Where did they keep the mules in garrison?

[M. Demetrius]

Hear, hear! Well said, Duncan.

[Paullus Scipio]

Hear, hear! Well said, Duncan.

Yes indeed, fine sounding words…..if only they were the unvarnished truth without “spin”, which they are not…

D. Campbell wrote:

Archaeology marches on, expanding our knowledge and challenging assumptions from 20 or 30 years ago. I'm sure most people realise that knowledge expands with continuing research.

..but not in the case of Roman Forts to any great degree. Over 450 Roman forts etc have been excavated ,usually in part, and almost all the “big questions” have been answered long ago, so far as archaeology can answer them, ( and of course archaeology has severe limitations e.g. from just foundations it is difficult to determine whether a granary, for example, stood one or two stories high. The finding of a woman’s hair comb in a barracks tells us nothing about whether women lived there or not). Of course, every fort excavated is unique, and adds something to our knowledge, but not so as to affect the “big picture”. Any new breakthroughs in our overall knowledge will depend on some new outstanding/revolutionary discovery, or radically new archaeological technique/technical advance.

The horses-in-barracks was probably the main thing that I wanted to emphasize -- handbooks like Johnson's, that you might find in your local library, pre-date this discovery.

…that is a surprising, and incorrect, statement, especially since Johnson’s work is referred to in your ‘further reading/bibliography’, so presumably you are familiar with it and drew on it to produce your own booklet. In the work I mentioned she refers to combined barracks/stables at the late fourth century fort at Brough-on-Noe. She also refers to the combined barrack/stable at the second century Fort at Dormagen in Germany ( which reference is repeated in your own work), and provides plans of the adjoining back-to-back rooms, one containing a hearth and the other a drainage pit…. and those are but two examples.

Furthermore, the existence of such combined barracks/stables was noted in the stone buildings of the forts and fortresses at Numantia over a hundred years ago by Schulten, so this “new” discovery is at least that old !

Incidently, one slightly misleading aspect of your work, doubtless a result of it’s brevity due to the constraints of the format, is to suggest “…the consequences are clear: Roman cavalrymen routinely shared accommodation with their mounts.”
Of relevance to the subject of this thread is that in fact, in the majority of permanent forts so far excavated, where stables can be identified, they are separate, though sometimes found facing a barrack block ( e.g. the Claudian fort at Valkenburg). The variety of arrangements in each fort is remarkable – clearly there were no ‘standard’ plans, and whilst certain principles were followed at any given period, the shape, size, and interior arrangements could depend on many factors. Johnson explains in detail the difficulties of identifying stable blocks.

Another is the role of fort annexes -- Johnson didn't even mention these important features, which may be relevant to a discussion of where any livestock could be corralled. (And while we're reviewing Johnson, she skims over the bathhouse in three paragraphs, one diagram and one photo -- I think this interesting structure deserves a longer discussion; and I think her explanation of the niches at Chesters is wrong in any case.)

…I'm afraid this is incorrect also. Johnson mentions the fact that in many cases the cavalry mounts and pack animals may well have been corralled outside the fort. There is a short chapter on External Structures such as the Parade ground and Bath-house, as you have pointed out. The reason for this is that, as Johnson herself says in her introduction, the subject is far too big to cover in one 370 page book, and hence her work is necessarily “very selective” – and she concentrates on the forts themselves. ( so what chance a 62 page booklet? However excellent, it can only be an introduction to a vast subject, as Jona says – especially with its digression into Bath-houses taking up four of its 60 odd pages ! ) Surprisingly too, there is no mention in your book that I can recall of the so-called 'vexillation forts' - Auxiliary type forts which contained a mixed garrison of legionaries and auxiliaries ( e.g. Hod Hill, which probably had a mixed garrison of legionaries and auxiliary cavalry at one time), nor auxiliary forts for specialist purposes, such as supply bases or workshop forts - but the format and lack of space are doubtless the problem.

On this subject, the answers to the question posed by this thread, and references to outside accommodation for animals are to be found in a paper by C.M. Wells in another “out-of-date” publication; “Where did they put the horses? Cavalry stables in the Early Empire” Limes: Akten des XI Internationalen Limeskongresses ( Budapest 1977) – and if anyone has access to this paper, I would be delighted to hear from them.

And another "up-to-date" topic, especially as our female colleagues become more interested in what has always been a male-dominated subject, might be whether there were women in Roman forts; Johnson never mentions this.

Er…….also incorrect. Her references to women (and children) being present in Forts is more extensive than your own – she mentions the possibility that centurions may have used their ample accommodation to house families, not just the commanders, for instance. She also discusses the sad inscription of Aurelius Julianus, the garrison commander at Birdoswald Fort, recording the death of his infant son, only a year old and the finds of women’s shoes, all echoed in your own work.

Inevitably, the bulk of our knowledge of forts comes from Britain and Germany, with over a century of research in these countries. The Osprey book has tried to integrate more recent discoveries from (e.g.) Hungary and Rumania, which are more difficult to research (as explained on p. 62). And of course Johnson never touched these, nor the splendid forts of Jordan and north Africa, that fall beyond the scope of her book. But these are all elements that go towards creating an authoritative and up-to-date overview, and have perhaps been overlooked by people who haven't given the subject much thought, or who are more comfortable with the out-of-date researches of the 1980s.

Oh dear! ….this is also incorrect. Johnson’s scope is restricted to Forts in Roman Britain and Germany in the first and second centuries AD, half the scope of yours.
Nevertheless she does discuss aspects of other areas – such as North Africa – Lambaesis is referred to a number of times, Assouan on the Nile is mentioned, as well as Dura Europos and many others in Austria and Hungary etc.

