Two Princes, Two Programs, Two Perspectives

Recently two television documentaries have been screened on National television in the UK, both claiming to reveal new evidence in the fate of the “Princes in the Tower” Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, Duke of York, the young sons and heirs of King Edward IV. 

The Tower of London

The young princes disappeared without trace while aged 12 and 9 after their uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was appointed Lord Protector and took the boys into his care and confined them in the Tower of London in 1483. Within three months of the death of Edward IV in April, his brother the Duke of Gloucester claimed the throne and was crowned Richard III the following July and the young princes were never seen again.

The popular perception of Richard III is that he was responsible for the death of the two young princes, after all, as Lord Protector he alone was accountable for their well-being. They were under his care when they disappeared, and he surely had the most to gain by eliminating them from the line of succession. 

The fate of the two young princes is one of the greatest mysteries of British history. Today, over 540 years later, argument continues as to whether their uncle King Richard III was responsible for the boys’ murders or if they escaped the tower and lived on. Does the received wisdom portray a faithful record of events or is Richard III an innocent victim of malicious ‘Tudor propaganda’?

The UK Channel 5 documentary Princes in the Tower: A Damning Discovery, (first screened 3rd December 2024) and The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence (UK Channel 4, first screened 18th November, 2023) both claimed to present new evidence]for either side of the argument.

The newspapers reported the documentary as uncovering evidence that may finally solve the mystery of the Princes in the Tower after 500 years.1

The Damning Discovery: The Chain
The ‘bombshell’ evidence of the C5 documentary Princes in the Tower: A Damning Discovery presented jointly by Tracy Borman, Chief Historian at Historic Royal Palaces and Jason Watkins, actor and narrator of the television series Inside The Tower of London, was the discovery of a reference to an item belonging to one of the Princes. The disappearance of the two Princes was so complete and clean that not a trace of their existence since their confinement in the Tower in the summer of 1483 has been found. Until now. 

Tim Thornton, Jason Watkins and Tracy Borman

Tim Thornton, Professor of History and Deputy Vice-Chancellor at the University of Huddersfield, has found reference to a chain belonging to Edward V bequeathed in the Will of Margaret, Lady Capell. This is a significant find because it is the first reference in 500 years to the discovery of any physical item belonging to one of the ‘Princes in the Tower’. However, the documentary lost some credibility when this chain was suddenly elevated to Edward V’s ‘chain of office’. Now that would be quite damning but in Lady Capell’s Will it was described as simply a chain. 

The Will, found in the Register of Wills held at the National Archives entry of 1516, detailed a chain that belonged to Edward V that Lady Capell bequeathed to her son Giles. It is unclear how Edward’s chain came into the possession of Lady Capell. Yet the Will of her late husband Sir William Capell, the two-time lord mayor of London, refers to business dealings with the Tyrell family. Indeed  Sir William is known to have exchanged jewelry with Sir James Tyrell, his brother-in-law, and trusted servant of Richard III.2

Professor Thornton said, “'…… while there is a clear possibility that the chain came to the Capell family in some neutral way, as the king’s property was distributed in the aftermath of Edward’s disappearance, there is also the possibility that it came as a result of his murder– and through the Capells’ connection with the alleged murderer, Sir James Tyrell.”

The discovery of the reference to a chain of Edward V suggests that Sir Thomas More's account of the murder of the Princes in the Tower contained within his History of King Richard III, much discredited by Ricardians, may not simply be Tudor propaganda.

Thomas More and James Tyrell
Tyrell was named by by Sir Thomas More as the man who hired two men to carry out the killing of the young Princes Edward and Richard. More appears to have had contact with the son of one of those men claimed to have been responsible for the death of the Princes, which Thornton claims is a possible source from where he heard the murder story.3

More used a courier to transport his letters to the English court, one is named as 'M Forest', the son of one of the men he named as the murderer of the Princes. Did More get his account of the Princes's killers direct from this M Forest?

However, sympathisers of Richard III accuse More of bias as he was educated in the house of the Tudor loyalist Cardinal Morton, a staunch enemy of Richard III, and fabricated his accounts to favour the Tudors. More was much closer to these events than modern historians and perhaps his account should not be dismissed so lightly. More was a man who went to his death for his beliefs; he refused to acknowledge the annulment of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon and refused to sign the 1534 Oath of Succession making Henry supreme head of the Church of England. More was charged with treason and executed on 6 July 1535 at Tower Hill. Ironically, 50 years to the day when Richard III was crowned.

Richard III

Even if we accept More’s account that Tyrell was involved with the disappearance of the Princes this chain doesn't help us determine if they died in the Tower or escaped and survived. Tyrell’s henchmen may have taken the chain from the dead body of Edward V, or he may have been given the chain by Edward for helping him escape the Tower or other services unknown; we really have no idea how the family of James Tyrell came by this chain, or its whereabouts today.

After Richard III died at the battle of Bosworth in 1485, Tyrell started working for the first Tudor king Henry VII, but their relationship turned sour and he was imprisoned. More claims that when at the Tower, Tyrell confessed to the murder of the Princes.

The C5 documentary examined the ‘King’s Itinerary’ and found that from 27 April - 2 May 1502  Henry VII was at the Tower, the only time that year, the same time as Tyrell is said to have confessed. Henry VII is known to have personally attended several confessions of his enemies. A record of the confession has not survived, but according to More, Tyrell claimed that two men named Dighton and Forest killed the boys. The same time that Tyrell was there in the Tower. Elizabeth of York, Henry VII's wife and sister to the two princes, visited the Tower. Immediately after visiting the tower Elizabeth went to visit her aunt, Elizabeth of York, Duchess of Suffolk and sister to Edward IV and Richard III, as if bearing some important news; the documentary speculates that it may have been Tyrell’s confession that revealed the fate of the two young princes. 

On the Otherside
The day after its first screening (03/12/24) The Daily Mail reported, "Row breaks out over Princes in the Tower murder evidence as Richard III's defenders pour cold water on new 'smoking gun' document.”4

The newspaper states “Philippa Langley, the amateur-turned-professional historian who played a key role in the discovery of Richard III's remains beneath a Leicester car park in 2012 claimed the evidence is 'conjecture at best'.”

The Richard III Society, which says it works to 'secure a more balanced assessment of the king', issued a five-point rebuttal of the findings. Richard III Society 'Statement On The Chain' arguing that the discovery of a reference to Edward V’s chain that Thornton claims supports the theory that the Princes in the Tower were murdered 'cannot be deemed as evidence but conjecture'.5 

Ms Langley, a staunch defender of the maligned king Richard III, said, “When Sir William Stanley was executed in 1495 a gold chain was found amongst his belongings. This is said to have been his chain as Steward of Edward V (when Prince of Wales). No one has ever suggested that Sir William Stanley murdered Edward V because he kept his gold chain.”

She added, “Historians have to be very careful about what they present as ‘evidence’”.6

In 2023 Ms Langley revealed the discovery of documents that she claims proved both of the Princes, Edward and Richard, the sons of Edward IV, survived their imprisonment in the Tower of London and went on to assume the identities of two usurpers who challenged Henry VII for the crown. It follows that if the Princes survived the Tower then Richard III is therefore exonerated of their deaths.
Case solved: Quod Erat Demonstrandum. 

Ms Langley assembled a team of researchers, The Missing Princes Project in 2016, which last year uncovered documents that she claims proves that both Edward V and his younger brother Richard, the Duke of York, fled to Europe and assumed the identities of Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck, who are long known to have launched failed attempts to depose Henry VII in the late 15th century. However, the documents were dismissed as unverified evidence at the time by some academic historians.

The New Evidence: Proofs Of Life
Whereas the Channel 5 television documentary presented the record of a ‘chain’ that belonged to Edward V that somehow came into the possession of the family of James Tyrell, the man named by Thomas More7 as being responsible for the murder of the Princes at the instructions of Richard III, a year earlier Channel 4 screened a documentary presenting ‘New Evidence’ claiming that the two sons of Edward IV, ‘the alleged victims of an alleged murder’, actually survived and did not die in the Tower. The well known TV barrister Rob Rinder was provided to sift through the evidence to deliver his expert verdict as if to add some legal weight to these claims.

NO, Richard III did not order the killing of the two princes. Ricardians dismiss that as just Tudor propaganda. It was disappointing to see the respected historian Janina Ramirez just brush off anti-Richard literature as such. True, some later accounts such as Polydore Vergil certainly were produced to bolster the claims of Henry VII to the throne and in doing so malign the Plantagenets. But not all documents from the late-15th century can be considered as such.

Since finding the remains of Richard III under a car park in Leicester in 2012, supporters of the last Plantagenet king have switched their attention to the alternative theory that claims both Princes, the young sons of Edward IV, survived the Tower, and escaped to Europe. They returned to Britain to fight against the first Tudor king Henry VII to, unsuccessfully, restore the Yorkist claim to the throne. If the Princes escaped the Tower and lived on to fight another day then Richard III must be totally exonerated of the 500 year accusation that he had them killed. And that, we may suspect, is the real purpose of the Missing Princes Project led by Philippa Langley who is emotionally attached to Richard III.

