Barrack Sizes and fort layouts

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Hey guys,

I am in need of some help for a reconstruction I am comissioning for the Pons Aelius (Newcastle) fort in the northeast of England.

Firstly, in a barracks blocks, how many soldiers would the single block catter for? I was under the impression it was 80 including the centurion, and that the centurion resided at the very end of the block in his own room, and all the other 80 soldiers shared 10 rooms with 8 spaces each, forming a contubernium. Is this correct?

A modern reconstruction can be seen here at the Arbeia fort, also in the northeast:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image ... rracks.jpg

The Pons Aelius fort was roughly 1.53 acres in size, and a good diagram of what it may have looked like can be seen here:



This fort was believed to hold roughly about 480 men, so therefore about 6 barracks if my above observations are correct. However, according to this plan, how can 4 barracks blocks, 2 granaries, a praetorium and the CO's house be fitted in such a large space? There would be a lot of extra space which I do not know what to do with. Would there be any other buildings?

There is not a problem in making it with only the above buldings, but then it does look a bit quadratic rather than rectangular shaped as in the diagram: (and yes I had a lot of fun painting it)



So am I missing anything? Is my understanding of a barracks block fundamentally flawed? What other buildings could the fort possibly have to make it more rectangular? lol

[Arahne]

Centurion's houses, storage and magazines. Which size have you used for one contubernium and one centuria? Something's wrong with Your reconstruction, two horrea should be parallel to via principalis which are also opposite to principia (in praetentura space). Left to the principia is praetorium. On Your drawing two large houses in the center are principia and....???
For one contubernium You could use 8-10mx4m, and for one street beetween two baracks something like 4m wide. I need more detailed explanation what do You want to achieve.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Centurion's houses, storage and magazines. Which size have you used for one contubernium and one centuria? Something's wrong with Your reconstruction, two horrea should be parallel to via principalis which are also opposite to principia (in praetentura space). Left to the principia is praetorium. On Your drawing two large houses in the center are principia and....???
For one contubernium You could use 8-10mx4m, and for one street beetween two baracks something like 4m wide. I need more detailed explanation what do You want to achieve.

Hi. Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. And yes I know the reconstruction is not accurate, its just to give a sense of size and how the buildings would fit, but in a square shaped fort rather than a rectangular one.

The buildings in the middle are the Co's House and the Headquarters. That and the granaries are known to have existed on the fort, but the placemente of the barracks is conjectural. What do you mean by horrea?

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Horrea=Granaries

M.VIB.M.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Centurion's houses, storage and magazines. Which size have you used for one contubernium and one centuria? Something's wrong with Your reconstruction, two horrea should be parallel to via principalis which are also opposite to principia (in praetentura space). Left to the principia is praetorium. On Your drawing two large houses in the center are principia and....???
For one contubernium You could use 8-10mx4m, and for one street beetween two baracks something like 4m wide. I need more detailed explanation what do You want to achieve.

Hi.

If you look at the black and white sketch provided and then look at my ''reconstruction'' you will see the granaries, the Praetorium and the Commandants house are positioned that way according to archaeological evidence. The only stuff that is conjectural is the placemente of the barracks which are the long rectangles on the image.

By the way, was a barrack block 9 rooms (one for centurio and 8 for 10 soldiers) or 11 rooms (one centurio and 10 for 8 soldiers?) I thought a contubernium was 10 soldiers.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

1 contubernium = 8 soldiers

1 centuria is 80 soldiers

The Centurio's in a lot of the castellae/Castrae had their own "house" attached to the barracks of the men.

general outlay



Legionary Barracks Nijmegen Castra (Double barracks)



Groundplan Double barracks at Neuss



I'd say get as much of the Archaeological evidence from the excavations as possible, and work from there...

M.VIB.M.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Hi Marcus,

Thanks a lot for your help, it is invaluable.

Here is a rather crude explanation as to why my reconstruction is the way it is:



Regards,
Yuri

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

This is the barracks layout I am going for:



It is very similar to the one at arbeia and its reconstruction, except this one has a veranda. The rooms at the back are to store the equipment and front rooms are the dorms. The big room at the far left is the centurios quarters. I have seen this pattern of barracks on some books, one by Paul Bidwell and I believe I read somewhere a book by MC Bishop also showing these. (although do not hold me to it).

The centurio's quarters is less privileged as its not a legionary fortress (and for that matter much of the barracks too).

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

You are probably correct in your assertation that the wall they say would be the fortress wall is actually Hadrians wall itself.

The fortress, if it had 480 men would definetely not be the shape the dotted lines represent.

Also the so-called granaries and CO's quarters are highly debatable.

Personally i think the archeologists or whoever made this sketch (not your reconstruction) were in a wishful thinking modus!!

Especially the medieval Keep which has been built later would have destroyed a lot of the original fortress/milecastle.

so where they get the idea that they have found granaries i do not know...

