1.
Military of ancient Rome
–
In each war it acquired more territory until, when civil war ended the Roman Republic, nothing was left for the first emperor, Augustus, to do except declare it an empire and defend it. The role and structure of the military was then altered during the empire and it became less Roman, the duties of border protection and territorial administration being more and more taken by foreign mercenaries officered by Romans. When they divided at last into warring factions the empire fell, during the Roman Republic the function of the military was defined as service to the ‘’Senatus Populusque Romanus’’, an agency designated by SPQR on public inscriptions. Its main body was the senate, which met in a still extant in the forum of Rome. Its decrees were handed off to the two officers of the state, the consuls. They could levy from the citizens military force they judged was necessary to execute the decree. This they did in a draft of male citizens assembled by age class, the officers of the legion were tasked with selecting men for the ranks. The will of the SPQR was binding on the consuls and the men, the men were under a rigorous code, known now for its punitive crucifixion. The soldiers were busy doing whatever service needed to be done, soldiering, manning vessels, carpentry, blacksmithing, clerking. They were trained as required, but also previous skills, such as a trade, were exploited and they brought to the task and were protected by the authority of the state. The militarys campaign history stretched over 1300 years and saw Roman armies campaigning as far east as Parthia, as far south as Africa and Aegyptus and as far north as Britannia. The makeup of the Roman military changed substantially over its history, from its history as an unsalaried citizen militia to a later professional force. The equipment used by the military altered greatly in type over time, though there were very few improvements in weapons manufacture. For much of its history, the vast majority of Romes forces were maintained at or beyond the limits of its territory, in order to either expand Romes domain, or protect its existing borders. Expansions were infrequent, as the emperors, adopting a strategy of fixed lines of defense, had determined to maintain existing borders, for that purpose they constructed extensive walls and created permanent stations that became cities. At its territorial height, the Roman Empire may have contained between 45 million and 120 million people and this estimate probably included only legionary and auxiliary troops of the Roman army. However, Gibbon states that it is not, easy to define the size of the Roman military with any tolerable accuracy. However, he notes that these figures were subject to inflation due to the practice of leaving dead soldiers on the books in order to continue to draw their wage
2.
Founding of Rome
–
The most familiar of these myths, and perhaps the most famous of all Roman myths, is the story of Romulus and Remus, the twins who were suckled by a she-wolf. The national epic of mythical Rome, the Aeneid of Virgil, the Aeneid was written under Augustus, who claimed ancestry through Julius Caesar from the hero and his mother Venus. This started a series of armed conflicts with Turnus over the marriage of Lavinia, before the arrival of Aeneas, Turnus was betrothed to Lavinia, who then married Aeneas, starting the war. Aeneas won the war and killed Turnus, the Trojans won the right to stay and to assimilate with the local peoples. Toward the end of line, King Procas was the father of Numitor. At Procas death, Numitor became king of Alba Longa, but Amulius captured him and sent him to prison, for many years, Amulius was the king. The tortuous nature of the chronology is indicated by Rhea Silvias ordination among the Vestals, the myth of Aeneas was of Greek origin and had to be reconciled with the Italian myth of Romulus and Remus, who would have been born around 771 BC if taken as historical figures. They were purported to be sons of Rhea Silvia and either Mars and they were abandoned at birth, in the manner of many mythological heroes, because of a prophecy that they would overthrow their great-uncle Amulius, who had overthrown Silvias father Numitor. They were abandoned on the Tiber River by servants who took pity on the infants, the twins were nurtured by a she-wolf until a shepherd named Faustulus found the boys and took them as his sons. Faustulus and his wife Acca Larentia raised the children, when Remus and Romulus became adults, they killed Amulius and restored Numitor. They decided to establish a city, however, they quarreled, thus, Rome began with a fratricide, a story that was later taken to represent the citys history of internecine political strife and bloodshed. The ancient Romans were certain of the day Rome was founded, April 21, even the official Fasti Capitolini offers its own date,752 BC. Recent discoveries by Andrea Carandini on Romes Palatine Hill have also yielded evidence of a series of walls on the north slope that can be dated to the middle of the 8th century BC. According to the legend, Romulus plowed a furrow around the hill in order to mark the boundary of his new city, there is no consensus on the etymology of the citys name. Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested Greek ῥώμη, meaning strength, vigor, a modern theory of etymology holds that the name of the city is of Etruscan origin, derived from rumon, river. There is archaeological evidence of occupation of the Rome area from about 14,000 years ago. Evidence of stone tools, pottery and stone weapons attests to about 10,000 years of human presence, several excavations support the view that Rome grew from pastoral settlements on the Palatine Hill built above the area of the future Roman Forum. Between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron age, in any case, the location that became the city of Rome was inhabited by Latin settlers from various regions, farmers and pastoralists, as evidenced by differences in pottery and burial techniques
3.
Fall of the Western Roman Empire
–
The Fall of the Western Roman Empire was the process of decline in the Western Roman Empire in which it failed to enforce its rule, and its vast territory was divided into several successor polities. Increasing pressure from barbarians outside Roman culture also contributed greatly to the collapse, the reasons for the collapse are major subjects of the historiography of the ancient world and they inform much modern discourse on state failure. Relevant dates include 117 CE, when the Empire was at its greatest territorial extent, irreversible major territorial loss, however, began in 376 with a large-scale irruption of Goths and others. In 395, after winning two destructive civil wars, Theodosius I died, leaving a field army and the Empire, still plagued by Goths. Invading barbarians had established their own power in most of the area of the Western Empire, while its legitimacy lasted for centuries longer and its cultural influence remains today, the Western Empire never had the strength to rise again. The Fall is not the only unifying concept for these events, the Fall of the Western Roman Empire was the process of decline in the Western Roman Empire in which it failed to enforce its rule. The Fall is not the only unifying concept for these events, for Dio Cassius, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 CE marked the descent from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron. Gibbon started his story in 98 and Theodor Mommsen regarded the whole of the period as unworthy of inclusion in his Nobel Prize-winning History of Rome. Arnold J. Toynbee and James Burke argue that the entire Imperial era was one of decay of institutions founded in republican times. Gibbon gave a formulation of reasons why the Fall happened. He began a controversy about the role of Christianity, but he gave great weight to other causes of internal decline. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious, and, instead of inquiring why the Roman empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, alexander Demandt enumerated 210 different theories on why Rome fell, and new ideas have emerged since. Historians still try to analyze the reasons for loss of control over a vast territory. Comparison has also made with the Han Empire in China. At least from the time of Henri Pirenne, scholars have described continuity of culture and of political legitimacy, Pirenne postponed the demise of classical civilization to the 8th century. The more recent formulation of a period characterized as Late Antiquity emphasizes the transformations of ancient to medieval worlds within a cultural continuity. In recent decades archaeologically-based argument even extends the continuity in material culture, observing the political reality of lost control, but also the cultural and archaeological continuities, the process has been described as a complex cultural transformation, rather than a fall
4.
