On the Boudica thread people have raised the point about Roman Roads not being available 17 years after the invasion.
I had understood that military roads were built as a link between military establishments, so as forts / camps were built and became established (not marching camps) that the roads would have been finalised.
What I would like to ascertain is people's opinion on when roads would have been laid after an area had been conquered and occupied by the military?
Tacitus does not seem to have a problem that the Ninth could march from North Lincolnshire to Colchester, Seutonius Paulinus could march to London from Anglesey or the Second from Exeter to London.
Any thoughts?
Deryk.
It has been said in the handbook to the Roman Wall by Collingwood Bruce that Julius Agricola who was here in Britain 77/78 to 84/85 took over most of northern Britain and southern Scotland.
It goes on to say that he built many roads to create boundries to control those he had conquered in these areas, and the Roman Stanegate road has been considered to be his work said to be between Carlisle and Corbridge however I would say it went all the way from west to east coast.
As you say, military roads were built to link forts and enable rapid troop movements, so where there's a fort there would have been a road. Most roads followed pre-existing native tracks, albeit straightened. Dating the construction of these roads is difficult unless you can accurately date the establishment of the fort though.
In Britain, I think we can safely estimate the establishment of the major road network to shortly after the invasion: the army built roads as it advanced, as a means of domination and consolidation. So Watling street, for example, linking the Thames crossing at London with the garrisons around Wroxeter, would be very early. Probably too the route west from London via Silchester towards Gloucester and Exeter, following Vespasian's advance with II Augusta. The Roman habit of building roads along frontiers would suggest an early link between Gloucester and Exeter, possibly extending northwards - maybe the Fosseway.
Beyond the immediate needs of military transit, you're into a greyer area. Civilian infrastructure would have to wait until troops could be spared to do the engineering work, and this possibly did not happen for several decades after the conquest. So while Bath, for example, was an early Roman settlement the earliest remains there appear to date from the 60s or 70s, after the initial round of military expansion. The governors in the decade or so between Suetonius Paulinus and Cerealis, less concerned with the immediate needs of conquest and defence, may have put far more effort into developing the provincial road network.
Great topic Deryk, I've had to ponder this one for a while. A few years ago I had to do some work along sections of Watling Street and was surprised how narrow it was even at it's most developed. I have assumed, with no expertise whatsoever, that the alignments and forts/towers/rest stops went in fairly early on but surfacing was a patchy affair over time and availability of materials and manpower. So by 61 good routes but not by any means fully evolved/connected or fully surfaced.
I do bang on about Ray Selkirks book "On the Trail of the Legions" whilst I don't recall him discussing the timeline of construction his focus on river transport for logistics and roads for couriers does make sense and I would recommend his work to anyone interested in Roman logitics in Britain.
I'm interested in your comment;
"Tacitus does not seem to have a problem that the Ninth could march from North Lincolnshire to Colchester"
I had understood the Ninth were coming down from Longthorpe (Peterborough) which is a far shorter distance that "North Lincolnshire", have I missed something? I was assuming a route something like from Longthorpe around the extended Wash/Fens, (don't get me started on Car Dyke) crossing in the area of Cambridge, thereby delimiting the ambush site between Cambridge and Colchester, hence my interest in Bartlow.
Marix Evans has suggested that Legio II was based on Akeman Street at Bicester for a period before their move SW.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchester
Hence he rates the Paulerspury site high on the basis of Legio II's local knowledge and preferred use of Akeman St over the Fosse Way forcing the site location further south on Watling St. This is all from memory of a conversation a couple of years ago so don't take it as gospel Marix-Evans.
Sorry about the rambling, general opinion, road lines, stations established within weeks/months upgrade to highway standards, decades. Would love to hear more informed input.
Quote:Marix Evans has suggested that Legio II was based on Akeman Street at Bicester for a period before their move SW...
Very interesting - thanks! I didn't know of the vexillation camp at Alchester, nor of II Aug's presence there. That would indeed throw a new light on things, re the Grand Old Debate. I've been looking at Akeman Street a bit myself recently - some intriguing areas around Tring and Berkhamsted. I need hardly mention that it joins Watling close to St Albans, only a short distance south of... :wink:
Quote: Beyond the immediate needs of military transit, you're into a greyer area. Civilian infrastructure would have to wait until troops could be spared to do the engineering work, and this possibly did not happen for several decades after the conquest.
This was the context of my original comment when Deryk seemed to assume in the other thread that Cunetio was already established at a cross roads. Cunetio was a small fort, possibly, in the mid First Century but a large commercial centre in the mid Second.
May I ask a secondary question? How wide do people think these roads are? I live very near an almost unspoilt agger and you can just about get two people abreast on it now and probably wheeled transport in it's hey day. This road connected the potteries of South East Dorset to Salisbury, a busy TRADING route distributing Black Burnished ware, not necessarily a well used/well trodden strategic military road.
Quote:I live very near an almost unspoilt agger and you can just about get two people abreast on it now and probably wheeled transport in it's hey day.
It's quite likely the agger has been worn away at the sides over the centuries, but maybe not by much.
Casson (
Travel in the Ancient World) says that the Via Appia, one of the greatest roads in the empire, was only between eight and ten Roman feet wide - 8ft being the minimum for a two-lane highway (!). Major roads could widen to eighteen feet, and outside cities where a lot of traffic might build up they could reach thirty feet in width (when approaching Rome, for example).
But the agger itself was not the whole road - there would be broad gravel margins to either side, and most traffic probably passed along these. The paved agger itself might have been intended mainly to hold the line of the road straight and secure the gravel, rather to take the bulk of the traffic.