As I implied with my joke about 'renovations', the work of previous scholars is not 'out-of-date' - AFIK nothing radical has surfaced in the meantime ( certainly if your 'up-to-date overview' is anything to go by,) and this 'up-to-date' claim is mere advertising, since your book does not bring up anything new in the broadest sense, and indeed "later" Auxiliary forts get only a page or so. I am surprised too that you denigrate her work, the more so since you clearly drew upon it ( your further reading and bibliography, and use of same examples etc) for your own work.

And if you regard works of the 1980's as "out-of-date" researches, what are we to make of the fact that your first recommendation in your 'further reading' on the subject of Auxiliaries is G.L. Cheesman's book from 1914 ? :lol: :lol:

I guess there are always those who will judge a book by its cover, by its publisher or by its size, when really they should read it before passing judgement.

I have indeed read your book, as should have been obvious from my earlier post, ( it doesn't take long, after all! ) and would endorse Jona's comment as per that post. As to content, I do indeed prefer the in-depth and more detailed book to an introductory booklet, however good. It certainly provides more information on where animals were kept, and the various kinds of stables, as well as the barrack/stables your booklet refers to. Nor do I " pass judgement" on any particular work. All have their own virtues, but quite obviously a large book will contain more information than a short booklet, and comparison of the two is to compare apples and pears.

Perhaps in the light of all your errors regarding Johnson's work, you should take your own advice and "read it before passing judgement", if only to be fair to one whose work you acknowledge drawing on.

But it is time to draw a veil over the mention of relevant books (getting off-topic) - and we must not break RAT rules regarding Advertising, must we ? :wink: ...........though of course I have no drum by way of commercial interest to bang..... :lol: :lol:

[D B Campbell]

But it is time to draw a veil over the mention of relevant books (getting off-topic) ...

After such a lengthy -- and mean-spirited -- critique, I sincerely hope that you wouldn't deny me the right of reply. Of course, I shall restrict myself to correcting errors of fact (as authors are usually advised never to reply to their reviewers).

... almost all the “big questions” have been answered long ago, so far as archaeology can answer them, ...

I wonder why archaeologists continue to excavate? I guess they should take your advice and pack up their trowels.

Of course, every fort excavated is unique, and adds something to our knowledge, ...

Ah, so that's why archaeologists continue to excavate.

... but not so as to affect the “big picture”.

Oh dear. Pack up the trowels, after all. Paul McDonall-Staff has the big picture.

Any new breakthroughs in our overall knowledge will depend on some new discovery, or radically new archaeological technique.

Now I'm confused. One minute, archaeologists are surplus to requirements. The next, they're not. One minute, we have our big picture. The next, we don't. One minute, all of our questions have been answered. The next, they haven't, and we're waiting for "some new discovery". It would be really helpful if, rather than posting lengthy, mean-spirited sermons, you just figured out what you meant to say, and then said it (as concisely as possible, please).

... Johnson’s work is referred to in your ‘further reading/bibliography’, so presumably you are familiar with it and drew on it to produce your own booklet.

Two points to correct here. First, the Further Reading section in an Osprey book is meant to be just that: recommendations where the interested reader can get supplementary information. So your assumption that I "drew on it to produce my own booklet" is incorrect. Second, Johnson's book does not appear in my Further Reading section, so (again) your assumption that I "drew on it to produce my own booklet" is incorrect.

In the work I mentioned she refers to combined barracks/stables at the late fourth century fort at Brough-on-Noe. She also refers to the combined barrack/stable at the second century Fort at Dormagen in Germany ( which reference is repeated in your own work), and provides plans of the adjoining back-to-back rooms, one containing a hearth and the other a drainage pit…. and those are but two examples.

One major point to correct here. For the benefit of the dwindling number of readers who have managed to stick with this thread as it drifts ever further from mules, we should really point out that Johnson had no idea about horses in cavalry barracks. Nor did anyone in 1983. But, archaeology (as you seem intent on denying) marches on, and more recent excavations (thank goodness archaeologists didn't have your negative outlook, otherwise there would be no more excavations) demonstrated that cavalry accommodation was actually shared with the horses.

I'm sure you didn't mean to make me look silly, but from that last paragraph of yours, readers may get the idea that Johnson had already discussed combined barracks-stables. Of course, she hadn't. That's one of the new, up-to-date ideas in the Osprey book, only made possible by recent excavations at Wallsend. (Thank goodness you haven't had all the archaeologists shot, yet.)

Of relevance to the subject of this thread is that in fact, in the majority of permanent forts so far excavated, where stables can be identified, they are separate, though sometimes found facing a barrack block ( e.g. the Claudian fort at Valkenburg).

Another major correction required here. You would perhaps have realised your own error if you had tried to quantify that statement. In the majority of permanent forts? Really? You cited Valkenburg as one of these, so you may be interested to know the basis on which many people claim that a stable was found there: no, it's not phosphate analysis, because that's a relatively modern technique unknown in the days of more out-of-date works (like Johnson's); no, it's not the soakaway pits, of the type that I mention in the Osprey book, because these weren't noticed during older, more out-of-date excavations. In fact, it's -- you'll love this -- the presence of a trough lying outside one of the "barracks".

Again, I'm sure you didn't mean to make me look silly, but from that last paragraph of yours, readers may get the idea that forts are teeming with stables, and I've been less than vigilant in my researches. Maybe, in the interests of balance, you should tell us how many times a stable has been found in a Roman fort?

Another is the role of fort annexes -- Johnson didn't even mention these important features, which may be relevant to a discussion of where any livestock could be corralled.

…I'm afraid this is incorrect also. Johnson mentions the fact that in many cases the cavalry mounts and pack animals may well have been corralled outside the fort.

One correction here. I said that Johnson doesn't mention annexes. You said that I'm a liar ... oops, you said that that was incorrect. Guess what: I was right, no annexes. To be fair, since you're not an archaeologist (and seem to have a poor opinion of archaeologists, into the bargain), you perhaps are unaware that there is a well-established archaeological feature known (somewhat vaguely) as a fort annexe. When I dusted down my copy of Johnson (last opened in 1983 and consigned shortly thereafter to a box in the loft), I see that her index has no entries for annexe (the word that I used) or corral (the word that you used). I next checked her Chapter 7 ("External Structures") -- I thought it might be there, as its definitely "external"! -- but no, just five pages on parade grounds and two pages on the bathhouse. What next? There's no index entry for "mules", and the entry for "horses" says "see stables", so I did. Maybe I'm just no good at reading -- after all, I'm really a writer. But I simply cannot find any reference whatsoever to corralling horses outside forts. Maybe you could give us a page ref? (I know you're always keen on giving page refs.)

There is no mention in your book that I can recall of the so-called 'vexillation forts' - Auxiliary type forts which contained a mixed garrison of legionaries and auxiliaries ( e.g. Hod Hill, which probably had a mixed garrison of legionaries and auxiliary cavalry at one time), nor auxiliary forts for specialist purposes, such as supply bases or workshop forts - but the format and lack of space are doubtless the problem.

Interesting. So "vexillation forts" are "auxiliary-type forts" -- what's an "auxiliary-type" fort, Paul? Supply bases? Workshop forts? You've really got my interest, now. So, what are the references for all these "specialist" forts?

On this subject, the answers to the question posed by this thread, and references to outside accommodation for animals are to be found in a paper by C.M. Wells in another “out-of-date” publication; “Where did they put the horses? Cavalry stables in the Early Empire” Limes: Akten des XI Internationalen Limeskongresses ( Budapest 1977) – and if anyone has access to this paper, I would be delighted to hear from them.

Not really a correction. But I can't resist asking: how do you know that this paper answers all of our questions, if you haven't read it?

And I don't know why you think that Limeskongress XI is out-of-date. Certainly, there may be papers in there that have not stood the test of time -- offhand, I cannot remember the contents of that one -- but there will surely be others that are still of value.

And another "up-to-date" topic, especially as our female colleagues become more interested in what has always been a male-dominated subject, might be whether there were women in Roman forts; Johnson never mentions this.

Er…….also incorrect. Her references to women (and children) being present in Forts is more extensive than your own – she mentions the possibility that centurions may have used their ample accommodation to house families, not just the commanders, for instance. She also discusses the sad inscription of Aurelius Julianus, the garrison commander at Birdoswald Fort, recording the death of his infant son, only a year old and the finds of women’s shoes, all echoed in your own work.

Now that I've gone to the trouble of retrieving my copy of Johnson's book, I can check the index for these (since you failed to provide a page ref again). Unsurprisingly, there are no index entries for "women", "family", "children", ... Where exactly is the reader supposed to find a discussion of women in forts?
Aha -- found it! On p. 132, there's one sentence about the commander's family. Is that it? Is that her discussion of women in forts that I'm supposed to have "echoed".

Again, I'm sure you didn't mean to make me look silly, but this talk of "echoing" might make people think that you're accusing me of plagiarism. Of course, you and I know that that's ridiculous. Johnson mentions that a fort commander might've had a family. The Osprey book raises (inevitably in concise form) the subject of a current debate and points to elements that people might use to demonstrate that there were women in Roman forts. I think it's an interesting topic. It's certainly one that didn't occur to Johnson, although she's a woman. But her book demonstrates a more outdated approach.

Inevitably, the bulk of our knowledge of forts comes from Britain and Germany, with over a century of research in these countries. The Osprey book has tried to integrate more recent discoveries from (e.g.) Hungary and Rumania, which are more difficult to research (as explained on p. 62). And of course Johnson never touched these, nor the splendid forts of Jordan and north Africa, that fall beyond the scope of her book.

Oh dear! ….this is also incorrect. Johnson’s scope is restricted to Forts in Roman Britain and Germany in the first and second centuries AD, half the scope of yours.

This one's easily corrected. I said that Johnson's scope disallowed her from discussing forts beyond the well-known areas of Britain and Germany. You disagreed and, bizarrely, repeated what I'd said, namely that Johnson's scope is restricted to Britain and Germany.

I know you're probably not trying to make me look silly, but readers may begin to wonder whether you're simply complaining for the sake of complaining. Especially when you actually agree with me!

Nevertheless she does discuss aspects of other areas – such as North Africa – Lambaesis is referred to a number of times, Assouan on the Nile is mentioned, as well as Dura Europos and many others in Austria and Hungary etc.

Another quick correction here. Lambaesis is, of course, a legionary fortress, so it shouldn't figure in a book about forts. But you'll find it in the Osprey book about Roman Legionary Fortresses. I don't blame you for getting mixed up, Paul. Roman military archaeology can be confusing. And, now that I have my copy of Johnson in front of me, I can see that she does, indeed, mention Assouan on p. 125, though we shouldn't pretend that she "discusses" a fort there. (In fact, she is simply mentioning that Sir Mortimer Wheeler, in turn, mentioned an inscription from that site!) Similarly, we don't learn a great deal from her "mentions" of Dura Europos and the "many others in Austria and Hungary etc." (I was going to ask where, exactly, we could find these in her book, but -- to be honest -- I'm not really interested. The book's going back into its box now.)

And if you regard works of the 1980's as "out-of-date" researches, what are we to make of the fact that your first recommendation in your 'further reading' on the subject of Auxiliaries is G.L. Cheesman's book from 1914 ? :lol: :lol:

This hardly merits a correction, but I may as well point out -- as most readers on RAT will realise, in any case -- that a book cannot be judged "out-of-date" simply because it is old. That would be preposterous.

I know you're probably not trying to make me look silly, but (just for the record) Cheesman's book is a wonderful read, which is why I included it in my Further Reading section. Naturally, as you'd expect, for an up-to-date picture of the Roman auxilia, you'd need to take account of the massive increase in epigraphic material over the last century.

Perhaps in the light of all your errors regarding Johnson's work, you should take your own advice and "read it before passing judgement", if only to be fair to one whose work you acknowledge drawing on.

I think that I've exploded all your mythical instances where I'm supposed to have copied Johnson, ignored Johnson, whatever ... to be honest, I'm not sure what you're accusing me of, here. But your vitriolic tone makes me pretty sure that I'm being accused of something.

And, just for the record, (a) Johnson's book isn't in my Further Reading section, (b) I didn't draw upon it for anything in my Osprey book, and © I certainly didn't "acknowledge drawing on" it. I would be very grateful -- and other RAT readers would probably appreciate this, too -- if you would get your facts straight before you launch into another mean-spirited critique.

[Tim Edwards]

“in academia, knives are so sharp because the stakes are so small.”
Kissenger.

[Longovicium]

Oddly enough, I'm learning quite a lot here.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Same here!

[Crispvs]

Just as a small corollary, and perhaps with relevance to the original question, when I was visiting Chesters fort a couple of years ago I was shown a recent geophysical survey which showed a circular feature with a funnel shaped entrance which seems to closely match the well known 'gyrus' feature from the Lunt fort. This was immediately uphill of the bathhouse and occupied the spece between the fort and the bathhouse. Significantly perhaps, the staff at Chesters told me that as far as they knew excavations in the past had been limited to the interior of the fort, its walls, the bathhouse, parts of the 'vicus' and the road running alongside Hadrian's wall. Aside from this they were unaware of any excavations in other areas surrounding the fort, which was why the gyrus had not been discovered previously, even though it is closely surrounded by the road, the fort and the bathhouse. If this is typical for the excavation of forts, then the missing of such a large feature as a gyrus for so long might suggest that there might be other features, including soil/chemical features which have simply not been investigated at many forts, lying just outside the areas normally investigated.

Crispvs

[jkaler48]

Anyone know of any excavated sites near Forts that were thought to be "ranches" or farms that might be peacetime military sites?

[Paralus]

Question, is there any consensus about how many animals single legion had?

People are free to speculate, of course. But in truth, we have absolutely no idea how many mules a single legion might have. And many legions would've had absolutely no use for mules, in any case. Even taking a hypothetical "legion at war", Jonathan Roth believes that each tent-party required two mules, while others imagine that they had only one mule -- there's a doubling of the figures, right there!

John F. Shean ( Hannibal's Mules: The Logistical Limitations of Hannibal's Army and the Battle of Cannae, 216 B.C.) whilst not discussing a legion at war, presents some interesting figures for Hanibal’s army of invasion. These are based on Engel’s work in Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army. Although published in 1978 it is, as far as I’m aware, still the fundamental work on ancient logistics and what applied to Alexander’s army likely also applied to Hannibal’s.

Shean assumes no wagons – the sources not mentioning same and the Alps crossing almost certainly precluding same – and so the supply train was carted by mule. This being the case he calculates that the army of invasion (90,000 infantry; 12,000 horse Pol 3.35.1-2) will have needed mules in the order of (day’s provisioning / mules): one day - 2,922; one week - 29,895; ten days - 55,520. He gives figures for the other stages of the invasion and, lastly, for the immediate post-Cannae army (34,500 infantry; 9,800 horse Pol.3.114.5; 117.6): one day - 1,509; one week - 15,443; ten days - 28,680.

Dry as oxen fodder, I know. More interesting is the well reasoned – and source-based – argument for Hannibal’s “failure” to move on and take Rome after either Trasimene or Cannae. Dead simple:

Generations of writers and historians have either ignored or missed much of the ancient literary evidence concerning Hannibal's supply problems. Despite all the speculation on grand strategy, personality defects or siege equipment, Hannibal's failure to move on Rome stemmed from the least glamorous and most mundane reason of all: no food

.

As Shean notes, Hannibal’s army spent much time in Italy “living hand to mouth”.

[D B Campbell]

Generations of writers and historians have either ignored or missed much of the ancient literary evidence concerning Hannibal's supply problems. Despite all the speculation on grand strategy, personality defects or siege equipment, Hannibal's failure to move on Rome stemmed from the least glamorous and most mundane reason of all: no food

.
As Shean notes, Hannibal’s army spent much time in Italy “living hand to mouth”.

Which leads seamlessly into a shameless plug for Ancient Warfare magazine III.4, with an article on "Hannibal at the Gates".

[mcbishop]

Anyone know of any excavated sites near Forts that were thought to be "ranches" or farms that might be peacetime military sites?

There certainly used to be a notion floating around (at least in the German-speaking areas of the frontier) that Gutshöfe/villae rusticae (here's a partially reconstructed one) in frontier regions were in some sort of official way connected with supplying the army. Strangely this never really caught on in Britain (where villas were villas, pure and simple, and untainted by the nasty military... despite the fact that many have produced bits of military equipment).

I remember talking to Anne Hyland about the question of where they put cavalry horses (never enough room in any fort for all of 'em) and that the majority would have to have been corralled outwith the fort, so it makes sense that mules too would have passed their time when not on campaign munching the grass in the prata legionis. A sort of animal Boneyard ;-) )

Mike Bishop

[Paralus]

Which leads seamlessly into a shameless plug for Ancient Warfare magazine III.4, with an article on "Hannibal at the Gates".

Which, of course, I have. From memory your conclusion was little different to Shean's: there was no chance of Hannibal marching his army some 400 kilometres to besiege Rome; he coudn't supply such a march let alone a long siege. There was less chance after Trasimeme. Logistics was all.

[Paullus Scipio]

D Campbell wrote:
After such a lengthy -- and mean-spirited -- critique, I sincerely hope that you wouldn't deny me the right of reply. Of course, I shall restrict myself to correcting errors of fact (as authors are usually advised never to reply to their reviewers).
I have neither ‘critiqued’ nor ‘reviewed’ your work, beyond agreeing with Jona that it represented an “excellent introduction” to the subject – I have only mentioned it in passing whilst defending Ms Johnson’s work from your mistaken accusations of being ‘out-of-date’ in comparison to your more recent booklet.

Paullus Scipio wrote:... almost all the “big questions” have been answered long ago, so far as archaeology can answer them, ...

I wonder why archaeologists continue to excavate? I guess they should take your advice and pack up their trowels.

Paullus Scipio wrote:Of course, every fort excavated is unique, and adds something to our knowledge, ...

Ah, so that's why archaeologists continue to excavate.

Paullus Scipio wrote:... but not so as to affect the “big picture”.

Oh dear. Pack up the trowels, after all. Paul McDonall-Staff has the big picture.

Paullus Scipio wrote:Any new breakthroughs in our overall knowledge will depend on some new discovery, or radically new archaeological technique.

Now I'm confused. One minute, archaeologists are surplus to requirements. The next, they're not. One minute, we have our big picture. The next, we don't. One minute, all of our questions have been answered. The next, they haven't, and we're waiting for "some new discovery". It would be really helpful if, rather than posting lengthy, mean-spirited sermons, you just figured out what you meant to say, and then said it (as concisely as possible, please).

So much for confining yourself to corrections! This is just more of your sarcasm, which hasn’t even the virtue of being witty or funny….another flagrant breach of the rules:-

"1. No dismissive, hostile, abusive or aggressive negative responses. Malicious behavior (personal insults, "mobbing" or just being a sarcastic thug) is abuse, and moderators will intervene at the first sign of nastiness."

I’ll explain elsewhere what I meant by “big picture”, in the interests of keeping this response as concise as possible.

Paullus Scipio wrote:... Johnson’s work is referred to in your ‘further reading/bibliography’, so presumably you are familiar with it and drew on it to produce your own booklet.

Two points to correct here. First, the Further Reading section in an Osprey book is meant to be just that: recommendations where the interested reader can get supplementary information. So your assumption that I "drew on it to produce my own booklet" is incorrect. Second, Johnson's book does not appear in my Further Reading section, so (again) your assumption that I "drew on it to produce my own booklet" is incorrect.

I use the word “work” here in its general sense of “body of work”. A bibliography generally contains a list of works consulted/drawn upon. Yours is a ‘select bibliography’, and therefore contains only the major ones. It specifically refers to Anne Johnson’s ‘Romische Kastelle’ ( Roman forts) Mainz 1987

Paullus Scipio wrote:In the work I mentioned she refers to combined barracks/stables at the late fourth century fort at Brough-on-Noe. She also refers to the combined barrack/stable at the second century Fort at Dormagen in Germany ( which reference is repeated in your own work), and provides plans of the adjoining back-to-back rooms, one containing a hearth and the other a drainage pit…. and those are but two examples.

One major point to correct here. For the benefit of the dwindling number of readers who have managed to stick with this thread as it drifts ever further from mules, we should really point out that Johnson had no idea about horses in cavalry barracks. Nor did anyone in 1983. But, archaeology (as you seem intent on denying) marches on, and more recent excavations (thank goodness archaeologists didn't have your negative outlook, otherwise there would be no more excavations) demonstrated that cavalry accommodation was actually shared with the horses.

I'm sure you didn't mean to make me look silly, but from that last paragraph of yours, readers may get the idea that Johnson had already discussed combined barracks-stables. Of course, she hadn't. That's one of the new, up-to-date ideas in the Osprey book, only made possible by recent excavations at Wallsend. (Thank goodness you haven't had all the archaeologists shot, yet.)

Ignoring the inevitable dripping sarcasm, this is simply untrue. Johnson refers to:-
“ ( a broken strigil found in the stable part) The blade had been broken in antiquity and had been probably relegated to the stables for grooming the horses…” ( p.177 Roman forts) and “…a similar building…also accommodated both men and horses within the same block..” (ibid p.179). Nor is the phosphate test new:- “These pits had sloping sides and round bases…whilst the surrounding ground had been stained and reduced by their strong phosphate content…” (ibid p.179 ). Johnson is also able to deduce what size animals occupied particular stables from the wear patterns, and distance between front and rear hooves (ibid p.180). Organic remains of dung, bedding and fodder are also referred to by Johnson, and bone remains of teeth etc (ibid p.177). There is much more. So much for: “Johnson had no idea about horses in cavalry barracks. Nor did anyone in 1983. But, archaeology (as you seem intent on denying) marches on,”
...It is just plain wrong.References to combined barracks/stables ARE referred to in Johnson ( see My earlier posts) and go all the way back to Schulten's observations and reports 100 years ago. Hardly "new, up-to-date ideas".

