KENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY  -- RESEARCH    Studying and sharing Kent's past      Homepage

Victoria County History of Kent Vol. 3  1932 - Romano-British Kent - Military History - Page 14

Fig 6  Map of the Saxon Shore
(By Sir George Macdonald in  Fünfundzwanzig Jahre Rõmish-Germanische Kommision)

came alike to be styled ‘Litus Saxonicum,’ the shore infested by the Saxons.6  The need for permanent land-defence was acute. It was met by the appointment of two high officers, the ‘Comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam,’ commanding nine forts and their garrisons on the coast of Britain, and the’ Dux tractus Armoricani in litore Saxonico,’ who guarded the opposite shores of Gaul. Here we are concerned only with the former. His command is described in the ‘Notitia Dignitatum,’ a book which enumerates the officials and troops of the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century. According to the ‘Notitia,’ the forts and garrisons were as follows :—   
   Othonae,         garrisoned by a numerus Fortensium (unknown otherwise).
   Dubris,            garrisoned by a milites Tungrecani (recruited in northern Gaul).
   Lemannis,        garrisoned by a numerus Turnacensium (recruited in northern Gaul).
   Branoduno,     garrisoned by a equites Dalmatae Branodunenses.
   Gariannonor,    garrisoned by a equites stablesiani Gariannonenses.
   Regulbio,         garrisoned by a cohors i Baetasiorum (previously in north Britain).
   Rutupiis,          garrisoned by a legio ii Augusta (previously at Isca Silurum).
   Anderidos,       garrisoned by a numerus Abulcorum (unknown otherwise).
   PortumAdurni, garrisoned by a  numerus exploratorum (unknown otherwise).

   With this list of nine we may compare the chain of Roman forts reaching from the Wash to Spithead, of which remains actually survive.7

   (1) Brancaster, in north—western Norfolk, on the south beach of the inlet called Brancaster Harbour, near the mouth of the Wash. It is a nearly
   The expression has been taken by Kemble and others to mean ‘the shore inhabited by the Saxons.’ But there is neither proof nor probability that these sea-robbers began to settle thus early. That stage belongs rather to the fifth century. Nor need such a phrase denote settlement. The ‘French Shore’ in Newfoundland is not the shore inhabited by the French. Camden wrote ’comes qui litora contra Saxones tuebatur.’ Guest, ii, 153, agrees (but invents a term Limes Saxonicus). Lappenberg started or popularized the other view (Orig. Celt).

Previous Page          Page 14           Next Page

For details about the advantages of membership of the Kent Archaeological Society   click here

        Back to Military History page listings       Back to Contents Page        Back to Research    Back to Homepage

Kent Archaeological Society is a registered charity number 223382
© Kent Archaeological Society May 2006

This website is constructed by enthusiastic amateurs.  Any errors noticed by other researchers will be to gratefully received so
 that we can amend our pages to give as accurate a record as possible. Please send details to