Opinions are divided on the question as to what was precisely meant by the phrase “the Saxon shore.” Was it, as some think, those parts of the shore of Britain and Gaul on which, being specially subject to Saxon raiders, defences were erected or employed for repelling the invaders? Or was it, as others have supposed, perhaps with less probability, a strip of territory following the line of coast nearest the sea on which the Saxons were allowed to settle in late Roman times?
[ROMAN COAST FORTRESSES]
A careful examination of the fortresses which protected the line of coast to which reference has been made, is likely, we think, to afford some light upon the above-mentioned point.
If we pay attention to the plans of these fortresses, it will be obvious that at least two, Reculver and Brancaster, belong to a type of Roman fortress which is associated with a period much earlier than the time, as far as we know, when Saxon or other raiders began to molest the coasts of Britain and Gaul. Perhaps it is significant that these two castra command the entrance to two of the great water ways on our east coast, the Thames and the Wash. The other seven fortresses, judging from their plans, belong to a later stage of development in Roman military architecture.
From this and other features already described we may infer that the whole series of fortresses was built at different periods, and probably in the following order:
| Reculver. | Richborough. |
| Brancaster. | Lymne. |
| Porchester. | Pevensey. |
Unfortunately, the architectural remains of the remaining castra are not sufficiently perfect to allow of classification.
One or two of the coast fortresses, such as Pevensey and Lymne, may well have been erected towards the close of the Roman occupation. It is significant that tiles bearing the impressed name of Honorius have been found built into the walls of Pevensey, pointing to the lateness of the building of at least some of the masonry at that castrum.[3]