Roman camps UK - is there a database or list?

[Steve Kaye]

Nathan,

Roth's work is a wonderful source of information, with many references to ancient writers, and I have used some information in the book but not that related to water requirements.

I'm going to reply to each of your points in turn. By the way, I'm assuming that your points are raised in relation to legionary operations in Britain, the use of Silchester wells by legionaries and, of course, my study on water use and supply.

Roman armies digging wells on campaign, noting that although it was 'an exhausting job', it was certainly done when necessary

Absolutely right - 'when necessary' - which, I submit, is not the case in southern Britain with its many rivers, when on campaign and when marching away from an advancing horde of Brits (Boudica). And, even in peace-time in Britain, why would a Roman legion dig wells when marching (for example in Silchester)? It's not necessary. When is it necessary, when in extremis? Such as, when in arid areas (Syria, Spain, etc.) or when cut-off from water supplies by the enemy.

Appian, in fact, 'considered water from freshly-dug wells to be superior to that from rivers'

Would be true for most new wells dug into fresh ground except when striking, for example, alkaline deposits. It would not be true for a fresh well dug into somewhere like Silchester where the water-table was polluted. However, I do concede that the density of overlapping wells and latrines, that Amanda Clarke refers to when discussing the Silchester's end, would not pertain in the 1st century.

Roth also mentions the danger of an enemy polluting river sources, which suggests the important of siting a camp between the enemy and the source of the water supply.

Absolutely correct. Which is why in my Boudica study there are very few possible battle sites where the river flows towards the Romans and any that do remain have been down-weighted as a result. But, flip the prospect of the enemy polluting a river the other way around: did the Romans waiting for Boudica pollute the river that flowed away from them? From my water/logistics piece:-

"The Boudican horde needed a supply of at least 0.05cumecs if, having already passed through Roman lines, the river supplying water was flowing towards them. Clearly this situation would strain the horde, not least because it is possible, even probable, that the Romans would interfere with the supply and maybe pollute it with their effluent. Consequently a normalised value of 0 is nominally the most advantageous to the rebels, but may not have been in practice. This consequence has not been calculated, or allowed for, but should be borne in mind when examining each battle site."

Interestingly, in the same chapter Roth gives the minimum water ration as 2 litres per man per day - considerably less than the 9 suggested by Steve in his essay*, and a lot less indeed than the 12 apparently needed by modern troops! If this statistic is right, would it not considerably alter the calculations for Roman water requirements?

If the statistic was right then it would result in there being little water supply problems for either Romans or Brits (I'm generalising, not having done the calculations.) Actually, what Roth writes is, "Each and every member of the army required a minimum of two liters of water per man per day, in addition to the two liters a day consumed through food and absorbed by breathing air" (p.119). You've missed the significance of 'in addition' which brings Roth's total to at least 4litres/man/day. Figures on inhaled water-vapour are hard to find but seem to range between 0.25-0.5litres/day (for obvious reasons they are very variable). So that brings Roth's figures to 4.5litres/man/day. But this is still too low, probably because Roth is relying on his external references. For the avoidance of doubt,I am not criticising Roth at all.

Roth's problem was the same as mine when I started the water study. Namely, there are many sources for figures on the daily water requirements for men but what do they mean and was there any scientific measuring? For a legionary we need a figure that relates to a man carrying approx. 44kg (clothing, armour, arms and pack etc.), walking 29km/day, in a temperate climate in Summer, walking on a hard surface, stopping at the end of the day and then digging ditches, ramparts, and then patrolling the camp wall in his turn. Of course I'm leaving out details here. And, for Suetonius' legionaries, probably fighting the occasional skirmish. Now repeat that for day-after-day.

Therefore I decided to base my figures on modern, scientific, military sources - mostly the US Army because it publishes its figures.

Heat Stress Control and Heat Casualty Management, HQ Depart. of Army and Air Force, 2003 is one such document. In it is a chart (page 13) which relates temperature, work rate and water requirement for the modern soldier. From that we can safely assume that the legionary described above would have done 'Hard Work' (march at 3.5mph = 5.63km/hr, etc.) for which the chart recommends 1 USqt/hr (= 0.946353 litres). This equates to 4.86 litres/legionary/day. Actually, our legionary is working harder because he carries 44kg (90lbs) while the chart only specifies a load weight of =>40lbs. Actually this apparent disparity in the meaning of weight carried is common and plagues such studies. For some reason there is not a common approach which does make comparisons between studies very difficult. Anyway, our naked legionary carried a load of 44kg.

In the same document are tables relating work-rate (kcal/day), temperature and the water requirements (p.20-21, see image below). The legionary would probably have expended at least 4,500kcal/day while marching which, at a temperature of 25C, gives a daily, total water requirement of 10 USqts (9.46353 litres/legionary/day). I would argue that the legionary probably expended 5,500kcal/day which equates to a need for 12 USqts/day (11.3562 litres). Either way, from looking at the chart you can see why a figure of 9 litres/legionary/day would be perfectly feasible for a temperature range of 20-25C and a work rate of 4500-5500kcal/day.


[attachment=4816]work-rate-water.JPG[/attachment]


But there is a problem, because all I've written of so far is just about the water requirement while marching, i.e. what goes down a soldier's throat: it doesn't include that needed for food preparation, cleaning and sundry other needs.

For that we can turn to the US Armies, 2008, Water Planning Guide. Briefly, this guide estimates the minimum and sustaining water requirements (everything = total water requirement) of soldiers in temperate climates. The sustaining rate is 19.9 litres/day and the minimum is 12.18.

On sustaining and minimum requirements the document says:-

'Minimum factors are based on The Surgeon General’s recommendation of one shower and 7.2 pounds of laundry per week, shaving(males) and brushing teeth once per day, washing hands three times per day, and sponge bathing five times per week. The Army goal is two
showers and 15 pounds of laundry per week. Sustaining factors are based the Army goal of one shower and one field expedient shower and 15 pounds of laundry per week, shaving (males) once per day, brushing teeth three times per day, washing hands six times per day, and sponge bathing five times per week.'

Interesting that the US Army feels it necessary to stipulate that the 'shaving' relates to males only!

Now some of that activity our legionary will have indulged in but probably not to the same extent and, in Britain, he would have used streams and rivers for bathing etc., not water collected and then transported to him. He was undoubtedly a much tougher individual than the ordinary, modern soldier; very fit, trained to withstand repeated daily marches of 29km and probably very capable of maintaining his health and fitness on less water than the modern equivalent. Which is why I use a figure of 9 litres/legionary/day for his total water requirements (also remember this figure matches the work-rate calculations covered above).

Could a legionary cope with less than 9 litres/day? Probably, but not for long before his effectiveness would have been reduced (I'll spare you the references and details on the effects of dehydration). And surely, Suetonius would not have stressed his troops more than was immediately necessary to extricate them from a disaster. Of course, in my essay I put forward the idea that S. fully understood the need for water and used this knowledge to weaken his enemies by leading them into water-poor regions.

In summary, 9 litres/legionary/day over the length of a long campaign is a reasonable figure and errs on the side of caution.

Regards, Steve Kaye