Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:33:33.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pre-Flavian Forts and their Garrisons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

Valerie A. Maxfield
Valerie A. Maxfield
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the major sources of evidence for the military history of the Roman Empire, particularly for those provinces for which the literary record is defective, is the shifting pattern of forts and fortresses, established and abandoned in response to changing military situations, to advance and retreat and to consolidation and the establishment of frontier control. In order to have any hope of understanding the role of individual forts or groups of sites it is necessary to know not only the detail of their internal layout but also the nature of the troops who occupied them. Several studies have been devoted to the problem of the elucidation of fort garrisons, notably those of Richmond in 1955, Breeze and Dobson in 1974 and, most recently, that of Hassall in 1983. However, these studies have all concentrated on sites of the Flavian period and later and have been concerned almost exclusively with the accommodation of auxiliaries, attempting to identify the forts occupied by the various types of unit which had emerged by that period, alae, quingenary and military, and cohorts, quingenary and milliary, peditate and equitate, each with its individual requirements in terms of numbers, size and arrangement of barracks, stables and stores.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 17 , November 1986 , pp. 59 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Valerie A. Maxfield 1986. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Richmond, I.A., Proc. Brit. Acad. xli (1955), 289–316Google Scholar; Breeze, D.J. and Dobson, B., Arch. Ael4 xlvii (1969), 15–32Google Scholar; idem, in Birley, E., Dobson, B., and Jarrett, M. (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1969 (1974), 13–19Google Scholar; updated in Austen, P.S. and Breeze, D.J., Arch. Ael5 vii (1979), 115–126Google Scholar; Hassall, M., in Hartley, B. and Wacher, J. (eds.), Rome and her Northern Provinces (Gloucester, 1983), 96–131.Google Scholar

2 Recent excavations at Stanwix have produced evidence for a wall lying some 10 m north of the line of the northern defences as previously defined. It is suggested by the excavators that this new wall represents the true north wall of the fort, thus increasing the size of the enclosure from 3·77 to 3·99 ha; cf. Frere, S.S. (ed.), ‘Roman Britain in 1984’, Britannia xvi (1985), 271Google Scholar and fig. 13. The previous ‘north wall’ appears on fig. 13 as an internal wall, with no interpretation given of its function.

3 Collingwood, R.G. and Richmond, I.A., The Archaeology of Roman Britain (London, 1969), 15–59.Google Scholar

4 Richmond, I.A., Hod Hill: Vol. 2. Excavations Carried out between 1951 and 1958 (London, 1968).Google Scholar

5 In the interpretation of the results from his 1947 excavations, Richmond suggested that the fort was occupied by two legionary cohorts plus the ala Vocontiorum: PSAS lxxxiv (1949–50), 20. In a recent discussion of the Ardoch forts David Breeze has suggested that in the Flavian period there was a mixed legionary and auxiliary garrison – one legionary cohort plus the Cohors I Hispanorum (which he assumes to be quingenary at this time); Breeze, D.J. in O'Connor, A.C. and Clarke, D.V. (eds.). From the Stone Age to the Forty Five (Edinburgh, 1983), 233–4.Google Scholar Examples of literary references are Tacitus Annals xii, 45 (Gorneae, Armenia); Josephus Bellum ludaicum 4.486 (Adida, Jericho).

6 The evidence for these sites was first collected together by Professors Frere and St. Joseph in the Longthorpe excavation report: Britannia v (1974), 6–7 and fig. 3. Of the sites identified on their fig. 3, Usk and Exeter can now be discounted. Further examples have since been claimed; Mancetter: the disparate evidence is conveniently collected (with plan) in Webster, G., Rome Against Caratacus (London, 1981), 47–49Google Scholar; Osmanthorpe: Britannia xi (1980), 330–32; Rhyn: Britannia viii (1977), 394: ix (1978), 439: x (1979), 296–7: Antiquity li (March, 1977), 55–60 with plan and aerial photograph; Ilchester: P.J. Casey (pers. comm.): Leach, P.J., Ilchester Excavations Volume I: Excavations 1974–75 (Bristol, 1982).Google Scholar

7 Saxer, R., Untersuchungen zu den Vexillationen des römischen Kaiserheeres von Augustus bis Diokletians. Epigraphische Studien 1 (Bonn, 1967).Google Scholar

8 Birley, E. in Corolla Memoriae Erich Swoboda Dedicata (1966), 54–67.Google Scholar David Kennedy argues for a pre-Flavian date for a few milliary units in the east Zeitschr. für Papyrologie und Epigrafik 1 (1983), 253–63.