The 2024 Channel 4 documentary was based on Langley’s book, ‘The Princes in the Tower: Solving History's Greatest Cold Case’ (The History Press, November 2023) which claimed the Princes survived the tower. Case solved?

Langley is well known for the discovery of the remains of Richard III under a car park in Leicester in 2012. She was as the public face of the ‘Looking for Richard’ project which, following seven years of investigation, culminated in the discovery, exhumation, positive identification and re-interment of King Richard III in Leicester Cathedral. 

Langley is an avid Ricardian and believes the bad reputation of Richard III as portrayed by Shakespeare’s play based on Sir Thomas More’s account which has endured for the last five hundred years as totally undeserved and largely due to Tudor propaganda. She is adamant that Richard was not the evil uncle that the sources depicted.

Accordingly, Langley and fellow Ricardians see no supporting evidence for the Princes’ death at the hands of Richard III. Richard was absent from London when rumours started circulating about the disappearance of the Princes and he was in York in early September 1483 when the Prices were seen at the Tower. 

But where did the Princes go; they are not seen after Richard placed them in the Tower. To solve this perennial mystery Langley was instrumental in launching the ‘Missing Princes Project’ in 2016 as a follow up to ‘Looking for Richard’, with the objective of establishing the facts of what happened to the two Princes following their disappearance in 1483. 

Using the same methodology as a modern police investigation, ‘Accept nothing – Believe nobody – Challenge everything’ Langley admits The Missing Princes Project is not an academic study but an intelligence gathering exercise requiring the examination of all contemporary and near contemporary source material. After a seven year search concluding the first phase of the Project, Langley believes she has solved the 540 year old mystery of the missing princes. 

Langley argues that all records dating to the reign of Richard III revealed no evidence of the death of the two Princes. Both Edward V and Richard, Duke of York are referenced as alive in all existing day-to-day accounting and legal records during the reign of Richard III. Stories of the murder of the two Princes, she claims, originated in England with the arrival of Henry Tudor and his French invasion force on 14 August 1485.

Langley cites four ‘Proofs’ that show the two young Princes survived the Tower:

• Edward V: Proof of Life: The Lille receipt, dated 16 December 1487, discovered by the Dutch Research Group in May 2020, records payment by King Maximilian I for 400 long pikes. The receipt is signed by three leading members of Maximilian’s court and references Edward’s aunt Margaret of York in Burgundy. Langley argues that the Lille receipt suggests that Edward V was alive, or thought to be alive, in December 1487, then 17 years of age.
  
  
• Richard, Duke of York: Proof of Life: The Gelderland document, rediscovered by the Dutch Research Group in November 2020, in the Gelderland archive, in Arnhem, Netherlands. The Gelderland document is a record of what happened to Richard, Duke of York over the ten years from when he left sanctuary at Westminster in 1483, age 9, up to his arrival at the court of his aunt, Margaret of York, in Burgundy in 1493. It is a witness statement, Richard’s biography, written in the first person, undated and unsigned.

• A document in the Dresden archive in Germany recorded a receipt and pledge of payment of 30,000 florins by ‘Richard of England’ to Duke Albert of Saxony dated 4 October 1493. The document is signed by ‘Richard of England’ with his royal monogram and seal. 
  
  
• From the Austrian archives is a letter from King Maximilian to Henry VII of England, dated 1493, in which Maximilian declares that Henry will know that this Richard, Duke of York, is the true son of King Edward (IV) because he can be recognised by three marks on his body

These documents appear to be genuine documents of the time, indeed the Gelderland document has been dated by Andrew Dunning at Oxford and authenticated as late 15th century. However, Langley’s conclusions, and particularly her scrutiny of the sources, has not been without criticism.8  She accepts these as genuine proofs that Edward and Richard escaped the Tower without scrutiny of their origin or verification by external sources.

The Dresden document promising payment of 30K florins, dated 1493, displays the signature of ‘Richard of England’ and the associated seal has the appearance of being authentic. However, they do not provide proof of Richard’s survival: how do we know it is Richard’s signature, what are we comparing it to, is there a genuine signature from Richard on record? Similarly, what are we comparing the seal to? And the claimed ‘marks’ on Richard’s body, where are the original accounts of these marks on Prince Richard’s body, prior to his disappearance? And how would Henry VII know these marks?

Surely, to maximise support for a Yorkist rebellion against Henry VII the conspirators would want to convince people that the figurehead was Edward V or his younger brother Richard, Duke of York, the rightful heirs to the throne who survived the tower. 

From these unverified sources Langley has accepted that the Two Princes escaped the Tower and reappeared under the names Lambert Simnel, and later as Perkin Warbeck: Edward and Richard respectively. Supported by their aunt Margaret of Burgundy, ‘the diabolical duchess’, they made separate, unsuccessful Yorkist attempts to retake the throne. Edward was said to be Simnel, who was the central figure in the 1487 Yorkist invasion of England ending in the Battle of Stoke Field. Warbeck, who had initially claimed to be Richard, failed in a 1497 bid to claim the throne and then before his execution signed a confession admitting he was a boatman's son. 

Indeed these are exactly the type of documents you expect to be produced by Yorkist challengers to Henry VII claiming to be legitimate heirs to the Yorkist line. If one were pretending to be Edward V to raise an army and challenge the king you would not be using your real name. 

Simnel and Warbeck would hardly sign documents in their real names but we could expect them to use a pseudonym such as Edward V or Richard of England. The Gelderland document would have also been constructed for the purpose of showing Richard as the ‘genuine article’ and maximising support. Forgeries of this kind were not uncommon in the Medieval period when documents were altered to support the claims of Kings.9

Margaret of York, Duchess of Burgundy, sister to Edward IV and Richard III, is associated with many of these so-called ‘Proofs’. Margaret was only too willing to support anyone prepared to challenge Henry VII and restore the Yorkist line. She provided financial backing for weapons and mercenaries to both the Yorkist pretenders Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. She even claimed Warbeck was her nephew Richard, the youngest son of Edward IV.

With regard to Philippa Langley’s four proofs historian Michael Hicks specialising in the Wars of the Roses writes:

“. . .  for the survival of the two Princes in the Tower after 1485. Neither the Lille document nor supporting evidences prove that Lambert Simnel was really Edward V rather than Edward, earl of Warwick. The Gelderland manifesto recounting the escape of Richard, duke of York and the pretender’s pledge to Duke Albert of Saxony were propaganda as necessary for the imposter Perkin Warbeck as for the real prince. The blemishes of Warbeck’s body cannot be shown to identify him as the younger prince. While useful additions to the continental plots against Henry VII, these new evidences do not prove that either prince lived beyond the reign of Richard III.”10

Langley set out her investigation to “accept nothing, believe nobody and challenge everything” but she fails to adhere to her own criteria and accepts the “proofs” without further scrutiny or verification by other external sources. In comparison, Thomas More is virtually demonised as a blatant liar by Ricardians but Langley all too readily accepts these ‘Proofs’ as the genuine article without challenge, a methodology which has raised concerns among her own researchers.

The use of the findings of the Dutch Research Group (DRG), who are part of the Missing Princes research team, has been termed ‘premature and counter productive’. This statement comes from members of the DRG, not from any anti-Ricardian critic. In a letter to the Ricardian Bulletin Zoe Maula, Jean Roefstra and William Wiss, former members of the research group, note that their concerns about using the finds in the publication of the book, and documentary.

“Although we agree that the contemporary documents are genuine and valid, the finds made by the DRG are in our own opinion open to various interpretations and do not constitute irrefutable proof without other genuine and undoubted sources to back up what these documents are telling us – or what we (wish to) believe they are telling us.” 11

As Ms Langley told the Daily Mail, “Historians have to be very careful about what they present as ‘evidence’”.12

In conclusion, two television programs both claiming new evidence to solve the mystery of the Princes in the Tower but neither completely convincing, both relying on conjecture - we are left thinking, perhaps, maybe. The TV programs, and Langley's book, represent the two sides of the argument; was Richard III responsible for the disappearance of the two Princes, or not, and display bias accordingly. Any new evidence is welcome but we need something more positive before we can claim to have solved the 500 year mystery of the Princes in the Tower.

