The Saxon Shore Fort Network.

[Centurion-Macro]

For the past few days I have been trying to find out more about the Saxon Shore Fort network in Britain. On the internet I have found vague articles and sites which give me brief information about where the forts were situated and why they were put there, but there is little information about the man power there and the resources put into the Saxon Shore Fort network. I would like to know who was garrisoned in the forts and in what numbers. Did they have navies patrolling with the forts and how did they destroy the Saxon ships?

 

The one quote that I found on the internet said, "The Saxon Shore Fort Network depleted man power from Hadrian's Wall". But I have not found any more evidence to support that.

 

So do any of you guys know anything about the Saxon Shore Fort Network?

 

Thanks.

 

Centurion.

[Northern Neil]

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) housed a unit which was indeed at Carrawburgh on Hadrian's wall, the Cohors Primae Aquitanorum, but this was withdrawn to the Pennines in the Antonine period.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.

[Centurion-Macro]

Thanks for the info!

 

So there was actually a fleet made just for Britain? I will goggle it and see how big it is...

 

Would the II Legion in PORTVS ADVRNI that you mention be the II Augusta legion?

 

Also, you mention mobile forces. How big do you think these forces would need to be to garrison each fort?

[Northern Neil]

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.

[sylla]

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.

The last statement seems to have been true also for the defensive complex of the Caledonian border; one is tempted to conclude that construction labor was rather cheap and/or that inactive soldiers and peasants might have posed a more significant threat than external enemies.

[Northern Neil]

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.

[Centurion-Macro]

That picture of the Porchester Roman defenses does look formidable. It makes you wonder how bad the Saxons were for Rome to have to build all the forts...

Would it have balistae mounted on it?

[caldrail]

The Saxons were not known for ability in siege warfare. Their advance from the south coast in the 5th/6th century was impeded not only by stiff resistance from the Romano-British, but also their earthwork defences. As for the Roman forts, the only Saxon to get inside one (as I understand it at present) was Aella, who landed at Pevensey in 477. The fort at the time may not have been entirely in the best repair since with the withdrawal of Roman legions, their civil engineering expertise more or less left with them.

[Northern Neil]

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.

[sylla]

The one quote that I found on the internet said, "The Saxon Shore Fort Network depleted man power from Hadrian's Wall". But I have not found any more evidence to support that.

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[caldrail]

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.

 

The question then would revolve around whether the foederatii were loyal to Rome or their pay packet. If the latter, then they either let Aella in or made only a cursory defence. If the former, it would require an attack, which Aella's saxons were ill-prepared for despite arriving in strength, which leaves open a possibility of pretty much the same behaviour from the defenders.

[Melvadius]

Centurion-Macro

 

Probably the best single source of information on the Saxon Shore Forts is actually in Andrew Pearson

[sylla]

There are 11 forts which comprise the Saxon Shore system, from north to south these are:

Brancaster (Branodunum)

Caister-On-Sea (?Gariannonum)

Burgh Castle (?Gariannonum)

Walton Castle (?Portus Adurni)

Bradwell (?Othona) - designation still disputed by some authorites

Reculver (Regulbium)

Richborough (Rutupiae)

Dover (Dubris)

Lympne (Lemanis)

Pevensey (Anderita)

Portchester (?Portus Adurni)

Strictly speaking the "Saxon shore" is the direct literal translation of litoris Saxonici from the Notitia dignitatum 2:28.

 

As it is currently available, only nine positions (and garrisons) are explicitly named (the latin names in the list posted above by Mel).

 

PS: and of course, by 491 the King AElle or Aella definitively didn't find any active foederati in Britain, and there was no Rome to be loyal to (unless we were talking about Constantinople).

Edited October 19, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

Strictly speaking the "Saxon shore" is the direct literal translation of litoris Saxonici from the Notitia dignitatum 2:28.

 

As it is currently available, only nine positions (and garrisons) are explicitly named (the latin names in the list posted above by Mel).

 

I did mention that Pearson had taken a wider brief in mentioning several different sets of Roman shore based defensive in his book but had not just looked at the Saxon Shore forts in isolation

 

However I should possibly have made clearer in the previous posting that although the Notitia Dignitatum names only nine forts there are actually eleven shore based Roman period forts in the area of the 'Saxon Shore' all of which as I have indicated above were in operation by the late 3rd Century AD. From other sources it has been possible to positively identify most of the forts named in Notitia Dignitatum but there are two pairings of forts where precisely which is the forts concerned were being named by Notitia Dignitatum is uncertain.

 

The problem with identifying precisely which of the forts has been named in Notitia Dignitatum is the lack of good 'tightly defined' dating evidence, or at least because of proven periods of disuse (or lesser use) and some sites being poorly excavated it is difficult to prove either archaeologically or historically precisely which of the eleven forts may still have been in operational use around the period when Notitia Dignitatum was written.

[caldrail]

PS: and of course, by 491 the King AElle or Aella definitively didn't find any active foederati in Britain, and there was no Rome to be loyal to (unless we were talking about Constantinople).

 

Strictly speaking that's correct (although Aella landed twenty years earlier). However, there are indications that the Britons were none too happy about the changes in regime. The withdrawal of Roman troops and the collapse of local government might have made for a brief period of prosperity due to unpaid taxes, but the stronger members of society would have responded by attempting to attract power, and indeed, Gildas writes about such changes, labelling local warlords as 'tyrants' (of which the legendary Arthur is mentioned as one - not quite the chivalrous king of medieval fiction - and Gildas seems to have some grudge against his memory.

 

The point though is that the Roman element of British society hadn't died in their memories. The reason that the majority of early dark age romano-britons seem so un-roman is that they always had been, living alongside the Roman administration and obeying it's laws, but retaining a certain 'celtic-ness' all the same. A long term successful administration under which people generally prospered was bound to leave an impression.

 

There's a strange duality in Britain in that period amongst the natives. On the one hand, there's a flowering of celtic culture which has left engraved stones in passing, plus the lingering retention of Roman ideals, and at least one northern tribe maintained latin titles throughout the dark ages. Both however were largely swept aside by the germanic settlers, who dominated the locals with their own beliefs and structures, complicated by the emergence of two forms of christianity, one Irish, one Roman, that contended for precedence in those times.

 

Rome was therefore not entirely dead in peoples minds in the Dark Ages, whatever the actual political reality was. As to whether the foederatii still manned the battlements bearing Roman symbols is impossible for me to say. It isn't entirely implausible, though if existent I would suggest that the powerful image of Rome was something iconic and a rallying call rather than a direct command structure. A modern equivalent might be Middle England. Something we know has actually gone (if it ever really existed) but nonetheless a mindset, a concept, that persists despite changes in fashion and one that still motivates individuals toward certain actions.