05-07-2008, 10:41 PM
Quote:The fort is roughly about 1.53 acres in size ...Remember that the sides and rear have not been located, so this is just one possibility.
Quote:... and one of the units attested as being there was The Cohort of Ulpian Cugerni ... a quingenary unit (roughly around 500, but usually below 480) consisting of six centuries although there is doubt that it would have had the additional four cavalry troops of an equitate cohort. ... It is thought this unit was devoid of its typical equitate cohorts, at least for this particular fort.There isn't any doubt at all. An infantry cohort didn't have any cavalry.
Quote:The supposed fort is just too elongated to be true infact almost twice the size it should be, I think it would be a push to even get 4 barrack blocks into.I don't follow how a 1.56 acre (0.64 ha) fort can be "almost twice the size it should be". What size should it be?
David Breeze reviewed the evidence in the new edition of Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall (which I referred to on p.1 above).
He writes (p. 145): "the best estimate is that the fort measured about 95 by 67 m (360 by 220 ft), covering 0.64 ha (1.53 acres), which is too small to hold either regiment attested here." He further notes that "It is possible, however, that the fort was related to the topography and was polygonal in shape, thus providing more accommodation space".
We simply don't know.
