The Saxon Shore System

[Imperial Dave]

as an aside to the 5th Century thread....

what is the current thinking/consensus on the Saxon Shore system? Was it a defence against Saxons, a defence manned by Saxons or a mixture of the 2? And by Saxons I mean generically Germanic but happy to be corrected that it was meant specifically

[Jim Webster]

as an aside to the 5th Century thread....

what is the current thinking/consensus on the Saxon Shore system? Was it a defence against Saxons, a defence manned by Saxons or a mixture of the 2? And by Saxons I mean generically Germanic but happy to be corrected that it was meant specifically

There may be current thinking but I doubt there's a consensus

I think we tend to be a bit provincial and forget there was another system on the coast of Gaul. Also the term seems to have been established in the 3rd century (?) which if true would mean it was a bit early to be settled by Saxons.
Also the term was used in Gaul where I doubt there were many Saxons settled.

[Duncan Head]

Also the term was used in Gaul where I doubt there were many Saxons settled.

There were substantial Saxon settlements in Gaul at some point - Gregory of Tours mentions Saxons in Gaul under "Adovacrius" (Odovacer?) in the later 5th century and also mentions Saxons settled near Bayeux in the 6th century. But probably not as early as the third.

[Jim Webster]

Also the term was used in Gaul where I doubt there were many Saxons settled.

There were substantial Saxon settlements in Gaul at some point - Gregory of Tours mentions Saxons in Gaul under "Adovacrius" (Odovacer?) in the later 5th century and also mentions Saxons settled near Bayeux in the 6th century. But probably not as early as the third.

Yes it strikes me that it was the Saxon Shore before the Saxons washed up there. But it may have been an obvious area to settle Saxons (or other 'Germans') especially if there was no tribal loyalty which meant that your Saxons could be trusted to fight 'wild' Saxons

[Imperial Dave]

 my own thought is that it's predominantly manned by saxons or rather big knife carrying barbarians. Latterly it probably adopts a dual naming reason

[lionheartrjc]

This may be completely wrong but...
ve
Up until the mid-third century crisis the shores of Britain and Gaul were defended by the Classis Britannica.  The fleet HQ is probably Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer), because you don't want an HQ you can't communicate with.  At some point during the third century this fleet disappears.

Once the dust had settled a new defensive strategy is adopted.  Maintaining a permanent fleet sufficient to defend the coasts of Britain and Gaul is too expensive/difficult ... so a series of forts are built instead, garrisoned by border troops.  The system is cheaper - you need fewer ships.  But the problem is that Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks or whoever is the threat have a lot more freedom to sail down the coastline.  When the threat gets too great a fleet is built, but after a few years it falls into decay again as attention (and budgets) are focused elsewhere. 

Into the fifth century, Britain is left to its own devices.  Any remaining garrisons either become fishermen/farmers or are mercenaries extorting resources from the local populace to defend them, which in the fifth century is probably the definition of a ruling class.

Richard

[DBS]

Also the term was used in Gaul where I doubt there were many Saxons settled.

There were substantial Saxon settlements in Gaul at some point - Gregory of Tours mentions Saxons in Gaul under "Adovacrius" (Odovacer?) in the later 5th century and also mentions Saxons settled near Bayeux in the 6th century. But probably not as early as the third.

Of course, Ammianus is happy justifying the deceitful massacre of Saxon raiders on the Gallic coast in the fourth century - which does not in itself preclude settlements per se, but does suggest an attitude of extermination rather than integration.

[Imperial Dave]

although this position changes quite quickly depending on the circumstances

[Jim Webster]

although this position changes quite quickly depending on the circumstances

In both directions, as with Stilicho and his followers

[Imperial Dave]

exactly, political expediency

[Justin Swanton]

This may be completely wrong but...
ve
Up until the mid-third century crisis the shores of Britain and Gaul were defended by the Classis Britannica.  The fleet HQ is probably Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer), because you don't want an HQ you can't communicate with.  At some point during the third century this fleet disappears.

Once the dust had settled a new defensive strategy is adopted.  Maintaining a permanent fleet sufficient to defend the coasts of Britain and Gaul is too expensive/difficult ... so a series of forts are built instead, garrisoned by border troops.  The system is cheaper - you need fewer ships.  But the problem is that Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks or whoever is the threat have a lot more freedom to sail down the coastline.  When the threat gets too great a fleet is built, but after a few years it falls into decay again as attention (and budgets) are focused elsewhere. 

Into the fifth century, Britain is left to its own devices.  Any remaining garrisons either become fishermen/farmers or are mercenaries extorting resources from the local populace to defend them, which in the fifth century is probably the definition of a ruling class.

Richard

To what extent could you actually defend a long coastline with a fleet in Roman times? Ships didn't have spotter planes or radar in those days, so easiest thing in the world for large party of raiders to slip past any friendly ships, land where they liked, pull their boats up onto the shore where the coastal ships couldn't get them, leave a substantial guard, and raid at their leisure. Coastal ships would help to a certain extent against small-scale raiding perhaps (easy to overwhelm the guard), but they were especially useful as a logistics support for an army marching up the coast. Once the Romans gave up offensive operations in Belgium and Scotland the need for a fleet would largely disappear, especially if there wasn't much coastal raiding going on then either.

From this perspective, the Classis Britannica was scrapped because it no longer served any purpose. Against the large scale raiding and even invasions of the 4th century the only effective countermeasure would be coastal fortifications.

[Imperial Dave]

This may be completely wrong but...
ve
Up until the mid-third century crisis the shores of Britain and Gaul were defended by the Classis Britannica.  The fleet HQ is probably Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer), because you don't want an HQ you can't communicate with.  At some point during the third century this fleet disappears.

Once the dust had settled a new defensive strategy is adopted.  Maintaining a permanent fleet sufficient to defend the coasts of Britain and Gaul is too expensive/difficult ... so a series of forts are built instead, garrisoned by border troops.  The system is cheaper - you need fewer ships.  But the problem is that Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks or whoever is the threat have a lot more freedom to sail down the coastline.  When the threat gets too great a fleet is built, but after a few years it falls into decay again as attention (and budgets) are focused elsewhere. 

Into the fifth century, Britain is left to its own devices.  Any remaining garrisons either become fishermen/farmers or are mercenaries extorting resources from the local populace to defend them, which in the fifth century is probably the definition of a ruling class.

Richard

To what extent could you actually defend a long coastline with a fleet in Roman times? Ships didn't have spotter planes or radar in those days, so easiest thing in the world for large party of raiders to slip past any friendly ships, land where they liked, pull their boats up onto the shore where the coastal ships couldn't get them, leave a substantial guard, and raid at their leisure. Coastal ships would help to a certain extent against small-scale raiding perhaps (easy to overwhelm the guard), but they were especially useful as a logistics support for an army marching up the coast. Once the Romans gave up offensive operations in Belgium and Scotland the need for a fleet would largely disappear, especially if there wasn't much coastal raiding going on then either.

From this perspective, the Classis Britannica was scrapped because it no longer served any purpose. Against the large scale raiding and even invasions of the 4th century the only effective countermeasure would be coastal fortifications.

and defence in depth

[Justin Swanton]

This may be completely wrong but...
ve
Up until the mid-third century crisis the shores of Britain and Gaul were defended by the Classis Britannica.  The fleet HQ is probably Gesoriacum (Boulogne-sur-Mer), because you don't want an HQ you can't communicate with.  At some point during the third century this fleet disappears.

Once the dust had settled a new defensive strategy is adopted.  Maintaining a permanent fleet sufficient to defend the coasts of Britain and Gaul is too expensive/difficult ... so a series of forts are built instead, garrisoned by border troops.  The system is cheaper - you need fewer ships.  But the problem is that Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Franks or whoever is the threat have a lot more freedom to sail down the coastline.  When the threat gets too great a fleet is built, but after a few years it falls into decay again as attention (and budgets) are focused elsewhere. 

Into the fifth century, Britain is left to its own devices.  Any remaining garrisons either become fishermen/farmers or are mercenaries extorting resources from the local populace to defend them, which in the fifth century is probably the definition of a ruling class.

Richard

To what extent could you actually defend a long coastline with a fleet in Roman times? Ships didn't have spotter planes or radar in those days, so easiest thing in the world for large party of raiders to slip past any friendly ships, land where they liked, pull their boats up onto the shore where the coastal ships couldn't get them, leave a substantial guard, and raid at their leisure. Coastal ships would help to a certain extent against small-scale raiding perhaps (easy to overwhelm the guard), but they were especially useful as a logistics support for an army marching up the coast. Once the Romans gave up offensive operations in Belgium and Scotland the need for a fleet would largely disappear, especially if there wasn't much coastal raiding going on then either.

From this perspective, the Classis Britannica was scrapped because it no longer served any purpose. Against the large scale raiding and even invasions of the 4th century the only effective countermeasure would be coastal fortifications.

and defence in depth

That too.

[Jim Webster]

To what extent could you actually defend a long coastline with a fleet in Roman times? Ships didn't have spotter planes or radar in those days, so easiest thing in the world for large party of raiders to slip past any friendly ships, land where they liked, pull their boats up onto the shore where the coastal ships couldn't get them, leave a substantial guard, and raid at their leisure. Coastal ships would help to a certain extent against small-scale raiding perhaps (easy to overwhelm the guard), but they were especially useful as a logistics support for an army marching up the coast. Once the Romans gave up offensive operations in Belgium and Scotland the need for a fleet would largely disappear, especially if there wasn't much coastal raiding going on then either.

From this perspective, the Classis Britannica was scrapped because it no longer served any purpose. Against the large scale raiding and even invasions of the 4th century the only effective countermeasure would be coastal fortifications.

It is interesting that the fleet just 'disappears' and there appears to be no contemporary explanation. Or even a modern consensus.
Other standing fleets do seem to disappear about the same time, and perhaps in the late 3rd century, there wasn't the money to maintain it, and most of the men had been taken into the legions anyway?
So as Justin says, the cost-benefit wasn't enough to replace them?

[Justin Swanton]

Or even a modern consensus.

What's that?