Notes & References
1. What The Papers said:
a. The Telegraph (02/12/24) reported "The ‘smoking gun’ evidence that could finally prove Princes in the Tower were murdered. Discovery of a will shines new light on the centuries-old unsolved case."
b. The Mirror (02/12/24) was much the same: "Princes in the Tower mystery could finally be solved after 500 years in new documentary."
c. The Daily Mail (02/12/24) heralded the program as "The 'murder' of the Princes in the Tower 'solved at last': New evidence links their 'killer to gold chain of 12-year old Edward V".
2. Tim Thornton, Sir William Capell and A Royal Chain: The Afterlives (and Death) of King Edward V,, Volume 109, Issue 388, December 2024, pp.445-460. Open Access. 
3. Tim Thornton, More on a Murder: The Deaths of the ‘Princes in the Tower’, and Historiographical Implications for the Regimes of Henry VII and Henry VIII,  History: The Journal of the Historical Association, Volume106, Issue369, January 2021, pp.4-25. Open Access.
4. The Daily Mail (03/12/24) : "Row breaks out over Princes in the Tower murder evidence as Richard III's defenders pour cold water on new 'smoking gun' document.”
5. Richard III Society Statement On The Chain 
6. The Daily Mail (03/12/24) : "Row breaks out over Princes in the Tower....”
7. Thomas More, The History of King Richard the Third, 1513, pp.85-86. [PDF}
8. What the historians say:
a. Conflicting ‘Proof’ and the Princes in the Tower – Dan Moorhouse, (Wars of The Roses)
b. Sourcing the truth: the fatal flaws of Langley’s quest - Gareth Streeter (Royal History Geeks)

9. The Princes in the Tower: David Pilling on ‘The New Evidence’ (Aspects of History)

10. Michael Hicks, Historic doubts about the survival of the Princes in the Tower after 1485, Historical Research, Volume 97, Issue 277, August 2024, Pages 437–442.
11. The Ricardian Bulletin, page 4. June 2024.
12. The Daily Mail (03/12/24) : "Row breaks out over Princes in the Tower......”

* * *

The Princes in the Tower: The New Evidence

 The Princes in the Tower, Edward V and his younger brother, Richard, Duke of York, were the young sons and heirs of King Edward IV.  At the time of the King’s death in April 1483, his sons were aged 12 and 9. Their uncle Richard of Gloucester was appointed Lord Protector and was to prepare the young Edward for his coronation as king. However, Richard took the throne for himself and the boys disappeared without trace.

In 1483 Richard placed the boys in the Tower of London. During the summer they were seen less frequently until by the end of that summer they were never seen again. 

The Princes’ fate is one of the greatest of all historical mysteries with their uncle Richard III implicated in their disappearance ever since. Were they murdered in the Tower? Did they escape? 

Now Tim Thornton, Professor of History at the University of Huddersfield, has uncovered mention of a chain belonging to Edward V in the will of the sister-in-law of one of Richard III's trusted servants.

Professor Thornton said while there remained "good arguments" to exonerate Richard, the discovery meant the "balance is shifting towards his guilt".

The findings feature in the UK Channel 5 documentary Princes in the Tower: A damning discovery, first screened 3rd December 2024.

Did The Princes Survive?
Of course not everyone agrees that Richard had the boys murdered. An alternative theory claims the princes escaped to the Continent to later return to England to fight for the Crown.

The Missing Princes Project

Following seven years of extensive research and investigation Philippa Langley reached a stunning conclusion in her latest book The Princes in the Tower: Solving History’s Greatest Cold Case (The History Press, 2023).

Langley, discoverer of Richard III's body under a Leicester car park, argues that there is no evidence that Richard III ordered the killing of the two princes.

In a television documentary Langley together with barrister Rob Rinder follow the story of how the two sons of Edward IV disappeared in the summer of 1483 and became the ‘alleged victims of an alleged murder’. 

The feature length documentary (UK Channel 4,  first screened 18th November, 2023) focuses on the evidence published in Philippa Langley’s book.

It seems the mystery of the Princes in the Tower is set to run for some time yet.

* * * 

The Gallic Saxon Shore

Across the Channel, opposite the British Shore Forts, on the coast of northern Gaul there is a coastal defence system that the Notitia Dignitatum also terms the ‘Saxon Shore’. This has led to the assumption that the defences on both sides of the Channel were all under one command, the ‘comes littoris Saxonici’, and constructed in a similar style around the same time, to face the same enemy.

The Notitia Dignitatum
The Notitia Dignitatum (List of Offices) provides the only reference to the 'Saxon Shore'. The documents as a whole comprises a list of military and civilian commands in both eastern and western parts of the Roman empire. Thought to have been compiled from earlier documents around AD 395, having been corrected and updated for the next 25-30 years, the copy that has come down to us is dated to around AD 425. 

The Notitia Dignitatum associates the ‘Saxon Shore’ with two lines of defence, located along the south-eastern and southern coasts of Britain and the Channel and Atlantic coasts of Gaul respectively.1

The 28th Chapter of the western section (Occidentis) lists nine forts in south-east Britain under the command of the Count of the Saxon Shore (comes littoris Saxonici per Britanniam):

• Othona (Bradwell?)
• Dubrae (Dover)
• Lemanis (Lympne)
• Branodunum (Brancaster)
• Garriannonum (Burgh Castle or Caister-on-Sea?)
• Regulbium (Reculver)
• Rutupiae (Richborough)
• Anderida (Pevensey)
• Portus Adurni (Walton Castle or Portchester?)

There are several coastal forts in Britain that could, or should, be added to this list: Claustenum (Bitterne), Burgh Castle or Caister-on-Sea (only one of the forts on the Great Estuary is listed as Garriannonum), Old Skegness (on the opposite side if the Wash to Brancaster), and then possibly Brough-on-Humber which was rebuilt in the style of the Saxon Shore forts. Accepting Portchester as Portus Adurni, then Walton would make a total of fourteen Shore forts. The argument that only the nine listed in the Notitia Dignatum were occupied at the time the document was compiled does not stand up to scrutiny as the fort at Lemanis (Lympne) had been abandoned for several decades by the time the Notitia Dignitatum was compiled. 

There are some significant omissions in the document for Britain, for example the Yorkshire signal stations, Scarborough, Filey, Goldsborough, Huntcliffe and Ravenscar have been omitted completely and do not appear listed under the command of the dux Britanniarum. The signal stations on the Yorkshire coast were constructed during the Theodosian reorganisations following the ‘Barbarian Conspiracy’ of AD 367.  Although they had a relatively short occupancy, probably 20-30 years, they would have still been active in the late 4th century when the Notitia Dignitatum was complied.2

Naval forces are completely absent from any of the chapters referring to Britain; the Roman fleet operating in British waters, the Classis Britannica, is not recorded after the mid-3rd century. The former Pevensey fleet, the Classis Anderetianorum, is recorded but by the time of the compilation of the Notitia Dignitatum it had been transferred to Paris. The Welsh sections of the list are missing, or perhaps never compiled.

As we can see the Notitia Dignitatum is an unreliable document of limited accuracy; its value is, at best, debatable. We must therefore use the document with caution, however it does provide a useful snapshot of the unknown author’s knowledge of the Roman forces around the end of the 4th century. 

Around this time Magnus Maximus had depleted the British garrison in AD 383 to pursue his imperial ambitions, then Stilicho the supreme commander of the western Empire and caretaker of the boy Emperor Honorius pulled troops from Britain and the Rhine to counter the threat to Rome from Alaric in AD 401. When Constantine III was declared Emperor in AD 407 and established himself in Gaul he took what remained of the British garrison with him. Britain would not return to the Empire. Thus, by the time of the compilation of the Notitia Dignitatum many of the commands listed had ceased to exist well before AD 395. The view that it is a single, coherent document is not tenable.

However, the document provides the only reference to the command of the ‘Saxon Shore’, a listing which has puzzled historians for many years who have looked to the coastal defences in Gaul to enlighten their research into the British system.

The Coastal Defences of Northern Gaul
In addition to the chapter on the British forts under the command of the Count of the Saxon Shore the Notitia Dignitatum includes two further chapters that refer to the coastal defences of northern Gaul. These two chapters include ‘castra’ which are described as being on the 'Saxon Shore' (in litore saxonico). Here, on the opposite side of the Channel we find a comparable defensive system, said to be contemporaneous with the Shore forts in Britain, the late 3rd century.3

The Duke of the Armorican region and the Nervian Frontier is listed in Chapter 37 and covers the coastal forts and towns in five provinces equating to the modern regions of Normandy and Brittany, while Chapter 38 lists three sites under the command of the Duke of Belgica Secunda, the modern area of north eastern France and Belgium almost to the mouth of the Rhine.

It is often assumed that the Gallic coastal defences were under the command of the Count of the Saxon Shore as we would expect a Duke to report to a Count and that the Saxon Shore was one unified command on both sides of the Channel. However, the Notitia Dignitatum provides no evidence of such a hierarchy and lists the ‘comes littoris Saxonici per Britanniam’ (Latin), translated as ‘The Count of the Saxon Shore for Britain’. The document does not list a ‘comes’ specifically for the Saxon Shore of Gaul.4

in Litore Saxonico
In Gaul, the Notitia Dignitatum allots thirteen forts to two duces. 