Paullus Scipio wrote:Of relevance to the subject of this thread is that in fact, in the majority of permanent forts so far excavated, where stables can be identified, they areseparate, though sometimes found facing a barrack block ( e.g. the Claudian fort at Valkenburg).

Another major correction required here. You would perhaps have realised your own error if you had tried to quantify that statement. In the majority of permanent forts? Really? You cited Valkenburg as one of these, so you may be interested to know the basis on which many people claim that a stable was found there: no, it's not phosphate analysis, because that's a relatively modern technique unknown in the days of more out-of-date works (like Johnson's); no, it's not the soakaway pits, of the type that I mention in the Osprey book, because these weren't noticed during older, more out-of-date excavations. In fact, it's -- you'll love this -- the presence of a trough lying outside one of the "barracks".

Again, I'm sure you didn't mean to make me look silly, but from that last paragraph of yours, readers may get the idea that forts are teeming with stables, and I've been less than vigilant in my researches. Maybe, in the interests of balance, you should tell us how many times a stable has been found in a Roman fort?

As I have already pointed out, Johnson discusses ( and stresses) the difficulties of identifying stables, and if you had read her work in detail before consigning it to the box/loft, you would be aware of this. Quantification in detail is therefore not possible. Note the phrase; “where stables can be identified”. Soakaway pits, organic remains, phosphate tests etc were all known to Johnson.

Paullus Scipio wrote:
Duncan B Campbell wrote:Another is the role of fort annexes -- Johnson didn't even mention these important features, which may be relevant to a discussion of where any livestock could be corralled.

…I'm afraid this is incorrect also. Johnson mentions the fact that in many cases the cavalry mounts and pack animals may well have been corralled outside the fort.

One correction here. I said that Johnson doesn't mention annexes. You said that I'm a liar ... oops, you said that that was incorrect. Guess what: I was right, no annexes. To be fair, since you're not an archaeologist (and seem to have a poor opinion of archaeologists, into the bargain), you perhaps are unaware that there is a well-established archaeological feature known (somewhat vaguely) as a fort annexe. When I dusted down my copy of Johnson (last opened in 1983 and consigned shortly thereafter to a box in the loft), I see that her index has no entries for annexe (the word that I used) or corral (the word that you used). I next checked her Chapter 7 ("External Structures") -- I thought it might be there, as its definitely "external"! -- but no, just five pages on parade grounds and two pages on the bathhouse. What next? There's no index entry for "mules", and the entry for "horses" says "see stables", so I did. Maybe I'm just no good at reading -- after all, I'm really a writer. But I simply cannot find any reference whatsoever to corralling horses outside forts. Maybe you could give us a page ref? (I know you're always keen on giving page refs.)

Unbelievable ! The closest I can get to persuading you to read her works is to consult the index? I deliberately didn’t quote page numbers in hopes you might actually read her works and thereby realise your mistakes. An index doesn’t cover everything, or it would be longer than the text! I could make a sarcastic remark about your reading skills ( and oh! The temptation, but I will refrain! ) Johnson again: “Perhaps we should not expect to find stables within the fort at all, as in many cases the cavalry mounts and pack animals may well have been corralled outside .” – this time you find the page !

I NEVER called you a “liar”…..seemingly you don’t appreciate the difference between ‘mistaken’ and ‘incorrect’ on the one hand and ‘liar’ on the other. To be honest, I’m uncomfortable with the increasingly shrill tone you are taking….could it be that you hope the moderators will lock the thread and delete postings?
Furthermore, I have already pointed out that most forts are only partially excavated, let alone surrounding areas/annexes, and Johnson refers to this too.

Paullus Scipio wrote:There is no mention in your book that I can recall of the so-called 'vexillation forts' - Auxiliary type forts which contained a mixed garrison of legionaries and auxiliaries ( e.g. Hod Hill, which probably had a mixed garrison of legionaries and auxiliary cavalry at one time), nor auxiliary forts for specialist purposes, such as supply bases or workshop forts - but the format and lack of space are doubtless the problem.

Interesting. So "vexillation forts" are "auxiliary-type forts" -- what's an "auxiliary-type" fort, Paul? Supply bases? Workshop forts? You've really got my interest, now. So, what are the references for all these "specialist" forts?
Auxiliary type forts may be defined as those smaller than legionary fortresses, or more particularly; Johnson: “For the purpose of this study a fort is defined as a permanent fortification ranging in size from 1 to 5 Hectares in internal area, which normally housed a unit of auxiliary infantry or cavalry of (nominal) 500 or 1,000 men, or very occasionally a combined legionary and auxiliary force…” ( ibid p.2 ). If you want to learn more, again I suggest you don’t be so hasty about consigning the book to the loft and read it in full. ( and I have already referred to one such 'vexillation' fort....Hod Hill.)

Paullus Scipio wrote:On this subject, the answers to the question posed by this thread, and references to outside accommodation for animals are to be found in a paper by C.M. Wells in another “out-of-date” publication; “Where did they put the horses? Cavalry stables in the Early Empire” Limes: Akten des XI Internationalen Limeskongresses ( Budapest 1977) – and if anyone has access to this paper, I would be delighted to hear from them.

Not really a correction. But I can't resist asking: how do you know that this paper answers all of our questions, if you haven't read it?

Because I read it many years ago, but now cannot recollect it in detail, hence would like to read it again.

And I don't know why you think that Limeskongress XI is out-of-date. Certainly, there may be papers in there that have not stood the test of time -- offhand, I cannot remember the contents of that one -- but there will surely be others that are still of value.

Very droll response to my pointed reference to your “out-of-date”….and I’m glad that you concede that not all older works are “out-of-date”.

Paullus Scipio wrote:
Duncan B Campbell wrote:And another "up-to-date" topic, especially as our female colleagues become more interested in what has always been a male-dominated subject, might be whether there were women in Roman forts; Johnson never mentions this.

Er…….also incorrect. Her references to women (and children) being present in Forts is more extensive than your own – she mentions the possibility that centurions may have used their ample accommodation to house families, not just the commanders, for instance. She also discusses the sad inscription of Aurelius Julianus, the garrison commander at Birdoswald Fort, recording the death of his infant son, only a year old and the finds of women’s shoes, all echoed in your own work.

Now that I've gone to the trouble of retrieving my copy of Johnson's book, I can check the index for these (since you failed to provide a page ref again). Unsurprisingly, there are no index entries for "women", "family", "children", ... Where exactly is the reader supposed to find a discussion of women in forts?
Aha -- found it! On p. 132, there's one sentence about the commander's family. Is that it? Is that her discussion of women in forts that I'm supposed to have "echoed".
No, there’s more ! The clue is in my post…..read the book !

Again, I'm sure you didn't mean to make me look silly, but this talk of "echoing" might make people think that you're accusing me of plagiarism. Of course, you and I know that that's ridiculous. Johnson mentions that a fort commander might've had a family. The Osprey book raises (inevitably in concise form) the subject of a current debate and points to elements that people might use to demonstrate that there were women in Roman forts. I think it's an interesting topic. It's certainly one that didn't occur to Johnson, although she's a woman. But her book demonstrates a more outdated approach.

There you go again, with your barbed “outdated” even though the evidence considered is the same, and as I pointed out, Johnson’s much larger work has more about women/families in forts than yours ( again doubtless due to the short format)

Paullus Scipio wrote:
Duncan B Campbell wrote:Inevitably, the bulk of our knowledge of forts comes from Britain and Germany, with over a century of research in these countries. The Osprey book has tried to integrate more recent discoveries from (e.g.) Hungary and Rumania, which are more difficult to research (as explained on p. 62). And of course Johnson never touched these, nor the splendid forts of Jordan and north Africa, that fall beyond the scope of her book.

Oh dear! ….this is also incorrect. Johnson’s scope is restricted to Forts in Roman Britain and Germany in the first and second centuries AD, half the scope of yours.

This one's easily corrected. I said that Johnson's scope disallowed her from discussing forts beyond the well-known areas of Britain and Germany. You disagreed and, bizarrely, repeated what I'd said, namely that Johnson's scope is restricted to Britain and Germany.

I know you're probably not trying to make me look silly, but readers may begin to wonder whether you're simply complaining for the sake of complaining. Especially when you actually agree with me!

I’m most assuredly not trying to make you look silly. Readers may judge for themselves whether your mistaken/incorrect attempts to disparage earlier works are for the purpose of advertising your own booklet. Am I the only one here on RAT that thinks there is something wrong with falsely criticising earlier, more comprehensive work by a respected scholar in order to further one's own commercial gain ? All of this is merely me defending other works from your unjustified and false/incorrect criticism.

Paullus Scipio wrote:Nevertheless she does discuss aspects of other areas – such as North Africa – Lambaesis is referred to a number of times, Assouan on the Nile is mentioned, as well as Dura Europos and many others in Austria and Hungary etc.

Another quick correction here. Lambaesis is, of course, a legionary fortress, so it shouldn't figure in a book about forts. But you'll find it in the Osprey book about Roman Legionary Fortresses. I don't blame you for getting mixed up, Paul. Roman military archaeology can be confusing. And, now that I have my copy of Johnson in front of me, I can see that she does, indeed, mention Assouan on p. 125, though we shouldn't pretend that she "discusses" a fort there. (In fact, she is simply mentioning that Sir Mortimer Wheeler, in turn, mentioned an inscription from that site!) Similarly, we don't learn a great deal from her "mentions" of Dura Europos and the "many others in Austria and Hungary etc." (I was going to ask where, exactly, we could find these in her book, but -- to be honest -- I'm not really interested. The book's going back into its box now.)

I’m not at all confused…and if a legionary fortress is relevant to a point, why not mention it? Shame you’ve consigned it to a box – from what you’ve written here, you could learn much from it and her other works, cited in your bibliography.

Paullus Scipio wrote:And if you regard works of the 1980's as "out-of-date" researches, what are we to make of the fact that your first recommendation in your 'further reading' on the subject of Auxiliaries is G.L. Cheesman's book from 1914 ? :lol: :lol: :lol:

This hardly merits a correction, but I may as well point out -- as most readers on RAT will realise, in any case -- that a book cannot be judged "out-of-date" simply because it is old. That would be preposterous.

