Hadrian's Wall? Some questions.

1. Firstly, what was its purpose? 

Popular consensus is simply that Rome built the wall to make the edge of its empire tangible - something to put the mind of its soldiers to rest; something to separate itself from the 'barbarians'.  Or was there something more to it?  Could they simply not control the Picts?  Looking at a map of Gask ridge it seems to pretty much aim to isolate the difficult and desolate terrain of the Highlands from the more economically amenable Lowlands.   It seems that there was a withdrawal from the Gask Ridge as implied by Hadrian's decision to build his wall.   Then later Antoninius decided to move north again and reclaim the bountiful Lowlands by building the Antonine wall.

And if the first line of argument I presented above is to be followed: were there any other examples of such immense fortification projects in the Roman world?

There is something missing from the picture as far as I am concerned and I suspect it has to do with the fact that the Roman's recorded their history and the Picts didn't

2.  Secondly, were there any major confrontations at Hadrian's Wall or was its purpose served as solely a deterrent?



Edited by Zagros - 29-Mar-2008 at 23:40

How big was Hadrian's wall? From all the pictures and that I've seen of it it doesn't seem very high.

From what I remember reading, it was to stop the Picts. The Empire wasn't expanding further up and the Picts were portrayed as mysterious raiders from the North, atleast thats the feel I got when reading about it. The wall was built to protect the sttlements by the border, and by the way it was built with attention of having Barracks a certain distance from each other, I'd say there was a fear of the Picts to some extent.

1.  The purpose was to create a semi-permeable frontier, and as a deterrent to Pictish raiders.  The wall itself was never truly made to be defended, raiders did however jump the wall unnoticed and crossed at times though.  It was also used as a means of controlling trade, weapons smuggling and controlling people.  The wall made it much harder for the trouble makers to supply each other with arms.  Tolls and taxes could be collected on goods at the controlled gates fetching the local government much needed revenue.  Also, if you have studied Roman history at all (especially imperial history) an idle army causes trouble.  Keeping an army busy was a means of staving off mutiny or possible conspiracy's.  Many Emperors tended to employ this tactic.  This also was a physical manifestation of Hadrian's policy of reversing the outward expansion set by Trajan and other Emperors before him, which i will elaborate on later.  These forts were also used as staging points for counter raids and attacks.  I would also like to note that Roman control went miles beyond the wall.  They still patrolled deep into the frontier and even established camps and (i think) collected taxes from towns beyond the wall. 

There were other projects of perhaps not quite on par with Hadrian's wall, but massive as well.  On the Germanic frontier, they had a series of walls, towers and forts, which can be shown here, http://worldheritage.heindorffhus.dk/frame-GermanyRomanFrontiers.htm
Many of these forts were built by Hadrian as a part of his policy.  Africa too had a series of forts as well to protect against raiders, even the desert did not fully protect trade routes and towns.  These forts and walls were also made as a semi-permeable frontier.  Control of trade, and people was far more important than defending it.  The Romans usually mustered and attacked before the enemy reached the walls anyways, or would so after the raiders breached the walls.  Open warfare was still their choice of combat.  The legions built all of these walls and forts (including Hadrians wall) but did not man them.  That was left to the Auxiliary units.  The legions would more or less be occupied elsewhere. 

2.  If i remember correctly, the largest engagement would be in the year of 367 CE when Picts, Saxons and a slew of others overran the wall, which is called 'Barbarica conspiratio'  Barbarian conspiracy.  Which lasted for a year, than it was put down hard in 368.  Hadrian wall was retaken.  But this was a surprise attack, which was executed with precision.  If the Romans caught wind of a major army moving toward the wall, they would most likely meet them on open ground if the forces were available.  Which i actually doubt they were at the time, the Romans main problem was with the Alemmani.

If you wish to read further, try Frontiers of the Roman Empire by C. R Whittaker.  Or Rome and the Enemy by Susan P. Mattern. 

Thanks for your input Kilroy, much appreciated.

They still patrolled deep into the frontier and even established camps and (i think) collected taxes from towns beyond the wall.

Do you know much about Gask Ridge?  why didn't they just enhance that into a Hadrian's Wall like structure?  It seems they gave up on that part of Caledonia entirely... unless they still maintained a presence there.  My inclination is simply that they couldn't deal with the Picts as they'd have liked.

By 368 I suppose that the Empire was in complete decline in the region but if they maintained a presence still North of the wall, surely they would have caught wind of the barbarian conspiracy.

If you wish to read further, try Frontiers of the Roman Empire by C. R Whittaker.  Or Rome and the Enemy by Susan P. Mattern.

I much prefer interactive discourse!