as an aside to the 5th Century thread....
what is the current thinking/consensus on the Saxon Shore system? Was it a defence against Saxons, a defence manned by Saxons or a mixture of the 2? And by Saxons I mean generically Germanic but happy to be corrected that it was meant specifically
Quote from: Holly on Sep 10, 2021, 12:15 PM
as an aside to the 5th Century thread....
what is the current thinking/consensus on the Saxon Shore system? Was it a defence against Saxons, a defence manned by Saxons or a mixture of the 2? And by Saxons I mean generically Germanic but happy to be corrected that it was meant specifically
There may be current thinking but I doubt there's a consensus :-[
I think we tend to be a bit provincial and forget there was another system on the coast of Gaul. Also the term seems to have been established in the 3rd century (?) which if true would mean it was a bit early to be settled by Saxons.
Also the term was used in Gaul where I doubt there were many Saxons settled.
Quote from: Jim Webster on Sep 10, 2021, 02:29 PMAlso the term was used in Gaul where I doubt there were many Saxons settled.
There were substantial Saxon settlements in Gaul at some point - Gregory of Tours mentions Saxons in Gaul under "Adovacrius" (Odovacer?) in the later 5th century and also mentions Saxons settled near Bayeux in the 6th century. But probably not as early as the third.
Quote from: Duncan Head on Sep 10, 2021, 02:55 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on Sep 10, 2021, 02:29 PMAlso the term was used in Gaul where I doubt there were many Saxons settled.
There were substantial Saxon settlements in Gaul at some point - Gregory of Tours mentions Saxons in Gaul under "Adovacrius" (Odovacer?) in the later 5th century and also mentions Saxons settled near Bayeux in the 6th century. But probably not as early as the third.
Yes it strikes me that it was the Saxon Shore before the Saxons washed up there. But it may have been an obvious area to settle Saxons (or other 'Germans') especially if there was no tribal loyalty which meant that your Saxons could be trusted to fight 'wild' Saxons
my own thought is that it's predominantly manned by saxons or rather big knife carrying barbarians. Latterly it probably adopts a dual naming reason
This may be completely wrong but...
ve
Up until the mid-third century crisis the shores of Britain and Gaul were defended by the Classis Britannica. The fleet HQ is probably Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer), because you don't want an HQ you can't communicate with. At some point during the third century this fleet disappears.
Once the dust had settled a new defensive strategy is adopted. Maintaining a permanent fleet sufficient to defend the coasts of Britain and Gaul is too expensive/difficult ... so a series of forts are built instead, garrisoned by border troops. The system is cheaper - you need fewer ships. But the problem is that Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks or whoever is the threat have a lot more freedom to sail down the coastline. When the threat gets too great a fleet is built, but after a few years it falls into decay again as attention (and budgets) are focused elsewhere.
Into the fifth century, Britain is left to its own devices. Any remaining garrisons either become fishermen/farmers or are mercenaries extorting resources from the local populace to defend them, which in the fifth century is probably the definition of a ruling class.
Richard
Quote from: Duncan Head on Sep 10, 2021, 02:55 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on Sep 10, 2021, 02:29 PMAlso the term was used in Gaul where I doubt there were many Saxons settled.
There were substantial Saxon settlements in Gaul at some point - Gregory of Tours mentions Saxons in Gaul under "Adovacrius" (Odovacer?) in the later 5th century and also mentions Saxons settled near Bayeux in the 6th century. But probably not as early as the third.
Of course, Ammianus is happy justifying the deceitful massacre of Saxon raiders on the Gallic coast in the fourth century - which does not in itself preclude settlements per se, but does suggest an attitude of extermination rather than integration.
although this position changes quite quickly depending on the circumstances
Quote from: Holly on Sep 10, 2021, 07:01 PM
although this position changes quite quickly depending on the circumstances
In both directions, as with Stilicho and his followers
exactly, political expediency
Quote from: lionheartrjc on Sep 10, 2021, 05:25 PM
This may be completely wrong but...
ve
Up until the mid-third century crisis the shores of Britain and Gaul were defended by the Classis Britannica. The fleet HQ is probably Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer), because you don't want an HQ you can't communicate with. At some point during the third century this fleet disappears.
Once the dust had settled a new defensive strategy is adopted. Maintaining a permanent fleet sufficient to defend the coasts of Britain and Gaul is too expensive/difficult ... so a series of forts are built instead, garrisoned by border troops. The system is cheaper - you need fewer ships. But the problem is that Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks or whoever is the threat have a lot more freedom to sail down the coastline. When the threat gets too great a fleet is built, but after a few years it falls into decay again as attention (and budgets) are focused elsewhere.
Into the fifth century, Britain is left to its own devices. Any remaining garrisons either become fishermen/farmers or are mercenaries extorting resources from the local populace to defend them, which in the fifth century is probably the definition of a ruling class.
Richard
To what extent could you actually defend a long coastline with a fleet in Roman times? Ships didn't have spotter planes or radar in those days, so easiest thing in the world for large party of raiders to slip past any friendly ships, land where they liked, pull their boats up onto the shore where the coastal ships couldn't get them, leave a substantial guard, and raid at their leisure. Coastal ships would help to a certain extent against small-scale raiding perhaps (easy to overwhelm the guard), but they were especially useful as a logistics support for an army marching up the coast. Once the Romans gave up offensive operations in Belgium and Scotland the need for a fleet would largely disappear, especially if there wasn't much coastal raiding going on then either.
From this perspective, the Classis Britannica was scrapped because it no longer served any purpose. Against the large scale raiding and even invasions of the 4th century the only effective countermeasure would be coastal fortifications.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 10, 2021, 08:05 PM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on Sep 10, 2021, 05:25 PM
This may be completely wrong but...
ve
Up until the mid-third century crisis the shores of Britain and Gaul were defended by the Classis Britannica. The fleet HQ is probably Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer), because you don't want an HQ you can't communicate with. At some point during the third century this fleet disappears.
Once the dust had settled a new defensive strategy is adopted. Maintaining a permanent fleet sufficient to defend the coasts of Britain and Gaul is too expensive/difficult ... so a series of forts are built instead, garrisoned by border troops. The system is cheaper - you need fewer ships. But the problem is that Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks or whoever is the threat have a lot more freedom to sail down the coastline. When the threat gets too great a fleet is built, but after a few years it falls into decay again as attention (and budgets) are focused elsewhere.
Into the fifth century, Britain is left to its own devices. Any remaining garrisons either become fishermen/farmers or are mercenaries extorting resources from the local populace to defend them, which in the fifth century is probably the definition of a ruling class.
Richard
To what extent could you actually defend a long coastline with a fleet in Roman times? Ships didn't have spotter planes or radar in those days, so easiest thing in the world for large party of raiders to slip past any friendly ships, land where they liked, pull their boats up onto the shore where the coastal ships couldn't get them, leave a substantial guard, and raid at their leisure. Coastal ships would help to a certain extent against small-scale raiding perhaps (easy to overwhelm the guard), but they were especially useful as a logistics support for an army marching up the coast. Once the Romans gave up offensive operations in Belgium and Scotland the need for a fleet would largely disappear, especially if there wasn't much coastal raiding going on then either.
From this perspective, the Classis Britannica was scrapped because it no longer served any purpose. Against the large scale raiding and even invasions of the 4th century the only effective countermeasure would be coastal fortifications.
and defence in depth
Quote from: Holly on Sep 10, 2021, 08:07 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 10, 2021, 08:05 PM
Quote from: lionheartrjc on Sep 10, 2021, 05:25 PM
This may be completely wrong but...
ve
Up until the mid-third century crisis the shores of Britain and Gaul were defended by the Classis Britannica. The fleet HQ is probably Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer), because you don't want an HQ you can't communicate with. At some point during the third century this fleet disappears.
Once the dust had settled a new defensive strategy is adopted. Maintaining a permanent fleet sufficient to defend the coasts of Britain and Gaul is too expensive/difficult ... so a series of forts are built instead, garrisoned by border troops. The system is cheaper - you need fewer ships. But the problem is that Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks or whoever is the threat have a lot more freedom to sail down the coastline. When the threat gets too great a fleet is built, but after a few years it falls into decay again as attention (and budgets) are focused elsewhere.
