built large forts of around 10 hectares either to provide army groups such as legions or auxiliary troops with a long-term home, or as a summer campaign base or winter quarters. These forts, known as vexillation fortresses, are found mainly in the Midlands and southern Britain. The fort's plan should provide clues to the type and size of unit occupying it. Counting the number and size of barrack blocks should allow the garrison size to be measured and the type of regiment identified. This is not as easy as it sounds, as the one unit per fort arrangement was a strict pattern, for example Chesterholm appears to have been garrisoned at times simultaneously by parts of two different cohorts. However at most forts the evidence is of only one unit, even if only part of that unit. The Antonine occupation of lowland Scotland often used small fortlets that did not have a headquarters building or the space to hold an entire unit. It is assumed that the legions would have had a headquarters fort whilst manning a group of surrounding fortlets. The legion occupied either a marching camp or a permanent fortress, depending on the individual situation. Marching camps were set up during campaigns or while travelling. Auxiliaries, cavalry and legionaries all camped together which meant some of the marching camps covered a huge area. One camp in Scotland called Raedykes is about 114 acres. The only remains of these camps tend to be the defences, usually a turf rampart, five or six feet high, behind a ditch. In enemy territory during winter, or after a successful campaign, forts were built at strategic river crossings and joined together by a road system. This communications system between forts was important for the maintenance of supplies and for regular patrols.[7] Forts were usually placed about a days march apart and built for single units or detachments. Defensive forts needed to be stronger than the marching camp, and included gates and towers. All known early constructions were of timber, except for the bathhouse. Early forts varied considerably in design, with many being irregular, shapes and sizes until the late Tiberian period.[8] However, during the Flavian period, fort plans became greatly standardized level ground was selected and the fort laid out in the form of a rectangle with rounded corners, and more often made of stone. In the centre was the headquarters building. The main road crossed in front of this building, joined by another at the centre. The two roads led to three of the gates, and the fourth gave access to the rear of the fort. A good example of this can be seen in Ostia, which is a rectangular shape, taking up about 5.5 acres, surrounded by a stone wall 5ft thick. The two main streets intersected at right angles, and the four gates were placed where these roads met the walls. Legionary fortresses were built along the same lines, but were much larger and more sophisticated. They covered fifty to sixty acres, ten times the size of the smaller auxiliary forts. Other military installations in the archaeological record include ditches and ramparts, which vary a lot in detail. In the earth forts, including Birrens and Ardoch they are usually of great size and width, usually with a foundation of stones. The rampart itself is more or less stratified, with layers of clay, earth and gravel being of common occurrence. Ramparts of sods and turfs may be seen as the stage between earthwork and masonry. Those of Rough Castle and Bar Hill are good examples, resting upon stone bases, as in Birrens. The Antonine Wall is of the same construction, only on a far larger scale. In the stone forts the face at least is of stone, supporting an earth-bank behind. Gellygaer is a good example of one of these ramparts made of both earth and stone. The wall is from 3 to 4 ft. in thickness, and the bank behind makes up a total rampart-width of about 20 ft. The material of the bank is derived from the ditch and the trenches for the foundations of these walls. The masonry appears to have been built straight after the bank. Other remains in the archaeological record include buildings both inside and outside forts. The internal buildings were often originally built in timber and turf, and later reconstructed in stone. This means that postholes and foundation trenches of these timber buildings such as barracks and stables can be seen in the archaeological record, although stone structures are obviously more easily noticed.[9] Below is a giagram of the layout of the fort at Inchtuthil, in Scotland.