Northern Neil

The O.U. Degree course doesn't include a course in Old French, but hopefully I might be able to further build on my studies at either Lancaster or Manchester universities. Mind you, this is all planning years ahead!

The Irish had a writing system known as Ogham which was carved into the sides of stone slabs. This script was extant in the 5th century and possibly earlier, and stones have been found in some Roman towns, notably Silchester. Wether or not this - like runes - was an adaptation of the Roman alphabet I do not know.

I just invested

I was under the impression that when the U.S. was founded, the aim was to specifically dissociate the state from religious influences, judeo-Christian or otherwise. I believe that Thomas Jefferson would be revolving in his grave if he heard the conservative right banging on about America being founded as a christian nation. On the other hand... 'Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.' - Thomas Jefferson

I have not got all my books to hand just now so I cannot be too precise, but some writers on the later Roman Empire have remarked that the super tribes of Allemanni, Frank and Goth were dangerous from the 3rd century on precisely because of partial Romanisation.

... exactly the point made by Jared Diamond in his book 'Collapse' which explored environmental reasons for the extinction of societies as diverse as the Easter Islanders and Greenland Vikings. The Romans get a mention too, but he sees the Dark Age as more of a hiatus than a genuine collapse. Nope. First of all, that is absolutely unfair to the superb methodology used by Prof. Diamond

Belated happy birthday, JGolomb. Keep posting!

... exactly the point made by Jared Diamond in his book 'Collapse' which explored environmental reasons for the extinction of societies as diverse as the Easter Islanders and Greenland Vikings. The Romans get a mention too, but he sees the Dark Age as more of a hiatus than a genuine collapse.

I dont mind ferrying 2 other members in my van - that should cut down the travel problems a bit.

Indeed, although I am prone to making understatements. But point made. However, your constant nit-picking of other people's comments accompanied by languid put downs does provoke that kind of response I'm afraid and many of us are finding it tiresome. While it is fair to ask someone what their sources are or to disagree with an hypothesis due to insufficient evidence, it is quite another thing to articulately use seemingly mild words to deliver quite a damning and public put - down. This next is not an understatement. Put a lid on it, matey.

...another mildly insulting remark which you probably wouldn't have said had you been in the same room together. Try to keep it civil and relevant.

Good point. Also Canterbury, reculver, Lympne...

Maybe he foresaw the disunity in the Empire which was to become very problematic a decade or two later, and this was his attempt to address it. Later emperors used religion to this purpose.

And I suppose you will be kind enough for sharing all your references with us, so we may be able to reach the same conclusions. After all, as virtually no "maybes" and "ifs" were present in your long explanation, this should be something more than just mere personal unfounded speculation ... You know, any argument ("speculation" if you like) is as valid as the evidence it is based on. A quick look at the Ordnance Survey map of Roman Britain will show that there were no reserve units placed towards the rear, inland of the Saxon Shore forts. Absence of defense in depth? certainly. Additionally there were no roads joining them together as there were with those on earlier frontier systems. This may hint at lack of integration, although of course the sea could convey traffic. The whole system seems to have developed and grown over about 80 years as opposed to being a planned system of defences. There seems to be enough evidence, available at a glance, to back up Caldrail's hypothesis, which to me appears to stand up pretty well.

I suppose you mean "late IV century" for Gaul and "V century" for Hispania. No, I refer here specifically to Barbarians crossing the limes in the mid 3rd century. This resulted in walls being thrown up around the centres of towns, the extremities of which whithered away due to the prevailing state of insecurity. Thereafter the towns of Gaul, with the exceptions perhaps of Arles and Trier, became little more than fortified posts, as the economy and population in the area declined. The question as to why the west fell and the East didn't is an interesting tangential point which naturally arises when one discusses the West's growing inability to maintain the Rhine and Danube limes.

