ENGLISH COAST DEFENCES
[Illustration: DOVER CASTLE, KENT
From an engraving by S. and N. Buck]
ENGLISH COAST DEFENCES
FROM ROMAN TIMES TO THE EARLY YEARS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
[Illustration: Printer's Logo]
BY
GEORGE CLINCH
LONDON
G. BELL AND SONS, LTD.
1915
CHISWICK PRESS: CHARLES WHITTINGHAM AND CO.
TOOKS COURT, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON.
TO
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR, M.P.
FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY
THESE PAGES ARE
INSCRIBED
[Illustration: Printer's Logo]
PREFACE
The intricate coast-line of England, so difficult for an enemy to
blockade, so difficult at every point for combined naval and military
forces to defend against raiders, presents to the student of history
an extremely interesting subject. It is to its insularity that England
owes something of its greatness, and to the great length of its
coast-line that its vulnerability is due.
The present book represents the results of a study of the methods and
means by which England, from Roman times down to the early years of
the nineteenth century, has defended her shores against various
over-sea enemies, who have attempted, sometimes successfully, to
invade and conquer.
The author wishes to return thanks for the loan of blocks used in
illustration of this volume, particularly to the Society of
Antiquaries for Figs. 3, 10, 11, 29, 31, 32; the Royal Archaeological
Institute for Figs. 1, 4, 7, 13, 18; the Kent Archaeological Society
for Figs. 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43; the proprietors of the "Victoria
History" and Professor Haverfield for Fig. 15; and the Technical
Journals, Limited, and Mr. A. W. Clapham, F.S.A., for Fig. 24.
The corrected proof-sheets of the book have been submitted to the
proper authorities at the War Office, and that Department has
sanctioned the publication of the volume.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PREFACE vii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xi
PART I
PREHISTORIC CAMPS 3
THE ROMAN INVASION OF BRITAIN 5
THE COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE 13
ROMAN COAST FORTRESSES 16
PART II
THE SAXON SETTLEMENT OF ENGLAND 75
DANISH INCURSIONS AND CAMPS 80
THE NORMAN INVASION OF ENGLAND 86
NORMAN COAST CASTLES 87
PART III
MEDIAEVAL CASTLES AND WALLED TOWNS ON THE COAST 95
PART IV
COAST DEFENCES UNDER HENRY VIII AND LATER
ON THE EAST COASTS OF KENT AND SUSSEX 159
OF THE ESTUARIES OF THE THAMES, THE MEDWAY, ETC. 179
OF THE SOUTH COAST 182
PART V
MISCELLANEOUS DEFENCES
THE NAVY 195
THE CINQUE PORTS 196
DEFENSIVE CHAINS, ETC. 204
THE COASTGUARD 212
INDEX 219
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIG. PAGE
DOVER CASTLE. Buck's engraving _Frontispiece_
1. GARIANNONUM (BURGH CASTLE). Plan 22
2. GARIANNONUM (BURGH CASTLE). Plan published in 1776 23
3. WEST MERSEA. Plan of Roman building 27
4. REGULBIUM (RECULVER). Plan 29
5. REGULBIUM (RECULVER). Roman masonry 31
6. RECULVER. The ruins of the church 33
7. RUTUPIAE (RICHBOROUGH). Plan 36
8. RECULVER. From a print published in 1781 39
9. RICHBOROUGH. Roman masonry of north wall 43
10. DOVER, ROMAN PHAROS. Elevation of north side 47
11. DOVER, ROMAN PHAROS. Section 51
12. LYMNE. Roman walls 54
13. LYMNE. Plan 55
14. PEVENSEY. Bastion 59
15. PORCHESTER. Plan 63
16. PORCHESTER. Water-gate 65
17. PORCHESTER. Exterior of west wall 67
18. SHOEBURY. Plan of Danish camp 83
19. YARMOUTH. North Gate, 1807 104
20. YARMOUTH. South Gate, 1807 105
21. IPSWICH. St. Matthew's Gate, 1785 107
22. ORFORD CASTLE, SUFFOLK, 1810 109
23. COWLING CASTLE, KENT, 1784 114
24. QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE, KENT. Plan 118
25. QUEENBOROUGH CASTLE, KENT. View in 1784 119
26. CANTERBURY CASTLE IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY 121
27. SANDWICH, KENT. Fisher Gate 123
28. SANDWICH, KENT. Barbican 126
29. DOVER. Bird's-eye view of town and harbour, _temp._
Queen Elizabeth 131
30. SALTWOOD CASTLE, KENT. The Gate House 135
31. PORTSMOUTH HARBOUR, _temp._ KING HENRY VIII 143
32. SOUTHSEA CASTLE, _temp._ KING HENRY VIII 147
33. SOUTHAMPTON. Plan 150
34. DEAL CASTLE, KENT 163
35. TILBURY FORT IN THE YEAR 1588 166
36. TILBURY FORT IN THE YEAR 1808 167
37. GENERAL PLAN OF HENRY VIII'S BLOCKHOUSES ON KENT AND SUSSEX
COASTS 170
38. SANDOWN CASTLE. Plan 171
39. DEAL CASTLE. Plan 172
40. WALMER CASTLE. Plan 173
41. WALMER CASTLE FROM THE NORTH 175
42. SANDGATE CASTLE. Plan 177
43. CAMBER CASTLE. Plan 178
44. UPNOR CASTLE, KENT 180
45. HURST CASTLE, HANTS 183
PART I
PREHISTORIC CAMPS
THE ROMAN INVASION OF BRITAIN
THE COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE
ROMAN COAST FORTRESSES
ENGLISH COAST DEFENCES
PREHISTORIC CAMPS
Round the coast of England there are many prehistoric earthworks of
great extent and strength. These fall generally under the heads of
hill-top fortresses and promontory camps. The works comprised under
the former head are so arranged as to take the greatest possible
advantage of natural hill-tops, often of large size. On the line where
the comparatively level top developed into a more or less precipitous
slope a deep ditch was dug, and the earth so removed was in most cases
thrown outwards so as to form a rampart which increased the original
difficulties of the sloping hill-side.