Chapter 37 of the Notitia Dignitatum lists ten forts under the command of the Dux Tractus Armoricani et Nervicani:

• Grannona, ‘in Litore Saxonico’ [on the Saxon Shore] (Guernsey?)
• Rotomago (Rouen)
• Constantia (Constances?)
• Abrincatis (Avranches)
• Aleto (Aleth)
• Osismis (Brest)
• Benetis (Vannes)
• Mannatias (Nantes)
• Blabia (Blaye)
• Grannono (Le Havre?)

It is uncertain if Grannono, the last fort in the list, is a duplictae of the first, Gannona, however it is usually treated as an individual site. The location of either has remained a puzzle for may years, notably of the ten forts listed under the Dux Tractus Armoricani et Nervicani only the first, Grannona, is specifically listed as ‘in Litore Saxonico’ (on the Saxon Shore). Suggested locations for the forts are alongside in brackets.5

The Notitia Dignitatum tells us that the command of the Duke spreads over five provinces of Gallia, which have been identified as the following:

• Aquitanica prima - centred on Bourges
• Aquitanica Secunda - the coastal area from Bordeaux tot he south bank of the Loire
• Lugdunensis Tertia - the area in Brittany from the Loire northwards and from Le Mans westward
• Lugdunensis Secunda - the whole coastal area of Normandy, from the Bay of St Michel eastwards to at least the mouth of the Seine and Rouen.
• Lugdunensis Senonia - an inland area like Aquitanica Prima, comprising the regions of Paris and Sens.6

The Dux Tractus Belgicae Secundae has three forts under his command; 

• Marcis, ‘in Litore Saxonico’ (on the Saxon Shore) (Marck, near Calais?)
• Portu Epatiaci (Boekhoute?)
• Classis Sambrica, in loco Quartensi sive Hornensi (Étaples?)

Although the locations of all of  these three commands are uncertain, suggestions are listed in brackets alongside7, it is claimed that they are on the coastline between the mouth of the Scheldt (modern Netherlands) and Dieppe in the Seine-Maritime region of Normandy, northern France.8

As with  the command of the Dux Tractus Armoricani et Nervicani, of the three forts listed under the Dux Tractus Belgicae Secundae only one, Marcis, is specifically listed as being on the Saxon Shore. It has been suggested that both the forts listed ‘in Litore Saxonico’, Grannona/Grannono and Marcis, should be found in one of the two places where there is some evidence for a Saxon presence.9 This requires acceptance that the term 'Saxon Shore' means the coastline occupied by Saxons, which is far from certain.

It is noted above the Notitia Dignitatum lists nine forts on the British Saxon Shore when there could have been possibly at least fourteen fortifications that at one time made up the complete coastal defence system. There are also clear omissions from the Gallic commands, major sites such as Boulogne and Oudenberg are not listed. Far from providing answers to the meaning of the ‘Saxon Shore’ it appears at first glance that the Gallic coastal defences raise even more questions.

Notes & References
1. John F. Drinkwater, The ‘Saxon Shore’ Reconsidered, Britannia 54 (2023), pp.275–303.
2. Andrew Pearson,The Roman Shore Forts, The History Press 2002 (Reprint edition 2010).
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Drinkwater, op.cit.
6. Stephen Johnson, The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore, BCA, 1979, p.77.
7. Drinkwater, op.cit.
8.  S Johnson: Late Roman defenses and the Limes, p. 65, CBA Research Report No 18, The Saxon Shore, ed. D E Johnston, 1977.
9. Ibid.

* * * 

The Saxon Shore: Evolution of a Coastal Defence System

 In AD 43 the Roman Emperor Claudius’s invasion force of 40,000 men landed in Southern Britain. A century before, in 55 and 54 BC, Julius Caesar had invaded Britain with the aim of conquest but on the first occasion suffered losses to his fleet due to the unpredictable Channel weather. He returned a year later with a much larger invasion force of some 800 ships but was drawn away to troubles in Gaul. Hence, Claudius’s arrival is often termed the third invasion of Britain.

Debate continues as to where Claudius’s invasion force landed, some argue for the south coast, perhaps Chichester in Sussex, yet archaeological evidence points to Richborough in Kent. After landing, the army established a fortified bridgehead defended by a single gateway within a double ditch and rampart, running almost parallel to the shoreline for 600 metres, sections of these can still be seen today. The Claudian ditches were crossed by a causeway which would adjoin the main Roman road, the later Watling Street.

Wantsum Channel (English Heritage)

In those days, nearly two thousand years ago, Richborough stood on a small island just offshore, separated from the mainland by a narrow tidal channel named by the Romans as Portus Rutupis. The Wantsum Channel, as the Saxons called it, was up to 2 miles wide, 10 miles long and separated the Isle of Thanet from mainland Britain. 

Richborough island was situated at the southern end of this natural waterway, close to the confluence of the Wantsum and the open sea. At this point extensive shingle banks sheltered the Wantsum from the sea effectively forming a breakwater enclosing a sheltered anchorage beside Richborough island, making it an ideal harbour where the Roman port would develop. The Romans constructed a causeway to the island which would lead onto the Watling Street, through the Midlands to Chester.1

Richborough (Rutupiae) was therefore the site of the earliest Roman settlement in Britain, however a series of archaeological investigations by Bushe-Fox (1922-38) has revealed that the initial military earthworks were not extensive with no evidence of a heavy military presence, more a temporary defence for the disembarkation of troops during the initial phase of the invasion. No doubt the large invasion force quickly spread out to secure the Wantsum Channel controlling the northern end where it met the Thames estuary and the Isle of Thanet. 

Archaeological research at Regulbium (Reculver) at the northern mouth of the Wantsum has revealed pottery and pairs of ditches similar to those at Richborough, suggesting a small garrison relating to the invasion period.

This coastline has changed considerably since Roman times, the Wantsum Channel has silted up over the years and now reduced to a small stream with Thanet now joined to the mainland. Consequentially the two Roman sites associated with this waterway guarding both ends of the Wantsum, Reculver and Richborough, have changed over the centuries. Richborough is no longer an island and now lies 2 miles (3.2km) from the sea with the River Stour, all that remains of the Channel, having devoured the sandy cliff which forms the eastern edge of the monument and destroying the south western and north eastern ends of the defences.

At the time of the Roman invasion Reculver occupied the southern tip of a promontory at the north-western end of the Wantsum Channel with the sea almost a mile (1.4km) to the north. Coastal erosion has severely damaged the west and north east of the site so that only the southern half of the later stone fort survives as ruined walls, earthworks and below ground features, the rest now lost to the sea.

The Gateway to Roman Britain
Less than ten years after the invasion of AD 43 the site at Richborough was levelled to make way for the construction of a military and naval supply base.

Around AD 90 the Romans built a huge monumental arch at the centre of this base overlooking the shore at Richborough, one of the largest such monuments in the Roman empire. This monumental arch would have been seen by ships from miles away, a navigational aid to ships, and on landing the travellers crossed through the Richborough arch as the official gateway to Britannia.

The major Roman road, Watling Street, now started at the foot of the arch and proceeded through the West Gate across the causeway and continued for about 250 miles through the Province. 

This huge monumental arch at Richborough was of a particularly rare and elaborate type with four faces and four openings, an architectural style known as a ‘quadrifons’. Beneath the archways was a raised cross-shaped pavement accessed by steps on each side.  The arch was underpinned by stone foundations around 10 metres deep, estimated as necessary to support a structure some 25 metres high consisting of around 20,000 tonnes of material. The Richborough quadrifons was clad in Carrara marble, an exotic bright white stone quarried in Italy which could only be used by authority of the emperor. 

Yet the decision to build a quadrifons arch at Richborough is somewhat mysterious. Because of their four openings, quadrifonic arches typically had a crossroads at their centre, and were often positioned at important intersections. No doubt the east-west line which joined Watling Street was the road that linked the Empire to Britannia via the sea, yet the north-south archways had no apparent alignment, it may have symbolised the division between land and sea.

The Arch of Janus

The only quadrifrons or four-faced, triumphal arch surviving in Rome is The Arch of Janus. This unique piece of architecture,16 metres (52ft) high and 12 metres (40ft) wide, marked a crucial crossroads in the ancient city. Estimated to have been constructed in the early 4th century AD, using  material from redundant earlier structures that were comprehensively demolished so that the materials could be re-used in the construction of new buildings. The ancient and widespread practice of ‘Spoliation’ (from the Latin for 'spoils') was common in Roman architecture.

The town at Richborough developed around this massive arch, with new roads laid out and stone buildings constructed including shops and metal workshops around the monument. As the Roman army spread out into the Province the town and port boomed with trade from Gaul. A mansio complex and an amphitheatre had been erected before the town reached its peak around AD 125. However, by the early 3rd century the town was in decline, probably due to the growth of the cross-channel port at Dover (Dubris).

Classis Britannica
Being an island the Roman navy played a significant part in the invasion of Britain in AD 43. In 55 BC Julius Caesar’s invasion plans suffered owing to losses to the fleet caused by bad weather in the Channel. The next year he was back with a huge fleet that would not only transport the invasion force but also provide logistics support. Claudius had no doubt learnt from Caesar’s accounts of his trips to Britain a century earlier and came well prepared with the navy providing not only a means of transport but also essential support to the shore defences.

A massive fleet, the classis Britannica, was built for the Claudian invasion and was operating in British waters since at least AD 43, if not before. Initially the fleet’s headquarters was most likely at Boulogne on the north coast of Gaul.2

Accordingly, the fleet’s earliest British base was at Richborough, the beachhead of the Claudian invasion. Around AD 130-140 a new fortified port was built at Dover which became the main base for the fleet in Britain. This was thought to be the Novus Portus (New Port) as recorded in Ptolemy's 2nd century ‘Geography’. The presence of the fleet at Dover is attested by a large number of tiles stamped ‘CL BR’, found at the site and also across the Channel at Boulogne which continued as the main operating base of the classis Britannica. Tiles found at other sites indicates their association with the fleet but none have been found, to date, north of London.

The Hadrianic Period (c.122-136 AD)
The 1st and 2nd centuries witnessed the wider development of coastal installations around Britain.

Legionary fortresses were constructed at Caerleon and Chester, with smaller forts at Cardiff and Lancaster, all with access to the sea on the west of the country. Also on the western shore a series of forts, supply bases and signal stations were constructed on the Cumbrian coast guarding the Solway Firth, effectively forming a southern extension to Hadrian's Wall.

On the otherside of the country at the eastern terminus of the Wall a fort was constructed at South Shields on the River Tyne. This would have certainly operated as a supply base for the classis Britannica during northern campaigns of the Roman army in the 1st and 2nd centuries, yet no CL BR tiles have been found at the site.

Further south down the eastern coast it has been argued that a military supply base was established at Brough-on-Humber during the Hadrianic period. This base was on the northern shore of the Humber, the terminal of the ferry from Lincoln in the south and serving the legionary fort at York. Around AD 200 a new earth and timber rampart was constructed when the earlier defensive circuit was extended. But again, although the classis Britannica certainly sailed into the Humber no fleet tiles have been found at the site.

At Lympne in southern Kent over 30 ‘CL BR’ tiles have been found suggesting the existence of a port or supply depot during the 2nd century. Although evidence for this early port has not been found, the amount of re-used building materials in the 3rd-century Roman Shore Fort at Lympne (Portus Lemanis) suggest previous activity at the site or nearby.

At Reculver on the north Kent coast tiles have been found made from the same clay as that used by the classis Britannica re-used in the masonry of the later St Mary's church. Other tiles were also used in the construction of the east gate of the later Shore fort but it is not possible to determine if these had been stamped 'CL BR' as only the sides of the tiles remain exposed, the top and bottom surfaces mortared into masonry layers and cannot be examined.

Classis Britannica tile

CL BR tiles have been found at Richborough and Pevensey where there is little evidence for 2nd century military installations. Fleet tiles found at Folkstone villa suggest it may have been the residence of the prefect commanding the classis Britannica.

From the initial invasion in AD 43 we see evidence of the spread of Roman military operations by land across the Province, from the mouth of the Tyne on the north-east coast to the south-east coast in Kent and the north-west coast in Cumbria to south Wales. These coastal defences must have been served by the British fleet of the classis Britannica, providing essential logistics support, the bases the fleet operated from seemingly identified by the presence of tiles stamped ‘CL BR’.3

The Severan Period (193-235 AD)
Significant reorganisation of the south and east coast military forts was carried out towards the end of the 2nd century and the early 3rd century.

The Caledonian campaign of Septimius Severus ended in 211 when the emperor died at York with the Roman forces pulling back the northern frontier to Hadrian's Wall. Following the death of Severus his son Caracalla seems to have concentrated on reorganising defences along the east coast. The fort at South Shields was substantially rebuilt with the base continuing to function as the northern limit of maritime operations along the east coast until the 4th century. 

Further south along the east coast military installations were remodelled and new forts built during this period. This includes three forts south of the Wash at Brancaster and Caister in Norfolk and Reculver on the north coast of Kent which would all later become part of the Saxon Shore.

Brancaster has been dated to the early 3rd century based purely on the early architecture of the site but coin finds indicate activity in the late 3rd century. The installations at Brancaster, Caister and Reculver were no doubt part of the defence system established on the east coast, such as Brough-on-Humber and the site at Skegness, now lost to coastal erosion, intended to operate with Brancaster on the opposite side of the Wash.

The South Coast
Whereas the east coast of Britain witnessed renewed military activity during the Severan period there is a distinct lack of evidence for new installations on the south coast, which appears to be in decline rather than renewed growth.4

The Severan campaigns in northern Britain relied heavily on logistical support from the classis Britannica. The concentration of naval operations in the north seems to be associated with the abandonment of the fort at Dover which was demolished between 200-210.5 

15 miles further along the south coast occupation at the port at Lympne continued during the early 3rd century; however, it is uncertain whether this installation was civilian or military. 'Lemanis' is included in the Antonine Itineray, a register of the stations and distances between them on the Roman road network. The Itinerary is usually ascribed to the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius (reigned AD 138 – 161), however it seems unlikely that the British section was compiled at this time. It has been suggested that the Itinerary was compiled over two centuries with the British section titled “Iter Britanniarum” being plural, indicating that the British section was assembled after Britain was divided into two provinces in AD 211 AD, either by Septimius Severus or his son Caracalla.6 But as with Dover, the port as Lympne seems to have fallen out of use in the first half of the 3rd century.

The Later 3rd Century
When Alexander Severus, the last emperor from the Severan dynasty, was assassinated by his own troops in AD 235 it marked the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century.

The next 50 years (AD 235–284) would see over 20 emperors rise compared with the 26 emperors who reigned from the first Roman emperor Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus in 27 BC to the death of Alexander Severus in AD 235, a period of over 250 years. During this period of social turmoil and chaos the empire experienced economic disintegration, repeated foreign invasions, and civil wars. Roman commanders in the field became increasingly independent of Rome's central authority resulting in the Roman Empire splintering into three political entities: the Gallic Empire, the Roman Empire, and the Palmyrene Empire.7

The Roman Shore Forts in the late 3rd Century AD

Following the anarchy of the 3rd century a new emperor was declared by his troops in AD 284 while on campaign in Persia who finally bring order back to the Empire. Diocletian's reign stabilized the empire and ended the Imperial Crisis. Around this time a series of substantial fortifications appeared on the coast of Britain from Brancaster on the Wash to Portchester on the Solent.

During the later 3rd century activity in Britain focused on the South and East Anglian coasts with relatively little new military building beyond the geographical area between the Wash and the Solent. Existing fortifications elsewhere must have been considered adequate or irrelevant to the current threat.

Brough-on-Humber was one of exceptions; bastions were added to the perimeter wall, a characteristic in Britain unique to the Shore Forts and the refortified London Wall. A large fort was constructed at Cardiff in South Wales, all but square in plan with projecting bastions on the perimeter walls, being very similar in design to Portchester.

The construction of the new fort at Cardiff has been dated to after 260, however it is suggested that the similarities with Lympne and Portchester tend to indicate a later 3rd century origin. It is reasonable to see Cardiff as contemporary with, rather than earlier than, the development of defences on the south coast of England.8

At Brancaster a coin of Tetricus, emperor of the Gallic Empire from AD 271 to 274, found in the rampart indicates this was not built before c.270. Yet, coins from the Carausian period, usurper AD 286-293 self-proclaimed “Emperor of the North”, make up the bulk of the finds at Brancaster,  indicating activity at the site was greatest during the late 3rd century.

These new coastal forts in Britain indicate a continued naval presence in British waters, although the classis Britannica had disappeared from the archaeological record by the mid-2nd century.9

We have seen how new military installations were built and the defences of existing fortifications augmented during the Severan period. During the 3rd century defensive emphasis moved away from the south coast, with defences reorganised along the eastern coast. Events at Richborough provide a snapshot of developments.

Return to Richborough
The huge monumental four-fronted arch constructed around AD 90 stood at the heart of the town of Richorough for almost 200 years. At 25m high and clad in white marble the arch was visible for miles. For whatever reason the Roman army moved back to Richborough in the middle of the 3rd century. Around AD 250 part of the town around the arch was demolished and replaced with a small fortlet. The arch appears to have been repurposed as a watchtower or signal station, protected by three ditches and a rampart complete with palisade.

Richborough Roman fort

During the last decades of the 3rd century the fortlet was levelled and a large stone fort was built at Richborough. Further parts of the town were demolished to provide material for the new fort. Even the arch, a ceremonial and symbolic gateway to the province of Britannia awarded the rare privilege of being faced with Carrara marble from the Imperial quarries was torn down and the triple ditches filled in, all to provide building material for the new fort. Much of the marble facing stones were burned to make lime to be reused in the mortar of the fort’s walls. Other marble slabs from the arch were used as packing in the walls. The substantial new stone fort at Richborough seems to have been built very quickly, by a man in a hurry. 

Notes & References
1. John Peddie, Conquest: The Roman Invasion of Britain, Sutton, 1997.
2. Andrew Pearson, The Roman Shore Forts, History Press, 2010, p.49. Chp 3, The Development of a Coastal System, pp.47-66.
3. Pearson, p.49
4. Pearson, p.55
5. Pearson, p.55
6. Rivet & Smith, Place Names of Roman Britain, Batsford, 1979, p. 154
7. Pearson, p.56
8. Pearson, p.63
9. Andrew Pearson, The Roman Shore Forts, History Press, 2010, Chp 3, The Development of a Coastal System, pp.47-66.

* * *

The Saxon Shore Forts

Many years ago on a school trip to Portsmouth harbour we were told by our history teacher that Portchester Castle, Portus Adurni, was evidence of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. Yes, built in the late 3rd century these Roman forts along the south-east corner of Britain were established to deal with Saxons that were settling on the shoreline; that’s why they are called the Saxon Shore forts he stressed. Later, in the early 5th century when the Romans left Britain, he added, the Saxons were left unchecked and run amok across the country, as recorded by the 6th century historian Gildas, to create the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, as recorded by Bede.

I have always found the concept of a mass Anglo-Saxon invasion a rather extreme theory; yes there were Germanic settlers in Britain but I’ve always considered it more of a cultural change rather than large scale population displacement. However, I believe it is still taught as such in school today. You could interpret my old history teacher as being correct really in meaning that when the Saxons first arrived in Britain it was the beginning of the event. As far he was concerned their arrival was associated with the Saxon Shore, hence the name.

The Roman Shore Forts of Roman Britain

There are eleven sites around the south-eastern coast of Britain, from Portchester in Portsmouth Harbour to Brancaster on the Wash, that are designated as the Roman Saxon Shore forts by modern historians. Nowhere else on the British coast do we find such a cluster of Roman forts, constructed on harbours as at Portchester or on river estuaries as if to guard the watercourses into the Roman province.

The term ‘Saxon Shore’ first appears in the Notitia Dignitatum, a Latin document dated AD 395, revised around AD 420, and lists just nine forts on the British coast under the command of the Count of The Saxon Shore. The majority of the forts were constructed in the late 3rd century, some earlier in first half of that century. Several of the fortifications on the east coast have suffered badly from coastal erosion and stone robbing leaving little of the original stonework remaining; in the case of Brancaster, in Norfolk, the presence of the fort can now only be detected by landscape features where the walls once stood and at Walton Castle, Suffolk, the site is now completely submerged under the North Sea.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

The Saxon Shore forts today:

Brancaster (Branodunum)
This Roman fort was constructed to guard the southern point of The Wash. Today the site is just a field, the east ditch can be seen as a marked depression, the fort is often revealed by parched summer grass using aerial photograph over its buried ramparts, revealing the positions of gates and traces of internal buildings. The fort was rectangular with rounded corners, the classic ‘playing card’ shape typical of early Roman forts in Britain, and had walls 2.7 metres thick. Robbed facing stones from the Brancaster Shore Fort were re-used (together with other later material) in the south chancel of the church of St Mary the Virgin at Brancaster. It is likely there was another fortification on the northern side of The Wash near Skegness.

Burgh Castle (Gariannonum?)
Situated on a low hill above the river Waveney, the remains of Burgh Castle are now some distance inland. In Roman times the fort would have been on the shoreline of a large sheltered inlet guarding the “Great Estuary”, the site of Great Yarmouth was then sea.

The walls, 3.5 metres thick and in places still 4.5 metres high, enclosed a 2.4 hectare site. The walls with six projecting towers or bastions, possibly added later to the original design, remain on three sides. A fallen bastion can be seen on the south wall, and on the east wall a vertical break between the bastion and the adjacent section of perimeter wall shows they were built as separate components, perhaps a later addition, the bastion is only bonded to the wall at the very uppermost courses.

Burgh Castle

Much of the stonework from Burgh castle has been re-used in later local buildings. The round bell tower of the church of St Peter and St Paul, Burgh Castle, displays Roman masonry such as flint, brick and tile that has been robbed from the nearby Shore fort.

At nearby Reedham the church of St John the Baptist displays large quantities of Roman building material, principally brick and tile. This, and other finds in the locality, provide evidence that a substantial Roman site once stood here. Situated on the shores of the Great Estuary it was probably a lighthouse or watchtower serving the local Shore forts.

Bradwell (Othona?)
Situated on the Dengie Marshes, Othona was located to control the estuaries of the Blackwater and Colne which provided access to the Roman city of Camulodonum (Colchester). Little has survived of the Roman fort into modern times: sections of three walls, one with a bastion, survived until the 18th century when they were demolished. The eastern wall has never been located. 

The 7th-century chapel of St Peter-on-the-Wall at Bradwell-on-Sea stands on the site of the Roman fort’s west gate. Evidently much of the stonework of the fort was robbed in the Saxon period; the north wall of the chapel shows evidence of re-used Roman masonry. Limestone blocks of 'Clipsham Pink Stone' used in the Shore fort and recycled at St Peter's chapel were imported over 300km (190 miles) from quarries to the north-west of the Roman town of Durobrivae (Water Newton, Cambridgeshire).

Reculver (Regulbium)
Guarding the northern end of the now lost Wantsum Channel, a seaway that separated the Isle of Thanet from mainland Kent, stands the Roman Shore fort of Reculver. About half of the site has been lost to the sea yet substantial parts of the walls and the impressive south gate still survive. The fort had an almost square plan with rounded corners.

The Twin Towers of Reculver

The east wall of the fort at Reculver displays clear evidence of later stone robbing, the entire facing stones have been removed leaving just the core rubble constructed from beach flints exposed. At the site of the south gate are three large blocks which once formed the base of a monumental arch. The medieval church of St Mary at Reculver, a landmark to mariners known as the “Twin Towers Reculver” originally sited at the centre of the Shore fort, now stands within a few metres of the coast owing to coastal erosion. The Shore fort was originally 1km from the coast.

Richborough (Rutupiae)
One of the most impressive remains of a Shore fort can be seen at Richborough where the wall circuit survives on three sides and massive ditches crossed by the line of Watling Street provides a glimpse into the days of Roman Britain. The west wall remains are 7m high, but its opposite, the east wall, has fallen into the river Stour.

Richborough

The fort at Richborough was the second of a pair guarding the Wantsum Channel as Reculver stood at the northern end Richborough at the southern end. Richborough has been identified by historians as the place where the Roman invasion force landed in AD 43. The fort developed from an early military camp into a port before later fortifications were added during the 3rd century. 

The north wall was built in two parts, possibly by two different units, as the break in the sections of construction can clearly be seen. Much re-used stone from earlier Roman buildings was employed in this portion of the defences when the site was refortified in the late 3rd century. The monumental blocks of the foundations of the west gate were recycled from an earlier structure on the site, probably the first century monumental arch. The so-called ‘Great Monument’, the only Roman building in Britain to have been covered externally in marble, was replaced by a watchtower, surrounded by triple ditches during this later rebuild.

Dover (Dubris)
The Romans constructed a fort at the mouth of the river Dour, then a wider estuary, for the classis Britannica, a fleet based in the English Channel, its inception probably for the invasion of Britain in AD 43. Archaeological evidence for the presence of the fleet relies mainly on tiles stamped ‘CLBR’ found on the east Kent coast and London. The fleet is not heard of after the mid-3rd century, probably disbanded and located at smaller coastal forts on either side of the channel. The classis Britannica fort at Dover was abandoned around AD 225 and a new fort was built in the late 3rd century.

The Shore fort at Dover was built over the north-east corner of the foundations of the classis Britannica port, which in turn had been built over an earlier unfinished fort. Exposed sections of the Shore fort include part of the south wall with tower. The lighthouse, known as the ‘pharos’, now stands within the medieval castle to the west of the church of St Mary in Castro. The first three quarters of its height is Roman masonry, the top quarter being a later repair, now 19m high but thought to have originally been 24m tall. The pharos is one of a pair, the other stood on the western side of the Dour estuary, known as the Western Heights, now all but lost among the Napoleonic fortification.

Lympne (Lemanis)
The Shore fort was positioned on the slopes of an ancient degraded sea cliff, originally overlooking a wide natural harbour, now Romney Marsh in Kent. The fort may have occupied the site of an earlier fort of the classis Britannica, Portus Lemanis, as mentioned in the Antonine Itinerary

Today the tumbled ruins lie scattered on the hillside owing to slumping of the clay slope on which is was built. It appears the fort was built in the shape of an irregular pentagon but landslips have broken and moved huge chunks of the walls down the slope so that its original form is no longer obvious. Several sections of wall survive, up to 6 metres tall, but mostly leaning and displaced. Eight semicircular bastions have been detected, probably of a total fourteen, the remains of one on the north wall provides a rare instance where the facing stones and brick still remains in situ. The site appears to have been abandoned around AD 350.

Pevensey (Anderida)
Pevensey is the largest and one of the most impressive of the Shore forts. The walls form an irregular oval shape, enclosing 4 hectares with a later Norman castle added to the south-east corner. The fort is now 1km from the sea but when it was built it sat at the end of raised tongue of land surrounded by coastal marsh.

Pevensey Castle

Its projecting D-shaped towers were a feature of this style of Roman military architecture that appeared in the late 3rd century. The 3.6m thick walls were used later to define the outer bailey of the Norman castle. The lower portion of the bastion on the north wall at Pevensey is clearly of Roman construction, however, the part of this tower that projects above the perimeter wall is almost certainly a post-Roman addition.

Portchester (Portus Adurni)
Perhaps the finest example of all the Shore forts is at Portchester, at the head of Portsmouth Harbour, Hampshire, with, it is said, the best-preserved Roman fort walls north of the Alps. Unlike most of the Saxon Shore forts in Britain the coastal setting at Portchester is little changed from the time of its construction in the late 3rd century with the sea licking the fort on the east side as it did in Roman times.

Portchester

The 3.1m thick and 6m circuit walls enclosing a regular square plan is complete except where they were altered in the 12th century by the addition of the Norman keep and medieval gatehouse in the north-western corner. A church now sits in the south-east sector. Fourteen of the original twenty projecting D-shaped bastions of the Roman fort survive. The bastions are hollow unlike those at Lympne and Pevensey. The walls were laid on a timber and flint raft, the timbers cross-braced as at Pevensey. 

Occupation continued beyond the end of the Roman period, with three main phases during the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, with noticeable breaks between these stages. Whether a civilian population took over the fort or a militia formed a continuing military presence is uncertain.

In addition to the nine forts listed in the Notitia Dignitatum (above), there are a further two Roman forts on the east coast of Britain which must have been part of these coastal defences at some time.

Caister-on-Sea
A second fort guarded the Great Estuary, along side Burgh Castle but omitted from the Notitia Dignitatum, although its defences are of similar construction to other Saxon Shore forts. This raises the question of whether Burgh Castle or Caister was the ‘Gariannonum’ listed in the Notitia Dignitatum? The estuary has greatly silted up since Roman times and much of the fort is covered by modern housing, but a short section of the south wall and south gate can still be seen. 

The forts at Burgh Castle and Caister may have formed a pair, or Burgh may have superseded Caister. Individually or as a pair, they certainly guarded a large estuary of several rivers, to prevent undesirables from penetrating inland to the heart of Roman Britain. 

Walton Castle
The Roman fort at Walton Castle, near Felixstowe, Suffolk, is now totally lost to the sea through coastal erosion in the 18th century, but we know of its existence from antiquarian accounts. The wall of the fort at Walton Castle shown on an 18th-century copy of a drawing originally made in 1623 displays a clear similarity to Burgh Castle with circular bastions and rounded corners which suggests a construction date similar to Burgh Castle and Bradwell. It fills a strategic gap in the coastal defences on the east coast, in Roman times commanding the entrance to the estuary of the Stour and Orwell. The fort at Walton Castle has sometimes been identified with Portus Adurni (Portchester) or Othona (Bradwell).

These eleven forts on the east and south-east coasts of Britain have much in common and certainly formed a defensive chain in it’s entirety. They were all located on low-lying ground, close to sheltered anchorages at major estuaries and inlets. Some seem to have functioned as pairs, such as Reculver and Richborough at opposite ends of an important waterway, and Caister and Burgh Castle on opposite sides of a large estuary. 

But guarding the coast from what? Debate remains over the correct interpretation of the term ‘Saxon Shore’ – did it describe the shore settled by Saxons, or the shore attacked by Saxons?

References:
Leonard Cottrell, The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore, HMSO, 1964.
Nic Fields, Rome’s Saxon Shore, Osprey, 2006.
Valerie Maxfield (ed), The Saxon Shore: A Handbook, University of Exeter, 1989.
Andrew Pearson, The Roman Shore Forts, The History Press, 2010.
Stephen Johnson, The Roman Forts of the Saxon Shore, BCA, 1979.
D E Johnston (ed), The Saxon Shore, CBA Research Report No: 18, 1977.
Donald White, Litus Saxonicum, University of Wisconsin, 1961.

* * *

Petuaria Part III: A Lost Saxon Shore Fort?

The Saxon Shore
The first excavators of Brough on Humber, Philip Corder with Rev. Thomas Romans, who explored the site in the 1930s saw the site as a military or naval fortified base controlling the River Humber and access to York. Corder speculated that it may have been part of the chain of coastal defences known as the Saxon Shore forts. John Wacher carried out excavations at Brough between 1958-61 and found no evidence for a significant civilian settlement and agreed with Corder that it was a military site, which he also considered included a naval base which may well have been part of the Saxon Shore defences.

Wacher’s chronology for the settlement at Brough on Humber commences in the 1st century as an auxiliary fort that was abandoned around AD 80. However, he considered that during this period it was likely that a military supply depot was maintained there. In the later 3rd century the fort was reoccupied perhaps as an outlier of the Saxon Shore defensive chain, and then finally abandoned in the last quarter of the 4th century; the oldest coinage dating to the reign of the usurper Magnus Maximus (383-388).

Situated on a natural inlet of the river Humber, the military base at Brough would have fulfilled two functions: it controlled the approaches to the estuary linking to several major rivers that provided access to the heartland of Britannia; the same function was performed by the Saxon Shore forts at Brancaster on the Wash and Reculver on the Thames estuary.

Secondly, it functioned as a port serving the Roman forts at York and Lincoln and surrounding areas such as the fort at Malton. Brough also served as the northern terminal of the Humber crossing linking York and Lincoln by the Roman Road known as Ermine Street. However, it must be conceded that, to date, neither side of the crossing has produced evidence of a harbour. Wacher attributes this to the Late Roman marine transgression which would have submerged the existing structures. 

During the 4th-5th centuries AD this significant geological phenomenon resulted in several Romano-British sites on the Lincolnshire marshes being completely covered over by several metres of marine alluvium. For example, The Romano-British sites at Scupholme and Ingoldmells were found beneath more than three metres of alluvium.

The Roman Shore Forts
The so-called Saxon Shore is a series of Roman defences along the south and east coasts of Britain. It is mentioned in just one official document, the Notitia Dignitatum (Register of Dignitaries), thus the sole source for its existence.

The (unknown) compiler of the Notitia Dignitatum listed the official titles of all civil and military posts within the Roman Imperial administration around AD 395. The document consists of two sections, the Eastern Empire, and the Western Empire, revised and updated c.420. The western section lists the office of Comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias, the Count of the Saxon Shore for Britain, and is the only historical source for this otherwise unknown military command.

The Notitia records nine forts under the command of the Comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias forming a chain of coastal defences stretching from the Wash at the northern end and along the east and south coasts to the Solent; from Branodunum (Brancaster) in Norfolk to Portus Adurni (Portchester) in Hampshire and includes Othona (Bradwell), Dubris (Dover), Lemannis (Lympne), Gariannum (Burgh Castle), Regulbium (Reculver), Rutupiae (Richborough), and Anderida (Pevensey). To this list the Roman forts at Caister-on-sea (Norfolk) and Walton Castle (Suffolk) have been added by modern historians to make a total of eleven Saxon Shore forts. Could Petuaria (Brough on Humber) have been the twelfth?  

The forts are typically located on inlets or estuaries, all points of potential incursion into the Roman province. Large parts of the forts at Richborough, Reculver, Burgh Castle, and Bradwell-on-Sea have been lost to coastal erosion with Walton Castle now entirely submerged.

Walton Castle, near Felixstowe, is a unique case, now totally submerged under the sea owing to coastal erosion, however, old descriptions by antiquarians seem to confirm it was part of the chain of defences. The location and features make it almost certain that Walton Castle was a Roman Shore fort, being quadrangular in plan, with flint and mortar walls bonded with brick with round bastions. Strategically positioned to control access to the estuary of the Stour and Orwell. It is claimed that there are traces of a signal station system between Walton and Burgh Castles.

However, owing to a lack of positive evidence Walton Castle has not been universally accepted as a Shore Fort. The counter argument is that Walton was Portus Adurni rather than Portchester. Yet it is perfectly possible that by the time the Notitia Dignitatum was compiled the fort at Walton had been abandoned under reorganisations under Theodosius. 