Even so, we'd have to conclude that most Roman road builders did not anticipate heavy traffic...
Quote: ...and secure the gravel...
May I ask what you mean by that please Nathan?
Quote:May I ask what you mean by that please Nathan?
Hmm, good question. What did I mean? :-?
Better to say, maybe, that the solid agger was a foundation for the gravel of the road itself - which as a result would be rather wider than the agger as it appears today - and perhaps also for the gravelled strips to either side. This is assuming that most Roman roads in Britain were not actually paved with stone.
There's a brief article on road construction
here with a diagram - the gravel would presumably cover both the agger, the scoop ditches (for drainage) and the berm on either side. But I could be wrong about that!
Where John has mentioned the late Raymond Selkirk I was a member of the Northern Archaeology Group that Raymond put together, and there is a Roman road that was found going off the Devils Causeway in a north west direction and this is a three lane wide thing with two grass side roads on each side of the gravel road and the grass tracks also have their outer ditches.
In all there are four ditches and overall the whole thing is in the region of 12 to 15 meters wide, animals would have used the side grass strips the graveled area for troops to march on.
Where the Dere Street goes up the west side of the Mount Cheviot this one goes up the east side also towards Scotland.
Hmm...I think the article supports more what I was saying than travelling beside the roads. Unshod horses may do so, of course, but I always assumed the agger was the base of the construction.
Just goes to show you though - you had me doubting what I thought! Perhaps we should question our assumptions a lot more! :wink:
PhilusEstilius wrote
It goes on to say that he built many roads to create boundries to control those he had conquered in these areas,
Really interesting point and probably links to the references of roads often being the "Front Line" as with the Fosse Way and Watling Street and later Watling Street West
Nathan wrote
Most roads followed pre-existing native tracks, albeit straightened.
Totally valid points. One of the reasons that I have assumed the road from Silchester through Cunetio to Avebury and then Bath was an early road although I would agree that Silchester to Cirencester was probably built first. Also Cirencester (AD45?) needed to be supplied and this meant that a link to the coast was important which is the road that crosses at Cunetio from Portchester via Winchester to Cirencester.
John 1 wrote:
river transport for logistics and roads for couriers does make sense and I would recommend his work to anyone interested in Roman logitics in Britain.
Again a valid point. Rivers were also the highways for goods. Look at the number of Legionary Bases built on or near Rivers (Colchester, Caerleon, Wroxeter, Gloucester, Lincoln, York, Chester, Exeter) I think that Roman Roads were more for the military. Of course there were roads before the Romans. Interestingly much of the soldier's goods were transported by mule or donkey.
I had understood the Ninth were coming down from Longthorpe (Peterborough) which is a far shorter distance that "North Lincolnshire", have I missed something? I was assuming a route something like from Longthorpe around the extended Wash/Fens,
The Ninth could indeed have been at Longthorpe although there is no definitive proof that they were there and they may have been at Lincoln and scattered along the Brigantian border. Either way the route down to Colchester would have been along the same lines...
I don't know your theory on Bartlow but I am fascinated as I have thought that they were ambushed at Sturmer just a few miles away - close by the Icknield Way.
Marix Evans has suggested that Legio II was based on Akeman Street at Bicester for a period before their move SW.
This is definitely a different view when it has been assumed that the Second went to Silchester and then down to Chichester and across the South and West....
I am wondering if after the initial invasion that forts not on the front line were manned by veterans. This would seem to be the point at Cirencester in AD60. I had thought that Alchester was held by the Fourteenth originally.
As an aside do we know how the military were split after AD50. The Romans seem to be very thinly spread keeping everything "bottled up", Silures, Ordovices, Brigantes etc.
Legionary camps often seem to be smaller than would be required to hold full legions (Exeter, Usk etc.) Were the Romans operating as half Legions and the Battle Groups as full Legions so they could man the forts?
Vindex wrote:
This was the context of my original comment when Deryk seemed to assume in the other thread that Cunetio was already established at a cross roads. Cunetio was a small fort, possibly, in the mid First Century but a large commercial centre in the mid Second.
It is a good point but by AD60 Bath probably had a small fort (it is on the Fosse Way and is an important link to Sea Mills at Bristol and there is a natural link along the Thames, Kennet and Avon river valleys from East to West probably used by the ancient Britains.
As Cunetio also had a Hillfort it may well have been captured by the Romans during the invasion by Vespasian.
Many thanks to you all for the inputs - excellent stuff.....
ref Bartlow I came into this blind working just from topography. Bartlow has the perfect ambush terrain, which makes you wonder why the Romans would have dragged themselves into that position, so a point for and against the site. Then you have the cluster of burial mounds largest roman burial mounds north of the Alps, all in the valley bottom, not where one would normally expect to find honorific graves which would dominate the landscape, maybe commemorative of interpretive features, built even up to a generation after the survivors. Camden says the battle took place at Wandlebury Rings, so added together I could see a day long engagement, or longer, starting at Sturmer, battling down into Bartlow and then a last stand at Wandlebury. Certainly given the proximity of the sites it is feasible, a fully geared up Legion on the march would probably be a mile or more in length so you could see the Legion being split into three or four separate engagements within a few miles of each other. All said and done I think this one will be far harder to locate than the main battle site as there would have been little or no prepared positions to find and no Tacitus to compare options to. Which is, I guess, why we are here. :?:
Hi John 1
Tacitus implies that only the cavalry were saved and that the infantry replacements for the Ninth only amounts to some 2,000 legionaries. Does this not imply that only half the Legion were fighting that day?