The latter type of earthwork, called promontory camps from their
natural conformation, were strengthened by the digging of a deep
ditch, so as to cut off the promontory from the main table-land from
which it projected, and in some cases the sides of the camp were made
more precipitous by artificial scarping.
An examination of these types of earthworks leads to the conclusion
that they were probably tribal enclosures for the safe-guarding of
cattle, etc.; that, strictly speaking, they were not military works at
all, and, in any case, had no relation to national defence against
enemies coming over-sea.
One finds in different parts of the country a prevalent tradition that
the Romans occupied the more ancient British hill-top strongholds, and
the name "Caesar's Camp" is popularly applied to many of them. If such
an occupation really took place it was, in all probability, only of a
temporary character. These fortifications were not suitable to the
Roman method of military operations and encampment, and such
archaeological evidences of Roman occupation as have been found point
to the presence of domestic buildings, such as at Chanctonbury Ring
and Wolstanbury Camp (Sussex) rather than military works.
However, the question must not be dismissed as entirely without some
foundation in fact, because it was only natural that the Roman
invaders who dispossessed the Britons of their fastnesses should
themselves have taken temporary possession of the works from which the
Britons were driven out.
THE ROMAN INVASION OF BRITAIN
There is hardly a single detail of the first invasion of Britain by
the Romans which has not been the subject of dispute or discussion
among historians and antiquaries, but, briefly, it may be stated as
highly probable that Caesar left Portus Itius (Boulogne) on 25 August
55 B.C., and landed at or near what is now Deal on the following day.
When Caesar found a convenient time for the invasion of Britain, he
got together about eighty transports, which he considered would be
sufficient for carrying two legions across the channel. Those galleys
which he had left he distributed to the questor, lieutenants, and
officers of the cavalry. In addition to these ships there were
eighteen transports, detained by contrary winds at a port about eight
miles off, and these were appointed to carry over the cavalry.
A favourable breeze sprang up, and anchor was weighed about one in the
morning. The cavalry in the eighteen other transports embarked at the
other port. It was ten o'clock when Caesar reached the coast of
Britain, where he saw the cliffs covered with the enemy's forces. He
speaks of the place as being bounded by steep mountains in a way which
clearly describes Dover and the eminences in its neighbourhood,
comprising Shakespeare's Cliff, the western and eastern heights, and
all the magnificent cliff of precipitous chalk rock which extends to
Kingsdown, near Walmer. On such a coast as this, apart from the
presence of the enemy, landing was impossible, and Caesar wisely
determined to sail eight miles further on, where he found, probably at
Deal, a plain and open shore. Caesar's description is most
interesting, and may be quoted:
"But the barbarians perceiving our design, sent their cavalry and
chariots before, which they frequently make use of in battle, and
following with the rest of their forces, endeavoured to oppose
our landing: and indeed we found the difficulty very great on
many accounts; for our ships being large, required a great depth
of water; and the soldiers, who were wholly unacquainted with the
places, and had their hands embarrassed and loaden with a weight
of armour, were at the same time to leap from the ships, stand
breast high against the waves, and encounter the enemy, while
they, fighting upon dry ground, or advancing only a little way
into the water, having the free use of all their limbs, and in
places which they perfectly knew, could boldly cast their darts,
and spur on their horses, well inured to that kind of service.
All these circumstances serving to spread a terror among our men,
who were wholly strangers to this way of fighting, they pushed
not the enemy with the same vigour and spirit as was usual for
them in combats upon dry ground.
"Caesar, observing this, ordered some galleys, a kind of shipping
less common with the barbarians, and more easily governed and put
in motion, to advance a little from the transports towards the
shore, in order to set upon the enemy in flank, and by means of
their engines, slings, and arrows, drive them to some distance.
This proved of considerable service to our men, for what with the
surprise occasioned by the make of our galleys, the motion of
the oars, and the playing of the engines, the enemy were forced
to halt, and in a little time began to give back. But our men
still demurring to leap into the sea, chiefly because of the
depth of the water in those parts, the standard-bearer of the
tenth legion, having first invoked the gods for success, cried
out aloud: 'Follow me, fellow-soldiers, unless you will betray
the Roman eagle into the hands of the enemy; for my part, I am
resolved to discharge my duty to Caesar and the common-wealth.'
Upon this he jumped into the sea, and advanced with the eagle
against the enemy: whereat, our men exhorted one another to
prevent so signal a disgrace, all that were in the ship followed
him, which being perceived by those in the nearest vessels, they
also did the like, and boldly approached the enemy.