The temptation to return your sarcasm is almost overwhelming ! Instead, I shall confine myself to congratulating you on realising that older works are not necessarily out-of-date ( particularly Johnson’s several works )




And, just for the record, (a) Johnson's book isn't in my Further Reading section, (b) I didn't draw upon it for anything in my Osprey book, and © I certainly didn't "acknowledge drawing on" it. I would be very grateful -- and other RAT readers would probably appreciate this, too -- if you would get your facts straight before you launch into another mean-spirited critique.
a) I never said Johnson’s book was in your further reading, but rather her work ( in the general sense) was in your “further reading/bibliography” and her work is right there in your “select bibliography” for all to see. - Anne Johnson’s ‘Romische Kastelle’ ( Roman forts) Mainz 1987

b) Really? Normally a bibliography contains works which the author has consulted/drawn upon, and perhaps co-incidently many of your examples appear in Johnson’s works - perhaps unsurprising given that there are a mere 450 plus excavated forts to draw upon.

c) See b) above…one is entitled to expect that a book/work referred to in a bibliography has been used/consulted/drawn upon by the author.

This is the second time you have referred to “mean spirited critique” and I re-iterate that the only comment I have made directly about your work is that it is an “excellent introduction”. All else is indirect, in defence of Johnson, whom, in my opinion, you have unfairly maligned for commercial reasons.

[D B Campbell]

The story so far ...

Apparently it has been used to identify the location where horses were kept, i.e. in the same building as the cavelrymen.

Of course, that's in a permanent fort site, Byron. You'll find details in my Roman Auxiliary Forts book (but not in the very out-of-date fort books by Roger Wilson and Anne Johnson, that were advertised on another thread).

I realise now that, when I claimed that Anne Johnson's 1983 book is out-of-date, I should have added "imho". Then I could have saved several lengthy rebuttals. Dear RAT readers, I apologise for omitting those crucial letters.

I have neither ‘critiqued’ nor ‘reviewed’ your work, beyond agreeing with Jona that it represented an “excellent introduction” to the subject – I have only mentioned it in passing whilst defending Ms Johnson’s work from your mistaken accusations of being ‘out-of-date’ in comparison to your more recent booklet.[/i]

Thank you very much for that ringing endorsement of the Osprey Roman Auxiliary Forts book.

Unfortunately, as I tried to point out before, you have made several mistaken assumptions, which you have now repeated.

(1) Johnson: I have explained the difference between an academic bibliography and an Osprey Further Reading list. Sadly, it seems that you want to force me into having drawn upon a book which you evidently admire, but which doesn't appear in my Further Reading section, and (as I have said) upon which I have not drawn during the writing of Roman Auxiliary Forts. I don't know why you feel that it is important to deny those plain facts.

(2) Stables: I have explained that, although archaeologists have always tried to identify stables in Roman forts, the realisation that cavalrymen actually shared accommodation with their horses is a relatively new one, and stems directly from recent work at Wallsend. Johnson was not psychic; she could not have known what exciting discoveries would be made at Wallsend. This means that, unfortunately, her plan of the fort is out-of-date; for a better one, see Roman Auxiliary Forts p. 48, which shows the crucial soakaway pits in the barrack rooms. (Also, Brian Delf has created a splendid full-colour reconstruction of this feature on p. 50, Plate E.)

Anyone who thinks that Johnson "refers to the combined barrack/stable at the second century Fort at Dormagen in Germany" is mistaken. Although it turned out that such a combined barrack/stable existed at Dormagen, in 1983 it was still usual to interpret the (only fragmentarily known) building as a stable. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that Brough-on-Noe probably has the same arrangement, but no-one would have guessed this in 1983. These seemed to be stables, not the combined barrack/stable that we now recognise.

(3) Annexes: I have pointed to the existence of fort annexes as perhaps relevant to the subject of animal husbandry. You replied that "Johnson mentions the fact that in many cases the cavalry mounts and pack animals may well have been corralled outside the fort". Sadly, you have refused to supply a page reference, even after I admitted that I cannot find such a statement in the book, and it cannot be traced using the index. (That, in itself, rings warning bells in a reference book.)

The point is trivial, in any case, as your goal seems to be either to demonstrate that I have used Johnson's book (when I clearly have not), or to demonstrate that Johnson's book is up-to-date (when, imho, it is not).

(4) Women: As an aside, I mentioned that Roman Auxiliary Forts includes a section on women in forts ... a topic of no relevance to mules or stables, I hasten to add. By now fervently defending Johnson against every imagined slight, you announced that she has "more" on this, but again you have refused to cite the page reference. (Advising someone to read a 300-page book that they don't want to read is not very helpful.)

And that's pretty much it. For some reason, you have accused me of "attempts to disparage earlier works", and feel the need to "defend other works from your unjustified and false/incorrect criticism" (er, let's have some perspective ... I called a 1983 book "out-of-date"). And if you imagine that that constitutes "falsely criticising earlier, more comprehensive work by a respected scholar in order to further one's own commercial gain", then I beg to differ. Nor do I think I have "unfairly maligned" her book, and certainly not "for commercial reasons".

Perhaps, in the interests of this thread, we could agree that Johnson has nothing to contribute on the subject of "where did they keep the mules?"

[Ross Cowan]

Re. the commercial reasons Paul McDonnell Staff refers to, what commercial reasons? Osprey authors have to sign over copyright and do not earn royalties. They are paid a relatively small fixed fee prior to publication, so there's no point in promoting a book for commercial reasons. Osprey won't pay out any more. As Mr McDonnell Staff says, Duncan B. Campbell's books are excellent, and that's why I endorse them. And as a fellow Pen and Sword author, I look forward to the publication of Paul McDonnell Staff's Conquest of Spain book.

R!