The direction it faces is also totally wrong going from the Wall segment, since the so called officers quarters and headquarters are not at all in the region they would have to be going from a regular fortress layout.

could you get us a larger drawing made by the archeologists themselves?
I mean an excavation report of any sort!!

and or a list of finds on which they base their conclusions?

i found this text on the net

The Auxiliary Fort and Bridge

The praetorium and principia of the Hadrianic fort at Pons Aelius were recently found in the grounds of the castle adjacent to the Castle Keep, the castle being built directly upon the site of the former Roman encampment. Originally built c.AD122 to mark the eastern terminus of the Wall, the fort at Newcastle is quite small and was sited here to guard the important river-crossing, the first major encampment being nearby at Condercum (Benwell, Tyne & Wear). The unit which comprised the original garrison of the fort is unknown, however, a recently unearthed stone dedicated to the empress Julia Domna and dated to c.AD213, gives the name of the unit then stationed at Newcastle, and the Notitia Dignitatum provides the name of the late-fourth century garrison. Another recently-discovered inscription records the building or restoration of a bath-house which evidently stood outside the Newcastle fort.
C... AV... BALINEVM... A SOLO ...
"For C[aesar ...] Au[gustus ...] the bath-house [...] from its foundations [...]"
(RIB 1322d; dedicatory slab; Britannia xxx (1999), p.380, no.5)

The site of the Aelian Bridge was discovered in 1872 lying directly beneath the swing-bridge built in that year. This bridge still exists, carrying Bridge Street across the Tyne, lying betweeen the modern road-bridges of the B1307 to the west and the A167(M) to the east. The Roman road led directly south by south-east from the southern end of the bridge, beneath the modern buildings, taking the line of West Steet beyond, and did not follow the course of the Bottle Bank and Gates Head roads.

The Roman bridge had two stone abutments and, although only two piers have so far been located, it is estimated that there were originally ten. The pier found in 1872 was 16 feet wide and 20 feet long with cutwaters both upstream and down to cope with the tidal nature of the Tyne at this point in its course. The pier caisson was constructed from closely-set, iron-shod oak piles, with the internal space filled with stone rubble. The total length of the Roman bridge from bank to bank is estimated to have been 735 feet.

There are a number of small tributary streams of the Tyne which must have passed through culverts beneath the Wall. The Pandon Burn emptied into the Tyne some 150 yards downstream from the Roman bridge near the Custom House, and the substantial Ouse Bourne confluence lies over ¾ mile further downstream. Another small stream named the Skinner Bourne entered the Tyne just over 300 yards upriver from the site of the Roman bridge beyond the Mansion House, and another named the Lort Burn lay to the east about 1/3 of the distance between the Pandon and Ouse Burn confluences.

M.VIB.M.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

so where they get the idea that they have found granaries i do not know...

The direction it faces is also totally wrong going from the Wall segment, since the so called officers quarters and headquarters are not at all in the region they would have to be going from a regular fortress layout.

could you get us a larger drawing made by the archeologists themselves?
I mean an excavation report of any sort!!

and or a list of finds on which they base their conclusions?

i found this text on the net

Hi Marcvs,

Thanks for your imput, it is really appreciated. I presume the dark shades representing the CO's house, Headquarters and granaries represent stone foundations found through excavations, but I cannot guarantee this. While the granaries can be identified as so as they seem to share similar foundations with other granaries, so little has been excavated about the CO's house and headquarters that you may be right they are mis-identified.

Also, what do you mean by these two buildings being in the wrong region and facing wrong direction? What region and direction should they be according to the typical fort layout?

As for a larger image and other stuff, sadly I cannot get a hold of Archaeologia Aeliana vol 30, which details the excavations and such at this time, so the reconstruction shall have to be made with what is at hand.

As for the text, I am aware about it, I have used much of it for my wikipedia article regarding the fort. This reconstruction is to provide some images for that article www.wikipedia.org/Pons Aelius

Yuri

[Arahne]

My suggestion is to start like the romans did, so position principia first, then porta praetoria which should face the principia. In Your square plan principia is not facing the porta praetoria. Then position of via principalis and via praetoria. THen left and right from via praetoria two granaries. That is how You would get tipical roman fort layout. I dont know how You got to this colour reconstruction since that in you explanation pic You have drawn accurate b/w ground plan???
Basically the huge problem are the fort walls which are missing. As I said use the above mentioned barack sizes that I gave You. Centurion house is separate construction from the barracks contubernia and You can not simply attach another contubernium to the supposed 10, but annother larger building which should be positioned between the barack and via sagularis.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think I have to agree with Marcus that when Mr Nolan made his projected map of the fort he did get a bit carried away, for he shows the fort far to long infact as I have mentioned in your other thread it is too elongated and the south end would fall over a cliff. Well not so much a cliff but a VERY STEEP incline down to the swing bridge area, infact if archaeologists are wanting to quote 1.53 of an acre as it's size one would think they should at least get such a drawing to match that. What it shows here is around 3acres at least but there again where in the world do they even get the figure of 1.53 from, for all that has been found is a part of the north wall the east west and south walls have never been located yet so how can anyone start quoteing size. I have shown also in your other topic how you can get 100 soldiers out of the fort, and even more so at other forts along the Wall when we consider the Milecastles that had to be manned.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Typical layout of Roman Fortress.