Sentinels of the Waterways
Caister and Burgh Castle stood either side of the ‘Great Estuary’ controlling access in to the Broadlands rivers, (Yare, Bure and Waveney) behind Yarmouth, which was then a sandbank. Richborough and Reculver stood sentinel over the two ends of the Wantsum channel, a strait separating the Isle of Thanet from the north-eastern Kent, a major shipping route in Roman times. 

If, as seems likely, some of the Roman Shore forts were sited in pairs at main points of possible incursion to rivers or estuaries, as above, then we could expect to find another Roman port on the northern side of the Wash (Metaris Aestuarium), opposite Brancaster which guarded the southern side, perhaps near Skegness as the Roman road from Lincoln (Lindum) runs there. The 16th Century antiquarian John Leland makes reference to a ‘walled town’ and a ‘castle’ off the coast of Skegness. But any structures there were claimed by the sea long ago. 

‘Old Skegness’, as the local people refer to the Old Roman site, now lies about half a-mile off the coast after being swallowed by the sea in the 1500s following storms and floods. In addition to the clues mentioned by Leland of a lost Roman town or fort, sailors were still reporting encountering an old church steeple out there in the 17th century.

We could also expect to find a Shore fort guarding the Humber, such at Brough on Humber, and access into to York.

Dating the Forts
The Roman shore forts can be divided into two groups by age and design. The first group shows similarities in size and internal layout with most of the Roman forts in Britain.

The early group of forts comprises the two forts on the Norfolk coast, Brancaster and Caister, and Reculver in Kent. These forts are considered to have been constructed during the early 3rd century AD owing to their conventional architecture, the classic ‘playing card shape’, square sides with rounded corners, common in early Roman military architecture. Evidence from excavations supports the early date. In the days of early Roman Britain the forts were rarely attacked with the legions preferring to meet the enemy in the open field where their superior battle tactics and discipline proved dominant.

The second group, Burgh Castle, Bradwell, Reculver, Dover, Lympne, Pevensey, Portchester, were constructed during the late 3rd century. The principal differences between these later forts and the early group is the incorporation of new aspects of Roman fort architecture that originated in the east of the Empire to resist siege warfare against the Sassanids in the early 3rd century.

The addition of external bastions (turrets) provided the fort (or town wall) with additional defensive capability against an enemy directly attacking the face of the fort walls with battering rams or siege engines. With bastions external to the fort walls the attackers could now be subjected to artillery crossfire along the long axis of the wall.

Burgh Castle (Gariannonum) east wall bastion
(Creative Commons)

These novel features included the construction of thick walls (up to 3.5 m at Pevensey), bonded with brick courses, over 7m tall, whereas the earlier forts had thinner walls supported by earthen inner ramparts. The later forts all displayed variability of plan, from square as at Portchester, oval at Pevensey, to pentagonal at Lympne. Yet the signature features of these later forts is the external bastions on the fort walls. 

The majority of the external bastions incorporated into the Saxon Shore forts were circular, or semi-circular, solid masonry ‘drums’ as at Burgh Castle, Bradwell, Pevensey and Lympne. However, Portchester was constructed with hollow bastions which may indicate a shortage of building materials, it was not finished, or, being at the western end of the chain of Shore forts, was only considered likely to be suffer minor attacks.

The river wall and bastions completed the defensive circuit of Roman London, as with the later Saxon Shore forts and other fortifications in the north and west constructed at this time, all appear to have been built in a hurry.

Wacher considered that there was a close comparison between Brough on Humber (Petuaria?) and the Saxon Shore fort at Burgh Castle (Gariannum) in Norfolk. Wacher suggests that although the original plan at Burgh may have been pre-Carausian, that is before AD 286, the additional constructions including thicker walls, external bastions and towered gateways, were in place prior to the Theodosian restructuring following the Barbarian Conspiracy of AD 367. It is therefore likely that both forts were updated by Carausius, the usurper emperor (r.286-293) in the late 3rd century. He argues that the pattern of development at Brough is typical of the chronology of military fortification rather than civil settlement. 

Carausius
Marcus Aurelius Mausaeus Carausius, a Menapian of humble birth, was an officer in the Roman military service, a helmsman by profession. He had received recognition for fighting against the Bagaudae, groups of rebel peasants in the western parts of the later Roman Empire, who arose during the Crisis of the 3rd Century and persisted until the very end of the Western Empire.

Around 285-6 Carausius was appointed by Maximian, co-ruler with the emperor Diocletian, to deal with Franks and Saxon pirates who had ‘infested’ the Channel and were plundering the coast of northern Gaul. Carausius was given command of a fleet, or given authority to assemble his own, based at Gesoriacum or Bononia (Boulogne-sur-Mer) to counter the threat.

Carausius was remarkably successful but was accused of letting the pirates complete their raids, then attacking them to take their spoils for himself. Infuriated by this news Maximian ordered Carausius’s death. In 286, in response Carausius declared himself Emperor with the title of Augustus, over Britain and northern Gaul, issuing coins showing himself as co-emperor alongside Maximian and Diocletian.

Coin portraying Carausius alongside Diocletian and Maximian as joint emperors
‘CARAUSIUS ET FRATRES SUI’  (Carausius and his brothers!)

Several attempts by Maximian to remove Carausius failed, and in 290 he was finally acknowledged as ruler of Britain. On 1st March 293, Constantius was made caesar by Maximian. The two men, together with Diocletian and his caesar, Galerius, formed the 'tetrarchy'. Constantius was assigned to rule Gaul with his first instruction to remove the usurper Carausius. Shortly later he captured Carausius’s mainland base at Gesoriacum. Carausius pulled back to Britain but later that year was assassinated by his finance minister, Allectus. Three years later in 296 Allectus was killed in a battle with Asclepiodotus, the praetorian prefect, who landed on the south coast to recover Britain.

Brough on Humber: A Saxon Shore fort?
Although Wacher saw Brough on Humber as a naval base there has been no archaeological link established with the classis Britannica, the Roman fleet, probably constituted for the Claudian invasion in AD 43, but no longer documented after the mid-3rd century. Tiles marked ‘CLBR’ associated with the Roman fleet have never been found north of London.

However, if as seems likely that Carausius constructed the later Shore forts, and enhanced the defences of the earlier forts, he must have had an operational fleet. It is probably more correct to say that Carausius planned the Shore forts and they were completed by his successor Allectus. 

Other bases and Roman London were re-fortified at this time while new defensive shore forts were being established at Porchester while others at Brancaster and Lympne were being restored or repaired. At nearby Malton (Derventio), 23 coins of the Carausian period were found at the North-East gate of the fort during the 1927-30 excavations indicating it was probably rebuilt by Carausius. There was also significant reconstructions at Brough on Humber at the same time. 

Relatively recent archaeological excavations by the Petuaria Revisted Project unearthed evidence of another bastion in 2023, and coins from the Carausian period, which confirms that the fortifications were enhanced in the late-3rd century. But was Brough on Humber a Saxon Shore fort? To answer that question it is necessary to establish what exactly was meant by the term 'Saxon Shore'.

There is little agreement with regard the meaning of the term ‘Saxon Shore’ and the function of the forts: were they constructed at strategic points to guard against attack from Saxon pirates; or was the Saxon Shore so-named because it was settled by Saxons or the forts manned by Germanic mercenaries. Carausius is known to have used Germanic troops to operate his fleet, perhaps he settled some in his chain of Shore forts and his successor Allectus had an army of Franks defending London when Constantius attacked in 296.

However, there is little evidence of coastal raiding by Germanic pirates on the south-east coast or Picts down the east coast before the 4th century as evidenced by the five fortlets (signal stations) constructed on the North Yorkshire coast at Huntcliff, Goldsborough, Ravenscar, Scarborough and Filey during the Theodosian restructuring. Furthermore, Germanic settlers were not seen on the Humber until the early 5th century.

A more recent argument suggests these forts may have served as military ports rather then as a defensive system. It’s location on the bank of a major river estuary makes it likely Brough on Humber (Petuaria) was a naval port. But there is little evidence for anything beyond a fortified supply depot importing and exporting products to and from Britannia Inferior (Northern England and the Midlands).

The location of Brough on Humber on the East Yorkshire coast sets the Roman base too far north to be considered a true ‘Saxon Shore’ fort which were established to defend the south-eastern corner of Britain, the Wash to the Solent.  Its absence from the Notitia Dignitatum does not support the case for Brough either, yet as we have seen above, only nine forts are listed in that document when eleven sites have been identified.  

Yet we know Brough on Humber was refortified during the Carausian revolt of the Late 3rd century.  Therefore it was likely included in Carauius’s coastal defence system. Carausius would not have used the term ‘Saxon Shore’ as this term did not appear until the compilation of the Notitia Dignitatum in the Late 4th century. By this time, some of the forts along the shore may have been abandoned during the defensive reorganisations under Theodosius following the Barbarian Conspiracy of AD 367, and subsequently not included in the document. According to Wacher’s phasing the military base at Brough on Humber was finally abandoned in the last quarter of the 4th century.

* * *