Roman Fort built in Solstice Alignment

[Onasander]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/01/07/let-in-light-ancient-roman-fort-designed-for-celestial-show/

 

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Frontinus/MKDahm**/body.html

 

Only problem with this is the automatic assumption that it was religious, I've been reading this biography of Frontinius due to trying to place a "fragment" assumed to be by Frontinus from his lost art of war (don't think it's his), and I've come across many references to him Surveying roads, as well as mountain terrain, and building complex bridges and forts. Given he was also a former British governor....

 

Umm, plain and simple, I'm guessing it has a more pragmatic function, than a religious one, as Frontinus' works would of been standard reading for commanders in Britain, especially in this sort of engineering task. This doesn't of course translate to Hadrian's wall overall making sense on the larger level, as it's clearly a joke, but engineering corps doing the actual layout planning of the long term minutia of the stone works would of been serious about such things, and would of looked back to Frontinus.

[caldrail]

Many forts were built in 'significant' places, such as one inside a former hill fort in southwest Britain. For this reason a solstice alignment might be possible, but it's bound to be coincidental because suvh observances were native, not latin.

[Onasander]

I don't know what fort your talking about Caldrail, but I note you mentioned you said it was already a fort prior to the romans.... meaning it already was 'defendable' and already had a cultural and likely a legal status as a fort, likely gained from the rights of conquest.

 

It's a lot easier politically to remake a former fort into a new fort in a populated area than to start buying up land, or increase antagonism by taking uncompensated land from the locals and making a general mess of the logic and tradition of their civic architectural layout of their community by demolishing households and squares. I think this was a wise move, as a generality and lacking the specifics. Even if it was rural, a defendable position is, indeed, a defendable position. Can't find fault in exploiting a earlier effort to fortify a position.

[caldrail]

 

 

I don't know what fort your talking about

 

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

[Onasander]

Yeah.... the Romans only took a corner of that fort, then abandoned it 6 years later. I'm guessing not a lot of astrological alignment is happening if your building withing the area of an already established community, your more or less going after the strongest position with the least amount of additional refortification efforts. I bet those troops slept in those huts for several months after while the villagers cut down trees for walls and dug trenches for them.

[caldrail]

The Romans were very practical about warfare and thus made camps in positions they regarded as inherently 'better' where-ever possible. Whilst it is true that the average legionary was very superstitious, religious observance concerning warfare was more to do with auguries and commemorations than holy days. Having said that a sensible commander would allow his men to observe their rituals up to a pojnt - the Romans knew it was good for morale - but at the end of a days route march a camp would be needed as quickly as possible, in a site already scouted, and permanent forts more concerned with defence and security than where the sun was going to come up.

 

Marching camps were dug by the troops as a matter of course, but permanent camps? Other than materiual supplies, the funny thing is that I haven't seen much evidence for local labour. A certain contingent of camp followers provided expert artisanry in any number of trades of course, but usually the Romans only employed natives as slave labour when captured as prisoners of war. I don;t know of any specific nazi-esque forced labour of civilians - the Romans generally left them alone unless business interfered.