[10] Plan of a first century fortress basedon the unfinished fortress atInchtuthill, Tayside1 Barrack blocks 2 Barracks of the first cohort with houses for its centurions3 Granaries 4 Headquarters building5 Legate's house 6 Hospital7 Tribunes' houses 8 Wall and ditch The main internal building of any Roman fort was the headquarters building, the principia. This was the building where the guards of the watches congregated and received their orders. It is the central building, and often has the most impressive architecture. It was often fronted by a potico or a forehall, and as seen in Remagen in Lower Germany, was the place where the sun clock, or sometimes a water clock was kept, to keep time of the watches. There was also a courtyard, which was probably used as a meeting place, with the possibility of displaying notice boards. The courtyard may also have been the site of wells, and possibly some kind of religious shrine as well.[11] There was often long halls, or small rooms on either side of the courtyard. With the evidence of weapons and military equipment being discovered here, it is usually thought that these rooms were weapon stores. Behind the courtyard was a cross hall, which seems to parallel the civilian basilica, being used for a variety of ceremonial, religious, administrative and judicial purposes. Behind this were some more rooms, usually five, the central one being of religious importance, as several shrines have been found here and it also housed the treasury. On either side of this room lay the offices of the standard bearers, who according to Vegetius managed the garrison’s finances. The other main building in the fort was the commander’s house, the praetorium, which consisted of four ranges of rooms grouped around a central courtyard. It is often difficult to tell the function of these rooms, as it is less stereotyped than other areas of the fort, since it was a private residence. Granaries were usually situated near the centre of the fort close to the principia. They were used for storing grain and other foods, as can be easily seen in the remains, with their raised floor to give maximum ventilation for the foods. There was also a hospital, to maintain the health of the legion. The barracks originated in the tents of the marching camps, and were obviously used to house the troops. Horses were kept in the stables, which were long narrow buildings with a stable drain. There were many skilled craftsmen in the forts, so there were often workshops. These are identified by the presence of ovens, smelting hearths or metal slag and debris. The products of these workshops, such as arrowheads, swords, helmets and other weapons and equipment were stored in specially designed buildings. The external structures that can still be seen in the archaeological record include the parade ground – campus, and the bathhouse. The parade ground was adjacent to each auxiliary fort, used for weapon training, military drills and inspections. The bathhouses were built outside the forts, and made of stone and tile to minimise risk of a fire. We have seen that there are many installations left all over the empire by the roman army, in particular forts and frontier walls. Britain shows the best examples of these kinds of fortifications, and has been the subject of many scholarly discussions. The primary function of almost every site was the expansion of the Roman Empire. Legions were required to conquer, and maintain control of enemy territories, and so forts and fortresses were built to house these legions. Barriers were put up to separate the enemy from the Empire, as at Hadrian’s Wall, and each of the installations seen was used to unsure military success. Bibliography Bidwell, P.T. The Legionary Bath-House and Basilica Exeter 1979 And Forum at Exeter Brewer, R.J. Roman Fortresses and their Legions London 2000 Davidson, D.P. The Barracks of the Roman Army from Oxford 1989 The 1st to 3rd Centuries A.D. Johnson, A. Roman Forts of the 1st and 2nd Centuries London 1983 A.D. in Britain and the German Provinces Jones, M.J. Roman Fort Defenses to A.D. 117 Oxford 1975 Toy, S. A History of Fortification from 3000B.C. London 1958 To A.D. 1700 Webster, G. Fortress into City: the consolidation of London 1988 Roman Britain, 1st Century A.D. http://www.dragonridge.com/stories/Ancient_Fortification_Artillery.html http://www.morgue.demon.co.uk/Britannia.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/3d/houstead.shtml http://deepfield.com/anoot/legion.html http://www.le.ac.uk/archaeology/stj/dura.htm http://www.vkrp.org/studies/historical/ http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/ [1] Toy, S. A History of Fortification from 300B.C. to A.D.1700 [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/3d/houstead.shtml [3] Toy, S. A History of Fortification from 300B.C. to A.D.1700 [4] Breeze, D.J. & Dobson, B. Hadrian’s Wall [5] Breeze, D.J. & Dobson, B. Hadrian’s Wall [6] Toy, S. A History of Fortification from 300B.C. to A.D.1700 [7] Jones, M.J. Roman Fort Defences to A.D. 117 [8] Jones, M.J. Roman Fort Defences to A.D. 117 [9] Johnson, A. Roman Forts of the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. in Britain and the German Provinces [10] http://www.morgue.demon.co.uk/Britannia.html [11] Johnson, A. Roman Forts of the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D. in Britain and the German Provinces