9 Glasbergen, W. and Groenman-van Waateringe, W., The Pre-Flavian Garrisons of Valkenburg z.H. (Amsterdam, 1974), 37.Google Scholar

10 De Metatione Castrorum, 1.

11 Gillam, J.P., Arch. Ael.5 v (1977), 50–56Google Scholar , suggests the Ib garrison was legionary rather than auxiliary, an hypothesis based on the discovery of 2 loricae segmentatae in a building in this fort and on the generous contubernium size. The association of the loricae with the phase Ib fort is doubtful (M.C. Bishop, pers. comm.).

12 Heidenheim: Filtzinger, P. et al., Die Römer in Baden Württemberg (Stuttgart, 1976), 293.Google Scholar Künzing: Schönberger, H., Kastell Künzing – Quintana. Limesforschungen Bd. 13 (Berlin, 1975).Google Scholar

13 Richmond, I.A. and Mclntyre, J., PSAS lxxiii (1938-9), 110–54.Google ScholarGroenman-van Waateringe, W. in van Beek, B.L.. et al. (eds.). Ex Horreo (1977), 230.Google Scholar

14 Schönberger, H., Kastell Oberstimm: die Grabungen von 1968 bis 1977. Limesforschungen Bd. 18 (Berlin, 1978)Google Scholar ; bldg. 6, Abb. 48, 104–6, 139; bldg. 14, Abb. 54, 120, 140; general plan, Abb. 65; discussion of garrison of Ib, 137–141.

15 Glasbergen, W., De Romeinse Castella te Valkenburg z.H. (Amsterdam, 1972).Google ScholarGlasbergen, W. and Groenman-van Waateringe, W.The Pre-Flavian Garrisons of Valkenburg z.H. (Amsterdam, 1974).Google Scholar

16 Martinhoe: Fox, A. and Ravenhill, W., Proc. Devon Arch, and Expl. Soc. xxiv (1966), 3–39Google Scholar ; Barburgh Mill: Breeze, D.J., Britannia v (1974), 130–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Hassall, M. in Hartley, B. and Wacher, J. (eds.), Rome and her Northern Provinces (Gloucester, 1983), 121–3.Google Scholar The suggested division of the barracks at Birrens, Albano and Ain Sinu differs from that proposed for Valkenburg, Martinhoe and Barburgh Mill in that the buildings are divided down their length with the papilio lying on one side of the street, the arma on the other; Birrens: Robertson, A., Birrens (Blatobulgium) (Edinburgh, 1975)Google Scholar ; Ain Sinu: D., and Oates, J., Iraq xxi.2 (1959), 207–42Google Scholar ; Albano: Tortorici, E., Castra Albana. Forma Italiae; Regio 1, Vol. II (Rome, 1975).Google Scholar

17 von Petrikovits, H., Die Innenbauten römischer Legionslager während der Prinzipatszeit (Opladen, 1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar Bild 2 illustrates a series of legionary barrack-buildings, including Inchtuthil and Caerleon. For Inchtuthil see now, Pitts, L.F. and Joseph, J.K.St., Inchtuthil: The Roman Legionary Fortress (London, 1985)Google Scholar , figs. 79–82. A plan of Gloucester barracks appears in Hurst, H.R., Antiq. Journ. liv (1974), fig. 4.Google Scholar

18 von Schnurbein, S., Die römischen Militäranlagen bei Haltern (Aschendorff, 1974)Google Scholar , Beilage 6.

19 Bidwell, P.T., The Legionary Bathhouse and Basilica and Forum at Exeter (Exeter, 1979), 6–7.Google Scholar Problems arising from the interpretation of the Exeter barracks are discussed by V.A. Maxfield in Hanson, W. and Keppie, L.J.F. (eds.), Roman Frontier Studies 1979 (Oxford, 1980), 300–04.Google Scholar

20 The designation ‘auxiliary fort’ commonly applied to these sites, has been avoided, in order not to prejudge the issue.

21 Fox, A. and Ravenhill, W.. Britannia iii (1972), 56–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 Hobley, B., Trans. Birmingham and Warwicks. Arch. Soc. lxxxiii (1969), 65–129Google Scholar ; lxxxv (1973). 7–92; lxxxvii (1975). 1–56.

23 The garrison of ‘The Lunt’ is discussed in the final report op. cit. (note 22), 16–18: the table on page 3 refers to a legionary presence. The lorica segmentata fragments are discussed by H. Russell Robinson in lxxxv (1973). 75–7.

24 Richmond, I.A.. Hod Hill Vol. 2. Excavations Carried out between 1951 and 1958 (London, 1968), 79–81.Google Scholar 2:1 idem. 81–82.