Structural history of the Roman military
–
From its origins around 800 BC to its final dissolution in AD476 with the demise of the Western Roman Empire, Romes military organization underwent substantial structural change. At the highest level of structure, the forces were split into the Roman Army, within the top levels of both army and navy, structural changes occurred as a result of both positive military reform and organic structural evolution. These changes can be divided into four distinct phases, phase I The army was derived from obligatory annual military service levied on the citizenry, as part of their duty to the state. During this period, the Roman army would wage seasonal campaigns against largely local adversaries, phase II As the extent of the territories falling under Roman control expanded and the size of the forces increased, the soldiery gradually became salaried professionals. As a consequence, military service at the lower levels became progressively longer-term, Roman military units of the period were largely homogeneous and highly regulated. The army consisted of units of infantry known as legions as well as non-legionary allied troops known as auxilia. The latter were most commonly called upon to provide infantry, logistical. Phase III At the height of the Roman Empires power, forces were tasked with manning and securing the borders of the vast provinces which had brought under Roman control. Serious strategic threats were common in this period and emphasis was placed on preserving gained territory. The army underwent changes in response to new needs and became more dependent on fixed garrisons than on march-camps. Phase IV As Rome began to struggle to control over its sprawling territories, military service continued to be salaried. However, the trend of employing allied or mercenary elements was expanded to such an extent that these came to represent a substantial proportion of the armed forces. At the same time, the uniformity of structure found in Romes earlier military disappeared, soldiery of the era ranged from lightly armed mounted archers to heavy infantry, in regiments of varying size and quality. This was accompanied by a trend in the empire of an increasing predominance of cavalry rather than infantry troops. In this period there was focus on smaller units of independently-operating troops, engaging less in set-piece battles and more in low-intensity. According to the historians Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing at a far later date, Historian Theodor Mommsen referred to it as Romes curiate army, named for its presumed subdivision along the boundaries of Romes three founding tribes, the Ramnians, Tities and Luceres. This armys exact structure is not known, but it is probable that it resembled a warrior band or group of bodyguards led by a chieftain or king. Mommsen believes that Roman military organization of this period was regimented by the Laws of King Italus but these laws, the army consisted, according to Livy, of exactly 3,000 infantry and 300 horsemen, one third from each of Romes three founding tribes
5.
Roman army
–
The Early Roman army of the Roman Kingdom and of the early Republic. During this period, when warfare chiefly consisted of small-scale plundering raids, it has suggested that the Roman Army followed Etruscan or Greek models of organisation. The early Roman army was based on an annual levy, the infantry ranks were filled with the lower classes while the cavalry were left to the patricians, because the wealthier could afford horses. Moreover, the authority during the regal period was the high king. Until the establishment of the Republic and the office of consul, however, from about 508 BC Rome no longer had a king. The commanding position of the army was given to the consuls, the term legion is derived from the Latin word legio, which ultimately means draft or levy. At first there were only four legions and these legions were numbered I to IIII, with the fourth being written as such and not IV. The first legion was seen as the most prestigious, the latter being a recurring theme in many elements of the Roman army. The bulk of the army was made up of citizens and these citizens could not choose the legion to which they were allocated. Any man from ages 16-46 were selected by ballot and assigned to a legion, until the Roman military disaster of 390 BC at the Battle of the Allia, Romes army was organised similarly to the Greek Phalanx. This was due to Greek influence in Italy by way of their colonies, patricia Southern quotes ancient historians Livy and Dionysius in saying that the phalanx consisted of 3,000 infantry and 300 cavalry. Each man had to provide his equipment in battle, the equipment which he could afford determined which position he took in the battle. Politically they shared the ranking system in the Comitia Centuriata. The Roman army of the mid-Republic was also known as the army or the Polybian army after the Greek historian Polybius. The latter were required to roughly the same number of troops to joint forces as the Romans to serve under Roman command. Legions in this phase were always accompanied on campaign by the number of allied alae. After the 2nd Punic War, the Romans acquired an overseas empire and these volunteers were mainly from the poorest social class, who did not have plots to tend at home and were attracted by the modest military pay and the prospect of a share of war booty. The minimum property requirement for service in the legions, which had been suspended during the 2nd Punic War, was effectively ignored from 201 BC onward in order to recruit sufficient volunteers
6.
Roman military decorations and punishments
–
As with most other military forces the Roman military adopted an extensive list of decorations for military gallantry and likewise a range of punishments for military transgressions. Grass crown -, was the highest and rarest of all military decorations and it was presented only to a general, commander, or officer whose actions saved the legion or the entire army. Civic crown -, was a chaplet of oak leaves woven to form a crown. During the Roman Republic, and the subsequent Principate, it was regarded as the second highest military decoration a citizen could aspire to, naval crown -, was a gold crown awarded to the first man who boarded an enemy ship during a naval engagement. In style, the crown was made of gold and surmounted with the beaks of ships, gold crown -, Awarded to both Centurions and apparently some principales, for killing an enemy in single combat and holding the ground to the end of the battle. Battlement crowns - These were made of gold and decorated with the uprights of an entrenchment or turrets of a city and it was awarded to the first soldier or Centurion to mount the wall or palisade of an enemy town or camp. Camp crown -, A golden crown which was ornamented with the used in forming an entrenchment. Augustus, Majestic or Venerable, an honorific cognomen exclusive to the emperor Αὐτοκράτωρ, the use of this decoration is not clear. A small silver replica of a standard or flag, when the Roman soldier enrolled in service to the state, he swore a military oath known as the sacramentum, originally to the Senate and Roman People, later to the general and the emperor. The sacramentum stated that he would fulfill his conditions of service on pain of punishment up to, discipline in the army was extremely rigorous by modern standards, and the general had the power to summarily execute any soldier under his command. Soldiers under sentence of fustuarium who escaped were not pursued, pecunaria multa - fines or deductions from the pay allowance. Flogging in front of the century, cohort or legion, demanding sureties, including the re-taking of the military oath known as the sacramentum. For treason or theft, the punishment would most probably be being placed in a sack of snakes and it would seem that in the later Empire independent commanders were given considerable latitude in the crimes they chose to punish and the penalties they inflicted. The author of the Vita Aureliani comments that Aurelian rarely punished twice for the same offence, however, even by Roman standards his justice was considered particularly harsh. Decimatio - a form of military discipline used by officers in the Roman Army to punish mutinous or cowardly soldiers in exceptional cases. The remaining soldiers were given rations of barley instead of wheat, as a result, they suffered a terrible defeat. Crassuss response to the disobedience was brutal and he assembled the two legions and pulled out every 10th man as he walked across the ranks. Each man who was pulled out was to be beaten to death by his nine comrades
7.