Into the fifth century, Britain is left to its own devices. Any remaining garrisons either become fishermen/farmers or are mercenaries extorting resources from the local populace to defend them, which in the fifth century is probably the definition of a ruling class.
Richard
To what extent could you actually defend a long coastline with a fleet in Roman times? Ships didn't have spotter planes or radar in those days, so easiest thing in the world for large party of raiders to slip past any friendly ships, land where they liked, pull their boats up onto the shore where the coastal ships couldn't get them, leave a substantial guard, and raid at their leisure. Coastal ships would help to a certain extent against small-scale raiding perhaps (easy to overwhelm the guard), but they were especially useful as a logistics support for an army marching up the coast. Once the Romans gave up offensive operations in Belgium and Scotland the need for a fleet would largely disappear, especially if there wasn't much coastal raiding going on then either.
From this perspective, the Classis Britannica was scrapped because it no longer served any purpose. Against the large scale raiding and even invasions of the 4th century the only effective countermeasure would be coastal fortifications.
and defence in depth
That too.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on Sep 10, 2021, 08:05 PM
To what extent could you actually defend a long coastline with a fleet in Roman times? Ships didn't have spotter planes or radar in those days, so easiest thing in the world for large party of raiders to slip past any friendly ships, land where they liked, pull their boats up onto the shore where the coastal ships couldn't get them, leave a substantial guard, and raid at their leisure. Coastal ships would help to a certain extent against small-scale raiding perhaps (easy to overwhelm the guard), but they were especially useful as a logistics support for an army marching up the coast. Once the Romans gave up offensive operations in Belgium and Scotland the need for a fleet would largely disappear, especially if there wasn't much coastal raiding going on then either.
From this perspective, the Classis Britannica was scrapped because it no longer served any purpose. Against the large scale raiding and even invasions of the 4th century the only effective countermeasure would be coastal fortifications.
It is interesting that the fleet just 'disappears' and there appears to be no contemporary explanation. Or even a modern consensus.
Other standing fleets do seem to disappear about the same time, and perhaps in the late 3rd century, there wasn't the money to maintain it, and most of the men had been taken into the legions anyway?
So as Justin says, the cost-benefit wasn't enough to replace them?
keeping a fleet going is expensive in terms of money and manpower and the 4th century is the main melting pot for change in Britain
Quote from: Holly on Sep 10, 2021, 08:50 PM
keeping a fleet going is expensive in terms of money and manpower and the 4th century is the main melting pot for change in Britain
The fleet would have been scrapped only because there was no longer any use for it. I doubt it was just about money - that would explain a smaller fleet but not its complete disappearance. Something else changed in the mid-200s. I suspect a complete abandonment of an imperial offensive policy (requiring a support fleet for the army) plus the annihilation of the lowland Scottish tribes by Severus (no more raiding by them) would go a long way towards explaining it.
of course, definitely part of it. Trouble is, once you disband something its a real bugger to reraise it in terms of cost and training so a bit both I suspect
The trouble with fleets is that they rot. Thus, there might be a fleet of fifty ships with ten ships needing renewal or major works every gear. If the money runs out to repair and replace ships and pay crews it declines in five years into a ten ship core which is too small to cover the task and so becomes a victim of the declining budget. Military units likewise decline quite quickly once the pay stops coming. At least with the army one can convert the soldiers to farmers who can supply themselves ( Thats what foederati do). However a fleet cannot easily convert unless you can dragoon trading vessels into serving. No doubt Holly's fleet does not patrol in the mackerel season😀
Roy
What is interesting about the Saxon Shore forts is their size. These things are huge. Porchester castle is inside one, its a reasonable sized castle, enough to hold a garrison and protect a squadron of ships. Burgh castle would need a large number of men to garrison it and there are several down each coast. The Romans could and on the Danube did, build smaller forts . to support ships.
Perhaps its a matter of hosting cavalry units, though I don't think archaeology insude these large enclosyres particularly supports that.
Why so big?
