Saxony coast

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Romans called the Saxon coast , Litus Saxonicum in Latin , a chain of heavily fortified military camps and naval stations along the south and south-east coast of Britain (now England ) and on the Channel and Atlantic coast of Gaul ( France ).

The Saxon coast (Litus Saxonicum) around the year 380

The Saxon coast in Britain

Notitia Dignitatum: The forts of the litus Saxonicum under the command of the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam
The SK castles Rutupiae , Dubris and Lemanis on the Tabula Peutingeriana

The forts were part of the late antique Limes in Britain. In England these forts are now known as Saxon Shore Forts . On the south-east coast of Great Britain (today's counties Lincolnshire and Norfolk) you can visit the ruins at Richborough, Lympne, Portchester and Pevensey, some of which have still been excellently preserved.

function

For Stephen Johnson, the castles on the Saxony coast had a threefold function:

  1. fortified harbors for smaller flotillas whose task it was to repel pirates at the front line,
  2. Garrisons for infantry or cavalry units that could be set into march immediately when hostile barbarians land in order to intercept them on the coast,
  3. Deterrence of looters, as they were mostly located at the mouths of larger rivers, which could be used as convenient routes for invaders.

The Roman naval association used in this region, the Classis Britannica , had been stationed in Britain since the 2nd century. Vegetius , a military writer who wrote his works at the end of the 4th century, mentions that most of this fleet still existed at that time. He describes u. a. camouflaged rowboats that were used for reconnaissance. The forts on the Saxon coast must therefore have had an important function as bases, supply and news stations for the operations of the Roman fleet.

Since the Gaulish defenses show some differences to the contemporary military installations in Britain, this is an indication for Johnson that the forts on the British Saxon coast were part of a security system that was actually intended for the protection of Gaul and not primarily for Britain. This can also be seen in those forts that were built between 276 and 285 AD, probably on behalf of Probus . The forts that already existed at that time - Brancaster-Branoduno, Caister-on-Sea and Reculver-Regulbium - were later integrated into the new defense concept. When exactly this happened, or on whose initiative it was, is unknown, possibly at the instigation of the naval commander - and later usurper - Carausius .

Nowadays, however, you can see more than just fortified harbors in these forts. a. Probably also important links in the logistics system of the provincial troops in order to be able to distribute Britain's products as best as possible. The scientists also do not agree whether they are to be regarded as pure garrison fortresses; Their perspective has long since expanded to include socio-economic aspects, especially with regard to the one-sided degradation of the Saxons as pure pirates and looters and the constant danger that they allegedly threatened. Despite the silence of the literary sources about massive attacks from the North Sea and the lack of relevant archaeological finds, it cannot be assumed that Britain was completely safe from raids by the Anglo-Saxons and Franks due to its island location. Such raids were feasible if the looters z. B. set up their bases in destroyed places or abandoned forts on the Gallic coast, since the army and navy could not possibly control these long coastlines completely. The coastal fortresses could also have served as collection points for goods in transit and as transfer points between inland and ocean-going vessels. Perhaps customs duties were levied there on imported goods. It could also be that the forts were intended to prevent the locals from raiding the state magazines.

Surname

The origin of the name for the region cannot be clearly explained, it can be interpreted either as the " Saxon- populated coast" or as a designation for that part of the British coast that was repeatedly attacked by Saxon pirates . Germanic tribes that immigrated to Britain sometimes settled at the mouths of the Rhine, around Boulogne or in the area of ​​the still unknown Grannona (either near Granville or Port-en-Bessin-Huppain ), where this region was also known as litus Saxonicum , as one of the coast inhabited by the tribesmen of the Saxons. So it is quite likely that litus Saxonicum means something like "the coast protected against the incursions of the Saxons". Some researchers also suspect that the name could also be derived from Saxon foederati in Roman services, in this case a strip of territory along the coastline was probably meant on which they were allowed to settle with their families in late Roman times, but so far there is no evidence for this .

development

The Wash as viewed west from Heacham (south of Hunstanton)
Salt marsh on the Solent, with the Isle of Wight in the background
Romano-British officer in equipment of the 4th century AD
Classiari of the CB in the late 3rd century AD
Commander of the Comitatenses and Limitanei in the 4th century AD

In his chronicle from the second half of the 4th century, Eutrop reports that around 285 AD, Carausius was commissioned to pacify the sea at Boulogne, which had been made unsafe by pirates who called Eutropus "Franks" and " Saxony ”. The aforementioned raids on the British and Gallic coast increasingly hampered maritime traffic and, above all, the transfer of goods and precious metals to Gaul and Rome . Most of their robbery ships were probably based on the British coast on their journey south into the English Channel. There they attacked Gaul or Britain. The ramified river system of Britain made it possible for the Germanic invaders to advance relatively quickly into the interior of the island with their small, shallow boats. After their raids ended, the looters were mostly able to escape across the sea with impunity. The fleet stationed in Boulogne had too few ships to stop the Saxons. The Romans therefore built fortifications in exposed coastal areas and especially at river mouths, which were also connected to the Roman military camps on the Gallic mainland. The Roman administration set up a separate military district on both sides of the English Channel. The forts should at least make their landings more difficult for the Saxons. The establishment of this chain of fortresses was probably not based on a previously established overall plan, as it appears in the compilation of the Notitia Dignitatum. The exact date of their creation is largely in the dark. It is estimated that the construction of this Limes, located in the area between the Wash and Solent , took almost a century. The evaluation and research carried out over the last few decades also contradict the concept of a planned site, as the coin finds and the typology of the forts show.

A Comes Maritimi Tractus was responsible for securing both stretches of coast in the middle of the 4th century . In 367 several barbarian peoples invaded Britain, in the course of which the units of the provincial forces there were either broken up or almost completely wiped out. Their commanders-in-chief were also killed, including the "Count of the Coastal Regions", Nectaridus. His area of ​​responsibility must then have been divided into three military districts - by 395 at the latest. The aim was to prevent a military leader from getting too many units under his command and thus enabling an uprising (such as the usurpation of the British naval commander Carausius ). Two new ducats were therefore created for the Gallic part of the Saxon coast ( Dux Belgicae secundae and Dux tractus Armoricani et Nervicani ). The title "Comes" remained with the commander of the British Saxon coastal fort. He was able to maintain his coastal defense organization until the beginning of the 5th century. When Flavius ​​Stilicho again became militarily active in Britain in 398, this Comes may have found its way into the Roman official calendar, the Notitia Dignitatum, for the first time .

Coastal Defense in Britain

The British Saxon Coastal Fort around 400 AD.
Remnants of the wall of St. Marys Church, which contains reused Roman building material from the Regulbium / Reculver fort
The so-called Nydam ship ( Gottorf Castle , Schleswig ) This rowing ship was used by Germanic coastal tribes as a war vehicle, a fast commercial and troop transporter, was suitable for the high seas and could carry up to 45 men and equipment

According to the Notitia Dignitatum, the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam was responsible for the defense of the Saxon coast in Britain . It is noteworthy that the relevant part of the Notitia lists only nine forts, although there is evidence that eleven of them stood on the Wash-Solent Limes. Only:

  • Othona
  • Dubris
  • Lemannis
  • Branoduno
  • Garianno
  • Regulbi
  • Rutupis
  • Anderidos
  • Portum Adurni

The forts not mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum were on the British part of the Saxon coast

they are considered to be the most south-eastern parts of the fortress chain.

In most cases these forts could be assigned geographically without any doubt. Gariannum z. B. could be associated with the river Yare (Gariennus) , as this river name is already mentioned by Ptolemy . Other bases on the Wash Solent Limes were probably a fort near Skegness, which has now disappeared, and the signal stations at Thornham ( Norfolk ), Corton ( Suffolk ) and Hadleigh. A little further north, the former legionary camp at Lindum ( Lincoln ) and a camp near Malton (North Yorkshire ) served as supply depots, as the roads from there led directly to the signal stations on the Channel coast.

In addition to the Comes in Britain, there were two other commanders for this military district who commanded the Limitanei on the north-west coast of Gaul:

Stephen Johnson believed that the British part of the Saxon coast meant the "coast attacked by Saxony". Their counterpart must have been the Roman coastal protection on the Gallic side of the canal, as the associated forts were in most cases almost exactly opposite those on the British coast. He concluded from this that the units commanded by the Dux Belgicae secundae were also part of the garrison units on the Saxon coast. Especially Grannona , which was under the command of the Dux tractus Armoricani et Nervicani , was probably an important cornerstone in the defense concept of the Gaulish Saxon coast. He therefore proposed to look for this fort in the mouth of the Seine , in the area surrounding today's Le Havre . If this turns out to be correct one day, Grannona should be exactly opposite the positions of Pevensey-Anderitum and Portchester-Portus Adurni. This would also confirm Johnson's theory that the defense system of the Saxon coast was created for both coasts of the Oceanus Britannicus .

Defense against Rome?

DA White, who had already dealt with the origin and function of the Saxon coast before Johnson and his theory of dating, saw no archaeological evidence that the forts were built during the usurpation of Carausius. Today, however, his hypotheses about the intended purpose of the Wash Solent Limes are again subjected to a critical reassessment. White notes, among other things, that the forts were built much too massive for a pure pirate defense and that camps fortified with simple wooden palisades would have been completely sufficient, since usually only small groups of Germanic looters landed on the southeast coast. In contrast to Johnson, he further raises concerns that no evidence, neither written nor archaeological, is known of a major problem with the piracy of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain in the late 3rd century. If that is the case and Carausius or his successor Allectus was the commissioner for most of the forts on the British Saxon coast, then they would actually have had only one purpose to defend Britain against an invasion of the Tetrarchs .

White's theory initially found few supporters among experts. With the publication of new research results from Pevensey, however, the debate revived. Over a year of excavations on the Norman main tower and on the Roman foundations in the southeast corner of the fort brought u. a. Remains of oak logs unearthed. At the same time, a coin from the time of Carausius and Allectus was found. A dendrochronological analysis of the logs showed that this wood was felled between 280 and 300 AD. The coin of Allectus also spoke for the year 293 AD as the terminus post quem of this fortress, so it was most likely that it was also commissioned by him.

The exact dating of Pevensey-Anderitum to the reign of Allectus makes it very likely that originally Carausius was actually responsible for the construction of the Wash-Solent-Limes. This also seems plausible because of the loss of its most important Gallic naval base, Boulogne-sur-Mer ( Gesoriacum ) in AD 293, since Britain was much more vulnerable to an invasion of imperial troops from the continent from this point on. After Allectus' defeat and death, however, it was clear that the forts were useless for this purpose. In the second half of the 4th century, however, due to increasing attacks by the Anglo-Saxons, they again served well in their defense.

Fortified ports

Other researchers, on the other hand, see little connection between the forts on the Saxon coast and the threat posed by foreign peoples or pirates. John Cotterill in particular advocates the theory that the forts, as fortified trading ports, only had purely commercial tasks and were not involved at all in the actual sea and coastal defense. The location of most of the forts, near the mouth of navigable rivers, allowed them to be used for military and commercial purposes at the same time. Their infrastructure could have been intended as a storage area for supplies for domestic garrisons or served as a collection and transshipment point for agricultural goods and other regional products. Most of the goods transhipped here probably went directly to the northern border, but it is very possible that the forts also played an important role in supplying Gaul and the Rhine border, as the canal route for the supply of grain from Britain in AD 359 . was reopened by the Caesar of the West, later Emperor Julian . This created the prerequisites for larger operations by the Gallic field army on the Lower Rhine. For this purpose, Julian et al. a. also started building 600 large grain freighters. The forts on the Saxon coast may therefore also have served as staging posts for the reinforcements for Julian's army. The later use of Richborough-Rutupiae by the general Flavius ​​Theodosius as a landing site for his army to fight the so-called barbarica conspiratio of 367 AD shows how useful these ports could be. If the forts were really part of a comprehensive logistics system, this could also explain the construction principle of the Brancaster-Branoduno, Caister-on-Sea and Reculver-Regulbium forts in the decades before the first historically guaranteed evidence of pirate activities on the North Sea and in the Canal.

The castles

Attempted reconstruction of the Richborough / Rutupis fort , as it was in the 4th century AD, view from SE
The ruins of the late Roman Fort Anderitum (NW-Wall) near today's Pevensey / southern England
Attempted reconstruction of the Dover / Dubris fort , as it was in the 4th century AD.
Fort Lemanis, attempted reconstruction of the east gate

The remains of the Saxon coastal fort are impressive witnesses of the Roman rule over the British island to this day. These fortresses had the massive character typical of this period. Most of them still had an approximately rectangular floor plan according to Roman standards, but there are only seldom traces of stone interior buildings. Similar plants can also be found on the west coast, in Wales . In late antiquity, most of the Saxon coastal forts were still located directly on the coastline, today the sea has already washed away large parts of some of them (e.g. Walton) or the former beaches have silted up so that they are now far inland like Richborough, the today about 3.5 km from the coast. After the Romans withdrew in 410 AD, some forts were abandoned, destroyed or given to the Anglo-Saxon church for further use; later the Normans built castles on their foundations.

Late antique fortress construction in Britain

The ruins of the Gariannonum fort, clearly recognizable are the brick bands typical of late antique buildings

During the 3rd century the building of Roman fortifications went through a fundamental change. New defense concepts became necessary, both for military purposes and for civil cities, and the defenses were given a much more massive character. Although the architectural design of the coastal forts in Britain is not standardized, they also share similarities with the castles in Gaul . This was a consequence of the newly acquired ability of the Germanic invaders in Gaul to carry out longer sieges. At the end of the 3rd century, the Romans had to react to this with a new fortress architecture in order to better protect the urban centers of Gaul from attacks by the Franks and Alemanni .

The previous practice of the preventive forward defense of the Principate's time (penetrating into enemy territory and eliminating enemy forces before they could advance into Reich territory) was now replaced by a much more defensive warfare (e.g. more determined defense of the fortresses). The old-style forts were still fully adapted to the old strategy of movement and forward defense, mostly placed in geographically favorable locations in order to be able to intercept enemy invaders in advance, their towers therefore served primarily for observation and not for the enemy to cover with a devastating defensive fire.

The ramparts were getting higher and thicker and this type of construction was now common in the empire. At the same time as the fortifications were being strengthened, architectural innovations were also introduced. Solid towers protruding from the wall with platforms for war machines and archers were attached to the ramparts at regular intervals. The gates, always weak points, have now been significantly reinforced by one or two massive flank towers next to a narrower entrance. All these innovations were exemplary of the new type of Roman warfare, the protruding round towers were of elementary importance and also underline their brutal functionalism.

Often there were also regional differences in fortress construction, there were semicircular, polygonal or rectangular towers, but always protruding from the curtain wall. The course of the defensive wall was largely adapted to the local topography in order to keep attackers away as far and as long as possible. If possible, new forts were built on raised ground; Plateaus from which one had a good all-round view were preferred. The conventional pointed trenches were replaced by wider, flat-bottomed trenches, which could also be flooded in case of danger. These were now also placed a little further away from the walls to create a kind of death zone in between.

However, the new ramparts also required more massive internal support structures. It was no longer the simply constructed, stone-clad wood-earth walls of the early imperial era, now thick cast masonry filled with quarry stone was raised, which was faced with ashlar on the front and back. The reuse of old material of various origins has now become common practice, and archaeologists keep finding parts of statues, altars, columns and gravestones in the remains of the fortress structures of that time. As a cheaper alternative, however, old forts were often repaired and reinforced and modernized with new buildings.

In the forts on the Saxon coast, numerous old and new stylistic elements mix, so they can mostly be viewed as transition structures. The forts of

were demonstrably built before the late 3rd century.

These three forts still have the typical fortress architecture (playing card shape) of the 2nd century. Its walls are narrow, without inbuilt stone bands and reinforced on the inside by sloping earth walls that reach up to the battlements, the towers are on the inside and only at the corners, the relatively simple and lightly attached gates can only be found on two sides . They are therefore the direct successors of the wood-earth castles and the first stone examples of the 1st century AD

can already be seen as fortresses of the transition.

Its fan-shaped towers are only connected to the main wall at the lower base, presumably only added later, since the classic corner towers, also because of the still rounded corners of this fort, could no longer meet the new strategic challenges; Fan-shaped towers, on the other hand, made it possible to spread the defensive fire much more widely on the apron.

appears in the same way still provisionally and can therefore be dated to the years 275–80 AD, likewise

that from

However, it cannot be classified without any doubt, but according to the interpretation of the local coin finds it should also have been erected in the present time period.

The last expansion phase of

could have been completed in the early 270s.

Numerous coins of Carausius , which were found in the lowest excavation layers, suggest that the final construction was started here at the beginning of his reign, 285 AD, or soon afterwards. All of these forts can still be regarded as typical representatives of the fortress building school of the 2nd century AD, but have already been substantially “retrofitted”.

For the period from

According to the coin finds there, the time of the usurpation of Carausius, i.e. around the middle of the 280s, can also be assumed. It therefore seems quite possible that he personally initiated the construction of this important naval base.

was finally completed as the last fort on the Saxon coast during the reign of the successor of Carausius, Allectus , 293 AD, or a short time later.

Gates and towers

Caister-on-See Castle, attempted reconstruction of the south gate

Due to the much more massive construction of late antique towers and fortress gates, these were also stable enough to be equipped with heavy torsion artillery. The towers in front of the wall gave a much better view of the area in front of the fort and made it possible to take the besiegers into a devastating crossfire before they had even reached the wall. The towers usually had two platforms lying one above the other and were provided with large semicircular windows. These windows were necessary for the artillery (ballistae) because they allowed a wider field of fire. Their roofs were usually flat and crenellated or tent-shaped or semicircular tile roofs, which also protected the platform below from enemy fire.

The battlements of the gates were mostly bricked up and were interrupted by the two gate towers that flanked the entrances to the gate itself and the neighboring wall. The gate itself was always behind the wall, this allowed the defenders to cover the attacking enemy from three sides, like in a kind of kennel, with their defensive fire. The gate wings were made of wood, covered with iron plates to better protect them from fire. The gate structures were mostly two-story and only broken through by a passage.

Interior constructions

The well-preserved eastern lighthouse (Pharos) of the former Portus Dubris in today's Dover Castle. Only the foundations of its western counterpart are visible today.

During the early Principate , the internal structures of a fort were always laid out along the two main streets of the camp (via praetoria , via principalis) , which intersected in the center of the fort; this was always the place where the camp headquarters could be found in a Roman fort ( principia ) . This standard was more or less maintained until the middle of the 3rd century AD.

The forts that were built from this point on now also differed significantly from their predecessors in terms of their internal structures. The most controversial aspect here was the low use of space within the defensive walls. Many buildings were now specifically built along an inner bypass road (via sagularis) . From the 4th century onwards, the barracks blocks were built directly on the ramparts, perhaps to better protect them from fire projectiles during a siege . Bathhouses, which used to be in the outer area of ​​the forts without exception, have now also been relocated inside the fortresses, despite the great fire hazard they posed. The location of the buildings on the edge now left a large area free in the center of the fort; Command buildings were often no longer there, if they were, then a simple, single-storey building was sufficient; they were obviously no longer the sole focus of garrison life.

These changes in contrast to the times of the Principate were probably caused by the great upheavals that the organization of the Roman army went through. During the late empire, administration and logistics became more and more centralized. The equipment was mostly manufactured and repaired in central, state-run factories (fabricae) , and the food supply was also more tightly controlled. As a result, the number of granaries and workshops in the forts was also reduced, as they were no longer needed in as large numbers as before. The previously laborious camp administration was reduced considerably, so a separate administration building for each fort was unnecessary.

The difference between the interior of early imperial and late Roman forts can be seen particularly well in the examples on the British Saxon coast. We can assume that Reculver-Regulbium is a prime example of the forts of the early 3rd century. Numerous discoveries were made in this regard during engraving along the gravel remains of the via principalis , via praetoria and via sagularis . The principia , built in stone, had a cellar, probably a sacellum (flag shrine), the building was in the classical manner exactly in the middle of the fort, the surrounding buildings served as barracks, workshops and for other subordinate functions.

The walls of Garrianonum / Burgh Castle, one of the best preserved Roman monuments in Britain

It is more difficult to interpret forts that were built later on the Saxon coast. Many of the buildings that have been excavated and examined within their walls turned out to be isolated wooden structures. In Dover-Dubris z. B. were found eleven of them alone, with round, rectangular or oval ground plans. One discovered at the same time u. a. gravel roads with wooden sidewalks and smelting furnaces with ash pits. The fort bath (thermae) from the 2nd century was originally outside the early imperial fort, but was later included and used in the interior of the late Roman fort, which was now divided between the civilian population and the military, albeit in a slightly different form. Such bathhouses have also been excavated at Richborough-Rutupiae and Lympne-Lemanis. Traces of cement floors here too suggest wooden buildings, probably just ordinary crew quarters; in Portchester-Portus Adurni, cement floors and sewers were also found.

location

Section of a wall in the fort of Pevensey / Anderitum, where you can see the cement and quarry stone very well. The incision in the upper area dates from the Second World War, when this section of the wall was converted into a gun post.

In general, the forts were built in strategically favorable locations on ground safe from the tides and close, but not directly, to the open sea. Harbors directly exposed to the forces of nature were never popular with Roman architects and in most cases they tried to use places protected from the sea by natural barriers, e.g. B. Brancaster, Reculver, Richborough, Portchester and Lympne.

Design features

The procedure for building a fort on the Wash-Solent-Limes was basically always the same. Construction began with the excavation of a rectangular, flat-bottomed trench measuring 0.7 × 1.5 m, then usually large stone blocks were first laid on which the wall was then placed. Such a foundation was mainly dry stone masonry, consisting of flint, chalk or other stone material immediately available on site, occasionally mixed with clay. Sometimes there was also a thin coat of concrete (Pevensey, Brancaster). If the subsoil was swampy and unstable, or if the walls were to reach a considerable height, wooden stakes (pilots) were used (Richborough, Lympne, Pevensey).

The outside of the wall was straight, the inside, however, often step-shaped, narrowing towards the top (Burgh Castle) or even bent, which guaranteed additional stability. Carefully placed rows of small rectangular flint stones formed the outer sides of the defensive wall, the space in between was filled with a stamped mix of rubble and mortar (sand, gravel, lime), then another row of cap stones was bricked up, the space in between was again filled with cast masonry, etc. Wall reached a height of 1.5 m or higher, a work scaffold had to be erected for the further construction; this consisted of wooden beams that ran horizontally and vertically along the outside of the wall or were wedged into recesses in the wall prepared for this purpose.

This type of wall construction, however, had a sensitive weak point in the connection of the outer cover layer with the inner filling of the wall. This is why the builders often kept adding longer, flatter stones to the facing, which could be better connected with the casting mortar; As additional anchoring, horizontal strips, consisting of bricks, flat stones or reused old material, were regularly included in the construction, as these usually extended much further into the casting mortar filling than the outer cap stones. Such brick / stone bands are therefore a significant feature of late antique architecture.

The actual height of the fort walls can no longer be determined exactly today. Vitruvius , architectural theorist in the 1st century BC, provides a clue for this . He writes that the width of a classic wood-earth wall must be such that fully armed men can stand comfortably at the top of the wall and walk past each other without hindering each other. The width of the highest preserved fort wall on the Saxon coast, that of Burgh Castle (4.5 m), suggests that it is still upright to its original height; If you add the parapet (on average 1.6 m), you get a height of around 6 m. However, other forts had narrower walls (Richborough, Portchester, Pevensey).

construction materials

The ruins of the fort of Rutupiae / Richborough Castle (SO-England)

Building material for the construction of the forts on the Saxon coast was transported from near and far. In most cases, of course, what was used was what could be obtained in the immediate vicinity of the construction site.

Lympne deserves special attention in this regard. Here the Romans only used the materials that could be found in the vicinity, e.g. B. Limestone, which could be broken only a few 100 m away and used for the interior filling and the capstones and also burned to mortar lime; Gravel and sand were brought in from the nearby beach, and timber was felled in the surrounding forests. The material from demolished previous buildings was mostly used for the characteristic brick strips.

Reculver, on the other hand, is a good example of a different approach to material procurement. Almost 90% of the material used here was obtained at least 20 km away. "Kentish ragstone" was even used, which was apparently brought from the Medway quarries, 70 km away.

The use of recycled scrap is particularly evident in Richborough and Lympne, where a large amount of tegulae , roof tiles, has been incorporated into the tile strips. You have to take a closer look, but such “second-hand stones” can be found everywhere here. B. reused blocks of useless monumental buildings in both places. In Richborough in particular, it is believed that up to 70% of the building material comes from a triumphal arch of Claudius from the 1st century. It probably supplied up to 16,000 m³ of the stone material required. In most cases, however, it was brought in from the nearby coast, loose rock (e.g. flint) was found here in abundance and could easily be transported away. Sand and gravel for the mortar was also plentiful.

Manpower

Construction projects in this region probably did not require specially trained craftsmen, most of the work was done in stone extraction anyway, only a small part had to be carried out by specialists such as B. bricklayers and carpenters are done. The army is likely to have played a major role here, too, since traditionally a large number of specialists served in their ranks who could be deployed quickly on the construction sites, although a large number of workers certainly had to be provided by the local civilian population, especially the Members of the craft guilds.

