The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca

The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca

waughfamily.ca
from waughfamily.ca More from this publisher
03.05.2015 Views

Roman Britain: military dimension • 139 • underlying order of military life, while tombstones can indicate the origin of those troops, their life expectancy and family relationships (e.g. Figure 8.1). All three types of inscription can assist in the study of the movement of particular units or the careers of individuals, which, in turn, can contribute both to refining the chronology and interpreting the significance of historical events. The major contribution of archaeology is in the elucidation of military installations in terms of date and function. When on campaign in hostile territory, or simply operating away from home base, the Roman army constructed temporary defended enclosures, referred to as ‘temporary camps’, for overnight protection. More are known from Britain than from any other province of the Roman Empire. They range in size dramatically, from 0.4 ha to 67 ha in area. The smaller examples are more likely to relate to the building activities of work parties involved in the construction or repair of military installations, but the larger camps can indicate the lines of march of troops on campaign, and are sometimes termed ‘marching camps’ (e.g. Ardoch below) (Figure 8.2). Semi-permanent works, often referred to as ‘vexillation fortresses’ and covering an area of some 8 ha, are occasionally attested. They are usually associated with campaigning and were perhaps linked to the provision of adequate supplies, though the precise nature of such sites is much debated (e.g. Red House, Corbridge, below and Figure 8.4). After its conquest had been achieved, control of an area was usually consolidated by a more permanent military presence, though the nature and extent of this varies according to the political geography of the area concerned. Close military control was usually manifested in the form of a network efforts and fortlets linked by a road system. This pattern is seen in Wales, northern England and Scotland in the first and second centuries AD, although such close supervision of conquered territory is not recorded in south-eastern England (Figure 8.3). Here more sophisticated means of political control seem to have been applied immediately after the conquest, involving the use of diplomacy and the establishment of client or ‘friendly’ kings in an area where native political organization may have been more complex (Chapter 7) and where the opposition was, perhaps, less intransigent. When establishing military control of an area, the Romans utilized a hierarchy of permanent military establishments. At its hub were the legionary fortresses, bases for some 5,000 citizen infantry who formed the core of the Roman army (e.g. Inchtuthil below and Figure 8.4). Only four legions were used in the invasion of Britain and, by the mid- 80s AD, only three remained in garrison. Legionary movements fluctuated considerably in the early years of campaigning and conquest, Figure 8.2 Aerial photograph of the fort (F), annexe (A) and temporary camps (C) at Malling, Perthshire. Source: Crown copyright: Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland.

• 140 • W.S.Hanson eventually settling down in permanent fortresses at York, Caerleon and Chester. The bulk of the military garrison, however, was made up of auxiliary troops, including cavalry, sub-divided into units approximately 500 or 1,000 strong. These were non-citizen soldiers, recruited from the provinces of the Empire, who formed the main front-line and garrison troops. They were housed in forts that varied in size considerably from 0.8 to 4 ha in internal area (Figure 8.5). Three examples (Elginhaugh, Housesteads and Vindolanda) are described below. Indeed, there is still much debate about the relationship between auxiliary fort sizes and the different types of unit known, particularly in relation to the housing of cavalry horses inside or outside the fort. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that there is no simple correlation between auxiliary unit and fort, with units being split between different forts and/or different units occupying the same fort. The division of units is further attested Figure 8.3 Distribution of first-century AD Roman forts in Britain (NB not by the frequency of use of much all sites were occupied contemporaneously). smaller installations, known as ‘fortlets’, usually less than 0.4 ha in internal area (e.g. Barburgh Mill below and Figure 8.6a). The distinction between a large fortlet and a very small fort can be difficult, but the former generally lacks any central administrative buildings. The smallest permanent installations are watchtowers (Figure 8.6b). Though individual examples do occur, they are usually associated with frontiers and are best known along Hadrian’s Wall (the so-called ‘turrets’) and the Gask frontier in Perthshire, as at Westerton, described below. They are not infrequently described as signal stations, though whether or not they were used to relay signals is much debated. Some capacity to pass on any information gained from look-outs would seem essential, without necessarily implying the existence of a system for relaying complex messages (Southern 1990). Roman military architecture was remarkably consistent for long periods of time. However, some major changes become apparent from the late third century. New forts constructed at coastal locations around the south-east coast of England and in north and south Wales put greater emphasis on defence. They are provided with massive stone walls and projecting bastions

• 140 • W.S.Hanson<br />

eventually settling down in<br />

permanent fortresses at York,<br />

Caerleon and Chester. <strong>The</strong> bulk <strong>of</strong><br />

the military garrison, however, was<br />

made up <strong>of</strong> auxiliary troops,<br />

including <strong>ca</strong>valry, sub-divided into<br />

units approximately 500 or 1,000<br />

strong. <strong>The</strong>se were non-citizen<br />

soldiers, recruited <strong>from</strong> the<br />

provinces <strong>of</strong> the Empire, who<br />

formed the main front-line and<br />

garrison troops. <strong>The</strong>y were housed<br />

in forts that varied in size<br />

considerably <strong>from</strong> 0.8 to 4 ha in<br />

internal area (Figure 8.5). Three<br />

examples (Elginhaugh, Housesteads<br />

and Vindolanda) are described<br />

below. Indeed, there is still much<br />

debate about the relationship<br />

between auxiliary fort sizes and the<br />

different types <strong>of</strong> unit known,<br />

particularly in relation to the<br />

housing <strong>of</strong> <strong>ca</strong>valry horses inside or<br />

outside the fort. What is becoming<br />

increasingly clear, however, is that<br />

there is no simple correlation<br />

between auxiliary unit and fort, with<br />

units being split between different<br />

forts and/or different units<br />

occupying the same fort. <strong>The</strong><br />

division <strong>of</strong> units is further attested<br />

Figure 8.3 Distribution <strong>of</strong> first-century AD Roman forts in <strong>Britain</strong> (NB not<br />

by the frequency <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> much<br />

all sites were occupied contemporaneously).<br />

smaller installations, known as<br />

‘fortlets’, usually less than 0.4 ha in<br />

internal area (e.g. Barburgh Mill<br />

below and Figure 8.6a). <strong>The</strong> distinction between a large fortlet and a very small fort <strong>ca</strong>n be<br />

difficult, but the former generally lacks any central administrative buildings.<br />

<strong>The</strong> smallest permanent installations are watchtowers (Figure 8.6b). Though individual examples<br />

do occur, they are usually associated with frontiers and are best known along Hadrian’s Wall (the<br />

so-<strong>ca</strong>lled ‘turrets’) and the Gask frontier in Perthshire, as at Westerton, described below. <strong>The</strong>y are<br />

not infrequently described as signal stations, though whether or not they were used to relay<br />

signals is much debated. Some <strong>ca</strong>pacity to pass on any information gained <strong>from</strong> look-outs would<br />

seem essential, without necessarily implying the existence <strong>of</strong> a system for relaying complex<br />

messages (Southern 1990).<br />

Roman military architecture was remarkably consistent for long periods <strong>of</strong> time. However,<br />

some major changes become apparent <strong>from</strong> the late third century. New forts constructed at<br />

coastal lo<strong>ca</strong>tions around the south-east coast <strong>of</strong> England and in north and south Wales put<br />

greater emphasis on defence. <strong>The</strong>y are provided with massive stone walls and projecting bastions

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!