Auxilia
–
The Auxilia constituted the standing non-citizen corps of the Imperial Roman army during the Principate era, alongside the citizen legions. By the 2nd century, the Auxilia contained the number of infantry as the legions and in addition provided almost all of the Roman armys cavalry. The auxilia thus represented three-fifths of Romes regular land forces at that time, like their legionary counterparts, auxiliary recruits were mostly volunteers, not conscripts. The Auxilia were mainly recruited from the peregrini, free provincial subjects who did not hold Roman citizenship and constituted the vast majority of the population in the 1st and 2nd centuries. In contrast to the legions, which only admitted Roman citizens, reliance on the various contingents of non-Italic troops, especially cavalry, increased when the Roman Republic employed them in increasing numbers to support its legions after 200 BC. The Julio-Claudian period saw the transformation of the Auxilia from motley levies to a corps with standardised structure, equipment. By the end of the period, there were no significant differences between legionaries and auxiliaries in terms of training, and thus, combat capability. Auxiliary regiments were stationed in provinces other than that in which they were originally raised, for reasons of security. The regimental names of many auxiliary units persisted into the 4th century, but by then the units in question were different in size, structure, despite its formidable strength, the legion had a number of deficiencies, especially a lack of cavalry. Around 200 BC, a legion of 4,200 infantry had an arm of only 300 horse. In addition the legion lacked missile forces such as slingers and archers, until 200 BC, the bulk of a Roman armys cavalry was provided by Romes regular Italian allies, commonly known as the Latin allies, which made up the Roman military confederation. This was Romes defence system until the Social War of 91–88 BC, the Italian forces were organised into alae. Since a pre-Social War consular army always contained a number of legions and alae. The overall cavalry element, c. 12% of the force, was greater than in most peninsular Italian forces. The Roman/Latin cavalry was sufficient while Rome was in conflict with other states in the mountainous Italian peninsula, which also disposed of limited cavalry resources. The decisive Roman victory at Zama in 202 BC, which ended the war, owed much to the Numidian cavalry provided by king Massinissa, from then, Roman armies were always accompanied by large numbers of non-Italian cavalry, Numidian light cavalry and, later, Gallic heavy cavalry. For example, Caesar relied heavily on Gallic and German cavalry for his Conquest of Gaul, as the role of native cavalry grew, that of Roman/Latin cavalry diminished. In the early 1st century BC, Roman cavalry was phased out altogether, after the Social War, the socii were all granted Roman citizenship, the Latin alae abolished, and the socii recruited into the legions
8.
Roman navy
–
The Roman navy comprised the naval forces of the Ancient Roman state. The navy was instrumental in the Roman conquest of the Mediterranean basin, partly because of that, the navy was never wholly embraced by the Roman state, and deemed somewhat un-Roman. In Antiquity, navies and trading fleets did not have the autonomy that modern ships. Unlike modern naval forces, the Roman navy even at its height never existed as an autonomous service but operated as an adjunct to the Roman army. The Roman fleets were again prominent in the 1st century BC in the wars against the pirates, in 31 BC, the great naval Battle of Actium ended the civil wars culminating in the final victory of Augustus and the establishment of the Roman Empire. During the Imperial period, the Mediterranean became largely a peaceful Roman lake, in the absence of a maritime enemy, the navy was reduced mostly to patrol, anti-piracy and transport duties. The navy also manned and maintained craft on major rivers such as the Rhine. On the fringes of the Empire, in new conquests or, increasingly, in defense against barbarian invasions, the Roman fleets were still engaged in open warfare. The decline of the Empire in the 3rd century took a toll on the navy. As successive waves of the Völkerwanderung crashed on the frontiers of the battered Empire. In the early 5th century, the Roman frontiers were breached, one of them, the Vandal Kingdom, raised a navy of its own and raided the shores of the Mediterranean, even sacking Rome, while the diminished Roman fleets were incapable of offering any resistance. The Western Roman Empire collapsed in the late 5th century, the navy of the surviving eastern Roman Empire is known as the Byzantine navy. The exact origins of the Roman fleet are obscure, a traditionally agricultural and land-based society, the Romans rarely ventured out to sea, unlike their Etruscan neighbours. As a result, the Republic acquired its first fleet, consisting of 20 ships, most likely triremes and this situation continued until the First Punic War, the main task of the Roman fleet was patrolling along the Italian coast and rivers, protecting seaborne trade from piracy. It is possible that the supervision of these allies was one of the duties of the four new praetores classici. The first Roman expedition outside mainland Italy was against the island of Sicily in 265 BC and this led to the outbreak of hostilities with Carthage, which would last until 241 BC. At the time, the Punic city was the master of the western Mediterranean, possessing a long maritime and naval experience. Although Rome had relied on her legions for the conquest of Italy, operations in Sicily had to be supported by a fleet, thus in 261 BC, the Roman Senate set out to construct a fleet of 100 quinqueremes and 20 triremes
9.
Campaign history of the Roman military
–
These accounts were written by various authors throughout and after the history of the Empire. The Roman army battled first against its neighbours and Etruscan towns within Italy. From the outset, Romes military typified this pattern, and the majority of Romes campaigns were characterised by one of two types, the second is the civil war, which plagued Rome from its foundation to its eventual demise. Roman armies were not invincible, despite their reputation and host of victories. Nevertheless, it was generally the fate of even the greatest of Romes enemies, such as Pyrrhus and Hannibal, to win the battle, the history of Romes campaigning is, if nothing else, a history of obstinate persistence overcoming appalling losses. Knowledge of Roman history stands apart from other civilizations in the ancient world and its chronicles, military and otherwise, document the citys very foundation to its eventual demise. Romes earliest history, from the time of its founding as a tribal village. Although the early Romans were literate to some degree, this void may be due to the lack of will to record their history at that time, or such histories as they did record were lost. Although the Roman historian Livy lists a series of seven kings of early Rome in his work Ab urbe condita, from its establishment through its earliest years, a number of points of view have been proposed. Very little is known of Romes military history from this era, traditionally, Romulus, after founding the city, fortified the Palatine Hill, and shortly thereafter, Rome was equal to any of the surrounding cities in her prowess in war. The first of the campaigns fought by the Romans in this account are the wars with various Latin cities. According to Livy, the Latin village of Caenina responded to the event of the abduction of the Sabine women by invading Roman territory, the Latins of Antemnae and those of Crustumerium were defeated next in a similar fashion. The remaining main body of the Sabines attacked Rome and briefly captured the citadel, there was a further war in the 8th century BC against Fidenae and Veii. In the 7th century BC there was a war with Alba Longa, a war with Fidenae and Veii. Ancus Marcius led Rome to victory against the Latins and, according to the Fasti Triumphales, Lucius Tarquinius Priscus first war was waged against the Latins. Tarquinius took the Latin town of Apiolae by storm and took great booty from there back to Rome, according to the Fasti Triumphales, the war occurred prior to 588 BC. His military ability was tested by an attack from the Sabines, Tarquinius doubled the numbers of equites to help the war effort, and defeat the Sabines. Tarquinius returned to Rome and celebrated a triumph for his victories that, according to the Fasti Triumphales, subsequently, the Latin cities of Corniculum, old Ficulea, Cameria, Crustumerium, Ameriola, Medullia and Nomentum were subdued and became Roman
10.
Technological history of the Roman military
–
The rise of Hellenism and the Roman Republic are generally seen as signalling the end of the Iron Age in the Mediterranean. Roman iron-working was enhanced by a known as carburization. The Romans made use of the properties in their armaments. The Roman armies of the empire were much better equipped than early republican armies. Metals used for arms and armour primarily included iron, bronze, for construction, the army used wood, earth and stone. The later use of concrete in architecture was widely mirrored in Roman military technology, the Etruscans had invented the stone arch, and used it in bridges as well as buildings. Some later Roman technologies were directly from Greek civilization. This included the advances that the Greeks had made, as well as all the scientific, mathematical, political. However, the Romans made many significant technological advances, such as the invention of hydraulic cement and their methods were recorded by such luminaries as Vitruvius and Frontinus for example, who wrote handbooks to advise fellow engineers and architects. Romans knew enough history to be aware that widespread technological change had occurred in the past and brought benefits and that tradition continued as the empire grew in size and absorbed new ideas. Romans thought of themselves as practical, so small-scale innovation was common, however, this view is being challenged by new research that shows they did indeed innovate, and on a wide scale. Thus the watermill had been known to the Greeks, but it was the Romans who developed their efficient utilisation. The set of mills at Barbegal in southern France were worked by a single aqueduct and they probably were built by the army and supplied flour to a wide region. Floating mills were used to exploit fast flowing rivers. The Romans also used water power in a way during mining operations. The spectacular gold mine at Las Medulas was worked by no fewer than seven long aqueducts cut into the surrounding mountains, the outflow was channelled into sluice boxes, and the heavier gold collected on rough pavements. They also developed many deep mines, such as those for copper at Rio Tinto, dewatering machines, such as Archimedean screws and reverse overshot water wheels, were found in situ, one of which is on show at the British Museum. Another fragmentary example was recovered from the Roman gold mine at Dolaucothi in west Wales and they had the expertise to build the infrastructure of aqueducts and reservoirs, as well as control production
11.
Roman military engineering
–
The military engineering of Ancient Romes armed forces was of a scale and frequency far beyond that of any of its contemporaries. Roman military engineering took both routine and extraordinary forms, the former a proactive part of standard procedure. Each Roman legion had a military legionary fort as its permanent base, however, when on the march, particularly in enemy territory, the legion would, after a days marching, construct a fortified camp or castra, requiring as raw materials only earth, turf and timber. These engineers would requisition manual labor from the soldiers at large as required, a legion could throw up a camp under enemy attack in as little as a few hours. The engineers also built bridges from both timber and stone depending on required permanence, time available etc, some Roman stone bridges survive to this day. Stone bridges were made possible by the use of the keystone to allow an arch construction. One of the most notable examples of military bridge-building in the Roman Empire was Julius Caesars Bridge over the Rhine River and this bridge was completed in only ten days and is conservatively estimated to have been more than 100 m long. Caesar was able to cross over the bridge and explore the area uncontested, before crossing back over. The bridge was intended to show otherwise, the 1st century BC army engineer Vitruvius describes in detail many of the Roman siege machines in his manuscript De Architectura. When invading enemy territories, the Roman army would often construct roads as they went, to allow swift reinforcement and resupply, Roman road-making skills are such that some Roman roads survive to this day. Michael Grant credits the Roman building of the Via Appia with winning them the Second Samnite War, the Roman army also took part in building projects for civilian use. Of both military and civilian use was the construction of roads within the boundaries of the Empire, in which the army was heavily involved. But so too were soldiers put to use in the construction of walls, the digging of shipping canals. In some rare cases soldiers were used in mining work. It is likely that they were capable of building and operating mine equipment such as water mills, stamp mills. It is likely that they were involved in exploiting gold resources such as those at Dolaucothi in south west Wales. This wall is estimated to have been over 20 km long, a second example would be the massive ramp built using thousands of tons of stones and beaten earth up to the invested city of Masada in the Jewish Revolt. The siege works and the remain in a remarkable state of preservation today
12.
Castra
–
In the Roman Empire, the Latin word castrum was a building, or plot of land, used as a fortified military camp. Castrum was the used for different sizes of camps including a large legionary fortress, smaller auxiliary forts, temporary encampments. The diminutive form castellum was used for fortlets, typically occupied by a detachment of a cohort or a century, in English, the terms Roman fortress, Roman fort and Roman camp are commonly used for castrum. However, scholastic convention tends toward the use of the camp, marching camp. For a list of known castra see List of castra, the term castrum appears in three Italic languages, Oscan, Umbrian and Latin. g. Castrum Album, Castrum Inui, Castrum Novum, Castrum Truentinum, Castrum Vergium. The plural was used as a place name, as Castra Cornelia. Castrorum Filius was one of names used by the emperor Caligula, the terms stratopedon and phrourion were used by Greek language authors to translate castrum and castellum, respectively. A castrum was designed to house and protect the soldiers, their equipment and this most detailed description that survives about Roman military camps is De Munitionibus Castrorum, a manuscript of 11 pages that dates most probably from the late 1st to early 2nd century AD. Regulations required a major unit in the field to retire to a properly constructed camp every day, to this end a marching column ported the equipment needed to build and stock the camp in a baggage train of wagons and on the backs of the soldiers. They could throw up a camp under enemy attack in as little as a few hours. Judging from the names, they used a repertory of camp plans, selecting the one appropriate to the length of time a legion would spend in it, tertia castra, quarta castra. A camp of three days, four days, etc, more permanent camps were castra stativa, standing camps. The least permanent of these were castra aestiva or aestivalia, summer camps, in which the soldiers were housed sub pellibus or sub tentoriis, under tents. For the winter the soldiers retired to castra hiberna containing barracks and other buildings of solid materials. The camp allowed the Romans to keep a rested and supplied army in the field, neither the Celtic nor Germanic armies had this capability, they found it necessary to disperse after only a few days. The largest castra were legionary fortresses built as bases for one or more whole legions, previously, legions were raised for specific military campaigns and subsequently disbanded, requiring only temporary castra. From then on many castra of various sizes were established many of which became permanent settlements, from the most ancient times Roman camps were constructed according to a certain ideal pattern, formally described in two main sources, the De Munitionibus Castrorum and the works of Polybius
13.
Roman siege engines
–
Roman siege engines were, for the most part, adapted from Hellenistic siege technology. Relatively small efforts were made to develop the technology, however, up to the 1st century BC the Romans utilized siege weapons only as required and relied for the most part on ladders, towers and rams to assault a fortified town. Ballistae were also employed, but held no permanent place within a legions roster, until later in the Republic, Julius Caesar took great interest in the integration of advanced siege engines, organizing their use for optimal battlefield efficiency. To facilitate this organization and the army’s self-sufficiency, a corps was developed. There were legion architects who were responsible for the construction of war machines who would also assure that all artillery constructions in the field were level, ensuring that constructions were level was the job of the libratores, who would also launch missiles and other projectiles during battle. The engineering corps was in charge of production, frequently prefabricating artillery. Roman artillery was very efficient at that time, and during a siege the Romans would attack the weakest area of their enemy’s defenses and attempt to breach the walls at that point. To support this effort, artillery fire would commence, with three objectives, to cause damage to defenses, casualties among the opposing army. It would also provide cover fire for troops building siege ramps or those in siege towers, there were machines called tormenta, which would launch projectiles such as javelins, arrows, rocks, or beams. These devices were on wheeled platforms to follow the line’s advance and it was later stated that sinew, instead of twisted hair, provided a better “spring. It is somewhat difficult to define and describe Roman artillery, as names are easily confused. Perhaps best known are the ballista, the onager, and the scorpio, after the absorption of the Ancient Greek City states into the Roman Republic in 146 BC, some advanced Greek technology began to spread across many areas of Roman influence. This included the hugely advantageous military advances the Greeks had made, as well as all the scientific, mathematical, political, the torsion ballista, developed by Alexander, was a far more complicated weapon than its predecessor, and the Romans developed it even further. Vitruvius, in his De Architectura Book X, describes the construction, every century in the Roman army had a ballista by the 1st century AD. It was the command of the chief of the ballista, under whom were the experts, or doctores ballistarum and finally. Ballistae were heavy missile weapons, hurling large rocks great distances to damage rampart walls and they resembled large crossbows, rather than catapults. The arms were drawn rearward with a lever to further twist the skeins. It has been said that the sound of a ballista-fired stone struck fear
14.
Roman roads
–
They provided efficient means for the overland movement of armies, officials, and civilians, and the inland carriage of official communications and trade goods. Roman roads were of several kinds, ranging from local roads to broad, long-distance highways built to connect cities, major towns. These major roads were often stone-paved and metaled, cambered for drainage and they were laid along accurately surveyed courses, and some were cut through hills, or conducted over rivers and ravines on bridgework. Sections could be supported over marshy ground on rafted or piled foundations, at the peak of Romes development, no fewer than 29 great military highways radiated from the capital, and the late Empires 113 provinces were interconnected by 372 great roads. The whole comprised more than 400,000 kilometres of roads, in Gaul alone, no less than 21,000 kilometres of roadways are said to have been improved, and in Britain at least 4,000 kilometres. The courses of many Roman roads survived for millennia, some are overlaid by modern roads, livy mentions some of the most familiar roads near Rome, and the milestones on them, at times long before the first paved road—the Appian Way. Unless these allusions are just simple anachronisms, the referred to were probably at the time little more than levelled earthen tracks. Thus, the Via Gabina is mentioned in about 500 BC, the Via Latina in about 490 BC, the Via Nomentana, in 449 BC, the Via Labicana in 421 BC, and the Via Salaria in 361 BC. There is hardly a district to which we expect a Roman official to be sent, on service either civil or military. They reach the Wall in Britain, run along the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates, and cover, as with a network, a road map of the empire reveals that it was generally laced with a dense network of prepared viae. Beyond its borders there were no paved roads, however, it can be supposed that footpaths, there were, for instance, some pre-Roman ancient trackways in Britain, such as the Ridgeway and the Icknield Way. For specific roads, see Roman road locations below, the Laws of the Twelve Tables, dated to about 450 BC, specified that a road shall be 8 Roman feet wide where straight and twice that width where curved. Actual practices varied from this standard, the Tables command Romans to build roads and give wayfarers the right to pass over private land where the road is in disrepair. Roman law defined the right to use a road as a servitus, the ius eundi established a claim to use an iter, or footpath, across private land, the ius agendi, an actus, or carriage track. A via combined both types of servitutes, provided it was of the width, which was determined by an arbiter. The default width was the latitudo legitima of 8 feet, Roman law and tradition forbade the use of vehicles in urban areas, except in certain cases. Married women and government officials on business could ride, the Lex Iulia Municipalis restricted commercial carts to night-time access in the city within the walls and within a mile outside the walls. Such roads led either to the sea, or to a town, or to a public river and these roads bear the names of their constructors
15.
Political history of the Roman military
–
Romes military was always tightly keyed to its political system. In the Roman kingdom the social standing of a person impacted both his political and military roles, the political system was from an early date based upon competition within the ruling elite. Senators in the Republic competed fiercely for public office, the most coveted of which was the post of Consul, two were elected each year to head the government of the state, and would be assigned a consular army and an area in which to campaign. The late Republic and Empire was increasingly plagued by usurpations led by or supported by the military, a further politicization of the military involved officers for a unit not belonging to and being drawn from the class of the military unit he commanded but being selected often through voting. Violence broke out and the Senate ordered Gaius Marius, as Consul for that year, Marius, although he was generally allied with the radicals, complied with the request and put down the revolt in the interest of public order. After the conclusion of the Social War, certain of Romes eastern provinces became under threat of invasion, the choice before the Senate was to put either Consul Marius or Consul Sulla in command of an army. Marius had already served five consulships and enjoyed widespread popularity, the senate made its decision and Sulla was given the job but a short time later the decision was reversed by the Assembly, and Marius placed in command. Sulla left Rome and traveled to reach the army waiting in Nola, Sulla urged his legions to defy the Assemblys orders and accept him as their rightful leader. Sulla was successful and the legions stoned the representatives from the Assembly when they arrived, Sulla then commanded six legions to march with him to Rome. This was an event, and was unforeseen by Marius, as no Roman army had ever marched upon Rome - it was forbidden by law. It was a pattern to be repeated more famously later by Caesar, during the First Triumvirate of Julius Caesar, Pompey and Crassus, each of the triumvires used military success to enhance their own political and public status. Rather, it was another step in the severance of the connection between state and troops that saw armies increasingly become tied to their generals political careers. When the triumvirate collapsed, Caesar crossed the Rubicon river and marched his armies upon Rome itself, Caesar, on the other hand, marched his army against Rome purely for his own purposes. In everything but name, the army had placed the first Emperor on the throne of Rome, however, the state saw itself as relatively safe from such rebellions in the early imperial period. However, later larger-scale wars necessitated the concentration of military power in the hands of generals. There is evidence of emperors holding some members of families as hostage to ensure their loyalty. Likewise, from 211 to the accession of Diocletian and the establishment of the Tetrarchy in 293, however, there were also 38 usurpers who raised revolts across the empire. The latter problem meant that there were always men remote from their duties and loyalties in Rome and in command or large armies marching under their discipline, the usurpation mania of the 3rd century had profound effects in the military organization of the Empire
16.
Strategy of the Roman military
–
The strategy of the Roman military contains its grand strategy, operational strategy and, on a small scale, its military tactics. If a fourth rung of engagement is added, then the whole can be seen as a ladder, whereas the purest form of tactics or engagement are those free of political imperative, the purest form of political policy does not involve military engagement. Strategy as a whole is the connection between political policy and the use of force to achieve it. In its clearest form, strategy deals solely with military issues, either a threat or an opportunity is recognised, an evaluation is made, and a military stratagem for meeting it is devised. However, as Clausewitz stated, a military strategy may be a means to an end. Where a state has a long term goal to which they apply military methods and the resources of the state. To an extent, all states will have a strategy to a certain degree even if it is simply determining which forces to raise as a military. Whilst early Rome did raise and arm troops, they tended to them annually in response to the specific demands of the state during that year. The contribution of military force to strategy was largely reduced to operational strategy - the planning. Romes grand strategy incorporated diplomacy through which Rome might forge alliances or pressure another nation into compliance, is to be considered, every expedient tried and every method taken before matters are brought to this last extremity. Good officers decline general engagements where the odds are too great, however, Vegetius was writing late in the fourth century AD, in the latter years of the Empire. During this period, and for much of the Empire, it can be argued that the Romans did follow a grand strategy calling for limited direct operational engagement. When a campaign did go wrong, operational strategy varied greatly as the circumstances dictated, from naval actions to sieges, assaults of fortified positions. However, the preponderance of Roman campaigns exhibit a preference for direct engagement in battle and, where necessary. The Roman army was adept at building fortified camps for protection from attack, but history shows a reluctance to sit in the camp awaiting battle. Once the legion had deployed on an operation, they would march to their objective. There were exceptions when the armies were transported by the Roman navy, the approach to the battlefield was made in several columns, enhancing maneuver. Typically a strong vanguard preceded the main body, and included scouts, cavalry, a tribune or other officer often accompanied the vanguard to survey the terrain for possible camp locations
17.
Roman infantry tactics
–
Roman infantry tactics refers to the theoretical and historical deployment, formation and maneuvers of the Roman infantry from the start of the Roman Republic to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The article first presents an overview of Roman training. Roman performance against different types of enemies is then analyzed, the focus below is primarily on Roman tactics - the how of their approach to battle, and how it stacked up against a variety of opponents over time. It does not attempt detailed coverage of things like army structure or equipment, various battles are summarized to illustrate Roman methods with links to detailed articles on individual encounters. For in depth background on the structure of the infantry relevant to this article. For a history of Romes military campaigns see Campaign history of the Roman military, for detail on equipment, daily life and specific legions see Roman legion and Roman military personal equipment. Roman military tactics and strategy evolved from typical of a small tribal host seeking local hegemony. This advance was affected by changing trends in Roman political, social and economic life, and that of the larger Mediterranean world and these elements waxed and waned over time, but they form a distinct basis underlying Romes rise. This included the reversal of status of cavalry and infantry in the Eastern Empire and this bounty of military resources enabled Rome to apply crushing pressure to its enemies, and stay in the field and replace losses, even after suffering setbacks. One historian of the Second Punic War states, According to Polybius, Brunt adjusted Polybius’ figures and estimated that the population of Italy, not including Greeks and Bruttians, exceeded 875,000 free adult males, from whom the Romans could levy troops. Rome not only had the potential to levy vast numbers of troops, Brunt estimates that Rome mobilized 108,000 men for service in the legions between 218BC and 215BC, while at the height of the war effort Rome was able to mobilize approximately 230,000 men. Against these mighty resources Hannibal led from Spain an army of approximately 50,000 infantry and 9,000 cavalry, rome’s manpower reserves allowed it to absorb staggering losses yet still continue to field large armies. For example, according to Brunt, as many as 50,000 men were lost between 218BC and 215BC, but Rome continued to place between 14 and 25 legions in the field for the duration of the war. Put simply, the disparity in the number of available troops at the outset of the conflict meant that Hannibal had a much narrower margin for error than the Romans. This load consisted of armour, a called a gladius. There were also tools for digging and constructing a castra, the fortified base camp. One writer recreates the following as to Caesars army in Gaul, Each soldier arranged his heavy pack on a T or Y-shaped rod, shields were protected on the march with a hide cover. Each legionary carried about 5 days worth of wheat, pulses or chickpeas, a flask of oil and a kit with a dish, cup
18.