A lawyer of the 2nd century, Tarrutienus Paternus , Praetorian prefect under Emperor Commodus and recognized military specialist, confirms this. His descriptions of soldiers report u. a. from the so-called immune (exempted from heavy duty), they sit down u. a. made up of architects, shipbuilders, wheelwrighters, stone masons, lime burners, woodcutters and charcoal burners. So here you can find a complete list of all those skilled workers who were needed to build a fort.

Of the previous buildings in Reculver-Regulbium and Branodunum (Branchaster) are u. a. stamped roof tiles have been preserved, which were fired by two units, the cohors I Baetasiorum and the cohors I Aquitanorum ; they prove the participation of their soldiers in the construction of the forts. Before it was withdrawn to the south, the cohors I Aquitanorum was z. B. stationed in Brough-on-Noe , where she was also used for construction work.

In the case of forts on the Saxon coast that were built later, however, it is less clear who was directly involved in their construction. From the 3rd century onwards, the number of men in the Roman army in Britain was reduced further, so that by the end of the century only a little more than half of the originally estimated 55,000 men (around 210 AD) were probably left. It is also crucial that the composition of the troops changed during this time and that the number of available army craftsmen must also have decreased from the middle of the 3rd century.

In spite of such bloodletting, the Roman army in Britain was not yet overstretched at this point, its provinces had largely remained unmolested by the sometimes violent conflicts that raged in the rest of the empire. It is very likely that members of the army were in charge of the construction of the last forts on the Saxon coast and that the British units deployed on site were also supported by contingents from Gaul during the secession of the British special empire under Carausius and Allectus.

Settlement activity outside the forts

Smaller civil settlements ( vici ) were in front of almost all Roman forts. Most of them were local centers of handicrafts and trade on a modest, simple and unpretentious scale. Such settlements were also found at most of the forts on the Saxon coast, the largest at Brancaster . Aerial photographs here revealed the outlines of numerous buildings, from whose location streets led in all directions. Subsequent excavations in the west of the fort foreground confirmed the observations from the air.

There was also evidence of civil settlement activity around Burgh Castle , but the remaining castles on the Saxon coast have not yet been researched enough in this regard. Exceptions are Pevensey and Portchester , there were no such villages here because they were located on rocky peninsulas and too close to the sea. In the interior of Portchester-Portus Adurni, however, traces of smaller workshops and a butcher's shop could be observed.

The castles in Britain

Portchester castle / Portus Adurni: A section of the well-preserved Roman enclosure wall

The well-known forts on the British Saxon coast are:

The Saxon coast in Gaul

Notitia Dignitatum: The fortresses under the command of the Dux Belgicae secundae
The Frankish King Childerich in the equipment of a late Roman officer of the 5th century (attempted reconstruction after the grave goods discovered in the 17th century)
Notitia Dignitatum: castles and fortified towns of Gallic litus Saxonicum , under the command of the Dux tract Armoricani et Nervicani were

function

In Gaul, a line of fortresses and harbors on the channel coast between Flanders and the Cotentin peninsula formed the coastal defense there, in order to repel attacks by Saxons, Franks and Scots on this section. Most of these cities / forts probably also served as bases and communication links for the army and navy.

Surname

The name Litus Saxonicum for the coastal region of Gaul probably also comes from the Saxon tribes that settled there. During the conquest of Gaul, the Romans found the name Armorica for the region on the Biscay and the English Channel . This word means "land along the water" (from the Celtic ar "along" and mor "water"). This name, which is passed down by Gaius Iulius Caesar in his Commentarii de bello Gallico , is partly still in use today.

development

If the pressure of migration came from the east, the only way for the Saxon tribes was to go west. Here, however, they soon had to meet the Frisians - a warlike Germanic tribe resident here from time immemorial - then, at the mouth of the Rhine, the Franks and the tribes allied with them, who also had no accommodation. But to the southwest, in the Roman Empire, they found weaker peoples. The litus Saxonicum of northern Gaul gradually emerged , in which scattered people from other Germanic tribes (e.g. Jutes and Angles ) found a new home. The inclusion of numerous Saxon mercenaries in the Roman army made the name of the Saxons known as bold, loyal seafarers, even among the population groups in the hinterland that did not originally belong to them.

The Roman historian Eutropus suggests that the usurper Carausius specifically encouraged the Saxons to settle in northern Gaul. In the ninth book of his history, Eutrop writes that the Saxons afflicted the tractus Belgicae et Armoricae at the end of the third century . The same information can also be found with the panegyricians . Also in the area around Bayeux (then Baiocas ) the Saxons - who have lived there since the fourth century - are mentioned as Saxones Baiocassini . This is also the place that other sources indicate as the settlement center of a new population group, but only unspecifically refer to them as "Teutons". These new settlers are also listed in the Notitia Dignitatum , their tribal names clearly identify them as Germanic peoples. Laeti gentiles , Franci et Suevi , also sat around Bayeux and Coutances (then Constantia ) . Only after the unrest of the Bagauden uprising and the Carausius rebellion did this settlement phase appear to have been completed. After this stretch of coast was reintegrated into the Reich, Constantius Chlorus legalized their status and left the tribes their new homes. The last known by name Dux of Belgica II was the Franke Childeric I. He served in the final stages of Roman Gaul apparently as administrator (administrator) and certainly commander of the military levy on the territory around the town of Tournai in the north of Belgica Secunda . However, it is unclear whether Childeric was still acting as a Roman general or already as king ( rex ); It is very likely that both offices had already been merged with one another at that time , not untypical for Federation leaders at that time.

The coastal defense in Gaul

According to the Notitia Dignitatum, two duces were responsible for the defense of the Channel coast in Gaul .

These were the

who commanded the troops in Flanders , Normandy , Brittany and Aquitaine .

Gaulish coastal defense relied largely on four major fortified cities:

  • Constantia (Coutances) ( referred to as Cosedia in the Tabula Peutingeriana ),
  • Rotomago (Rouen),
  • Abrincatis (Avranches) and
  • Grannona .

In each of these cities / forts there was a large contingent of the Gallic limitanei . These local border troops were largely replaced by mercenaries or allies ( foederati ) of Saxon or Franconian new settlers as early as the second half of the 4th century .

The organization of this coastal protection is also mainly known from the Notitia Dignitatum , in which the local troop departments are specified. Separate command areas on the north coast of Gaul are also mentioned in the western Notitia, both of which probably also belonged to the Limes of the Saxon coast.

Castles and cities in Gaul

The well-known forts / cities on the Gaulish Saxon coast are:

  • Marcae (as yet unlocated fort, probably near the port city of Calais , possibly today's Marquise or Marck). In Notitia, this is, together with Grannona, the only place on the Gallic coast that is expressly stated as being on the litore Saxonico .
  • Locus Quartensis sive Hornensis , this base was probably at the mouth of the Somme and was the main port of the classis Sambrica ("Fleet Squadron of the Somme ")
  • Portus Aepatiaci (possibly today's Étaples ).

Strangely enough, the port of Gesoriacum or Bononia , which had been the main port of the Classis Britannica since around 296 AD, is also mentioned in the Notitia as being under the command of the Dux of the Belgicae Secundae, as is the Oudenburg fort .

  • Grannona (the exact location is still disputed, either at the mouth of the Seine or at what is now Port-en-Bessin-Huppain ), the fort was probably also the headquarters of the Dux von Armorica.
  • Rotomago ( Rouen ),
  • Constantia ( Coutances ),
  • Abricantis ( Avranches ),
  • Grannono (the location is unsure to locate, but it is believed that it is not identical to the Grannona mentioned above, perhaps a fort near today's Granville ),
  • Aleto or Aletum (today's Aleth, near Saint-Malo ),
  • Osismis ( Brest ),
  • Blabia (maybe Hennebont ),
  • Benetis (probably Vannes ),
  • Mannatias ( Nantes ),

literature

  • Paul Bennett: The Saxon shore. A handbook. University of Exeter, Exeter 1989.
  • David J. Breeze: Demand and supply on the northern frontier. In: Roger Miket, C. Burgess (Ed.): Between and Beyond the Walls. Essays on the prehistory and history of North Britain in honor of George Jobey. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh 1984, pp. 265-276.
  • David J. Breeze: Roman Forts in Britain . Shire Publications, 1994, ISBN 0-85263-654-7 .
  • John Cotterill: Saxon Raiding and the Role of the Late Roman Coastal Forts of Britain. In: Britannia 24, 1993, pp. 227-239.
  • Barry Cunliffe: Fifth report of the excavations of the roman fort at Richborough . Society of Antiquaries of London , 1968 (Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries, Report 23).
  • Martin Eggers:  Litus Saxonicum. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde (RGA). 2nd Edition. Volume 18, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 2001, ISBN 3-11-016950-9 , pp. 522-525.
  • Nic Fields: Rome's Saxon Shore. Coastal Defenses of Roman Britain AD 250-500 . Osprey Books, Oxford 2006, ISBN 1-84603-094-3 (Fortress 56).
  • Stephen Johnson: The Frontier of the litus Saxonicum. In: Dorothea Haupt , Heinz Günter Horn (Red.): Studies on the military borders of Rome II. Lectures of the 10th International Limes Congress in the Germania Inferior. Rheinland-Verlag, Cologne 1977, ISBN 3-7927-0270-3 , pp. 13-18.
  • Stephen Johnson: The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore. 2nd Edition. Elek, London 1979, ISBN 0-236-40165-3 .
  • Stephen Johnson: Late Roman fortifications . Batsford, London 1983, ISBN 0-7134-3476-7 .
  • Andrew Pearson: The Roman Shore Forts. Coastal Defenses of Southern Britain . Tempus, Stroud 2002, ISBN 0-7524-1949-8 .
  • Donald A. White: Litus saxonicum. The British Saxon shore in scholarship and history. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Dep. of History, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison 1961 (full text)
  • Stefanie Dick: Kingship, barbarians on the throne in: Spectrum of Science Special / Archeology - History - Culture, No. 1/2015, p. 26ff.
  • Peter Salway: History of Roman Britain. Oxford History of England, Oxford Paperbacks 2001.
  • David Mason: Roman Britain and the Roman Navy, Tempus 2003.
  • Valerie Maxfield: The Saxon Shore - A Handbook, 1989, reprinted 2006.