26 Unless their smallness be taken as evidence of an auxiliary rather than a legionary presence: Frere, S.S. and Joseph, J.K.St.. Roman Britain from the Air (Cambridge. 1983), 89–91.Google Scholar

27 Frere, S.S. and Joseph, J.K.St.. Britannia v (1974), 1–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar : Bldg. VIII, 26–27: Bldg. I, 30–33: discussion of garrison. 34–35.

28 Eg. Webster, G.R., The Roman Imperial Army (London, 1969), 124–7, 150–3Google Scholar ; Robinson, H.R., The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1975), 174–86Google Scholar : The Armour of the Roman Legions (Newcastle, n.d.), 9.

29 Frere, S.S. and Joseph, J.K.St., Britannia v (1974), 40Google Scholar ; Connolly, P., Greece and Rome at War (Oxford, 1981), 233.Google Scholar

30 Ulbert, G., Das römische Donaukastell Riβtissen. Teil, i: Die Funde aus Metall, Horn und Knochen. Urk. zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Sudwürttemberg-Hohenzollern 4 (Stuttgart, 1970), 12Google Scholar , expressing more firmly an opinion already put forward in Römische Waffen des i. Jahrhunderts nach Christus (Stuttgart, 1968).

31 For example Scenes IV and CVI, in Cichorius, C., Die Reliefs der Traianssäule (Berlin, 1896–1900).Google Scholar

32 Pallottino, M., Bulletlino Comunale lxvi (1938), 17–56Google Scholar ; Giuliano, A., Arco di Constantino (Milan, 1955)Google Scholar ;Michon, E., Monuments Piot xvii (1909), 206–212.Google Scholar

33 Durry, M., Les Cohortes Prétoriennes (Paris, 1938), pl. viii.Google Scholar

34 Robinson, H.R., The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1975), 184 and pl. 194.Google Scholar

35 M. Durry, op. cit. (note 33), pls. vi, vii; Robinson, H.R.. The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1975), 86–7Google Scholar , 142, pls. 155, 156.

36 Florcscu, F., Das Siegesdenkmal von Adamklissi, Tropaeum Troiani (Bonn, 1965).Google Scholar the German edition of a book originally published in Rumanian in i960. A selection of the metopes is illustrated in Richmond, I.A., PBSR xxxv (1967), 29–37Google Scholar , reprinted in Trajan's Army and Trajan's Column (London, 1982). 43–54.

37 For example on metopes Nos. XVIII, XX, XXXIV. The curved Dacián weapon, the falx, is shown on Trajan's column as a one-handed sword: cf. Robinson, H.R., The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1975), 186.Google Scholar

38 E. Esperandieu, Recueil General des Bas Reliefs, Statues et Bustes de la Gaule Romaine VII. 1 (1918), no. 5822 (lorica segmentata), 5816 (lorica hamala).

39 L. Sertorius Festus; CIL v 3374, illustrateci in Robinson, H.R., The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1975)Google Scholar, pls. 442, 444 and Maxfield, V.A., The Military Decorations of the Roman Army (London, 1981)Google Scholar, pl. 2b. Sertorius Firmus, L.: CIL v 3375Google Scholar = ILS 2339. illustrated in Robinson, pl. 443.

40 ILS 2596, illustrated in Germania Romana: ein Bilder-Atlas. III Die Grabdenkmäler Hsg. von der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission (Bamberg, 1926), Taf. XXIX, 4 and in Robinson op. cit. (note 39), pl. 445.

41 M. Favonius Facilis: RIB 200 and pl. v; O. Luccius Faustus: CIL xiii 6898 illustrated in Germania Romana. op. cit. (note 40). Taf. V. i.

42 H.R. Robinson, The Armour of the Roman Legions (Newcastle, n.d.). 7, notes that lorica segmentata was cheaper and easier to repair.

43 It remains a problem, however, as to why this ‘superior’ type of armour is not depicted on grave stele: it might perhaps be regarded as less ‘dressy’ than the mail and scale shirts.

44 Ulbert, G., Das römische Donaukastell Riβtissen Teil.I: Die Funde aus Metall, Horn und Knochen. Urk. zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Sudwürttemberg-Hohenzollern 4 (Stuttgart, 1970), Taf. 3–7.Google Scholar

45 Ulbert, G., Die römischen Donaukastelle Aislingen und Burghöfe. Limesforschungen Bd. 1 (Berlin, 1959), Taf. 17.1–21.Google Scholar

46 Revellio, P., ORL B V, 2 (1937)Google Scholar , Nr 62a, Taf. II.30, 31, 42, 43.

47 Ulbert, G.. Die römischen Donaukastelle Aislingen und Burghöfe. Limesforschungen Bd. 1 (Berlin, 1959), Taf. 51.1–2.Google Scholar

48 Schönberger, H., Kastell Oberstimm: die Grabungen von ig68 bis 1971. Limesforschungen Bd. 18 (Berlin, 1978).Google Scholar

