sylla

I'm sure the Romans and other ancient populations were more than able to use children as workforce, but frankly those footpints could have been there for any perfectly innocent explanation, let say an accident. After all, I'm also sure that all of us have seen all kind of footprints in our urban cement floors.

Offending post deleted

Offending post deleted

It seems this thread is now trying to explain why the West fell and the East didn't. I suppose you mean "late IV century" for Gaul and "V century" for Hispania. As far as I know, the territories occupied and/or plundered by the invaders were basically equally forayed in both sides of the Empire.On the other hand, it seems the non-invaded territories (again in both sides) were as a whole barely surviving and hardly "flowering" by any objective measure, especially the urban centres. Foederati were widely used by both sides of the Empire, and in the East for a long time after the Fall of the West.I tend to agree with Ward-Perkins; the erosion of the tax base would have been the main cause, not the effect of the shrinkage (and even worse, rebellion) of the army (either "proper" or "non-proper"). Ward-Perkins set the significant tax erosion of the West a generation later, ie. after the Vandal conquest of Africa. This seems to me to be an excellent explanation for a differential factor, because the main sources of taxes for the East (Egypt, Asia & Syria) were left essentially untouched by the invasions.

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

Arguably, all along universal History the reasons from hostile neighbors to invade each other have remained essentially the same. Meroveo's original question was on why the West was invaded more frequently than the East, and my best guess is still that it wasn't so; as far as I can tell, both empires were equally attacked by Germanics and Huns. That is indeed a common explanation. Depending mostly on the operational definition, evidence of "decay" can usually be found for the V century Western Roman Empire (and BTW, for the late Julio-Claudian period too). The main problem for that line of argumentation is that virtually all the evidence of decay of the West was equally present in the East.

Just for the record, the main original question was: Some units may have been indeed redeployed from the Caledonian border to the Saxon Shore, notably the Numerus exploratorum, but I have found no evidence of significant manpower depletion previous to Honorius calling back to the Continent; in any case, both defensive complexes were left undefeated by the Romans. Britannia was essentially lost against the Goths and Huns in the Continent, not the local menaces. Now, on the extremely basic operative issues, the following warning is wrong: Nope, Coldrail; this is not speculation (at least in English); it's just an overstatement of the obvious. There's some fiction in some of your posts and some valid speculation in Melvadius'. Dictionaries are there for a reason. Not your last word on the issue, I hope... Frankly, I guess that might have been so because some of us didn't know there were other Saxon Shores to begin with; that may have changed by now. To be rigorously and unnecessarily precise, I don't think the Garamantes would have been welcomed in the Litore Saxonico or the Saxons in the Limes Tripolitanus; any Barbarian would have been considered as such by any Roman defensive system. Really??? Just to mention one line of evidence, is the geographical distribution of the forts from both sides of the Channel not eloquent enough to consider them as an "integrated system"?

Usus autem sum, ne in aliquo fallam carissimam mihi familiaritatem tuam, praecipue libris ex bibliotheca Ulpia, aetate mea thermis Diocletianis, et item ex domo Tiberiana, usus etiam [ex] regestis scribarum porticus porphyreticae, actis etiam senatus ac populi. 2 et quoniam me ad colligenda talis viri gesta ephemeris Turduli Gallicani plurimum invit, viri honestissimi ac sincerissimi, beneficium amici senis tacere non debui. 3 Cn. Pompeium, tribus fulgentem triumphis belli piratici, belli Sertoriani, belli Mithridatici multarumque rerum gestarum maiestate sublimem, quis tandem nosset, nisi eum Marcus Tullius et Titus Livius in litteras rettulissent? 4 Publ<i>um Scipionem Afric<an>um, immo Scipiones omnes, seu Lucios seu Nasicas, nonne tenebrae possiderent ac tegerent, nisi commendatores eorum historici nobiles atque ignobiles extitissent? 5 longum est omnia persequi, quae ad exemplum huiusce modi etiam nobis tacentibus usurpanda sunt. 6 illud tantum contestatum volo me et rem scripsisse, quam, si quis voluerit, honestius eloquio celsiore demonstret, et mihi quidem id animi fuit, 6 <ut> non Sallustios, Livios, Tacito<s>, Trogos atque omnes disertissimos imitarer viros in vita principum et temporibus disserendis, sed Marium Maximum, Suetonium Tranquillum, Fabium Marcellinum, Gargilium Martialem, Iulium Capitolinum, Aelium Lampridium ceterosque, qui haec et talia non tam diserte quam vere memoriae tradiderunt. 8 sum enim unus ex curiosis, quod infi[ni]t<i>as ire non possum, ince<n>dentibus vobis, qui, cum multa sciatis, scire multo plura cupitis. 9 et ne diutius ea, quae ad meum consilium pertinent, loquar, magnum et praeclarum principem et qualem historia nostra non novit, arripiam.

Coldrail dialect? Not English, for sure.Beware! We have dictionaries and we are not afraid to use them; from good ol' Merriam-Webster (SIC): "1a: something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : novel 2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense 3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination" Now, if you really think this is worth our time and/or that it will benefit anyone, let just create another thread for the arena... because we are getting now as far from any Saxon Shore as it can get.

Amazing as it may seem, scientific research is not just gratuitous speculation or wild fantasy; there is something more, that can in fact be explained even by wikipedia... In any case, there's nothing wrong in writing fiction, as long as it is not sold as History.

Human casualties from any side have never been "funny". Language problems and religious statements are one thing; uncalled provocation is an entirely different issue, irrespectively if anyone may have personal problems (justified or not) with any particular UNRV member.

At the risk of overstating the obvious, I'm sure anyone can understand that presenting the accumulated insight of pure speculation as established facts is too unrestrictive and misleading, to say the least; after all, potentially any ignorant guy can do that.

Amazing and mysterious as it may sound, the Notitia Dignitatum is exactly what its name says (in Latin, of course): a list of dignitaries (ie, high rank positions) for the Roman Empire; nothing more, nothing less.. The chapter 1:28 deals with the Count of the British Saxon Coast (Comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias; BTW this is the ultimate origin of all the "Saxon Shore" stuff of this thread) and enumerates the dignitaries at his disposition (Sub dispositione), including nine commanders (one praefectus and eight praepositus) of nine units (already quoted by Ponpeius some post above) and the nine nominal bases (forts) for that units; ie. the original "Saxon Shore Fort Network".

The classical source here is presumably SP Festus, De verborum significatione Book 14. From this text, it seems no hint was given by the author on which Africanus (Major or Minor) was he talking about. Lacus Curtus provides some quick reference background on the who said what. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roma...raetoriani.html Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

The classical source here is presumably SP Festus, De verborum significatione Book 14. From this text, it seems no hint was given by the author on which Africanus (Major or Minor) was he talking about.

As far as continental Roman coastal defences are concerned there is a good map on pg 64 of Pearson

Checking out on the geographical distribution of the Litus Saxonicum and related Roman forts, it's clear that the military emphasis was overwhelmingly on the Straits of Dover in both directions, the same as for the vast majority of Armies and Navies all along most of European History, at least until the LCTs made Overlord feasible for Normandy 1944. Back to Portus Adurni, the presence of a mobile unit like the Numerus exploratorum (scouts) as the local garrison, carried from the Caledonian frontier (Hadrian's Wall), was probably related to the vigilance for the long unfortified south-eastern British coast. In fact, the HQ of the Classis Britannica was in Dubris (Dover); the Comes Litoris Saxonici (presumably the supreme commander) was most likely in Rutupiae with the II Legio Augusta; the other eight garrisons (all auxiliary units) were presumably commanded by officers from this same Legion. However, after the bad experience of the Carausius' rebellion, the sea and land command in both Britannia and Gaul were most likely separated. The Legions, auxilia and Navy were then simultaneously ready to prevent the crossing of the Channel from any side and able to lock the North Sea if required; it's evident that the Romans were planning to stay in Britannia for a looong time... (most likely forever).

Please have the best day today and many years more, may all your wishes come true . Felicem natalem dies!!!

You can begin Here.

Strictly speaking that's correct (although Aella landed twenty years earlier). However, there are indications that the Britons were none too happy about the changes in regime. The withdrawal of Roman troops and the collapse of local government might have made for a brief period of prosperity due to unpaid taxes, but the stronger members of society would have responded by attempting to attract power, and indeed, Gildas writes about such changes, labelling local warlords as 'tyrants' (of which the legendary Arthur is mentioned as one - not quite the chivalrous king of medieval fiction - and Gildas seems to have some grudge against his memory. The point though is that the Roman element of British society hadn't died in their memories. The reason that the majority of early dark age romano-britons seem so un-roman is that they always had been, living alongside the Roman administration and obeying it's laws, but retaining a certain 'celtic-ness' all the same. A long term successful administration under which people generally prospered was bound to leave an impression. There's a strange duality in Britain in that period amongst the natives. On the one hand, there's a flowering of celtic culture which has left engraved stones in passing, plus the lingering retention of Roman ideals, and at least one northern tribe maintained latin titles throughout the dark ages. Both however were largely swept aside by the germanic settlers, who dominated the locals with their own beliefs and structures, complicated by the emergence of two forms of christianity, one Irish, one Roman, that contended for precedence in those times. Rome was therefore not entirely dead in peoples minds in the Dark Ages, whatever the actual political reality was. As to whether the foederatii still manned the battlements bearing Roman symbols is impossible for me to say. It isn't entirely implausible, though if existent I would suggest that the powerful image of Rome was something iconic and a rallying call rather than a direct command structure. A modern equivalent might be Middle England. Something we know has actually gone (if it ever really existed) but nonetheless a mindset, a concept, that persists despite changes in fashion and one that still motivates individuals toward certain actions. Some "if", "maybe" and "it's possible" are wanting in the previous statement, because it is entirely speculative, and even speculation has its own rules. The point is that it was called a Dark Age for a reason, and the reason is that we know almost nothing about this period; period. The discussion was about the purported capture of "Andredes"/Anderitum?/Pevessey Castle??? in 491, not the purported landing of king AElle in 477; even If king AElle ever existed and if the Saxon Chronicles are to be trusted (and those are indeed quite big "ifs"), we still don't know almost anything else, eg. how many times had the fort changed of rulers, any single data on the defeated party, what kind of soldiers were commanded by AElle, not even if this king had become a Christian or learned Latin after so many years in Britain... in fact, we know virtually nothing. What we positively know is that basically all material evidence of the Roman administration in Britannia utterly disappeared after less than a generation, probably even faster than in Gallia. Reportedly, eight decades had lapsed since the collapse of the Roman rule; just remember that six decades ago, the whole Palestine Mandate was still British; even if nowadays the UK is still physically alive and not entirely dead in the minds of Israelis, Jordanians and Palestinians, that hardly makes British people of any of them. Quoting B. Cunliffe, "There can be few major topics in Romano-British archaeology for which the factual base is so slight, but about which so much has been written, than the forts of the Saxon Shore". Then, the textual evidence of the Notitia Dignitatum is fixed, but the physical evidence of the surviving forts is currently open to the interpretation of the scholar(s) of your choice; some people count 12 forts (including Carisbrooke and Clausentum); some others would include also forts northern than Brancaster... and we have not mentioned the coast of Gaul yet! Besides, some of the fortifications originally quoted by the ND may have not survived at all.

Thanks for all. I can't find any reason to disagree with your assessment.

Nope, this is science; the proof is still far from being "in". It simply is not "out" yet. What Dr Russell said is that he was 100% confident that the proof will eventually be "in"; now, all what is required is some patience to see if: - the analysis of the measurable variables first, - the independent replicable confirmation by other researchers later, - and finally the ponderation of alternative explanations... ... will eventually prove that his a priori qualitative assessment of the match was right.