Web links

Commons : Sachsenküste  - Collection of images, videos and audio files

Remarks

  1. ↑ Vegetius, Epitome 4, 37.
  2. ↑ Stephen Johnson: The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore. 2nd Edition. Elek, London 1979, ISBN 0-236-40165-3 , pp. 68-69; Stephen Johnson: Late Roman fortifications . Batsford, London 1983, ISBN 0-7134-3476-7 , pp. 211-213.
  3. ^ Donald A. White: Litus saxonicum. The British Saxon shore in scholarship and history. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Dep. of History, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison 1961.
  4. ↑ Stephen Johnson: The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore. 2nd Edition. Elek, London 1979, ISBN 0-236-40165-3 .
  5. ↑ Notitia Dignitatum occ. XXXVII, in the list of troops of the Dux tractus Armoricani et Nervicani : Grannona in litore Saxonico .
  6. ^ Matthias Springer: The Saxons . Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-17-016588-7 , p. 33.
  7. ↑ barbarica conspiratio, Ammianus Marcellinus 27,8,1-6, Peter Salway 2001, p. 281. Doel / Loyd 2000, p. 14.
  8. ↑ Notitia Dignitatum Occ. XXVIII.
  9. ↑ Geographia 2.3.4.
  10. ^ Donald A. White: Litus saxonicum. The British Saxon shore in scholarship and history. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Dep. of History, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison 1961.
  11. ↑ a b Notitia Dignitatum Occ. XXXVII 14, XXXVIII 6.
  12. ^ Donald A. White: Litus saxonicum. The British Saxon shore in scholarship and history. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Dep. of History, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison 1961, p. 40.
  13. ↑ Stephen Johnson: The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore. 2nd Edition. Elek, London 1979, ISBN 0-236-40165-3 , pp. 6-7.
  14. ^ A b Michael Fulford, Ian Tyers: The date of Pevensey and the defense of an “Imperium Britanniarum”. In: Antiquity. 69, no. 266, 1995, pp. 1009-1014.
  15. ^ Donald A. White: Litus saxonicum. The British Saxon shore in scholarship and history. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Dep. of History, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison 1961, pp. 19-54.
  16. ^ John Cotterill: Saxon Raiding and the Role of the Late Roman Coastal Forts of Britain. In: Britannia 24 : 227-239 (1993).
  17. ↑ Ammianus February 18, 3: Julian: Epistulae ad Athenaion 279–280; Zosimus 3.5.2.
  18. ↑ Ammianus August 27, 7.
  19. ^ David RP Wilkinson: Excavations on the White Cliff Experience Site, Dover, 1988–1991. In: Archaeologia Cantiana. 114, 1994, pp. 51-148 (here pp. 72-73).
  20. ↑ Andrew Pearson: The Roman Shore Forts; Coastal Defenses of Southern Britain . Tempus, Stroud 2002, ISBN 0-7524-1949-8 , p. 59.
  21. ^ Barry Cunliffe: Excavations at Porchester Castle I. Roman (= Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London. 32). Thames and Hudson, London 1975, ISBN 0-500-77024-7 , p. 60.
  22. ^ Pat Southern, Karen Ramsey Dixon: The late Roman army. Batsford, London 1996, ISBN 0-7134-7047-X . Reprinted by Routledge, London 2000, ISBN 0-415-22296-6 , pp. 139-141.
  23. ^ Brian Philp: The Roman fort at Reculver. Kent Archaeological Rescue Unit, Dover 1996.
  24. ^ David RP Wilkinson: Excavations on the White Cliff Experience Site, Dover, 1988–1991. In: Archaeologia Cantiana. 114, 1994, pp. 51-148 (here pp. 76-77).
  25. ↑ Vitruvius 1, 5, 1.
  26. ↑ Andrew Pearson: The Roman Shore Forts; Coastal Defenses of Southern Britain . Tempus, Stroud 2002, ISBN 0-7524-1949-8 , p. 79.
  27. ↑ Andrew Pearson: The Roman Shore Forts; Coastal Defenses of Southern Britain . Tempus, Stroud 2002, ISBN 0-7524-1949-8 , p. 80.
  28. ↑ Digesta 50.6.7.
  29. ^ Roman Inscriptions in Britain (RIB) March 28.
  30. ^ David J. Breeze: Demand and supply on the northern frontier. In: Roger Miket, C. Burgess (Ed.): Between and Beyond the Walls. Essays on the prehistory and history of North Britain in honor of George Jobey. Edinburgh University Press 1984, pp. 265-276 (here p. 267).
  31. ^ J. Hinchliffe, CS Green: Excavations at Branchaster, 1974 and 1977 . Norfolk Museums and Archeology Service, Norwich 1985 (East Anglian Archeology Report 23).
  32. ^ D. Gurney: Burgh Castle: the Extra-mural Survey . Norfolk Archeological Unit, Dereham 1995.
  33. ^ Barry Cunliffe: Excavations at Porchester Castle I. Roman (= Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London. 32). Thames and Hudson, London 1975, ISBN 0-500-77024-7 .
  34. ^ ND Occ. XLII.
  35. ↑ Stefanie Dick: 2015, pp. 29–30.