49 I owe the Suggestion that Bldg. 6 is a stable and not a barrack, as suggested by Schönberger. to Michael Dobson, who points out similarities in its structure to a building from Dormagen, identified as a stable on the evidence of the analysis of residues from and around a series of pits dug in each room, cf. Müller, G., Ausgrabungen in Dormagen 1963–1977. Rheinische Ausgrabungen XX (1979), 27–33.Google Scholar

50 H. Schönberger, op. cit. (note 48), find nr. B64, page 167 and Taf. 19.42.

51 Baatz, D. and Herrmann, F.R., Die Römer in Hessen (Stuttgart. 1982). 279–80Google Scholar, ‘Alenkastell’. CIL xiii 7331, 11947 (Coh. IIII Vindelicorum): CIL xiii 7362. 7381–3 (Coh. XXXII Voluntariorum): CIL xiii 11948 (Ala I Flavia Gemina).

52 Baatz, D. and Herrmann, F.R., Die Römer in Hessen (Stuttgart, 1982), 261–5Google Scholar esp. 264

53 Robinson, H.R., The Armour of Imperial Rome (London, 1975), 180Google Scholar with note 7. Glasbergen, W. and Groenman-van Waateringe, W., The Pre-Flavian garrisons of Valkenburg z.H. (Amsterdam, 1974), 13Google Scholar and Appendix 5, present the evidence for the garrison in Period 1.

54 Robinson, op. cit. (note 53); CIL xiii 7444, 7452, 7460, 7462.

55 Todd, M., Britannia xii (1981), 297–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

56 Varro, de Lingua Latina V. 24.116. Harmand, J., L'Armée et le Soldat à Rome de 107 à 50 avant notre ère (Paris. 1967), 85–7.Google ScholarCIL xiii 2828 (from Nevers) attests cuirass-manufacture in Gaul during the Principáte. Of the twenty fabricae recorded in the western Notitia as being under the control of the magister officiorum, nine were ‘in Galliis’: Not. Dig. Oc. IX, 30–39.

57 Caesar, de Bello Gallico iii. 24ft, relating to the winter of 54–3 when the troops had to be scattered because of supply problems caused by a grain shortage.

58 Házeli, P.J., Antiq. Journ. lxi (1981), 73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar , discusses the problem of sword length. Tacitus Annals xi. 35, contrasting the spathae and hastae of the auxiliaries with the gladii and pila of the legionaries.

59 Tacitus, Agricola 36. The natural inference of this passage is that the soldiers in the Batavian and Tungrian cohorts were fighting with short swords.

60 CIL xiii 7507, illustrated in Ulbert, G., Römische Waffen des I. Jahrhunderts nach Christus (Stuttgart, 1968)Google Scholar, Abb. 1, 13.

61 Eg. P. Mich. 467 and 468 which record a soldier requesting that clothes and equipment be sent him from home so that he should not have to pay for new.

62 A swift perusal of the literature produces examples from both first- and second-century contexts; eg. Aislingen and Riβtissen: Ulbert, G., Die römischen Donaukastelle Aislingen und Burghöfe (Berlin. 1959)Google Scholar, Taf. 27.1–3, 67.22; Oberstimm: Schönberger, H.. Kastell Oberstimm: die Grabungen von 1968 bis 1971 (Berlin. 1978)Google Scholar, Taf. 18. B21–23; Hüfingen: P. Revellio. ORL B V 2. Taf. XII, 41. 44. 55; Bar Hill: Robertson, A., Scott, M., Keppic, L., Bar Hill: a Roman Fort and its Finds (Oxford, 1975), 100Google Scholar and fig. 33.18; Bearsden: Breeze, D.J.. Studies in Scottish Antiquity (Edinburgh, 1984)Google Scholar, fig. 19; Saalburg: Jacobi, L.. Das Römerkastell Saalburg (Homburg v.d.H.. 1897).Google Scholar A further line of enquiry worth pursuing relates to artillery. It is normally assumed that artillery was issued to legionaries but not to auxiliaries, eg. Marsden, E.. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development (Oxford, 1969). 184.Google ScholarBaatz, D., Bonner Jb. clxvi (1966), 194–207Google Scholar argues that auxiliaries did not get artillery until the second century. The evidence is, unsurprisingly, negative, and yet iron bolts from catapults have been found on many of the sites discussed above.

63 I am grateful to Dr D.J. Breeze, Mr Peter Connolly, Dr Brian Dobson, Mr Michael Dobson and Professor Sheppard Frere for reading and making helpful comments upon an earlier draft of this article. This should not necessarily be taken to imply that they agree with any or all of the views expressed herein.