As you can see the Horrea are not in front of the buildings as you have drawn them.

Also if you look closely at the Housesteads fortress you will see the same.

Furthermore i think the area excavated near the Keep of the Castle is much too small to make any definitive statements about the use of the various buildings... i rather suspect the archaeologists have done what has been done too often, namely to go by the assumption that where there is a keep, there must have been a praetorium/principia.

Also, Roman forts are never square, but in general have rounded edges, which makes defence easier.

Since no Vallum has been excavated, nor, as is rightly put by the previous poster, two separate stretches of fortress wall have been found, you cannot guess or even deduct where the original wall must have been, let alone know its outlines.

M.VIB.M.

[D B Campbell]

This fort was believed to hold roughly about 480 men, so therefore about 6 barracks if my above observations are correct.

Not so. The fort is generally thought to have been far too small to accommodate an entire infantry cohort.

But (as I noted on your other thread) the size of the fort isn't actually known! So we are in danger of going round in circles here.

By the way, was a barrack block 9 rooms (one for centurio and 8 for 10 soldiers) or 11 rooms (one centurio and 10 for 8 soldiers?) I thought a contubernium was 10 soldiers.

Known examples of auxiliary barrack blocks have usually been selectively excavated, so their plan has to be reconstructed by "joining the dots".

One exception is the Flavian fort at Elginhaugh, which was completely stripped. Most of the barrack blocks were found to contain 10 pairs of rooms and a large "suite" at one end, presumably for the centurion.

It would be nice to think that this equates to 10 units (contubernia) of 8 men per block, but Elginhaugh had nine of these blocks! So were there fewer men per room? Or was the garrison somehow augmented?

Also the so-called granaries and CO's quarters are highly debatable. Personally i think the archeologists or whoever made this sketch (not your reconstruction) were in a wishful thinking modus!!

I disagree.

The buildings interpreted as granaries (horrea) have the unique and immediately recognisable groundplan of this type of building. There is no other building known from Roman military archaeology with this kind of groundplan. I would say the case is closed on the granaries!

Only a corner of the building interpreted as the commanding officer's house (praetorium) was investigated. But it was found to incorporate a hypocaust -- outside of a bathhouse, a hypocaust is usually only found in the high-status CO's house -- and appears to lie in the fort's central range, which is the "correct" position for this building.

i found this text on the net

I hope you'll forgive me if I prefer the opinion of a scholar who has been working on and around Hadrian's Wall, and Roman military archaeology in general, for the last 40 years! :wink:

Typical layout of Roman Fortress.

Unless I am mistaken, you have posted a plan of Pen Llystyn, a Flavian turf-and-timber fort. As we are dealing with a situation at least 50 years later (and probably longer, if we accept that the Newcastle fort isn't primary), it might be more appropriate to look at later examples.

btw It is usual to reserve the term "fortress" for the large legionary bases. Just an English-language idiosyncracy.

As you can see the Horrea are not in front of the buildings as you have drawn them.

It is true that the majority of excavated forts have their granaries in the central range, but we cannot be too dogmatic. Beckfoot (Hadrianic) and Bearsden (Antonine) both have a granary in the praetentura. The main consideration would be allowing unloading access by heavy wagon.

... you cannot guess or even deduct where the original wall must have been, let alone know its outlines.

Quite so.

This area would seem to be unduly problematic for a reconstruction. Wouldn't you be better choosing a fort where the evidence is rather better?

Just for the record, here's the conjectural plan of this highly problematic site, provided by Professor David Breeze.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Ok guys, first I am going to press home a point I think is really important here and we seem to be glancing over.

I really do appreciate all your imput and suggestions, and think they are invaluable. However, as has been pointed out, very little is known about this fort, very little will probably ever be know, and much of our knowledge is highly speculative and suject to different views, perspectives, opinions, interpretations and so on.

This reconstruction by default will have its fair share of innacuracies due to the sheer difficulty of recreating this site. I am not aiming at 100% accuracy as I do not believe this would be a realistic goal seeing how little is actually known about the fort.

Therefore, I do not think we need to get too technical on the gritty details of the fort. It will be represented as a 'run of the mill' geometrically sound typical roman fort, with the individual buildings modelled after similar examples, recostructions, foundations and so on. So please, take this into consideration when debating the particular details of this fort.