The Saxon Shore Fort Network.

[sylla]

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.

Some "if", "maybe" and "it's possible" are wanting in the previous statement, because it is entirely speculative, and even speculation has its own rules.

The point is that it was called a Dark Age for a reason, and the reason is that we know almost nothing about this period; period.

The discussion was about the purported capture of "Andredes"/Anderitum?/Pevessey Castle??? in 491, not the purported landing of king AElle in 477; even If king AElle ever existed and if the Saxon Chronicles are to be trusted (and those are indeed quite big "ifs"), we still don't know almost anything else, eg. how many times had the fort changed of rulers, any single data on the defeated party, what kind of soldiers were commanded by AElle, not even if this king had become a Christian or learned Latin after so many years in Britain... in fact, we know virtually nothing.

What we positively know is that basically all material evidence of the Roman administration in Britannia utterly disappeared after less than a generation, probably even faster than in Gallia.

Reportedly, eight decades had lapsed since the collapse of the Roman rule; just remember that six decades ago, the whole Palestine Mandate was still British; even if nowadays the UK is still physically alive and not entirely dead in the minds of Israelis, Jordanians and Palestinians, that hardly makes British people of any of them.

 

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.

Quoting B. Cunliffe, "There can be few major topics in Romano-British archaeology for which the factual base is so slight, but about which so much has been written, than the forts of the Saxon Shore".

 

Then, the textual evidence of the Notitia Dignitatum is fixed, but the physical evidence of the surviving forts is currently open to the interpretation of the scholar(s) of your choice; some people count 12 forts (including Carisbrooke and Clausentum); some others would include also forts northern than Brancaster... and we have not mentioned the coast of Gaul yet!

Besides, some of the fortifications originally quoted by the ND may have not survived at all.

Edited October 20, 2009 by sylla

[Pompieus]

There is a chapter in the Notitia Dignitatum (Occ. xxviii) which lists the units under the command of the Comes Litoris Saxonici per Brittaniam. It lists one legion, one cohort, four numeri, one militum and two vexillationes of equites (cavalry) and their stations. viz:

 

legio II Augusta - Rutupis

cohors I Baetasiorum - Branoduno

numerus Fortensium - Othonae

numerus Turnacensium - Lemannis

numerus Abucorum - Anderidos

numerus exploratorum - Portum Adurni

militum Tungrecanorum - Dubris

equites Dalmatarum Branodunensium - Branduno

equites stablesianorum Gariannonensium - Gariannonor

 

The Western part of the Notitia is generally dated around 420

[sylla]

Checking out on the geographical distribution of the Litus Saxonicum and related Roman forts, it's clear that the military emphasis was overwhelmingly on the Straits of Dover in both directions, the same as for the vast majority of Armies and Navies all along most of European History, at least until the LCTs made Overlord feasible for Normandy 1944.

 

Back to Portus Adurni, the presence of a mobile unit like the Numerus exploratorum (scouts) as the local garrison, carried from the Caledonian frontier (Hadrian's Wall), was probably related to the vigilance for the long unfortified south-eastern British coast.

 

In fact, the HQ of the Classis Britannica was in Dubris (Dover); the Comes Litoris Saxonici (presumably the supreme commander) was most likely in Rutupiae with the II Legio Augusta; the other eight garrisons (all auxiliary units) were presumably commanded by officers from this same Legion.

 

However, after the bad experience of the Carausius' rebellion, the sea and land command in both Britannia and Gaul were most likely separated.

 

The Legions, auxilia and Navy were then simultaneously ready to prevent the crossing of the Channel from any side and able to lock the North Sea if required; it's evident that the Romans were planning to stay in Britannia for a looong time... (most likely forever).

Edited October 20, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

Quoting B. Cunliffe, "There can be few major topics in Romano-British archaeology for which the factual base is so slight, but about which so much has been written, than the forts of the Saxon Shore".

 

Then, the textual evidence of the Notitia Dignitatum is fixed, but the physical evidence of the surviving forts is currently open to the interpretation of the scholar(s) of your choice; some people count 12 forts (including Carisbrooke and Clausentum); some others would include also forts northern than Brancaster... and we have not mentioned the coast of Gaul yet!

Besides, some of the fortifications originally quoted by the ND may have not survived at all.

 

Pearson does make the point that both Carisbrooke and Clausentum (Bitterne) can (and have) been mentioned in association with the

[caldrail]

Some "if", "maybe" and "it's possible" are wanting in the previous statement, because it is entirely speculative, and even speculation has its own rules.

The point is that it was called a Dark Age for a reason, and the reason is that we know almost nothing about this period; period.

 

Yes. Correct. It is speculative. So what? Northern Neil informed me of a possible saxon contingent I wasn't aware of, so I extrapolated for the purposes of speculation. Think about it Scylla. If you run a local community on a coastline at risk of raids or piracy, and the only real protection are foreign mercenaries, how do you get them to act in your name? There are only three ways. You pay them off handsomely, you could attempt to force them to do so, or you provide motivation and a cause to fight for.

 

This is nothing new. The world is full of people fighting on foreign soil for what they believe in or to fatten their wallet. If you doubt the power of symbolism in inspiring men to act, then the current news concerning the furore over the British National Party's use of world war two icons might illustrate the point.

 

Further, the dark ages are not black. Certainly there's doubts over this or that, a few things we don't know, but by and large the dark ages in Britain are far better documented than pre-roman times. There's quite a list of annals and chronicles for instance. Local folklore. Or maybe... how about a browse of wikipedia?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jutes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danes_(Germanic_tribe)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_(historical)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gildas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nennius

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-saxon_chronicle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northumbria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernicia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deira

 

That's just a selection from an online dictionary. I imagine a learned historian would know more. I certainly enjoy reading the detailed books on the period available to me in my local reference library, which does not specialise in history studies.

 

History isn't always so cut and dried. Facts are important. But, as they say in financial circles, you must speculate to accumulate. Without speculation, there is no insight, because you're not thinking about it. Learning by rote has its advantages but you'll only learn what someone told you. I find that a very restrictive and potentially ignorant viewpoint.

[sylla]

Then, the textual evidence of the Notitia Dignitatum is fixed,...

As far as continental Roman coastal defences are concerned there is a good map on pg 64 of Pearson

Edited October 21, 2009 by sylla

[caldrail]

The Notitia Dignitatum was a list of assets. It covered a whole range of stuff.

 

Also, due apologies, it seems I was incorrect about Aella. He did land in Britain in 477 but his attack on Pevensey was 492 as Scylla stated. Thanks to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicler for sorting out that little error. Sorry to hear about the monastery. Hope the insurance covers it.

[sylla]

The Notitia Dignitatum was a list of assets. It covered a whole range of stuff.

Amazing and mysterious as it may sound, the Notitia Dignitatum is exactly what its name says (in Latin, of course): a list of dignitaries (ie, high rank positions) for the Roman Empire; nothing more, nothing less..

 

The chapter 1:28 deals with the Count of the British Saxon Coast (Comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias; BTW this is the ultimate origin of all the "Saxon Shore" stuff of this thread) and enumerates the dignitaries at his disposition (Sub dispositione), including nine commanders (one praefectus and eight praepositus) of nine units (already quoted by Ponpeius some post above) and the nine nominal bases (forts) for that units; ie. the original "Saxon Shore Fort Network".

 

As far as continental Roman coastal defences are concerned there is a good map on pg 64 of Pearson

[sylla]

Yes. Correct. It is speculative. So what? ...History isn't always so cut and dried. Facts are important. But, as they say in financial circles, you must speculate to accumulate. Without speculation, there is no insight, because you're not thinking about it. Learning by rote has its advantages but you'll only learn what someone told you. I find that a very restrictive and potentially ignorant viewpoint.

At the risk of overstating the obvious, I'm sure anyone can understand that presenting the accumulated insight of pure speculation as established facts is too unrestrictive and misleading, to say the least; after all, potentially any ignorant guy can do that. Edited October 22, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

As far as continental Roman coastal defences are concerned there is a good map on pg 64 of Pearson

[sylla]

As far as continental Roman coastal defences are concerned there is a good map on pg 64 of Pearson

[caldrail]

Yes. Correct. It is speculative. So what? ...History isn't always so cut and dried. Facts are important. But, as they say in financial circles, you must speculate to accumulate. Without speculation, there is no insight, because you're not thinking about it. Learning by rote has its advantages but you'll only learn what someone told you. I find that a very restrictive and potentially ignorant viewpoint.

At the risk of overstating the obvious, I'm sure anyone can understand that presenting the accumulated insight of pure speculation as established facts is too unrestrictive and misleading, to say the least; after all, potentially any ignorant guy can do that.

 

Then again, anyone might also understand that if you don't investigate possibilities, you learn nothing new. For instance, I might say that it's possible the Romans built a settlement by that tree over there. Gut feeling. Your response might then be not possible, because there's no evidence or literary basis for a settlement to exist there. You might be right. The settlement might not be there at all and I've wasted my time. On the other hand, I make a new discovery, get my face on television for five minutes, and become unbearably smug.

 

Under no circumstance whatsoever would I ever deny the possibility of things, even though on occaision commonsense tells us the possibility is remote. Otherwise, history is a stale subject akin to memorising a dictionary. You can't make discoveries unless you speculate on possibility.

 

Incidentially, the Notitia Dignitatum might well be a list of dignitaries, but the list includes military commanders, their units, and their stations. That comes under the heading of assets as far as I'm concerned, and indeed, the entire list of dignitaries could be viewed in the same manner.

[sylla]

Then again, anyone might also understand that if you don't investigate possibilities, you learn nothing new. For instance, I might say that it's possible the Romans built a settlement by that tree over there. Gut feeling. Your response might then be not possible, because there's no evidence or literary basis for a settlement to exist there. You might be right. The settlement might not be there at all and I've wasted my time. On the other hand, I make a new discovery, get my face on television for five minutes, and become unbearably smug.

 

Under no circumstance whatsoever would I ever deny the possibility of things, even though on occaision commonsense tells us the possibility is remote. Otherwise, history is a stale subject akin to memorising a dictionary. You can't make discoveries unless you speculate on possibility.

Amazing as it may seem, scientific research is not just gratuitous speculation or wild fantasy; there is something more, that can in fact be explained even by wikipedia...

 

In any case, there's nothing wrong in writing fiction, as long as it is not sold as History.

Edited October 23, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

[

Correction acceptable, although what I meant to indicate was of course that 'the Saxon Shore references which are currently being discussed are in the section relating to southeastern Roman Britain - not Gaul.

Again, that depends on which scholar are you checking out ; some consider that both the British and the Gallic Saxon Shores' forts as integrant parts of the same Roman defensive "Network", which is after all the title of this thread.

 

In any case, the idea of a Roman global coastal defensive system against Germanic naval incursions from both sides of the Channel makes a lot of sense to me .

 

The original posting did specify 'Saxon Shore Fort network in Britain' but I agree that the British shore based defensive network - however extensive a system the Romans actually considered it to be due to the different sources of possible attack - not just Germanic - would have formed only one aspect of the overall later period shore based system.

 

The underlying question of how integrated a system it was in reality, without much more documentarty evidence than we will probably ever have, will probably remain open to continuing discussion.

[caldrail]

Then again, anyone might also understand that if you don't investigate possibilities, you learn nothing new. For instance, I might say that it's possible the Romans built a settlement by that tree over there. Gut feeling. Your response might then be not possible, because there's no evidence or literary basis for a settlement to exist there. You might be right. The settlement might not be there at all and I've wasted my time. On the other hand, I make a new discovery, get my face on television for five minutes, and become unbearably smug.

 

Under no circumstance whatsoever would I ever deny the possibility of things, even though on occaision commonsense tells us the possibility is remote. Otherwise, history is a stale subject akin to memorising a dictionary. You can't make discoveries unless you speculate on possibility.

Amazing as it may seem, scientific research is not just gratuitous speculation or wild fantasy; there is something more, that can in fact be explained even by wikipedia...

 

In any case, there's nothing wrong in writing fiction, as long as it is not sold as History.

 

Fiction? Fiction is storytelling for the purposes of entertainment. As far as I'm aware, speculation is a different process, although some do pass it off as fact.

 

Fact: The Romans withdrew their legions in 409

Speculation: Soldiers left pots of gold behind them, an established practice over the ages.

Fiction: Olaf The Saxon Ditch Digger got very wealthy.

 

I do know why you have such an apparent distaste for speculation, but I'm afraid to inform you that whilst this site aims to achieve a high standard of history it also remains a place for discussing Roman history, and naturally speculation will provide intriguing and entertaining topics. The discourse of these topics will also generate answers that rely on fact, either to prove or disprove the point. After all, isn't the entire point of a Roman forum a place to debate issues? If it becomes merely a question and answer session, what a dull site this would become.

 

Nonetheless, speculation does sometimes give rise to possibilities that hadn't been considered before. If this proves to consistent with the available evidence and provides a clearer reason for decisions and events made in the past, I'm all in favour of it. It has, in this case, advanced the study of history by improving understanding of what occured.

 

What could I learn from simply accepting the text of classical sources and nothing more? Nothing new, and in limiting the study of history to accepted and established dogma, it would be impossible to learn something from any individual that I couldn't learn from another. I already know the legions withdrew from Britain in 409. I would like to know whether they left any pots of gold behind (which I mean in an abstract, general sense), and perhaps tonight before I switch the lamp off and retire for the evening, I'll sit with a mug of cocoa and chuckle at the adventures of Olaf the Ditch Digger as he rights wrongs and gets the girl in the final chapter.

 

Personally, I don't see the problem.

Edited October 24, 2009 by caldrail