Shrinking of Roman Legions

[mcbishop]

I'm not sure how this necessarily follows, since, depending on the construction method, footings or ground walls either 0.6 m thick or 1.1 m thick are both adequate to support a second story, or even more. ( I live in a detached two and a half story house constructed of freestanding - i.e no frame - 0.6 m thick blocks, for example).

Not really useful to compare modern construction techniques and technology with ancient which could range from very sturdy (brick-faced concrete in Rome) to dodgy (clay-bonded stone in the UK - the frequent collapses of Hadrian's Wall and the north wall of Housesteads were due to this) so you need more than just wall widths. In fact, Caerleon's walls are usually thought to be dwarf walls supporting a timber and wattle-and-daub superstructure.

In addition, Roman upper stories could be quite light, for example a wattle-and-daub upper story, or the 'opus craticum', an open wooden frame filled with rubble and plaster, as used in Pompeii and Herculaneum for upper stories including balconies and partition walls.

No real evidence for this in a military context that I am aware of.

Perhaps there is more to Kennedy's conclusions than just thickness of walls? For those of us without access to his work, perhaps you could elaborate, please ? mile:

Can't help here, I'm afraid, as I am unable to lay my hands on the offprint at the moment. Just remembered that he did conclude that the Castra Praetoria barracks were two-storied.

Going back and looking at Parker's reports again, however (I only have the interims, not the final), he concludes that the ground floor of the corner tower had a slab ceiling carried on arches (you can see the remains of them here) and that the towers had three storeys. Interesting then when you reread his reports on the limited excavation he carried out in the barracks:

The rooms were roofed by three parallel limestone arches with oblong basalt slabs covering the gaps between the arches.

*

Basalt has a high tensile strength and is widely used in the East in the Roman period for stair cases and flooring. For the roofing of the barracks Parker says

The almost total absence of roof tiles, so common in the principia, is particularly striking. The roofs were apparently sealed by wadi rushes and dung.

**

So there seems to be at least plausible evidence for a second storey at Lejjun, but it derives from comparing the arches and basalt flooring of the towers with those found in the barracks, rather than the width of the walls per se. But, of course, you can only say that for the barracks excavated; anything else would be speculation. ;-)

Mike Bishop

* Parker, S. T. 1986: Romans and Saracens: A History of the Arabian Frontier, Winona Lake, 68.
** loc. cit.

[Paullus Scipio]

Paullus Scipio wrote:
it is completely incorrect that "Domitian changed the system of having two legions at one fort and place".....
a) There was no 'system' as such - ...
b) Domitian did not end the practice - ...
"of course" because it is universally recognised by students of the Roman Army that the above statement is incorrect,



Duncan wrote:-
But just to set the record straight, you claim that the falsehood of Domitian's ban on double fortresses is "universally recognised by students of the Roman army".
How is it “setting the record straight” to set up a ‘straw man’ that I did not claim? I did not deny that Seutonius claimed that Domitian issued an official ‘ban’ on double camp/fortresses. Rather, that in actual fact, Domitian did not end the practice. He simply moved one Legion from the camp/fortress in Germany, - for a campaign, so sound strategic reasons rather then political - leaving the other remaining ‘double fortress’ at Nicopolis in Egypt intact

Well, it seems that H.M.D. Parker disagrees (The Roman Legions, 1928, p. 164: "Domitian issued a regulation forbidding in future more than one legion to occupy the same camp"); Emil Ritterling disagrees ("Legio (XIIII Gemina)", Real-encyclopädie XII.2, 1925, col. 1735: "Denn gewisse Umstände bei der Entstehung des Aufstandes [ viz. of Saturninus ] bestimmten den Kaiser [ viz. Domitian ] zur Auflösung der Vereinigung zweier Legionen in gemeinsamem Lager"); Yann Le Bohec disagrees (L'armée romaine, 1989, p. 171: "Domitien interdit d'en mettre deux [ viz. legions ] dans un même cantonnement"); ...

I wonder which particular students of the Roman army you had in mind?
Here is an example of taking quotations out of context to give a misleading impression. All these refer to Seutonius’ claim that Domitian issued a regulation, which I have never denied. But H.M.D Parker certainly does not disagree with me, for on P.194 he says “The two Egyptian Legions (III Cyrenaica and XXII Deiotariana) were concentrated in one camp at Nicopolis, which they continued to occupy despite Domitian’s regulation till at least 119 AD.”

…which is exactly the same as I have said. I expect the others would be similar…
.

Legions were gradually shrinking from emperor to emperor? I have never heard such a theory suggested.
Neither have I……:lol: :lol:
Again, I said no such thing… I said that the practice of sending vexillations , which gradually became permanent detachments, led to an ‘imperceptable’ process of shrinking the size of the Legions – to ‘set the record straight’.

Mike B. wrote:-

"...so you need more than just wall widths".

Yes, this what I was suggesting....

Paullus Scipio wrote:
"In addition, Roman upper stories could be quite light, for example a wattle-and-daub upper story..."
....No real evidence for this in a military context that I am aware of.....
...in fact, Caerleon's walls are usually thought to be dwarf walls supporting a timber and wattle-and-daub superstructure.

A little confusing?:-? I take it you mean that whilst there is evidence that suggests wattle-and-daub structure on a dwarf-wall/footings as a single story structure in a military context ( at Caerleon), there is no firm evidence for second story structures of this type?
Still, it appears to be a possibility at least.....

The fact that there were similar arches and basalt in the barracks, as in the towers is indeed suggestive, as you point out. This is all the more so when it is combined with a 'lightweight' roof covering, rather than the usual tiles ( apparently present on the Principia), as is noted.

[mcbishop]

A little confusing?:-? I take it you mean that whilst there is evidence that suggests wattle-and-daub structure on a dwarf-wall/footings as a single story structure in a military context ( at Caerleon), there is no firm evidence for second story structures of this type?

I chose my words carefully and I'm sorry if I confused you. I said 'usually thought to be' as that has been the dominant meme until recently, proposed by George Boon, based largely on the evidence of the Prysg Field excavations by Nash-Williams in the 1930s (there is a whole book to be written about how 1950s British archaeologists viewed Roman Britain as a sort of half-timbered pre-Shakespearian paradise). Modern excavators at Roman Gates specifically exclude the dwarf wall option (Evans and Metcalf 1992, 76-7), pointing out examples from elsewhere in Caerleon where walls constructed in this fashion exist above the likely level of a dwarf wall. Nothing about any phase of the barracks would define the upper structure as lightweight, given that they had a heavy tile roof atop them, hence my comment about there being no real evidence for this in a military context.

Still, it appears to be a possibility at least.....

I think not. ;-)

Mike Bishop

Evans, D. R. and Metcalf, V.M. 1992: Roman Gates Caerleon, Oxbow Monograph 15, Oxford