One Fort - One Unit

[D B Campbell]

I believe it's an exact example of what I would look for, a perfect fort of 12 barrack blocks: half for the Coh D; and the other half for the Ala D.

First off, Building 8 in the above plan has been shown quite convincingly not to have been a barrack -- it must be one of those ubiquitous "store buildings" that the Romans were fond of :wink: --, so that leaves 11 barracks.

Five of them (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) have traces of sumps, which are the tell-tale signs of horse stalls. In addition, two (nos. 6 and 9) have sumps in the so-called officer's quarters, and no. 6 also appears to have a single additional sump at the opposite end.

The excavator thought that, given the site geology, it was unwise to assume that barracks 7, 10, 11, and 12 had not originally had the same sumps. He felt that the required traces might simply have disappeared. Consequently, he suggested that ten cavalry troops had been detached from an ala quingenaria. (Let's call this Interpretation A.)

The only alternative he saw was to assume that six cavalry turmae had been detached from an ala and brigaded with four centuriae of infantry. This is essentially your suggestion, Mark. (Let's call this Interpretation B.)

An alternative, and -- to be honest -- much more likely scenario is that the fort was occupied by a cohors equitata. In this scenario, barrack blocks 3 and 4 go together to accommodate a single turma (when combined, they present the same number of rooms -- 13 -- as the others), while the other three turmae occupy nos. 1, 2 and 5. The remaining six centuriae of infantry occupy blocks 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 12. (Let's call this Interpretation C.)

In either interpretation, the peculiar building which spans both east ends of buildings 3 and 4 can be your dreaded "workshop". (The excavator thought that it was some kind of extended accommodation for a high-class officer, but that's difficult to prove.)

If you favour Interpretation B, you'd need to somehow explain away Interpretation C, which fits the evidence far better.

[Vindex]

A Forward Operating Base implies a rear one...as indeed FOBs have. Where is the Roman parallel here?

In simplistic terms my answer would have to be - the legionary fortress.

But are not the forts you are discussing here meant to sustain a force over a period of time MUCH longer than the "equivalent" FOB (and I wont mention air drops... :wink: )? Sources and discussions elsewhere indicate that store houses in these forts were suppossed to sustain it's occupation force for up to a year.

And one could argue that a FOB in Afghanistan is not really what a FOB is about...far more permanent and more greatly defended than the quick, agile base they used to be. Strategically, when does a dug in company position become/grow into a FOB I wonder? (but WAAAAY off topic!)

[MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS]

Well it does make you think Moi

Duncan, The 10-18.000 men is an estimate made by archaeologists, not by me. If there would have been two legions the number would be about 12.000, and if you count about 6.000 cavalry/Auxilia with them it could be possible. I am not sure whether it was at all what the archaeologists state. van Enckevort even believes that he has found traces of a legionary camp from the XIV Gemina near Nijmegen, based on a few walls and a ditch, without any coin or even stamps to prove this. So yes it is difficult.

I dont know if the Ermelo camp has ever been fully excavated.

M.VIB.M.

[Mark Hygate]

]First off.......

Ahh, Dr Campbell - I reached and you cut me off at the knees! :lol:

I can only blame your previous comment of "Half of them have got urine pits in the outer room!" (the bolding is mine for emphasis) for my excitement and apparently finding a good match.

With your additional information, however, no - I would immediately plump for Interpretation C too. Given the desire of commanders to keep their units together under their 'command'; I have never been entirely comfortable with the notion of the Romans providing permanent detachments. When this did routinely occur under the later Empire, I feel this lead to the creation of the smaller Field Army legios, but probably wasn't routinely necessary for the smaller/individual auxiliary units.

Just considering Option B for a moment, however - I have a reference that mentions, although also rare, that there were Ala Peditata (Cavalry Ala with attached Centuria, cf Coh Eq). Can anyone confirm that there is primary evidence for such?

[Mark Hygate]

But are not the forts you are discussing here meant to sustain a force over a period of time MUCH longer than the "equivalent" FOB (and I wont mention air drops... :wink: )......

Yes, but that's taking the FOB analogy far beyond where we are now - which, funnily enough is not due in any way for military reasons - but that's a different discussion for steins & schnapps!

[D B Campbell]

Ahh, Dr Campbell - I reached and you cut me off at the knees!

This thread is becoming awfully formal. I'm not used to such politeness on RAT! :wink: You're making me suspicious ...

With your additional information, however, no - I would immediately plump for Interpretation C too.

Perhaps I was guilty of over-selling my own preferred interpretation. For all I know, the excavator may still like Interpretation B. But it's worth noting that it needn't be an open-and-shut case. You pays your money ...

Given the desire of commanders to keep their units together under their 'command'; I have never been entirely comfortable with the notion of the Romans providing permanent detachments.

"Permanent" is probably the wrong word. Some detachments seem to have been able to exist for years away from their parent unit: it just depends on the task they were given. We rarely know enough about a given situation to paint the full picture.

I have a reference that mentions, although also rare, that there were Ala Peditata (Cavalry Ala with attached Centuria, cf Coh Eq). Can anyone confirm that there is primary evidence for such?

Sounds highly unlikely. Maybe a garbled description of a cohors equitata?

