5 ms·

I'm not an archeologist or historian, but it has been my impression that high-status roman villas typically had rooms linked by courtyards. In that regard, this

I'm not an archeologist or historian, but it has been my impression that high-status roman villas typically had rooms linked by courtyards. In that regard, this villa seems to be particularly interesting, given that it appears to be rooms with a central tower. In that regard, I'd be curious to know why they believe it is a villa rather than say, military in nature, especially given the history of the Romans in Britain.

ggm 4y ago
I'm going out on a limb here with speculation: wall paint, tesserae and other signs of high status finishes to interior, and things like a hypocaust and food preparation spaces which don't meet the formalisms of a military facility. That said, I read of military owned staging posts with pretty high investment features like baths. 5 star roadside hotels for senior staffers and government officials on the move. So dual use, or military but fancy is possible. Also not an archaeologist
- mc32 4y ago
  Yep I think it’s possible that someone on the outpost of their society might still want some semblance of their civilization while they are there.
rendall 4y ago
The tower isn't central. That picture is not of the entire villa. Here's a video that shows more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpdirRWJMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpdirRWJMA I recommend watching with sound off.
- StillLrning123 4y ago
  Wouldn't a tower have thicker walls? Medieval towers have walls that are several meters thick
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    The Romans were way ahead of their time in terms of construction ability and plenty of the stuff made much later is downright crude by comparison.
    - saalweachter 4y ago
      Construction techniques aside, what was siege technology like in the Roman era? Did they build walls to resist heavy thrown rocks, or just arrows and infantry?
      - Retric 4y ago
        Catapults and other torsion where during the Roman empire, though the thickness of walls also related to how tall they needed to be to be effective. Anything under 30 feet is easy to get over using simple ladders. The Trebuchet is plenty old enough, but we don't have evidence of use by Rome.
        mcguire 4y ago
        As far as I know, it depends on what you mean by trebuchet. Counterpoise trebuchets (using heavy weights) are definitely medieval.
        Retric 4y ago
        Yes, the giant weapons most people think of when they hear the term trebuchet is medieval improvement allowing people to further scale up the design. A mangonel (traction trebuchet) is the older design, but trebuchet is referring any scaled up staff sling.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Siege towers, battering rams mostly. The most effective siege technology was probably hunger... crude but quite effective. Oh and this is another thing they brought to bear on cities unwilling to bend to the Roman boot (or Sandal): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista and even more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_and_Roman_artillery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_and_Roman_artillery
Fatnino 4y ago
Could it have been built for military but then taken over and given a fresh coat of paint (or mosaics, as the case may be) by the new civilian tenant?

ggm 4y ago

I'm going out on a limb here with speculation: wall paint, tesserae and other signs of high status finishes to interior, and things like a hypocaust and food preparation spaces which don't meet the formalisms of a military facility. That said, I read of military owned staging posts with pretty high investment features like baths. 5 star roadside hotels for senior staffers and government officials on the move. So dual use, or military but fancy is possible. Also not an archaeologist

mc32 4y ago
Yep I think it’s possible that someone on the outpost of their society might still want some semblance of their civilization while they are there.

rendall 4y ago

The tower isn't central. That picture is not of the entire villa. Here's a video that shows more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpdirRWJMA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGpdirRWJMA I recommend watching with sound off.

StillLrning123 4y ago
Wouldn't a tower have thicker walls? Medieval towers have walls that are several meters thick
- jacquesm 4y ago
  The Romans were way ahead of their time in terms of construction ability and plenty of the stuff made much later is downright crude by comparison.
  - saalweachter 4y ago
    Construction techniques aside, what was siege technology like in the Roman era? Did they build walls to resist heavy thrown rocks, or just arrows and infantry?
    - Retric 4y ago
      Catapults and other torsion where during the Roman empire, though the thickness of walls also related to how tall they needed to be to be effective. Anything under 30 feet is easy to get over using simple ladders. The Trebuchet is plenty old enough, but we don't have evidence of use by Rome.
      - mcguire 4y ago
        As far as I know, it depends on what you mean by trebuchet. Counterpoise trebuchets (using heavy weights) are definitely medieval.
        Retric 4y ago
        Yes, the giant weapons most people think of when they hear the term trebuchet is medieval improvement allowing people to further scale up the design. A mangonel (traction trebuchet) is the older design, but trebuchet is referring any scaled up staff sling.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Siege towers, battering rams mostly. The most effective siege technology was probably hunger... crude but quite effective. Oh and this is another thing they brought to bear on cities unwilling to bend to the Roman boot (or Sandal): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballista and even more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_and_Roman_artillery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_and_Roman_artillery

Fatnino 4y ago

Could it have been built for military but then taken over and given a fresh coat of paint (or mosaics, as the case may be) by the new civilian tenant?