Roman military frontiers and fortifications
–
Roman military borders and fortifications were part of a grand strategy of territorial defense in the Roman Empire, although this is a matter of debate. In particular, Goldsworthy argues that the warfare of the Parthians, Sarmatians and Persians presented a major challenge to the expansion of Romes infantry-based armies. Individual fortifications had been constructed by the Roman military from as early as the building of Romes first city walls in the 6th or 7th century BC, however, systematic construction of fortifications around the periphery of the empire on a strategic scale began around 40 AD under Emperor Caligula. However, it was under Hadrians rule, which began in 117 and he spent half of his 21-year reign touring the empire and advocating for the construction of forts, towers, and walls all across the edges of the empire. The coherent construction of fortifications on a strategic scale are known as the limes. The limes consisted of fortresses for legions or vexillations as well as a system of roads for the transit of troops and, in some places. Perhaps the most famous example of these is Hadrians Wall in Great Britain, however, it is not correct to interpret other limes in the same way or to view the limes as an impenetrable barrier. Other limes would not have had a continuous man-made fortification for the entirety of their length, in places, a river, desert or natural outcropping of rock could provide the same effect for zero outlay. Additionally, an army would have been able to force a crossing of the limes using siege equipment. The limes are therefore perhaps better seen as an instrument allowing a greater economy of force in defense of a border than otherwise would be necessary to provide the level of defense. After 270, the maintenance of an impenetrable solid frontier was abandoned by Constantine I in favor of a policy, whether deliberate or forced by circumstance and this called for the maintenance of a softer, deeper perimeter area of defense, with concentrated hard points throughout its depth. In the very late Empire the frontiers became even more elastic, instead, armies were concentrated near the heart of the empire, and enemies allowed to penetrate in cases as far inwards as the Italian peninsula before being met in battle. After conquering much of the landmass of Great Britain, the Romans halted their northern expansion at the southern fringe of Caledonia. This left them with a border shared with a people who made repeated raids, although the border was not a continuous wall, a series of fortifications known as Gask Ridge in mid-Scotland may well be Romes earliest fortified land frontier. Constructed in the 70CE or 80CE, it was superseded by the later Hadrians Wall forty years later, although records are scarce, there are indications that the border fluctuated between the various fortifications depending on the local strength of the military. These northern fortifications are sometimes styled the Limes Britannicus, the average garrison of the wall fortifications is thought to have been around 10,000 men. Along with a wall, there existed a metaled road immediately behind the wall for transport of troops. In the later Empire, Roman Britannia found itself vulnerable to external aggression
19.
Limes
–
A limes was a border defence or delimiting system of Ancient Rome. It marked the boundaries and provinces of the Roman Empire, the word limes was utilized by Latin writers to denote a marked or fortified frontier. This was the definition and usage of the term. It is now common to accept that limes was not a term used by the Romans for the imperial frontier. This is a modern, anachronistic interpretation, the term became common after the 3rd century AD, when it denoted a military district under the command of a dux limitis. The limites represented the line of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent in the 2nd century AD. It stretched over 5,000 km from the Atlantic coast of northern Britain, through Europe to the Black Sea, the remains of the limites today consist of vestiges of walls, ditches, forts, fortresses and civilian settlements. Certain elements of the line have been excavated, some reconstructed, the two sections of the limes in Germany cover a length of 550 km from the north-west of the country to the Danube in the south-east. The 118 km long Hadrians Wall was built on the orders of the Emperor Hadrian c, AD122 at the northernmost limits of the Roman province of Britannia. It is an example of the organization of a military zone and illustrates the defensive techniques. The Antonine Wall, a 60 km-long fortification in Scotland, was started by Emperor Antoninus Pius in AD142 as a defense against the Barbarians of the north and it constitutes the northwestern-most portion of the Roman Limes. Limes Norici, the frontier of the Roman province Noricum, from the River Inn along the Danube to Cannabiaca in Austria, Limes Pannonicus, the frontier of the Roman province Pannonia, along the Danube from Klosterneuburg Austria to Taurunum in Serbia. A mediaeval limes is the Limes Saxoniae in Holstein, the stem of limes, limit-, which can be seen in the genitive case, limitis, marks it as the ancestor of an entire group of important words in many languages, for example, English limit. Modern languages have multiplied its abstract formulations, for example, from limit comes the abbreviation lim, used in mathematics to designate the limit of a sequence or a function, see limit. In metaphysics, material objects are limited by matter and therefore are delimited from each other, in ethics, men must know their limitations and are wise if they do. An etymology was given in detail by Julius Pokorny, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. According to him, it comes from Indo-European el-, elei-, lei-, to bow, to bend, the Latin meaning was discussed in detail by W. Gebert. The sense is that a limit bends across one in some way, the limes was a cross-path or a cross-wall, which the Romans meant to throw across the path of invaders to hinder them
20.
