Barrack Sizes and fort layouts

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Now for individual replies:

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.

Hi Stefan, I may reposition the buildings in question. The colour reproduction I made was based on the sketch so the location of the granaries, CO's house and Headwarters is supported by archaeological evidence.

The groundplans are borrowed from the nearby fort at arbeia and its reconstructions (for CO's house). Headquarters plan from an example seen on Paul Bidwell's Roman Forts.

Abour the barracks, again, the groundplan is that of the Arbeia fort, and its reconstruction, and the large room (and not a house) at the end is also supported in Paul Bidwell's Roman Forts. I presume the separate house at the end of the barracks was for larger and more prestigious fortresses (such as legionary ones) and I doubt such a small fort as the Pons Aelius one would have such luxury, especially for auxiliaries.

Remember my above post, much of the reconstruction is conjectural, based on incomplete evidence, possibly faulty interpretation of that incomplete evidence and heavy borrowing from similar/nearby ground plans/constructions.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

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.

Hi Brian,

I absolutely agree with you and the coloured sketch I made adresses these problems. The fort would have to be rather square-ish in shape, and maybe the barracks made smaller.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

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.

Hi Marcus,

The horrea are as the way they are based on archaeological evidence as seen on the 1986 black and white sketch. While I know it may be unusual for them to be positioned this way, we also know not all forts followed the same pattern and a lot of improvisation was used in the later centuries. I have mainly made the colour sketch the way it is based on evidence though, the only thing conjectural is the positioning and location of the barracks.

I know the roman forts where not square but had rounded edges, it was something I just did not include in the sketch. The reconstruction will surely be done with rounded edges.

About the wall, again, yes they are entirely conjectural. However, like I said in my previous post, remember this reconstruction will never be 100% accurate unfortunately and so I am willing to make some mistakes in its recreation. In the future when archaeologists get it right I will make the changes accordingly.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

Hi 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.

Brian has already provided solutions for the fact the fort is too small to accomodate 480 soldiers.

Regarding the size of the fort and its wall positions, like I said, I am all too aware of the risk of making mistakes, but it is a risk I am willing to take with this reconstruction.

Regarding the barracks, the example you gave of 10 rooms with a hypocausted suite at the end is the one I am going for. I have also read it in Paul Bidwell's Roman Forts as quite a common arrangement for auxiliary forts, and I *think* the one at arbeia is along those lines also.

This is what I am going for:


I am also in full agreement with you the groundplan for the granaries is unmistakebly that of a granary.

As for the positioning of the CO's house and headquarters, it will follow the 1986 plan, as I believe it do be fairly accurate and as you said, there is evidence to support it with the excavated hypocaust.

As for the rest, it is like you said, we cannot be too dogmatic, I am yes improvising with this seeing as very little is known, and yes I have borrowed heavily from similar sites (such as arbeia) for ground plans, buildins and so on, that are of similar forts, time periods and so on, so its not completely conjectural.

However, the walls, the barracks and much else unfortunately IS as we have little evidence to make an informed judgement on it.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Well. of course i have not seen the groundplan of the Horreae.

I was looking at the sketch which was posted. I know Horreae have their own specific ground plan and also am well aware that not every fort has the standard layout.

You are correct about the image i posted it is indeed Flavian.

About the 480 soldiers, here in the Netherlands we have had numerous outposts, and also a massive Castrum in which a Legion was based at full strenth. However you can never say the Legion was constantly at full strength since detachments of it were of course often on other duties elswhere, or sometimes a Legion was not fully manned.

In the case of the fort you describe it is highly likely that in times of need it could have entailed 480 men. Not so imho during "peacetime"

anyway its a pity not more can be excavated.

still, to assume that because one building has a hypocaust installed it immediately would be an officers house might not be the right answer.

more information is needed.

Romans also used Hypocausts to protect their Archives from rotting away.

M.VIB.M.

Your fort might have looked something like this
(the Utrecht Castellum)

[jkaler48]

Would there be any other buildings?
Buildings for Repair and manufacture of equipment
Additional storage buildings (Artillery not on the ramparts for example)
Stables for mules and horses and hay & fodder storage
(8 - 10 mules per century?)
Ovens for bread baking with perhaps sheds near by for dough preparation
Hospital with quarters for hospital staff
Latrine building (downhill end near the wall)
Baths (outside the walls or in an annex)
Barracks for attached/assigned cavalry

[D B Campbell]

Well. of course i have not seen the groundplan of the Horreae.

You can see them on the two plans that I have posted, H.J.
I'm sure you'll agree that they exhibit the standard granary-type foundations.

still, to assume that because one building has a hypocaust installed it immediately would be an officers house might not be the right answer.
more information is needed.
Romans also used Hypocausts to protect their Archives from rotting away.

But that would be a room in the principia, which we already have in its usual central position. The neighbouring building, with the luxury of a hypocausted room, can only (imho) be the praetorium.

Your fort might have looked something like this (the Utrecht Castellum)

Very nice image, H.J. Thanks for posting it!

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Most welcome!!

did they find any trace of mural paint work in the Principium and /or the Praetoria?

Bout the horrea, i just saw the small overlay pic by Nolan didnt see the other thread till now LOL

indeed Horrea!! WEIRDDD Place!!!

The pic is also for a fort of about 500.. maybe a little less...

Its how we believe the Utrecht Castellum may have looked 1st 2nd century A the jear of the Ivdaean rebel.



M.VIB.M.

[PhilusEstilius]

I think where Duncan has said that this fort is to problematic, and an easier one should be found for heavens sake don't choose Chesters for this one is even more problematic, 3 bathhouses an external grannery on the river bank, 2 Roman dams on the river above and below the Roman bridge and even more.

[MARCVS PETRONIVS MAIVS]

I think where Duncan has said that this fort is to problematic, and an easier one should be found for heavens sake don't choose Chesters for this one is even more problematic, 3 bathhouses an external grannery on the river bank, 2 Roman dams on the river above and below the Roman bridge and even more.

lol.. ok guys lets calm down, like I have reiterated in my other thread, MUCH OF THIS WORK IS CONJECTURAL. This will be made known in the reproductions, the only buildings we have a faint idea of the location are the granaries, the CO's House and Headquarters. Although walls have been located we do not know if these are fort walls, hadrian's wall or curtain walls.

Thus, this work WILL be innacurate in some aspects due to what little knowledge we have. We have also spent too much time now and have made too much progress with the images and models themselves to look back now.

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

What you could do is use the Groma technique...

from Praetorium and Principium you draw 4 straight lines, then use the barracks and regular spacing between Roman fort buildings to get the outlines. doenst work always of course, housesteads is Oblong too... but its a start..

M.VIB.M.