That is indeed a common explanation. Depending mostly on the operational definition, evidence of "decay" can usually be found for the V century Western Roman Empire (and BTW, for the late Julio-Claudian period too). The main problem for that line of argumentation is that virtually all the evidence of decay of the West was equally present in the East. This is largely true; however, the towns of Gaul and Hispania never really recovered after the barbarian forays of the 3rd century, whereas urban centres enjoyed a flowering in the East from about 300 to 500. Thus, the tax base of the West was severely eroded compared to that of the East, resulting in the shrinkage of the Army proper after 406 and increasing reliance on foederatii whose land grants in return for service eroded the tax base further still.

There is nothing wrong with speculation, especially with regard to Roman remains which are so visible, and yet about which so little is known. If some regard speculation as pointless and irritating, there are others (myself included) who quite like to ponder and debate ideas. I am not so sure that shooting off on tangents and analysing each other's writing styles aids the debate, however. The presence of Germanic military equipment at some Saxon Shore forts, particularly ANDERITVM, would seem to suggest that there were at least some Germans among the garrisons, even if they weren't Saxons. Regarding the integrity of the system, some of the forts - particularly Nantes and Blaye, appear to be fortified towns and ports rather than purpose built forts, and so there is evidence there as well that the system was very ad - hoc and grew over time, rather than being part of an organised strategy. I suspect that the system only became fully integrated and organised up to a century after the first forts of the system were built, say around 340.

Good point, but when was Exodus written? Was it beyond the scruples of the author to move a natural disaster from the previous millenium forward 400 years to embellish a story when writing about it many centuries after?

It is rumoured that the Saxon Shore defenses may have been staffed by Saxon Foederatii and that the enemy they were defending against was Rome itself. Certainly Portchester was built by Carausius, who was a usurper emperor who formed a separate state out of Britain and Northern Gaul. This could explain the robust fortifications, although militarily this kind of defence was the fashion anyway after about 250, once frontiers had solidified and defence, not attack, was now the order of the day. Burgh Castle shows signs of being designed in the first instance as a standard early type fort with bastions added as an afterthought halfway through the construction. EDIT: In answer to your question about ballistae Macro, it seems that bastions at some of the forts had central holes in the tops, possibly for mounting and swivelling ballistae.

I notice that the 'DVRO' Roman place name element crops up all over southern and central Britain, so as you say, may have no link to the tribe of the Durotriges.

Here is a picture of Portchester Roman defences. Although the crenellations maybe mediaeval repairs, it still does not need much imagination to guess how it would have looked in its prime, and I believe it is comparable to anything in Gaul or Germania.

It was the II Augusta, but it was garrisoned at Richborough (RVTVPIAE) not Portchester (PORTVS ADVRNI). Portchester was one of the ones that had no fixed garrison, and may even have been abandoned before completion in favour of a different site at Bitterne, near Southampton. The whole Saxon Shore system showed signs of poor planning and wasted resources.

Indeed, Peter Heather (Fall of the Roman Empire) implies that the German super - tribes of Allemanni and Frank were dangerous in the 5th century precisely because they were part Romanised.

Coincidentally, I was at Portchester Castle ( PORTVS ADVRNI ) only a few days ago, and it remains one of the best preserved Roman forts in the Western Empire. In terms of manpower, the fort at Richborough is clearly documented as housing the II legion when it moved from Caerleon, and when it was reduced in size by the reforms of Diocletian. The fort at Dover housed the Classis Britannica fleet, and had done since the first century. The nearby fort at Lympne also was used as a base for this fleet. So at least in these three instances, no manpower was transferred from the Northern Frontier to the South. Most of the other forts in the system are described as being 'At the disposal of the forces of the count of the Saxon Shore'. This would suggest that some of them remained empty and were garrisoned in times of need by mobile forces. This might also explain the lack or omission of internal buildings. The most Northerly fort in the series, Brancaster ( BRANODVNVM ) housed a unit which was indeed at Carrawburgh on Hadrian's wall, the Cohors Primae Aquitanorum, but this was withdrawn to the Pennines in the Antonine period. It would seem that most of these forts were placed either because of their proximity to the Gaulish coast, or to defend estuaries which went a long way inland, such as the Wash and Southampton Water.

Would this perchance be an allusion to the execution of Sejanus' nine year old daughter?