No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Ballistaria in first to mid-third century Britain: a reappraisal*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 November 2011
Extract
The Cawthorn encampments in North Yorkshire (FIG. I) have found wide publication as ‘practice forts’ with attendant construction camps following their investigation by the late Sir Ian Richmond in the 1920s. The fundamental reason for his interpretation of Cawthorn as the site of military manoeuvres rather than as a normal fort site was its alleged unsuitability for permanent occupation coupled with apparently unfinished defences. However, it has recently been postulated that Camp D, the most regularly laid-out of the four, represents an auxiliary fort. This suggestion does not contravene the evidence; indeed, Camps A and B (the secondary enlargement of A) need no more be connected with manoeuvres than Camp D. One of the major objections to their being regular forts is based upon the presence of ballistaria. Richmond used these as proof that legionaries rather than auxiliaries were involved at Cawthorn; certainly, it seems that the auxilia were not equipped with artillery in the first and second centuries a.d., SO that artillery-platforms at this date should indicate the presence of legionaries. The conclusion that the encampments are not regular forts but practice-works is reinforced by the fact that none of the ballistaria is situated at a strongly defensive position. Thus, the application of Richmond's hypothesis to Camps A and B appears to be sound. Nevertheless, it represents the only evidence that the Romans ever built forts specifically for practice. Although practice camps are abundant both in the archaeological record and in the literary sources, nowhere are practice forts attested.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © D. B. Campbell 1984. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies
References
1 Richmond, I. A., Arch. Journ. lxxxix (1932), 17 ff.Google Scholar
2 ibid., 45 ff.
3 Hartley, B. R. in Spratt, D. A. (ed.) Prehistoric and Roman Archaeology of north-east Yorkshire, BAR 104 (Oxford, 1982), 211 f.Google Scholar
4 Richmond, , op. cit. (note 1), 47.Google Scholar
5 Baatz, D., Bonner Jahrbücher clxvi (1966), 194 ff.Google Scholar
6 Richmond, , op. cit. (note 1), 58.Google Scholar
7 Holder, P. A., The Roman Army in Britain (London, 1982), 88 ff. for the most recent treatment.Google Scholar
8 For instance, Vegetius, , Epitoma Rei Militaris i, 21; iii, 8; CIL VIII 18042 = ILS 2487.Google Scholar
9 Richmond, , op. cit. (note 1), 33 and 57 f.Google Scholar
10 Richmond, I. A., Arch. Ael. 4 xiii (1936), 170 ff., 180 f.Google Scholar
11 Richmond, I. A. & Keeney, G. S., Arch. Ael. 4 xiv (1937), 129 ff., 139.Google Scholar
12 Simpson, F. G. & Richmond, I. A., Arch. Ael. 4 xiv (1937), 151 ff., 167.Google Scholar
13 Richmond, I. A., Hod Hill vol. II: Excavations carried out between 1951 and 1958 (London, 1968), 73.Google Scholar
14 Richmond, , op. cit. (note i), pl. viii.Google Scholar
15 ibid., 33.
