02-11-2007, 11:57 AM
Here's something to start a good debate ;-)
One of the only early imperial military bases with its curtain wall surviving from the base to the top of its merlon caps (at least on one side) is the Castra Praetoria in Rome. The north wall is a palimpsest, with later defences being plonked directly on top of the earlier, thus embedding the old defences within the later. Here is the CP looking towards the north wall:
![[Image: 386099714_4c9beb7a27.jpg]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/386099714_4c9beb7a27.jpg)
Richmond (before he was sent packing from Rome by the fascists) wrote a very famous article about the relationship of the CP to the Aurelian Walls in which he said of the Tiberian defences:
and here you can see what he is referring to:
![[Image: 386081120_24a6b310fd.jpg]](http://farm1.static.flickr.com/183/386081120_24a6b310fd.jpg)
When I first saw this up close and 'in the opus latericium' (so to speak) I saw something else. The string course is very obvious, but Richmond's interpretation of the battlements was doubtless influenced by a common classical tendency to show crenellations as widely spaced (you can see this on Trajan's Column and on a mosaic from Fishbourne but to me setting the merlons back from the face of the curtain wall made no sense. They also seem to be made of larger bricks than the rest of the curtain wall. What I saw instead were broad merlons with small gaps (which, defensively, make more sense as they offer more protection). You could even see that the base of each opening had been given a broad brick sill, presumably to prevent weathering of the underlying brick-faced concrete (and we must assume the merlons would be capped in a similar way - indeed, there are hints of this in places) and which, if they formed the base of a narrow merlon, would surely make it unstable if they passed all the way through.
However, every time you look at the walls you see something different (partly influenced by the different colourations of the bricks), to the point where I don't think you can really argue conclusively one way or the other, just allow for both possibilities.
I have posted more piccies of the CP (including the wonderful embedded porta principalis dextra) but our Italian colleagues (or indeed any RAT members who happen to be visiting Rome) may care to wander along to the Viale del Policlinico and puzzle it out for themselves.
So, broad merlons or narrow ones, what do you reckon?
Mike Bishop
*I.A. Richmond, 'The relation of the Praetorian Camp to Aurelian's Wall of Rome', PBSR 10, 1927, 12-22
One of the only early imperial military bases with its curtain wall surviving from the base to the top of its merlon caps (at least on one side) is the Castra Praetoria in Rome. The north wall is a palimpsest, with later defences being plonked directly on top of the earlier, thus embedding the old defences within the later. Here is the CP looking towards the north wall:
Richmond (before he was sent packing from Rome by the fascists) wrote a very famous article about the relationship of the CP to the Aurelian Walls in which he said of the Tiberian defences:
Quote:Level with an external quadruple string-course was the rampart-walk... Then came a low breastwork, provided with a coping and small battlements at every twelve feet, slightly set back on the coping and capped with big tiles. (Richmond 1927, 14)*
and here you can see what he is referring to:
When I first saw this up close and 'in the opus latericium' (so to speak) I saw something else. The string course is very obvious, but Richmond's interpretation of the battlements was doubtless influenced by a common classical tendency to show crenellations as widely spaced (you can see this on Trajan's Column and on a mosaic from Fishbourne but to me setting the merlons back from the face of the curtain wall made no sense. They also seem to be made of larger bricks than the rest of the curtain wall. What I saw instead were broad merlons with small gaps (which, defensively, make more sense as they offer more protection). You could even see that the base of each opening had been given a broad brick sill, presumably to prevent weathering of the underlying brick-faced concrete (and we must assume the merlons would be capped in a similar way - indeed, there are hints of this in places) and which, if they formed the base of a narrow merlon, would surely make it unstable if they passed all the way through.
However, every time you look at the walls you see something different (partly influenced by the different colourations of the bricks), to the point where I don't think you can really argue conclusively one way or the other, just allow for both possibilities.
I have posted more piccies of the CP (including the wonderful embedded porta principalis dextra) but our Italian colleagues (or indeed any RAT members who happen to be visiting Rome) may care to wander along to the Viale del Policlinico and puzzle it out for themselves.
So, broad merlons or narrow ones, what do you reckon?
Mike Bishop
*I.A. Richmond, 'The relation of the Praetorian Camp to Aurelian's Wall of Rome', PBSR 10, 1927, 12-22