[Renatus]

I have a reference that mentions, although also rare, that there were Ala Peditata (Cavalry Ala with attached Centuria, cf Coh Eq). Can anyone confirm that there is primary evidence for such?

I think that we would need to have details of that reference before we could usefully comment.

[Mark Hygate]

I have a reference that mentions, although also rare, that there were Ala Peditata (Cavalry Ala with attached Centuria, cf Coh Eq). Can anyone confirm that there is primary evidence for such?

I think that we would need to have details of that reference before we could usefully comment.

Of course! It's an old copy of "The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome" by Phil Barker, WRG 4th Ed - which I've had for many many years since early interest and planning armies for war-games and whilst I was a subscriber to 'Slingshot' (I still have all my copies somewhere)

I've cannot recall having seen the Ala Peditata mentioned anywhere else.

[Mark Hygate]

This thread is becoming awfully formal. I'm not used to such politeness on RAT! :wink: You're making me suspicious ...

Well, Duncan & all those who have shown an interest...

I'm normally a nice guy and here I am dealing with those who have been kind enough to answer. I fully intend to place here, when it's done, a little paper that might well suggest some things that people disagree with - but I could just be right. It's something I've thought of several times over the years, but the last few months have given me some time to actively research.

I'm bright and clever and have a set of academic qualifications, but they're not in History or Archaeology (I had to give up History after 'O' Level, sadly), where many people here are 'professionals'. Me, I'm an amateur.

My best hope is that people might accept that my 'theory' might hold up to most criticism, but I certainly want to have it criticised. I too can play Devil's advocate - and I might well be wrong. But even if I am right, or end up defending my theory the best I can - I will try to keep it civil; even if it looks suspicious! 8)

Besides which, I've deliberately used my real name (just in case you all partially accept 'Hygate's Theory'! :wink: ) - and this is all in the public domain.

[D B Campbell]

I will try to keep it civil; even if it looks suspicious! 8)

Good idea. The moderators are always patrolling the corridors!

[PhilusEstilius]

Mark.

Where you refer to history and archaeology I always like to consider the old Collins dictionary definition where it Used to refer to an archaeologist as one who studies mankind in history.
It is only academia that has created the system we now have regarding archaeology, and being one who does not have any academic qualifications other than an O level in Astronomy I would not consider myself as an amateur in matters historical as nor indeed yourself should do. I always look at it this way that there is no such thing as an amateur archaeologist, for all we here on this web sight are historians and archaeologists to some level.
The thing that I dislike about archaeology is where we keep hearing the comments of, Possibly, Probably, and it's safe to assume, however these are words that prove nothing but simply end a discussion.
I think that after 22years of fixing HRH Buccaneer Bombers and other such Aircraft, we always had it hammered home that it is never safe to assume, but to check.
I have to end by saying that I have enjoyed your topic and given my small part in it.

[Renatus]

I have a reference that mentions, although also rare, that there were Ala Peditata (Cavalry Ala with attached Centuria, cf Coh Eq). Can anyone confirm that there is primary evidence for such?

I think that we would need to have details of that reference before we could usefully comment.

Of course! It's an old copy of "The Armies and Enemies of Imperial Rome" by Phil Barker, WRG 4th Ed - which I've had for many many years since early interest and planning armies for war-games and whilst I was a subscriber to 'Slingshot' (I still have all my copies somewhere)

I've cannot recall having seen the Ala Peditata mentioned anywhere else.

The trouble with Phil Barker's book is that he does not cite his sources, so you cannot tell whether they are primary or secondary. He may have taken it unquestioningly from the Encyclopedia Britannica or even from Lino Rossi's Trajan's Column and the Dacian Wars, both of which refer to such a unit but, naturally, without references. I see no mention of it in Cheesman, whose Appendix II seeks to list all auxiliary units known in 1914, and it should be there, if it existed, since the Encyclopedia Britannica reference comes from the 1911 edition.

[D B Campbell]

He may have taken it unquestioningly from the Encyclopedia Britannica ..., since the Encyclopedia Britannica reference comes from the 1911 edition.

I noticed this, too, Michael: online here. Surprisingly, the author of the article was Francis Haverfield, Cheesman's tutor at Oxford. I have no idea where he got ala peditata from.

[Mark Hygate]

He may have taken it unquestioningly from the Encyclopedia Britannica ..., since the Encyclopedia Britannica reference comes from the 1911 edition.

I noticed this, too, Michael: online here. Surprisingly, the author of the article was Francis Haverfield, Cheesman's tutor at Oxford. I have no idea where he got ala peditata from.

Duncan & Renatus,

Thank you. Whilst I will happily defend Phil Barker now; he does list a reasonable bibliography.

Cheesman, whilst I did some analysis on his numbers a few weeks ago, I just finished a full read. A really very useful book and now available online. I will, however, return to his numbers another time.....

[Mark Hygate]

Mark.....

Phil',

Thanks for the support. Have no fears, I will discuss/argue with the best of them - it takes us 'amateurs' to keep 'them' in line - hehe.

In my definition, however, I'm more thinking of those lucky people who have been able to pursue their interests on a more or less full-time basis and devote lots of time to study. I know I could be entirely happy to spend the rest of my life surrounded by all the available evidence, soak it all up and look at it all with a wide angle lens.

Anyone able to fund that? hock: