John Briggs wrote:
>Is it possible that there were five subordinate commanders, each
responsible for two forts? Would the ordering have any relation to their
seniority? Is there any precedent for this in legionary, auxiliary or
cavalry units?
Your question is probably better asked of a military discussion list. I was
only noting a less than random sequence pointing to a site west of Pevensey
for Portus Adurni. Their order could be an artefact of recording from a map,
influenced by how the names were written - perpendicular to the coast,
inland, in the sea, etc. Bur perhaps there is more, as you suggest.
Tom Ikins
http://www.RomanMap.com
The Roman Map of Britain
----- Original Message -----
From: "" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: [EPNL] Portus Adurni
> Tom Ikins wrote:
> >
> > ND's nine forts of the Saxon Shore, if limited to a stretch of coast
> > from Brancaster to Portchester and enumerated clockwise would run (1)
> > Brancaster, (2) Burgh Castle, (3) Walton Castle, (4) Bradwell, (5)
> > Reculver, (6) Richborough, (7) Dover, (8) Lympne, (9) Pevensey and
> > (10) Portchester.
> >
> > Their order in the Notitia Dignitatum is 4-7-8-1-2-5-6-9-10?
> > (solo-pair-pair-pair-pair?). Perhaps the first line with the otherwise
> > missing (3) Walton Castle was skipped in copying, with Portchester at
> > the end as (10) following (9) - as each of the pairs are n, n+1. Not
> > the best of reasons for assignment to Portchester, but what is left?
>
> That seems quite reasonable to me, although it would be nice to get some
> handle on why they are in that order. >
> John Briggs
|