16 For instance, Webster, G., Staffs, N.. J. Field Stud, ii (1962), 37 f. on Rocester.Google Scholar
17 Vitruvius, , De Architecture X, x, 1–6.Google Scholar
18 Vitruvius, , De Architectura X, xi, 1–9.Google Scholar
19 Marsden, E. W., Greek and Roman Artillery, Historical Development (Oxford, 1969), 179 f.Google Scholar
20 For instance, Vegetius, , Epitoma Rei Militaris ii, 10, 15 an d 25; iii, 14 an d 24; iv, 22.Google Scholar
21 CIL VI 2725 = ILS 2034.
22 Scenes 104-5, 163-4, 165-6 and 169; Cichorius, C., Die Reliefs der Traianssciule (Berlin, 1896-1900), Tafeln xxxi, xlvi–xlviii.Google Scholar
23 Marsden, , op. cit. (note 19), 189.Google Scholar
24 Baatz, D., Britannia ix (1978), I ff., 3 f.Google Scholar
25 Byzantinus, Philon, Poliorcetica 91, 36.Google Scholar
26 No similar platforms have been identified on the continent. The author is aware of only one literary reference to a ballistarium: Plautus, Poenulus 202. However, in this context, the word probably refers to a piece of artillery rather than a platform; see Marsden, , op. cit. (note 19), 85. Two third-century inscriptions from High Rochester (RIB 1280 = CIL VII 1044-5; RIB 1281 = CIL VII 1046) record the erection and restoration of BALLIST(paria); these are discussed below, page 82 f. The reference to tribunalia tormentis in Hyginus, De Metatione Castrorum 58, is also discussed below, page 81.Google Scholar
27 Scenes 165-6 and 169: Cichorius, , op. cit. (note 22), Tafeln xlvii–xlviii.Google Scholar
28 Scene 4 : ibid., Tafel iv, where the platform appears to bea signalling beacon; Scenes 316-18: ibid., Tafel lxxxviii, where legionaries appear t o be constructing such a platform. See Richmond, I. A., P.B.S.R. xiii (1935), 1 ff., 34 and 40.Google Scholar
29 Jones, M. J., Roman Fort Defences to a.d. 117, BAR 21 (Oxford, 1975), 96Google Scholar, notes that the higher the location of an artillery-piece, the greater its range. Baatz, However D. & Feugere, M., Gallia xxxix (1981), 208 n. 22, assert that artillery would normally be used at shorter ranges since accuracy and velocity both suffer at long ranges. Thus, height is only crucial when the artillery is required to combat an opponent in an elevated position.Google Scholar
30 Thucydides, II, Ixxv, 2, records this technique used by the Spartans besieging Plataea in 429 B.C.; of course, there was no artillery present during the siege.
31 For instance, Josephus, , Bellum ludaicum v, 267 and 484.Google Scholar
32 Vitruvius, , De Architectura X, x, 4–5; xi, 9.Google Scholar
33 I am grateful to Dr D. Baatz for confirming my hypothesis from his personal experience of the Ampurias catapult reconstruction in the Saalburgmuseum.
34 Tacitus, , Annales xv, 9.Google Scholar
35 Diodorus, Siculus, xx, 48, 3.Google Scholar
36 Richmond, , op. cit. (note 1), 57Google Scholar, citing Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res Gestae xxiii, 4, 5.Google Scholar
37 Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res Gestae xxiii, 4, 6Google Scholar. The onager which Ammianus describes must have been a particularly large one (but need not have been exceptional); the reconstructed onagri of Schramm and Payne-Gallwey were both mounted on wheels and neither required special foundations. Further, Payne-Gallwey's machine, weighing about two tons, required only two men to winch down the arm; Ammianus' example must have been considerably larger and consequently heavier. See Schramm, E., Die antiken Geschiitze der Saalburg (Berlin, 1918), 70 ff.Google Scholar, and Payne-Gallwey, R. W. F., The Crossbow, medieval and modern, military and sporting (2nd ed. London, 1958), Appendix p. 11 ff.Google Scholar
38 Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res Gestae, xxiii, 4, 1-3; cf. De Rebus Bellicis xviii, 1-5.Google Scholar
39 Marsden, E. W., Greek and Roman Artillery, Technical Treatises (Oxford, 1971), 240 n. 9.Google Scholar
40 Dr Baatz has kindly supplied me with the relevant mathematical calculations which confirm this conclusion. Briefly, the ratio of the respective masses of the torsion-engine and the projectile is so great (for the Ampurias catapult reconstruction, around 11500) that the recoil energy becomes negligible (in this case, less than I joule). In contrast, the concussio violenta of the onager is caused by the ar m crashing against the cushion; it is not technically recoil but the residual kinetic energy transferred from the moving arm to the frame of the engine. Whereas the residual kinetic energy of two-armed torsion artillery is stored mainly in the vibrating string, the energy of the one-armed onager is converted into heavier vibrations (when the arm hits the cushion) which, in the case of a large onager, require to b e absorbed by elastic foundations.
41 Luttwak, E. N., The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire from the First Century a.d. to the Third (Baltimore and London, 1976), 56 f.; 134 f.Google Scholar; Breeze, D. J. & Dobson, B., Hadrian's Wall (Harmondsworth, 1978), 39 f; 157.Google Scholar
42 Tacitus, , Historiae iv, 22.Google Scholar
43 Tacitus, , Historiae iv, 20; 33.Google Scholar
44 Tacitus, , Historiae iv, 15.Google Scholar
45 Caesar, , De Bello Gallico vii, 41, 3; 81.Google Scholar
46 On the date of Hyginus, see Birley, E., Corolla Memoriae Erich Swoboda Dedicata (Graz-Koln, 1966), 54 ff., 57Google Scholar. Also, Frere, S. S., Britannia xi (1980), 51 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. for opposing view, with a reply by Professor Birley in Britannia xii (1981), 287Google Scholar, and in Wirth, G. (ed.) Romanitas-Christianitas (Berlin and New York, 1982), 277 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47 Hyginus, , De Metatione Castrorum 58.Google Scholar
48 Josephus, , Bellum ludaicum iii, 80.Google Scholar
49 Vegetius, , Epitoma Rei Militaris ii, 25.Google Scholar
50 On the date of Vegetius' antiqua legio, see Parker, H. M. D., Classical Quart, xxvi (1932), 137 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also, Birley, E., Actes du deuxiime Congres international d'épigraphie grecque et latine, Paris 1952 (1953), 226 ff., 234.Google Scholar
51 Tacitus, , Historiae iv, 21 ff., especially 23.Google Scholar
52 Vitruvius, , De Architectura I, v, 4.Google Scholar
53 For the use of artillery in the field and in siege-operations, see Marsden, , op. cit. (note 19), 185 ff.Google Scholar
54 Luttwak, , op. cit. (note 41), 132 ff.Google Scholar; Petrikovits, H. von, JRS lxi (1971), 178 ff., 197 ff.Google Scholar
55 The Hatra ballista of the third century, and the fourth-century catapults from Orşova and Gornea were all apparently located in towers; see Baatz, , op. cit. (note 24), 3, 9 and 14.Google Scholar
56 ibid., 9.
57 The same defence policy which applied to the general run of forts need not have applied to these outposts. Millar, F., Britannia xiii (1982), 1 ff., has cast considerable doubt On the existence of a uniform, empire-wide policy concerning the strategy of frontiers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58 Richmond, , loc. cit. (note 13).Google Scholar
59 Marsden, , op. cit. (note 19), 191.Google Scholar
60 Richmond, I. A., Durham University Journ. vii (1945-1946), 60 ff., 63.Google Scholar
61 Josephus, , Bellum ludaicum iii, 166Google Scholar, mentions ballistae hurling shot of almost a hundredweight; however, this is incompatible with his later remark that the one-talent stone-throwers of legio X Fretensis were larger than the artillery of the other legions (Bellum ludaicum v, 269). Of course, there remains the possibility that the stone balls found at Halton Chesters, Risingham and High Rochester are not artillery ammunition; it has been demonstrated that boulders of similar and smaller size, discovered in the watch-towers of the Odenwald limes, are unlikely to have been 60/toa-ammunition, since they imply artillery of a larger size than the towers could accommodate. See Baatz, , op. cit. (note 5), 201 ff.Google Scholar
62 Vegetius, , Epitoma Rei Militaris ii, 25.Google Scholar
63 Baatz, , op. cit. (note 5), 195Google Scholar; Marsden, , op. cit. (note 19), 195 n. 1.Google Scholar
64 Richmond, I. A., in Dodds, M. H. (ed.) A History of Northumberland, vol. 15 (1940), fig. 21; idem, Papers British Acad. xli (1955), fig. 4.Google Scholar
65 Marsden, , op. cit. (note 39), 263.Google Scholar
66 Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res Gestae xxxi, 15, 12.Google Scholar
67 Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res Gestae xix, 7, 6.Google Scholar
68 On stone-throwers in western fortifications, see Baatz, D., in Maloney, J. & Hobley, B. (eds.) Roman Urban Defences in the West, CBA Research Report 51 (London, 1983), 136 ff., 139Google Scholar. On the accuracy of arrow-shooters, see, for instance, Marcellinus, Ammianus, Res Gestae xix, 1, 7; 5, 6Google Scholar. Baatz, , op. cit. (note 5), 197, notes the tactical superiority of arrow-firing engines over stone-throwing engines.Google Scholar
69 Baatz, , op. cit. (note 24), 16.Google Scholar
70 A n obvious alternative explanation is to interpret these mounds as ascensus; indeed, I have shown how the mounds at Hod Hill were technically interpreted as such by Richmond (above, page 82 f.). While this function may fit the mounds at Cawthorn, Richmond expressly discarded it for the two examples at Chew Green, perhaps on insufficient grounds. Clearly, the suggestion needs further consideration.