"The battle was obstinate on both sides; but our men, as being
neither able to keep their ranks, nor get firm footing, nor
follow their respective standards, because leaping promiscuously
from their ships, every one joined the first ensign he met, were
thereby thrown into great confusion. The enemy, on the other
hand, being well acquainted with the shallows, when they saw our
men advancing singly from the ships, spurred on their horses,
and attacked them in that perplexity. In one place great numbers
would gather round a handful of Romans; others falling upon them
in flank, galled them mightily with their darts, which Caesar
observing, ordered some small boats to be manned, and ply about
with recruits. By this means the foremost ranks of our men having
got footing, were followed by all the rest, when falling upon
the enemy briskly, they were soon put to the rout. But as the
cavalry were not yet arrived, we could not pursue or advance far
into the island, which was the only thing wanting to render the
victory complete."[1]
Sea-fighting was not unknown to the Romans, but as far as the invasion
of Britain was concerned, Caesar's fleet may be regarded as a
collection of ships for transport purposes rather than a fighting
naval force. The main object of Caesar was to land his soldiers so
that they might encounter and vanquish the enemy on dry land. This, as
the graphic words of the "Commentaries" clearly tell, was quickly
accomplished. The British method of fighting, in which chariots were
employed for the attack, is described by Caesar,[2] who was evidently
impressed by their skilful combination of rapid and awe-inspiring
attack with the freedom and mobility of light infantry.
It is noteworthy that Caesar says nothing about coast defences in the
form of earthworks, or indeed in any other form, and it is on other
grounds improbable that the Britons possessed any provision of that
kind against invading enemies, although they themselves lived in
stockaded enclosures.
The Romans were the first people to introduce anything like general
coast defence in Britain, and in this, as in all other branches of
their military enterprises, they displayed great skill, intelligence,
and thoroughness. For the defence of the coast of the eastern and
southern parts of Britain they erected a chain of castra or fortresses
extending from Brancaster, on the north-west coast of Norfolk, to
Porchester, situated on the extreme north-west shore of Portsmouth
Harbour.
The position of the various fortresses shows that it was not
necessary, according to the Roman plan of defence, that one fort
should command views of its neighbours. Reculver and Richborough,
Richborough and Dover, Dover and Lymne, Lymne and Pevensey, were in no
case visible from each other, although the distance which separated
them was not great in every case. Under these circumstances it is not
remarkable to find evidences, as will presently be explained, of
special provision for signalling between the fortresses.
THE COUNT OF THE SAXON SHORE
During the early part of the Roman occupation of Britain the chief
mode of defence adopted against piratical incursions was the navy,
_classis Britannica_. This, for the most part, moved in those waters
which lay between the British and Gaulish coasts, answering to what we
now know as the Straits of Dover and the southern part of the North
Sea.
For a time the navy was able to keep the seas free from pirates, but
towards the end of the third century the trouble became greater than
ever. Raiders came in large numbers both to our own coasts and also to
the Continental coasts opposite, to both of which the name of the
Saxon Shore was given. The Romans decided to take strong measures to
put an end to the trouble. For this purpose they appointed a special
officer, one Marcus Aurelius Valerius Carausius, commonly known by his
last name.
The appearance of Carausius on the stage of history brings into
prominence a man of strong but unscrupulous character. He is believed
to have allowed the pirates to carry on their work of plunder at their
pleasure, and then, having waited for the proper moment, he relieved
them of their booty on the return journey. In this way he acquired
great riches, and in due course he employed the fleet, not against the
enemy of Rome, but against Rome, and in such a way as to render
Britain independent. After several ineffectual attempts to break his
power, Diocletian and Maximianus found it necessary to recognize him
as their colleague in the empire, a triumph which Carausius
commemorated by striking a medal bearing as a device three busts with
appropriate emblems the legend:
(_ob._) CARAVSIVS . ET . FRATRES . SVI
(_rev._) PAX AVGGG.
Carausius was murdered by his chief official, Allectus, in the year
293. Shortly after his death, and when the British province had ceased
to be independent of Rome, an official was appointed called the Count
of the Saxon Shore.
This officer, whose title was _Comes Littoris Saxonici_, was a high
official whose duty it was to command the defensive forces and
supervise the fortresses erected on the east, south-east, and south
coasts of England against the piratical raids of the various tribes of
Saxons and others during the latter part of the Roman occupation of
Britain. The precise nature of his duties and the full extent of his
authority are equally unknown, but they probably comprised the general
oversight and command both of the fortresses on the British coast from
the northern coast of Norfolk to a point near Portsmouth, and the navy
which guarded our shores.
Opinions are divided on the question as to what was precisely meant by
the phrase "the Saxon shore." Was it, as some think, those parts of
the shore of Britain and Gaul on which, being specially subject to
Saxon raiders, defences were erected or employed for repelling the
invaders? Or was it, as others have supposed, perhaps with less
probability, a strip of territory following the line of coast nearest
the sea on which the Saxons were allowed to settle in late Roman
times?
ROMAN COAST FORTRESSES
A careful examination of the fortresses which protected the line of
coast to which reference has been made, is likely, we think, to afford
some light upon the above-mentioned point.
If we pay attention to the plans of these fortresses, it will be
obvious that at least two, Reculver and Brancaster, belong to a type
of Roman fortress which is associated with a period much earlier than
the time, as far as we know, when Saxon or other raiders began to
molest the coasts of Britain and Gaul. Perhaps it is significant that
these two castra command the entrance to two of the great water ways
on our east coast, the Thames and the Wash. The other seven
fortresses, judging from their plans, belong to a later stage of
development in Roman military architecture.
From this and other features already described we may infer that the
whole series of fortresses was built at different periods, and
probably in the following order:
Reculver. | Richborough.
Brancaster. | Lymne.
Porchester. | Pevensey.
Unfortunately, the architectural remains of the remaining castra are
not sufficiently perfect to allow of classification.
One or two of the coast fortresses, such as Pevensey and Lymne, may
well have been erected towards the close of the Roman occupation. It
is significant that tiles bearing the impressed name of Honorius have
been found built into the walls of Pevensey, pointing to the lateness
of the building of at least some of the masonry at that castrum.[3]
At Lymne early inscriptions, etc. have been found built into the
walls, indicating a period if not late in the Roman period, at least a
considerable time after the date of the inscribed stones which were
enclosed, as mere building material, in the walls. This is
corroborated by indications of adhering barnacles, from which we may
fairly conclude that there was a period of submergence between the
time of the carving and the subsequent use as building material.
It seems probable, therefore, that although the earlier fortresses may
have been intended to serve as centres for the Roman army, they may
have been supplemented at a later period by other castra, forming
altogether a chain of defences intended to protect the shores of
Britain against Saxon invaders.
The late Mr. G. E. Fox, F.S.A., who made a special study of the
subject, writes as follows:[4]
"By the last quarter of the third century the Romano-British
fleet, on which no doubt dependence had been placed for the
protection of the east and south coasts from raids by
plundering bands of rovers from over the seas, had evidently
failed to afford that protection. Whether it was that the fleet
was not numerous enough, or for whatever reason, the Roman
government determined to supplement its first line of defence
by a second, and this was achieved by the erection of forts
capable of holding from 500 to 1,000 men each, on points of the
coast-line extending from the mouth of the Wash to Pevensey on
the coast of Sussex. The coast-line indicated received the name
of _Litus Saxonicum_, and the nine fortresses which guarded it
are called 'the forts of the Saxon Shore.'"
The following were the nine fortresses referred to with the modern
place-names:
1. Branodunum. Brancaster.
2. Gariannonum. Burgh Castle (near Yarmouth).
3. Othona. Bradwell-on-Sea.
4. Regulbium. Reculver.
5. Rutupiae. Richborough.
6. Dubris. Dover.
7. Portus Lemanus. Lymne.
8. Anderida. Pevensey.
9. Portus Magnus. ? Porchester.
It will be observed that the various fortresses in this chain of
defensive works occur at irregular distances on or near the
coast-line, and on examination it will be found that in most cases
good reason exists for the selection of the various sites.
1. BRANODUNUM
There is sufficient evidence to identify the Roman fort of Branodunum
with some ruins lying to the east of Brancaster, a village situated
near the north-western corner of Norfolk, on the shores of the Wash.
The only early mention of the place is found in the "Notitia Imperii,"
a catalogue of the distribution of the imperial military, naval, and
civilian officers throughout the Roman world. From this remarkable
work, a compilation which has come down to us from a very early
period, it appears that the "Comes Littoris Saxonici" (the Count of
the Saxon Shore) had under him nine subordinate officers, called
Praepositi, distributed round the coasts of Norfolk, Essex, Kent,
Sussex, and Hampshire. The fortress at Brancaster is now in a very
much ruined state, and but little can be gathered of its original form
from a casual or superficial examination. Excavations and careful
searches made about the middle of the nineteenth century brought to
light many facts about its plan.[5] The fortress was a square of 190
yards and the angles were irregularly rounded. Exclusive of ashlar,
the walls were found to be 10 feet thick, and bounded with large
blocks of white sandstone. At one of the roughly rounded angles the
ashlar facing remained intact. It consisted of blocks of sandstone
firmly set in mortar with joints of three inches minimum thickness.
Traces were found within the walls of small apartments adjoining the
main walls into which the smaller walls were regularly bonded,
pointing to contemporaneity of the work.
Two facts of some importance are proved by the excavations, viz. (1)
the strength of the fortress as a defensive work, and (2) the simple
and early character of the plan. Traces of gates were observed in the
eastern and western walls.
2. GARIANNONUM
[Illustration: FIG. 1. GARIANNONUM (BURGH CASTLE)]
Now known as Burgh Castle, is situated in Suffolk near the point where
the rivers Yare and Waveney fall into Breydon Water. The lines of its
walls enclose a space, roughly speaking, 660 feet by 330 feet, over
four acres. It is generally considered to be one of the most perfect
Roman buildings remaining in the kingdom. The walls in places remain
to a height of 9 feet, and their foundations are no less than 12 feet
in thickness. The bastions, or perhaps more correctly, towers, which
flank the gates and support the rounded angles of the walls are of
peculiar, pear-shaped plan. They are solid, and to the height of about
7 feet are not tied into the walls. Above that height, however, they
are bonded into the walls with which, curious as it may appear, they
are undoubtedly coeval. It is noteworthy that there are two bastions
on the east side and one each on the north and south sides, and that
they, six in all, are provided with a hole in the top, 2 feet wide and
2 feet deep, indicating in all probability that they once mounted
turntables upon which ballistae were placed for the defence of the
fortress.
[Illustration: FIG. 2. PLAN OF ROMAN WALLS, ETC., AT GARIANNONUM
(BURGH CASTLE)
(From an engraving published in 1776)]
The masonry is of the kind which is usually found in Roman buildings,
namely, a rubble core with courses of bonding tiles, and an outer
facing of flints chipped to a flat surface.
Gariannonum was a place of great importance in Roman times. Here was
stationed the captain of the Stablesian horse, styled Gariannonensis,
under the command of _Comes littoris Saxonici_.
_Walton._--Near Felixstow, situated on what is now the fore-shore, but
which originally was a cliff 100 feet high, and commanding extensive
views of the surrounding country, are the ruins of what was an
important Roman station. Although possibly not ranking as one of the
nine great coast fortresses, it occupied a most important site for the
defence of this part of the east coast of Britain, and commanded not
only the entrance to the River Deben, but also all the adjacent coast
to the south of it. Almost every trace of the station has now been
obliterated by the waves, but from plans which have been preserved it
appears that its plan was that of an oblong with towers or bastions at
each angle.[6]
3. OTHONA
Or Ithanchester, near Bradwell-on-Sea, in Essex, was another important
member of the Roman coast defences of Britain. It commanded the
entrances of the Rivers Blackwater and Colne. Little now remains of
Othona, although it is on record that the fortress enclosed an area of
4 acres, and that its walls possessed foundations no less than 14 feet
in thickness.
The defence of such a point as this against the incursions of foes was
a matter of much importance, because this was a point on the coast of
Britain specially susceptible to attack by marauders, and, as we shall
see, special precautions were taken against attacks of this kind.
[Illustration: FIG. 3. PLAN OF ROMAN BUILDING, WEST MERSEA, ESSEX]
At a distance of about four miles to the north of Othona, across the
estuary of the River Blackwater, lies the island of Mersea. In the
year 1896 some Roman foundations were accidentally discovered in the
western part of the island which, upon examination, appear to have an
important bearing on the Roman scheme of coast defence in this part of
Britain. The foundations were circular, 65 feet in diameter, and
closely resembling in gigantic form the steering-wheel of a ship. The
foundations were of Kentish rag and chalk lime mortar, and above this
the low walling was almost entirely composed of Roman bricks set in
red mortar. Dr. Henry Laver, F.S.A., who communicated the discovery to
the Society of Antiquaries of London,[7] modestly abstains from giving
any explanation or theory as to the purpose of the building which
stood on this site, but in the opinion of the present writer there
seems to be little doubt that the foundations were intended to carry a
lofty pharos, or perhaps signalling tower of timber by means of which
messages might have been transmitted to Othona and Colchester.
4. REGULBIUM
[Illustration: FIG. 4. RECULVER, KENT]
Now known as Reculver, is situated about three miles to the east of
Herne Bay. The site, although originally some distance inland, is now,
owing to the encroachment of the sea, quite close to the shore.
Indeed, about half of its area has been destroyed by the waves, and is
now covered at high water. Its area when complete was over seven
acres, and its walls which, in the eighteenth century, stood 10 feet
high, and still remain to a height of 8 feet in some places, are no
less than 8 feet in thickness with two sets-off inside. It seems
doubtful whether there was ever a ditch round the castrum. Owing to
the ruinous condition of the main part of the masonry, and the
complete destruction which has overtaken the northern part of the
foundations, it is impossible to ascertain any particulars as to the
gates or internal arrangements.
[Illustration: FIG. 5. ROMAN MASONRY, RECULVER, KENT
Showing facing stones (squared), rubble core, and pebbly foundations]
As will be seen from the accompanying ground-plan the form of the
castrum at Reculver was quadrangular. The angles were rounded, but
there are no indications of towers or bastions. These features are
considered characteristic of Roman fortresses of early date. Another
feature pointing to the same conclusion is the absence of tile courses
in the walls.
The only recorded facts about this fortress is a mention in the
"Notitia," from which we learn that it was garrisoned by the first
cohort of the Vetasians commanded by a tribune.
[Illustration: FIG. 6. RECULVER: THE RUINS OF THE CHURCH]
At a comparatively early stage in the art of Roman masonry in Britain
the idea was conceived of protecting the enclosing wall of the
fortress by means of projecting bastions and towers. In an early type
represented in the Romano-British coast fortresses, of which this of
Reculver is an excellent illustration, there were, as we have seen, no
projections whether of walls, bastions, towers, or gates. Reliance was
placed in the strength and solidity of the walls themselves, which
were 8 feet in thickness. But the desirability of having some points
from which the enemy could be attacked in flank whilst battering the
wall soon became evident, and in other cases such as Richborough,
Lymne, Pevensey, etc., we find that the fortress was furnished not
only with massive walls, but also with strong angle-towers and
bastions or towers at intervals by which the wall could be commanded
and protected.
These various works furnish an interesting series of illustrations of
the progress made in the military architecture of the period.
5. RUTUPIAE
[Illustration: FIG. 7. RUTUPIAE (RICHBOROUGH)]
Now known as Richborough, situated about two miles north-north-west of
Sandwich, was a station of great importance in the Roman period, being
then, as Sandwich was subsequently for many years, the chief British
port for travellers and traffic to and from the Continent. In shape
Rutupiae was a rectangular parallelogram, with the greater length from
east to west. Its walls, which were lofty and massive, enclosed an
area of somewhat less than 6 acres. At each angle is, or was, a
circular bastion 18 feet 6 inches in diameter, and square towers or
bastions at intervals projected beyond the general face of the walls.
A considerable part of the south-east corner, and the whole of the
east wall have been destroyed by the falling of the cliff in the
direction of the River Stour. The theory formerly propounded that the
castrum had no eastern wall has been disproved by the careful
examinations of Mr. G. E. Fox and other eminent antiquaries. These
examinations have definitely shown that large fragments of the east
wall have fallen down the cliff. It is certain that the castrum of
Rutupiae as also those of Regulbium and Portus Lemanis, in spite of
the doubt which has been expressed in each instance, had four walls.
The chief peculiarity of Rutupiae is the presence of a solid mass of
masonry underground, a little to the east rather than in the middle of
the enclosed space. Many different theories have been put forward to
account for its purpose, but it is now generally agreed that it was
intended to serve as the foundation for a lofty structure, perhaps of
timber, the purpose of which was for signalling between this station
and that at Reculver, and possibly also answering to the pharos at
Dover. It is not improbable that it also served as a lighthouse for
ships entering the estuary of the Stour from the sea. If lights or
signals could be seen as far as Dover they might from that point be
communicated easily to and fro from the coast of France from the high
ground on which the pharos of Dover stands.
In order to understand the functions and relative positions of
Regulbium and Rutupiae as coast fortresses during the Roman period, it
is necessary to reconstruct the ancient geography of the north-eastern
part of Kent. The small stream now falling into the sea near Reculver
was at the period under consideration a river sufficiently broad and
deep to afford a convenient channel for shipping. It was known as the
Wantsum. Boats and ships voyaging from the French coast as well as
from the British coast near Dover to London, usually took their course
through the channel formed by the Stour and the Wantsum, thus avoiding
the strong currents and tempestuous seas often raging off the North
Foreland.
[Illustration: FIG. 8. RECULVER
From a print published in 1781]
It will be seen, therefore, that a lofty tower or lighthouse at
Rutupiae would have been of the greatest value both for the guidance
of friendly shipping and as a means of giving warning of the
approach of the enemy.
The north wall of the castrum at Richborough is a remarkably perfect
and interesting specimen of Roman masonry. It is noteworthy, too, as
furnishing proof of the great care and thoroughness with which the
Romans carried out their building works. At the base of the wall, on
the outside, one sees four courses of flint in their natural form, and
above them the following succession of materials, in ascending order:
three courses of dressed flint; two courses of bonding tile; seven
courses of ashlar and two of tile; seven courses of ashlar and two of
tile; seven courses of ashlar and two of tile; seven courses of ashlar
and two of tile; eight courses of ashlar and two of tile; nine courses
of ashlar. The wall is 23 feet 2 inches high, and 10 feet 8 inches
thick.
There is one aspect of some of the Roman coast fortresses which shows
that their builders were not influenced entirely by utilitarian ideas.
This is the methodical and tasteful use of stones of different
colours in such a way as to produce a pleasing species of colour
decoration. The aim obviously was to break up the monotony of broad
spaces of masonry, and possibly, also, to enhance their apparent size
by multiplication of detail. The north wall of Richborough, although
to some extent marred by rebuilding of some part of it, affords an
illustration of this. Here we find dark brownish-red ironstone built
into the wall in a way which reminds one of bands of chequer work. A
Pevensey again, where the stones are cut with the regularity and
precision of brickwork, large blocks of similar sandstone are employed
in regular order at different heights in the walls and bastions. To
the latter in addition to their decorative use they serve to tie in
the outer skin of masonry to the inner rubble.
[Illustration: FIG. 9. RICHBOROUGH, KENT. EXTERIOR OF NORTH WALL]
6. DUBRIS, DOVER
A paper by Rev. Canon Puckle on Vestiges of Roman Dover was published
some years ago in "Archaeologia Cantiana."[8] It was accompanied by
a plan in which are set out the outlines of what are supposed to have
been the limits of the Roman town or fortress of Dover. Although the
outline is merely tentative and hypothetical, there is a certain
plausibility about the suggested site and size of the castrum. It was
situated, as is pointed out, quite away from the pharos, in the lowest
part of the town, the present Market Square being approximately in the
middle of the enclosure. The plan is roughly a parallelogram with
certain irregularities on the north-west angle.
On the top of the eastern and western heights of Dover a lighthouse
was erected by the Romans for the guidance of ships into the narrow
mouth of the river. Traces of that on the western heights still
remain, or remained recently: whilst that on the eastern heights
stands intact, one of the most remarkable and interesting pieces of
Roman architecture now remaining in the kingdom.
The Roman pharos at Dover consists of a strong and massive tower,
hollow within, which rises to a height of 42 feet, having walls whose
thickness varies from 12 feet at the base to about 7 feet at the top.
The structure is not entirely of Roman workmanship, because in the
thirteenth century certain additions were made to its outer walls.
Doubtless its massive masonry was calculated to withstand the severe
storms to which its exposed position on the lofty cliff subjected it.
Whether employed for signalling purposes or as a lighthouse, this
building was doubtless in such a position as to communicate with
similar buildings on the coast of France, and with the lighthouse or
signalling tower (it may have served in both capacities) at
Richborough.
The pharos on the western heights of Dover, of which little now
remains, must have formed an extremely valuable auxiliary to that on
the eastern heights, affording a guide for ships making at night for
the haven of Dover. It is not at all improbable that both structures
combined the purposes of lighthouses at night with those of signalling
stations in the daytime.