Roy
a good question re size. Possibly part of it was outward showing of power and part of it was the ability to act like a later Saxon Burgh whereby if things got desperate, they were a staging post and rallying point for retaking invaded areas....?
a single book can be very dangerous....
Quote from: Holly on Sep 11, 2021, 10:25 AM
a single book can be very dangerous....
It can but sometimes somebody writes one and that becomes the one you have to disprove 8)
Quote from: Holly on Sep 11, 2021, 09:08 AM
a good question re size. Possibly part of it was outward showing of power and part of it was the ability to act like a later Saxon Burgh whereby if things got desperate, they were a staging post and rallying point for retaking invaded areas....?
A couple of possibilities are they were designed as military communities from the start, so would be expected to have families etc. within them, not just soldiers. Another possibility is they were thinly staffed forward operating bases for mobile units stationed elsewhere. Have the interiors of many of them been dug? I know with some it is difficult because they actually have a long period of continuous use which has messed with the earlier archaeology.
Quote from: Erpingham on Sep 11, 2021, 12:13 PM
Quote from: Holly on Sep 11, 2021, 09:08 AM
a good question re size. Possibly part of it was outward showing of power and part of it was the ability to act like a later Saxon Burgh whereby if things got desperate, they were a staging post and rallying point for retaking invaded areas....?
A couple of possibilities are they were designed as military communities from the start, so would be expected to have families etc. within them, not just soldiers. Another possibility is they were thinly staffed forward operating bases for mobile units stationed elsewhere. Have the interiors of many of them been dug? I know with some it is difficult because they actually have a long period of continuous use which has messed with the earlier archaeology.
I've heard some suggest that some of them were for warehousing supplies brought in (or taken out) by sea.
One problem with a large perimeter is that it takes more men to defend it, so I think we have to ask whether the walls were to keep out 'inquisitive children, straying livestock etc' or whether they were a serious fortification which expected it might have to face a siege. If it is the latter than it has to be assumed there would be men based there.
The enceinte on these forts is from 700 to 900 metres. Tgat's a lot if men for a Late Roman unit if say Limitanei, but more manageable if you can count on supplying locals from the hinterland.
There have been digs at these sites, but only Portchester has been published, a common frustration with archaeology.
Roy
Quote from: Jim Webster on Sep 11, 2021, 12:22 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on Sep 11, 2021, 12:13 PM
Quote from: Holly on Sep 11, 2021, 09:08 AM
a good question re size. Possibly part of it was outward showing of power and part of it was the ability to act like a later Saxon Burgh whereby if things got desperate, they were a staging post and rallying point for retaking invaded areas....?
A couple of possibilities are they were designed as military communities from the start, so would be expected to have families etc. within them, not just soldiers. Another possibility is they were thinly staffed forward operating bases for mobile units stationed elsewhere. Have the interiors of many of them been dug? I know with some it is difficult because they actually have a long period of continuous use which has messed with the earlier archaeology.
I've heard some suggest that some of them were for warehousing supplies brought in (or taken out) by sea.
One problem with a large perimeter is that it takes more men to defend it, so I think we have to ask whether the walls were to keep out 'inquisitive children, straying livestock etc' or whether they were a serious fortification which expected it might have to face a siege. If it is the latter than it has to be assumed there would be men based there.
I've seen the theory that they were used to store grain exports for the army in Gaul. Such exports were real enough and nearer Britannia, if you know what I mean, was very fertile. There might be something to it.
it makes sense on a few fronts. multiuse sites - depots, strongpoints, operating bases, rally points and visible deterrents
Quote from: Holly on Sep 11, 2021, 06:28 PM
it makes sense on a few fronts. multiuse sites - depots, strongpoints, operating bases, rally points and visible deterrents
The problem is, when you're building the damned thing, there is a cost, which is obviously larger if it's bigger. So even if the main cost is man-hours etc, you're going to have a good use in mind for the space. If other things come along later, that's fine.
I'd say that if they were visible deterrents they'd be made particularly imposing. I suppose you could do a lot with whitewash which of course has long gone.
I think if we go for depot and operating bases, we get 'strong point' and 'rally point' thrown in free by the very nature of the place being there :)
with maybe some encouragement for local curiales to contribute....
I could buy the grain collection storage theory if there were not so many forts and they on both sides of the channel and so big. If the army wanted to ship grain in quantity then it would make sense to move it by smaller boats to Dover and then convoy across to Boulogne. A fort at Pevensey would be sub optimal and one at Porchester , whilst good for grain collection, would be a long way for the Saxons to come raiding for bulk goods. In fact I cannot think that Saxons would come raiding for basic foodstuffs rather than hitting the coastal villas for metals, precious and common, slaves and perhaps wine and oil.
Roy
Quote from: Holly on Sep 11, 2021, 07:07 PM
with maybe some encouragement for local curiales to contribute....
From memory, didn't the Emperor tend to contribute towards the costs of walling cities? Or was that a lot earlier?
Certainly I could see them being asked to supply labour, and carting stone
bit of both
Is therevany evidence the SS forts were cities?
Roy
Quote from: aligern on Sep 12, 2021, 11:29 AM
Is therevany evidence the SS forts were cities?
Roy
My guess is that strategic geography determined their placing which meant some (Dover) were near cities, others weren't. I don't think any became cities afterwards
Agreed, so the likelihood is tgat the army built them. Simon Elliott's book on the Classis Britannica makes it clear that the Army was something like the PLA and ran businesses in a vertically integrated operation, so they would be mining stone and chopping wood for themselves and making tiles. The combined wall length of the SS forts is about 7km so it isn't a case of building Hadrian's wall!
Roy
forgot about Simon's book on the subject of the CB....might get it
Quote from: aligern on Sep 12, 2021, 04:03 PM
Agreed, so the likelihood is tgat the army built them. Simon Elliott's book on the Classis Britannica makes it clear that the Army was something like the PLA and ran businesses in a vertically integrated operation, so they would be mining stone and chopping wood for themselves and making tiles. The combined wall length of the SS forts is about 7km so it isn't a case of building Hadrian's wall!
Roy
Simon also thinks they may have been built by Carausius as an intra Roman security measure during his break from the Empire. If so, he had the work force to hand and already paid for as you say.
Quote from: Anton on Sep 13, 2021, 02:33 PM
Quote from: aligern on Sep 12, 2021, 04:03 PM
Agreed, so the likelihood is tgat the army built them. Simon Elliott's book on the Classis Britannica makes it clear that the Army was something like the PLA and ran businesses in a vertically integrated operation, so they would be mining stone and chopping wood for themselves and making tiles. The combined wall length of the SS forts is about 7km so it isn't a case of building Hadrian's wall!
Roy
Simon also thinks they may have been built by Carausius as an intra Roman security measure during his break from the Empire. If so, he had the work force to hand and already paid for as you say.
He's not the only one. I'm sure some of the timbers have been dated to his reign by tree ring analysis
Quote from: Jim Webster on Sep 13, 2021, 06:14 PMHe's not the only one. I'm sure some of the timbers have been dated to his reign by tree ring analysis
For instance, TREE-RING ANALYSIS OF ROMAN PILES FROM PEVENSEY CASTLE, EAST SUSSEX (https://research.historicengland.org.uk/PrintReport.aspx?i=4641&ru=%2FResults.aspx%3Fn%3D10%26p%3D675) - "The timbers were probably felled in the period AD 280-300", and Carausius r.286–293.
Quote from: Duncan Head on Sep 13, 2021, 07:47 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on Sep 13, 2021, 06:14 PMHe's not the only one. I'm sure some of the timbers have been dated to his reign by tree ring analysis
For instance, TREE-RING ANALYSIS OF ROMAN PILES FROM PEVENSEY CASTLE, EAST SUSSEX (https://research.historicengland.org.uk/PrintReport.aspx?i=4641&ru=%2FResults.aspx%3Fn%3D10%26p%3D675) - "The timbers were probably felled in the period AD 280-300", and Carausius r.286–293.
Yes, that's the ones :)
There again, the amount of second hand timber I've used in my time, I could probably be charged with crimes against archaeology :-[