Antonine Wall
–
Representing the northernmost frontier barrier of the Roman Empire, it spanned approximately 63 kilometres and was about 3 metres high and 5 metres wide. Security was bolstered by a ditch on the northern side. It is thought there was a wooden palisade on top of the turf. The barrier was the second of two great walls created by the Romans in Northern Britain and its ruins are less evident than the better-known Hadrians Wall to the south, primarily because the turf and wood wall has largely weathered away, unlike its stone-built southern predecessor. Construction began in AD142 at the order of Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, Antoninus Pius never visited Britain, whereas his predecessor Hadrian did. Pressure from the Caledonians may have led Antoninus to send the troops further north. The Antonine Wall was protected by 16 forts with small fortlets between them, troop movement was facilitated by a road linking all the known as the Military Way. The soldiers who built the wall commemorated the construction and their struggles with the Caledonians in decorative slabs, the wall was abandoned only eight years after completion, and the garrisons relocated back to Hadrians Wall. In 208 Emperor Septimius Severus re-established legions at the wall and ordered repairs, the occupation ended a few years later, and the wall was never fortified again. Most of the wall and its associated fortifications have been destroyed over time, many of these have come under the care of Historic Scotland and the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius ordered the construction of the Antonine Wall around 142, quintus Lollius Urbicus, governor of Roman Britain at the time, initially supervised the effort, which took about twelve years to complete. The wall stretches 63 kilometres from Old Kilpatrick in West Dunbartonshire on the Firth of Clyde to Carriden near Boness on the Firth of Forth, the wall was intended to extend Roman territory and dominance by replacing Hadrians Wall 160 kilometres to the south, as the frontier of Britannia. The Romans called the north of the wall Caledonia, though in some contexts the term may refer to the whole area north of Hadrians Wall. The Antonine Wall was shorter than Hadrians Wall and built of turf on a stone rather than of stone. The stone foundations and wing walls of the original forts demonstrate that the plan was to build a stone wall similar to Hadrians Wall. As built, the wall was typically a bank, about four metres high, made of layered turves and occasionally earth with a ditch on the north side. The Romans initially planned to build forts every 10 kilometres, but this was revised to every 3.3 kilometres. The best preserved but also one of the smallest forts is Rough Castle Fort
21.
Hadrian's Wall
–
It had a stone base and a stone wall. There were milecastles with two turrets in between, there was a fort about every five Roman miles. From north to south, the wall comprised a ditch, wall, military way and vallum and it is thought the milecastles were staffed with static garrisons, whereas the forts had fighting garrisons of infantry and cavalry. In addition to the defensive military role, its gates may have been customs posts. A significant portion of the wall still stands and can be followed on foot along the adjoining Hadrians Wall Path, the largest Roman artefact anywhere, it runs a total of 73 miles in northern England. Regarded as a British cultural icon, Hadrians Wall is one of Britains major ancient tourist attractions and it was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1987. It is a misconception that Hadrians Wall marks the boundary between England and Scotland. In fact Hadrians Wall lies entirely within England and has never formed the Anglo-Scottish border, while it is less than 1 kilometre south of the border with Scotland in the west at Bowness-on-Solway, in the east it is as much as 110 kilometres away. Hadrians Wall was 80 Roman miles or 117.5 km long, its width and height varied according to the materials available nearby.5 metres high. These dimensions do not include the walls ditches, berms and forts, the central section measured eight Roman feet wide on a 3 m base. Some parts of section of the wall survive to a height of 3 m. Immediately south of the wall, a ditch was dug, with adjoining parallel mounds. This is known today as the Vallum, even though the word Vallum in Latin is the origin of the English word wall, in many places – for example Limestone Corner – the Vallum is better preserved than the wall, which has been robbed of much of its stone. The A69 and B6318 roads follow the course of the wall from Newcastle upon Tyne to Carlisle, although the curtain wall ends near Bowness-on-Solway, this does not mark the end of the line of defensive structures. The system of milecastles and turrets is known to have continued along the Cumbria coast as far as Risehow, for classification purposes, the milecastles west of Bowness-on-Solway are referred to as Milefortlets. Hadrians Wall was probably planned before Hadrians visit to Britain in AD122, according to restored sandstone fragments found in Jarrow which date from 118 or 119, it was Hadrians wish to keep intact the empire, which had been imposed on him via divine instruction. The fragments then announce the building of the wall and it is entirely possible that, on his arrival in Britain in 122, one of the stops on his itinerary was the northern frontier to inspect the progress of the building of the wall. Theories have been presented by historians, mostly of an expression of Roman power and these troubles may have influenced Hadrians plan to construct the wall as well as his construction of limites in other areas of the Empire, but to what extent is unknown
22.
Saxon Shore
–
The Saxon Shore was a military command of the late Roman Empire, consisting of a series of fortifications on both sides of the English Channel. It was established in the late 3rd century and was led by the Count of the Saxon Shore, in the late 4th century, his functions were limited to Britain, while the fortifications in Gaul were established as separate commands. Several Saxon Shore forts survive in east and south-east England, during the latter half of the 3rd century, the Roman Empire faced a grave crisis. Internally, it was weakened by wars, the violent succession of brief emperors. Most of Britain had been part of the empire since the mid-1st century and it was protected from raids in the north by the Hadrianic and Antonine Walls, while a fleet of some size was also available. However, as the frontiers came under increasing pressure, fortifications were built throughout the Empire in order to protect cities. It is in context that the forts of the Saxon Shore were constructed. Dover was already fortified in the early 2nd century, and the forts in this group were constructed in the period between the 270s and 290s. However, due to the absence of evidence, theories have varied between scholars as to the exact meaning of the name, and also the nature and purpose of the chain of forts it refers to. Two interpretations were put forward as to the meaning of the adjective Saxon, either a shore attacked by Saxons, or a shore settled by Saxons. This view is reinforced by the chain of fortifications across the Channel on the northern coasts of Gaul. Other scholars like John Cotterill however consider the threat posed by Germanic raiders, at least in the 3rd and early 4th centuries and this view, although widely disputed, has found recent support from archaeological evidence at Pevensey, which dates the forts construction to the early 290s. Whatever their original purpose, it is certain that in the late 4th century the forts and their garrisons were employed in operations against Frankish. Britain was abandoned by Rome in 407, with Armorica following soon after, the forts on both sides continued to be inhabited in the following centuries, and in Britain in particular several continued in use well into the Anglo-Saxon period. The nine forts mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum for Britain are listed here, one of the earliest forts, dated to the 230s. It was built to guard the Wash approaches and is of a typical rectangular castrum layout and it was garrisoned by the Equites Dalmatae Brandodunenses, although evidence exists suggesting that its original garrison was the cohors I Aquitanorum. Established between 260 and the mid-270s to guard the River Yare, it was garrisoned by the Equites Stablesiani Gariannoneses, although there is some discussion as to whether this is actually the fort at Caister-on-Sea, and being on the opposite bank of the same estuary as Burgh Castle. Together with Brancaster one of the earliest forts, built in the 210s to guard the Thames estuary and it was garrisoned by the cohors I Baetasiorum since the 3rd century
Military of ancient Rome portal
.jpg)
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Limes Germanicus". Encyclopædia Britannica. 16 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 695–696.
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the 