[Illustration: FIG. 10. PHAROS, DOVER]
The precise details of the existing pharos, although of the greatest
interest from architectural and archaeological points of view, are not
necessary to our present purpose, but a few facts are worthy of
notice.
The masonry throughout is of tufa with the exception of two or three
courses of Roman tiles at intervals of about 4 feet, and the
foundations, which again consist of several courses of tiles arranged
in three sets-off, and with an octagonal plan.
The tower is of octagonal plan externally, and square within, where
each of the four walls measures about 14 feet. The structure is
believed to have been repaired and cased with flint in the year 1259,
when Richard de Codnore was Constable of Dover Castle. His arms, Barry
of six, argent and azure, are carved in stone on the north side of the
pharos. The octagonal chamber in the top story of the tower appears to
have been restored or rebuilt in Tudor times.
It is interesting and instructive to compare the Dover lighthouses in
their relation to the French coast and Richborough, with the
signalling tower or lighthouse of West Mersea, by means of which
communications were kept up with the sea-coast station and castrum of
Othona.
Bearing in mind the defensive character of the forts with which the
lighthouses were associated, it seems probable that their purpose had
a close relation to the work of watching the coast, and obtaining
early information of the approach of invaders.
There is a strong probability that more of such buildings for
observing the approach of enemies once existed, traces of which have
now perished.
[Illustration: FIG. 11. PHAROS, DOVER]
7. PORTUS LEMANIS
Situated originally on the side of a spur of high ground at Lymne,
near Hythe, and overlooking the flat ground of Romney Marsh, was a
fortified station of sufficient importance to rank as a town. Its
distance from Dover, and its situation on the south coast, suggest
that it cannot have formed a part of the group of contemporary
fortresses which defended the east coast of Kent.
Owing to a landslip on a large scale, which happened possibly before
the Norman Conquest, the whole of the site upon which this town stood
slipped downwards towards Romney Marsh, and the massive walls and
towers by which it was once encompassed were disturbed, shattered, and
overturned.
The form, as far as can be gathered from the disturbed foundations,
was somewhat irregular. The east and west walls were parallel, and the
south wall ran at right angles with them, but the north wall had an
outward bow-like projection. The walls, when the place was intact,
enclosed a space of about 11 acres, and were from 12 feet to 14 feet
thick, whilst the height of both walls and mural towers was somewhat
more than 20 feet.
The purpose of placing a strongly fortified town at this place was
partly in order to command a view over the surrounding country, and
partly to defend the Roman port which was situated on a branch of the
River Limene,[9] or rather, just at the foot of the hill on the side
of which it stood.
[Illustration: FIG. 12. ROMAN WALLS, LYMNE, KENT]
Among the discoveries made at Portus Lemanis there were two of
remarkable and significant character. The first consisted of a
mutilated altar-stone, bearing a much-worn inscription indicating the
dedication of the altar by a praefect of the British fleet, named
Aufidius Pantera, probably to Neptune. The stone was found built
into the masonry of the principal gate, and from its worn condition,
and the remains of barnacles which it still bore when found, it was
justly inferred that it belonged to an earlier period than that of the
building of the gate. The second discovery, of quite equal interest
with the first, was that of a number of broken roof and other tiles,
inscribed CLBR, which has been read _Classiarii Britannici_, Marines
of the British fleet.
[Illustration: FIG. 13. PORTUS LEMANIS (LYMPNE)]
From these discoveries one may gather that at some period, probably
before that of Constantine, a division of the British fleet was
situated at Portus Lemanis, and that some of the buildings there were
erected by the crew from the fleet.
The principal gate, which may have been battered down during a siege,
and required rebuilding, was evidently the work of a late date in the
Roman period. This view is supported by a comparison of the whole
building with the work at Anderida (Pevensey). The general arrangement
of the walls, the disposition of the mural towers, or bastions, and
the facing of regularly cut limestone blocks present points of very
considerable similarity.
It will be observed from a comparison of Portus Lemanis with Anderida
(about to be described) that there is reason to think that both works
belong to a date somewhat late in the Roman period.
8. ANDERIDA (PEVENSEY)
The castrum at Pevensey retains so much of its enclosing walls and
bastions that it is particularly worthy of study if one would learn,
by direct observation, what splendid specimens of architecture the
Romans erected in this country. Although a mediaeval castle has been
built within the boundary of the Roman castrum, the walls of the
latter may be traced for almost the whole of the circuit, and on the
north, east, and west sides they stand to a considerable height. At
the south-western extremity is the main gateway, its two flanking
towers forming perhaps the most prominent features. Proceeding to the
north of this gate we find three good specimens of bastions of
somewhat horse-shoe form on plan. A series of six similarly planned
bastions remain at the opposite side of the fortress, the general plan
of which may be said to be elliptical.
[Illustration: FIG. 14. BASTION ON SOUTH-WESTERN WALL, PEVENSEY]
The character of the facing masonry, especially on the south-west
side, is quite remarkable. The facing consists of carefully squared
blocks of limestone laid with the regularity and precision of
brickwork.
Two characteristics stand out prominently in comparing this with other
Roman castra on the coast of Britain. One is the irregularity of plan,
the other is the presence of numerous projecting bastions. Both point
to the lateness of the work, and some valuable evidence, confirming
this view, has been brought to light in recent years. In 1907 Mr.
Charles Dawson, F.S.A., communicated to the Society of Antiquaries[10]
some notes on tiles found here bearing the stamp
HON AUG
ANDRIA
The first line apparently refers to the Emperor Honorius (395-423),
whilst the second may be regarded as indicating with somewhat less
certainty the name Anderida.
9. PORTUS MAGNUS (PORCHESTER)
This remarkably fine castrum, which stands on the edge of the most
northern creek forming a part of Portsmouth Harbour, consists of a
square enclosure containing a space of about 9 acres. Its walls, 10
feet in thickness, are constructed of flint rubble with courses of
bonding-tiles. Originally each angle was furnished with a hollow
bastion, or tower, and similar bastions, hollow within, were placed
along the walls at intervals of from 100 feet to 200 feet. Some of
these bastions have been destroyed, but fourteen examples, in a more
or less perfect condition, remain. The water-gate, on the eastern
side, still survives in a peculiarly perfect state. It is remarkable
from the fact that the blocks of stone forming its semicircular arch
are of light and dark colour, and are arranged alternately, so as to
impart a picturesque and decorative effect.
[Illustration: FIG. 15. PLAN OF PORCHESTER ROMAN CASTRUM]
The identification of Porchester with the Portus Magnus of the Romans
has been questioned by Professor Haverfield, and there can be no doubt
that it rests upon insufficient evidence. Conceivably it may be the
Portus Adurni of the Romans: but this is not certain.
A Norman castle, with remarkably fine keep, still practically intact,
was built in the north-west corner, and the parish church, also of
Norman architecture, was constructed near the south-east angle, within
the walls of the castrum.
_Clausentum_, an important Roman station, now known as Bitterne, is
situated a little to the north of Southampton, on the banks of the
tidal estuary of the River Itchen. Practically nothing in the shape of
architectural traces now remain, but from accounts written before
their complete destruction we know that it was enclosed with walls 9
feet thick, and constructed of flint bonded with large flat tiles and
roughly faced with small square stones. It has been supposed that the
outer defences when perfect measured 500 yards in length. The station
was three-sided, the walls each having an outward curve. The outer
defences are believed to have enclosed an area of 20 acres: the inner
defences, 10 acres.
[Illustration: FIG. 16. THE WATER-GATE, PORCHESTER]
_Cardiff._--Although not situated near the Continent, it is probable
that Cardiff took its part in the defence of our coast during the
Roman period. Whether the Roman fortress at this point formed part of
the defences which were placed under the control of the Count of the
Saxon Shore may be doubted, but in size and general plan it certainly
resembled the coast fortresses of the south-eastern shores.
[Illustration: FIG. 17. PORCHESTER. EXTERIOR OF WEST WALL]
In the course of recent excavations in and near Cardiff Castle the
nearly complete ground-plan of this castrum was found. Its form was
nearly quadrangular, the only irregularity being in the western wall,
which was inclined eastward at its southern end. Gates were situated
about the middle of the northern and southern walls, whilst
semicircular bastions were placed along the walls at intervals,
roughly, of about 120 feet. At the angles were built towers of
irregular form and of somewhat unusual interest, from the fact that
they were obviously additions to the original work. The area enclosed
by the walls was roughly a square of 600 feet.
The question of angle-towers or bastions is one of considerable
importance. Their presence in a Roman castrum may generally be taken
as evidence of late date; but it is necessary to bear in mind that in
some cases they have certainly been added to give strength to
fortresses of early type, which, as we have seen in the cases of
Reculver and Brancaster, were furnished with rounded angles, without
any such projecting features as angle-towers or bastions. At
Cardiff[11] it is perfectly clear that the original building had
rounded angles against which towers of irregularly circular plan were
subsequently built.
As at Pevensey and Porchester, a Norman castle was ingeniously
constructed within this castrum by placing the mound towards the
north-western corner. Two walls thrown out from this, one towards the
western wall and the other to about the middle of the southern wall,
enclosed practically a quarter of the whole area in the south-western
angle, and formed the inner court, whilst the whole of the rest of the
area of the castrum formed the outer court. It is obvious that at the
period when this Norman castle was built the Roman walls were
sufficiently perfect to afford an effective barrier of defence.
OTHER ROMAN COAST DEFENCES
The coast to the north of Brancaster, the most northern of the nine
regular Roman coast castra, is provided in certain places with
defences of Roman date, either in the form of watch-houses, or
lighthouses, or fortresses.
Professor Haverfield, in a recent lecture on the subject,[12] suggests
that such structures once existed at (1) Huntcliffe (near Saltburn);
(2) at a point near Staithes; (3) on the high promontory of Peak, near
Robin Hood Bay; and (4) on another high headland, called Carrnase, to
the north of Filey Bay. Generally speaking, the altitude of the sites
of these works suggests their use for watching or lighting purposes
rather than for purely military defence.
To a certain extent the Roman walled towns of Canterbury, Rochester,
Chichester, Colchester, and London, must be regarded as having
exercised a share in the coast defence of England, because they were
situated on rivers now or formerly navigable, and not too far from the
sea-coast to be absolutely without value in repelling invaders.
The fact that they were constructed specially for defensive purposes,
not only against near neighbours, but also against those unwelcome
visitors who, from the remote past, and all through the middle ages,
have been attracted by the wealth of England, brings them within the
scope of the present essay. For obvious reasons, however, and mainly
because of the question of space, it is unnecessary to describe in
detail every defensive work which was partially available for English
coast defence.