Appearence and tactics of early 5th century Saxons.

[ambrosius]

The Saxon Shore forts were not an answer to a threat from the sea...... In fact, were it not for their (temporary?) listing in one command in the Notitia Dignitatum, one could doubt that there should be a reason for them to belong to one concept.

What, you mean like the (temporary?) listing of the forts on Hadrian's
Wall in one command in the Notitia Dignitatum...? 8)

Besides, excavation has shown that some completely lack evidence of barracks, while on the other hand remain of civilian occupation have been found. There is a school of thought that sees in them not defensive forts but strengthened ware-houses for the gathering of taxes. I would not know how to prove this, but it seems not totally illogical.

:lol: 8) You don't say! Well Bradwell and Walton Castle
completely lack evidence of barracks. Mind you, both are now under
the North Sea. But perhaps you could give us details of any others...
I can tell you that the 4th c. civilian occupation at Portchester was most
definitely accompanied by barracks. But then, why should that surprise
us? We know that late-Roman garrisons were allowed to bring their
families inside forts for safety. It's the same point that wretched Dr.
Pryor tried vainly belabouring on last year's Time Team Big Roman Dig.
He wheeled Dr. Esmonde Cleary out to reveal the bracelets and shoes
of women and (shock, horror) children from the 4th c. levels at
Portchester, claiming that this was evidence against a garrison
being in residence. Despite the spear-head and balista-bolt he had just
been shown from the same level! I mean, come on! What is all this?
Portchester actually has TWO sets of barracks in its Eastern half,
suggesting a twinned or brigaded garrison, perhaps one of infantry
and one of marines. There's plenty of room in the Western half for all
these families to live in and drop their artifacts. Or perhaps Dr. Pryor
is convinced that Romano-British garrisons should have left their families
outside the fort walls and 'fed them to the wolves'. :evil:

As for these forts being strengthened warehouses for protecting the
grain harvest before shipping-out to the Rhine army, or for storing the
Anonna for feeding the troops based at the forts, themselves - or even
for keeping the harvest safe from marauding pirates throughout the
Winter, so that farmers can come and buy it back as they need it,
instead of having to house it in their barns, where it would be at the
mercy of every Saxon longboat that sails by - of COURSE they
could also be that. But the fatal mistake Andrew Pearson makes,
in the Tempus book in which you read that theory, is that he blindly
insists that that is the only thing they could have been! My God!
What is the problem with them being garrison forts AND warehouses
AT THE SAME TIME? :evil: :evil: :evil: Honestly, some people
are just obsessed with this Merrie Englande version of history.

Cheers,

Ambrosius/Mike