No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Roman Walls of Le Mans
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
Extract
It has long been known that during the late third and early fourth centuries A.D. over 80 previously unfortified towns of Gaul were surrounded by new defences. These can be distinguished from those of the twenty-five ancient cities fortified in the previous centuries by the thickness and height of their walls, by the number of their projecting towers, and by the fact that their foundations were in nearly every case constructed from re-used blocks, tombstones, and architectural fragments coming from earlier buildings. Although at several places such walls survived almost intact until the nineteenth century, having formed the principal defences of towns such as Bordeaux, Dax, and Sens throughout the Middle Ages, the best preserved example still remaining is at Le Mans (Sarthe), the capital of the province of Maine. There can be seen more complete and more easily accessible specimens of features existing in poorer condition at Beauvais, Carcassonne, Jublains, Périgueux, Senlis, Tours, and other towns. A full description of the walls of Le Mans will serve to illustrate the characteristics of the late Roman fortifications of a medium-sized Gallic city.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright ©R. M. Butler 1958. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 The best account of the walls is by Charles, R. in Revue Archéologique du Maine IX, 1881, 107 ffGoogle Scholar. and 250 ff.; x, 1882, 325 ff. Subsequent papers by R. Triger, ibid., LXXXII, 1926, 267 ff., and O. R. de Linière, ibid., LXXXVII, 1931, 3 ff., add little except fresh illustrations; A. Blanchet's account and illustrations in Les Enceintes romaines de la Gaule, Paris, 1907, are based on Charles. It should be noted that Grenier's illustrations of Le Mans, derived from Triger, in his chapters on the later Roman city walls in Manuel d'Archéologie gallo-romaine I, 1931, 362 ff., give as fig. 127 (p. 423) a restored plan of the medieval city, showing both the medieval and Roman towers and making them all seem to be hollow, and his fig. 192 (p. 525) is not an illustration of the present state of the walls, but a sketch of how it was hoped they would appear if a proposed clearance scheme were carried out. Charles' figures showing lengths of the walls, reproduced by Blanchet, 44 ff., similarly assume the absence of existing houses which conceal them. With regard to the plan here reproduced (fig. 4), the walls and towers are only marked in solid black where they still exist; none of the eastern towers retained any certain Roman work, and the Roman origin of those marked on that side must be regarded as probable but uncertain. The aerial photograph (pl. VI, 3) on which the plan is based was taken by the R.A.F. in 1944 and is reproduced by permission of the Air Ministry; the other photographs are by the writer, who is greatly indebted to M. Paul Cordonnier-Détrie for enabling him to visit every visible portion of the defences and explaining his own excavations. In describing the site it is assumed that the river and the long axis of the city run north-south, when in fact their true direction is north-east-south-west.
2 Recent work has shown that the pre-Roman centre of the tribe was probably another fortified spur 2½ miles to the south-west, the Bois de la Forêterie at Allonnes, where many Gallic coins have been discovered, as well as Iron Age and Roman occupation material. See Gallia XII, 1954, 172; XIII, 1955, 166 f.; XV, 1957, 203 ff. For the name Suindunum usually accepted see Ptolemy Geography (Ch. Müller ed. 1883) 11, 8, 8, giving Οὐίνδινον, with footnote ‘fortasse Σουίνδινον monente Valesii’. O. Cuntz ed. reads οἱ Κεομάννοι ὧν πόλις Οὐίνδινον. Tabula Peutingeriana (Desjardins ed.), p. 23, Sheet I, B.1 gives Subdinum.
3 For a recently discovered example of re-used decorated stonework in the wall footings, see Cordonnier-Détrie, P., Gallia xv, 1957, 202 f.Google Scholar, figs. 2, 3.
4 Charles, o.c., 341 ff., and pl. x.
5 The writer was unable to see these remains, and the description is based on Charles, o.c., 331 ff., figs. 23 and 24 (which lack measurements).
6 Cordonnier-Détrie, P., Gallia, XII, 1954, 172 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 6-8.
7 cf. those revealed in the probably contemporary walls of the upper town of St. Bertrand de Comminges: Labrousse, M., Gallia xv, 1957, 261 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 10.
8 Vita S. Iulianil, I, 10 f. (Acta Sanctorum, Jan. 27th). The date of St. Julian is uncertain, but the event is quite credible.
9 Cordonnier-Détrie, P., Gallia IX, 1951, 99Google Scholar.
10 Koethe, H., Ber. der Röm.-Germ. Komm. XXXII, 1942, 199 ff.Google Scholar; also Manley, I. J., ‘Effects of the Germanic Invasions on Gaul, 234–84 A.D.’, Univ. of California Pubs. in History XVII, 2, 1934Google Scholar, and Blanchet, A., Les Trésors de Monnaies romaines et les Invasions germaniques en Gaule (Paris, 1900)Google Scholar.
11 Ammianus Marcellinus XVI, 2, 1; 3, 1; 4, 2; 12, 11; etc.
12 Panegyrici Latini IV, vi ff. (ed. E. Galletier. Paris, 1949–52).
13 Ordo Nobilium Urbium, 128 ff. (Burdigala).
14 CIL XII, 2228–9.
15 Vasselle, F., Bull, de la Soc. des Ant. de Picardie XLV, 1955, 23 ff.Google Scholar, pl. III.
16 There is an eastern group with circular towers, no tile courses, and little re-used material, connected more closely with the frontier forts and including Andernach and Saverne.
17 The theory that Le Mans, together with many other towns and forts of Gaul, received new walls under Postumus is argued by van Gansbeke, P. in Latomus XIV, 1955, 404 ffGoogle Scholar. Post-war discoveries, not cited there, make this date too early for most fortifications of the group which includes Le Mans.