Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
It makes no sense
#1
This picture shows the fort near the Pons Aelius that has been discussed in an earlier topic but makes no sense at all with the fort detached from the wall near the north bank of the river Tyne.

If we are to believe that the wall from Newcastle to Wallsend was a later concept or idea of the Roman engineers just where did the wall terminate before that idea, was it still detached from the fort as shown with no protection at all.
[attachment=9130]500px-Pons_Aelius_overheadYD1.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#2
With only a cursory review of its situation...

Perhaps it makes a great deal more sense to have the fort detached from the wall so that it is less vulnerable to attack from the river in case of an amphibious attack/raid around the end of the wall and up the Tyne.

If the fort were attached to the wall, then an attack from the rear would be able to scale the wall away from the fort and then attack along the battlements.

The one puzzling thing, for me, I would like to ask is - is there no evidence for an additional 'barrack block' in the SW corner (in the gap)? My 'research & theory' would rather like there to be 10 in total. Smile
Reply
#3
Almost all of the forts on Hadrian's Wall are not only attached to the wall but in fact overlap the wall with their three northern gates beyond it so that troops can come out of any of the three to defend against any attack from the north.

Then there were the milecastles every Roman mile apart with two turrets in between each of these at 500 yard intervals and of course the ditch and vallum mounds behind the wall that serve as a defence behind the wall.

Then as mentioned earlier how would the wall have terminated at this point with the wall not attached to the fort, would it have simply been an open ended wall that any enemy could have very easily just walked around for this fort is some five miles or so from the east coast.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#4
Quote:Almost all of the forts on Hadrian's Wall are not only attached to the wall but in fact overlap the wall with their three northern gates beyond it so that troops can come out of any of the three to defend against any attack from the north.
As you know, Brian, Castlesteads is not only detached from the Wall but even has a river between it and frontier! Even so, the Vallum builders very pointedly included it within the earthwork to make the point that it belonged to the Wall system. Equally pointedly, they excluded Carvoran and made the Vallum swerve to the north to avoid that. Being attached to the Wall was not essential and in fact other frontiers, like the Obergermanisch-Raetische Limes, had all their forts detached from the linear barrier: it was the norm, there, and it is Hadrian's Wall that is unusual.


Quote:Then as mentioned earlier how would the wall have terminated at this point with the wall not attached to the fort, would it have simply been an open ended wall that any enemy could have very easily just walked around for this fort is some five miles or so from the east coast.
As I understand it from talking to David Breeze, he and Peter Hill now think the curtain wall from Newcastle to Wallsend was primary to the Wall scheme, so the issue of a gap at the eastern end does not arise.

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#5
Wasn't the Pons Aelius fort built to guard the river crossing? The reconstruction image makes it look very close to the wall itself - is that distance accurate?


Quote:is there no evidence for an additional 'barrack block' in the SW corner (in the gap)? My 'research & theory' would rather like there to be 10 in total. Smile

It was only a small fort, for a quingenary cohort at most, so there would probably only be six barrack blocks in total. You can see them in the reconstruction - the other three barrack-sized buildings with the buttressed walls are granaries. The two narrower right-angled buildings in the central range are presumably workshops.
Nathan Ross
Reply
#6
Quote:Almost all of the forts on Hadrian's Wall are not only attached to the wall but in fact overlap the wall with their three northern gates beyond it so that troops can come out of any of the three to defend against any attack from the north.

Then there were the milecastles every Roman mile apart with two turrets in between each of these at 500 yard intervals and of course the ditch and vallum mounds behind the wall that serve as a defence behind the wall.

Then as mentioned earlier how would the wall have terminated at this point with the wall not attached to the fort, would it have simply been an open ended wall that any enemy could have very easily just walked around for this fort is some five miles or so from the east coast.

Indeed, I quite understand that and assumed that you did too, which is why you had posed the question. Smile

Much further inland having the forts astride the wall, especially if the 'as designed' garrison was in place, makes complete sense - and it all depends on the topography and defence/offence options available. In this case, however, it is completely likely that the Pons Aelius fort has no less than 3 primary defence possibilities. Firstly to defend that end of the wall, cover the bridge and to defend against a riverine assault (5 miles is not that far). To cover all those requirements, having a completely enclosed/defended fort makes more sense and doesn't introduce a vulnerability that could be exploited before relief forces appear.
Reply
#7
Quote:............
Mark Hygate post=351601 Wrote:is there no evidence for an additional 'barrack block' in the SW corner (in the gap)? My 'research & theory' would rather like there to be 10 in total. Smile

It was only a small fort, for a quingenary cohort at most, so there would probably only be six barrack blocks in total. You can see them in the reconstruction - the other three barrack-sized buildings with the buttressed walls are granaries. The two narrower right-angled buildings in the central range are presumably workshops.

Small, yes, but I too must ask if the reconstruction is accurate? Given the layout (as I currently understand them and would wish to know a great deal more), it would seem reasonable to have the narrower buildings to the 'right' of the headquarters as the granaries as in other forts. A regularised layout would then suggest that 6 barracks blocks at the front could certainly be matched by some at the back too and there would seem to be room for 4, except only 3 are shown.

I'm aware that it is not always possible, given the regular shapes of buildings, to definitely determine their use, but it is certainly possible that a barracks shaped building is indeed a barracks - in this case possibly for a cavalry component (hence the 'wish' to see 4, or at least not a total of 9). At the very least, a large Workshop element would be puzzling for a 'small cohort' - and we could wonder whether auxiliary units ever contained workshops...... :unsure:
Reply
#8
What is a bit strange is why did the Roman engineers bring Hadrian's Wall all the way down from its high vantage point of about a mile above the top of the Tyne valley at only this place where there was a bridge over the river,

Then just about a couple of hundred yards before reaching the fort turn left to miss what they had engineered the whole system for, indeed the later medieval castle stands on the site of the earlier Roman fort and taking the line of the modern westgate road which is the line of the wall it comes all the way down to what is known as the black gate that is part of the castle.

Then there is the archaeological view at times that this fort is of later origin however the bridge and the fort may even go back to the Agricolan times, with the Stanegate coming all the way to this fort. It is considered that the name Pons Aelius indicates that Hadrian built this bridge however it may just be that he re-built or re-furbished what was already there.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#9
Quote:Small, yes, but I too must ask if the reconstruction is accurate?

As Brian mentioned, Newcastle castle was built right on top of the fort site, so determining the exact plan and layout is difficult. As far as I know, the only internal structures to have been discovered are a bit of the praetorium floor and part of one of the granaries. I'm not sure how clear the size and area of the fort itself is. I would guess that the reconstruction uses a 'best guess' approach, based on standard Roman form plans of the era, but others might know more.

I would think that forts of any size would have workshops or stores - any group of soldiers is going to need to repair equipment, slaughter animals, brew beer, store clothes and foodstuffs, mend boots and so on, and there's only limited space in the barracks for that...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#10
There were excavations by F.G. Simpson in 1928-9 where the size of the fort was said to be a possible 2 acres housing a possible 250 men.

However there has also been evidence found of the north ditch of Hadrian's Wall very near to the north of the Stephenson monument, which stands at the junction of west gate road and Neville street, therefore the wall is heading in the direction of the black gate where it would connect with the fort. In fact the line of west gate road would put the wall reaching even a little to the south of the black gate nearer to the castle keep.
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#11
Quote:the wall is heading in the direction of the black gate where it would connect with the fort. In fact the line of west gate road would put the wall reaching even a little to the south of the black gate nearer to the castle keep.
The accepted line is that it passes somewhere near the cathedral or Amen Corner, some way to the north. If it went as far south as the Black Gate (for which no evidence has been found), it would then have to climb north again with an uncalled-for re-entrant in order to line up with known stretches of curtain wall around Melbourne Street. There remains no evidence that the fort was attached to the curtain wall.

We'll have to hope the Hadrian's Wall Quest project turns up some new evidence. In the end, speculation (like resistance) is futile.

Mike Bishop
You know my method. It is founded upon the observance of trifles

Blogging, tweeting, and mapping Hadrian\'s Wall... because it\'s there
Reply
#12
Quote:What is a bit strange is why did the Roman engineers bring Hadrian's Wall all the way down from its high vantage point of about a mile above the top of the Tyne valley at only this place where there was a bridge over the river,.....................

You're definitely not happy with the fact that it doesn't seem to connect to the wall. Smile

Me, however, as I've suggested - the fact that it doesn't makes perfect sense. Your points that the wall deviates particularly at this point; the fact that this is a strategic crossing point; and, most likely indeed, that the crossing point and the need for a defence and a garrison on troops to provide that defence pre-dated the wall at this point are all suggestive to me of supporting my reasoning.

Quote:As Brian mentioned, Newcastle castle was built right on top of the fort site, so determining the exact plan and layout is difficult. As far as I know, the only internal structures to have been discovered are a bit of the praetorium floor and part of one of the granaries. .....................
I would think that forts of any size would have workshops or stores - any group of soldiers is going to need to repair equipment, slaughter animals, brew beer, store clothes and foodstuffs, mend boots and so on, and there's only limited space in the barracks for that...

Thanks for the additional background.

I would, however, argue that whilst storage of bulk grains to provide a significant store of food is part of the logistic supply of the garrison(s) in that vicinity and meets with the grain storage we seem to find in most forts (of any size); none of the other things need to be carried out within the defensive perimiter of the walls.

The garrison's own money, personal effects, the records, the Prefects/Tribunes house and chattels and said personal clothing and equipment; let alone the graneries and more than enough space for stored water would indeed be inside the walls.

But the: repair of equipment; slaughtering of animals; brewing of beer; etc don't need to be within the walls and are much more likely in the major vicus that would have grown up around this most important settlement area - hence why it's also now Newcastle. :wink:

This, IMHO, is not a 'castle' that is there to withstand a siege - it is a significant fortlet placed to survive long enough for reinforcements to appear; whilst acting as a firm base to control and supervise movement across the bridge, up and down the river and across the wall.

Personally I'd plump for a large cohort.
Reply
#13
I think that I would be more inclined to go for this reconstruction of H.B. Richardson from 1840 than the earlier one I have shown.

[attachment=9163]Pon-Aelii-1840-RichardsoS041.jpg[/attachment]

Then where it is known that the Stephenson monument stands on top of Hadrian's Wall and the south facing of the wall was discovered near the entrance to the Lit' & Phil' Society of Newcastle it does indicate that the wall is heading directly to the fort.

[attachment=9164]pic5litphil21.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
       
Brian Stobbs
Reply
#14
Here is a picture of the south face of the wall as mentioned earlier and what looks like the Stephenson monument in the background a few hundred yards to the west that leads on up westgate road beyond to the fort of Condercum. I think this is a picture taken in the 1950s.
[attachment=9166]images93ZSJF5D.jpg[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
Brian Stobbs
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Spidy Sense ?? Conal 5 1,525 01-09-2007, 01:30 PM
Last Post: Conal

Forum Jump: