Traffic Through Hadrian\'s Wall

[Paul Elliott]

I'm not familiar with those Rhine forts, Robert .. did the bridges feed directly through the forts? If so that does suggest civillian traffic inside a fort. That concept is anathema to a modern army, but we aren't dealing with a modern army are we.

My gut feeling is no, the Roman army would not tolerate civillians trudging through a fort. The points made earlier, really do mitigate Housetead's role in that respect, the drop out of that northern gate is far too steep for carts, flocks and modern tourists(!).

[Robert Vermaat]

I'm not familiar with those Rhine forts, Robert .. did the bridges feed directly through the forts? If so that does suggest civillian traffic inside a fort. That concept is anathema to a modern army, but we aren't dealing with a modern army are we.

Yes it did. http://www.livius.org/cn-cs/cologne/deutz.html

My gut feeling is no, the Roman army would not tolerate civillians trudging through a fort. The points made earlier, really do mitigate Housetead's role in that respect, the drop out of that northern gate is far too steep for carts, flocks and modern tourists(!).

Look at it as a controlled gate, with the Wall as a device that controls traffic. What better to control that traffic - a castellum or a milecastle?

[mcbishop]

With no disrespect to Embleton for he did do many very good pictures, however his picture shown here of Housesteads cannot be correct.
The gate shown is that of the North but there is no high terrain such as in that pic' infront of the north gate, it looks more like the east gate but then the buildings would become totaly incorrect.

The very high hill to the right of the gate has to be the one above the bath house and the knag burn gate to the east of the fort.

It is well known that every Embleton picture contains at least one clanger (think of the water flowing the wrong way round the Housesteads latrine channel or the guy having the arrow taken out of his thigh with gynaecological instruments on the table next to him!) so his rotation of Housesteads through 90 degrees so that the view eastwards is now the view northwards fits into that pattern!

Mike Bishop

[D B Campbell]

It is well known that every Embleton picture contains at least one clanger ...

His Wicked Wanda pictures were flawless! :wink:

[mcbishop]

When I look at your link to Portgate I find it a bit incorrect for the true Portgate is just east of the Fort of Onnum 1 Roman mile east of the A68.
In fact if you look at the field gate just east of Onnum it has a ramp leading down into the field a very long one, this ramp is indeed the Roman Dere Street as found by the late Raymond Selkirk.
This is the reason why the fort of Onnum was placed at this point for the Dere Street does not go through Corbridge at all but runs straight from Ebchester and the road predates the Wall hence the positioning of this fort.

The proto-Dere Street argument has now been very effectively countered by John Poulter in his The Planning of Roman Roads and Walls (a good read, if slightly inclined towards the tedious I-know-better-than-archaeologists school), arguing that Selkirk's supposed line through Bywell is in fact just a sighting line. More than my life's worth to have an opinion on that little tiff but I offer it for what it's worth ;-)

Mike Bishop

[Vindex]

As a common route of transit for trade and travel, I am dubious, as the fort itself is military. The milecastles are more obvious for a trade route, and leaves the potential for sabatage and spying as a less harmfull potetial.

But then, take a look at some major bridges across the Rhine, which were controlled by forts. These were certainly built to defend the bridge and act as a bridgehead, but did that also imply that civilian traffic had to use ferries to prevent them from travelling through the forts?

If the civilian traffic did not have to use ferries or access the bridge in some other way, the other supposition would have to be a constant detail of soldiers to guard the gate, check on those requiring access, possibly guarded en route through the fort, and then out the other gate presumably through the vicus.

Quite a hefty guard task which is easily avoided by keeping civilians out of the fort wall.

I you were a Legionary Commander on the Rhine, would you want civilians wandering through your fort particularly if they had come from the other side of the river? And every time there was a suggestion of upheaval or trouble and the fort access was closed, what then?

[PhilusEstilius]

Mike.

I do wonder if John Poulter has knowledge of what Roman bridges were for indeed I'm sure that most of them carried roads across rivers, or does he have another answer about the one that still had parts of it remaining up until the 19th century at Bywell.

In fact when viewed on Google earth Raymond Selkirks Proto Dere Street can be clearly followed from Bywell to Beukley showing the line direct from Ebchester.
Then his excavation of it at Bywell very clearly showed it along with it's crossroad with the Stanegate going east from Corbridge and that itself can also be clearly seen on Google earth.
I have walked on both of these roads with Raymond many years ago so I do think I can say yes they are where he said they were as well as proving it with excavation.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Robert, I recall the forts on the Bridges were built to prevent the Germani from crossing the bridges unchecked? I think they were deliberately built to prevent free trade at all from the other side?
Not so sure on the northern side of the wall though, as the Romans obcviously had a great presence there for a long period, with no record of a devestaing defeat, and a chain of forts and roads leading up north.

[Paul Elliott]

Robert, I recall the forts on the Bridges were built to prevent the Germani from crossing the bridges unchecked?

Purely military bridges then? That makes sense, although my knowledge of the Rhine frontier is poor. I need a good book .....

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I seem to recall there were fortifications on the far bank as well as the near side.

[Epictetus]

To my mind, the entire purpose of the compound was to control access - to determine who and what got through and who and what didn't. If civilian transit traffic did not go through a fort, I would assume that the entire necessariy infrastructure would have to be rebuilt where the transit did occur: gates, roads, guardhouses, at least, and maybe barracks, kitchens, warehouses, stables and perhaps, depending upon the circumstances, much more. The Romans always appeared to be a practical people, and this doesn't seem practical in my opinion.

However, it looks like archaeology doesn't agree with the way I'm thinking:

Forts (unlike fortresses) were, as a rule, never placed on main roads and were always bypassed.

I'm finding it hard to understand if civilians did not transit, why the military didn't want them to transit. Our modern ideas of security concerns does not seem convincing to me. The Roman army didn't need to worry about lone suicide bombers or a guy in a truck filled with explosives. The entire concept of security in a fortification was different, I think.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes, David, but if you allow access to a fort, it makes it easier for the enemy to plan raids with precision. That is not a new thing brought about by suicide bombers.

They can poison wells and food supplies, get an idea of sentry movements, and any weak points within the fort. Reconnaissance was the key to any good plan then and now.
The mile castles were built with gates in and out, and were less costly if compromised.

Thats the way I see it anyway.

[PhilusEstilius]

I would have to agree with Byron on his point of security and as he points out about milecastles, these were very well controlled with vallum crossings as also with the forts along Hadrian's Wall.
The vallum crossing points at the forts may well have had a constant guard to control anyone going over.
There would not have been any problem at the milecastles for anyone who may have had the stupidity to attempt to cross the ditch behind the Wall, would have been caught out by the two turrets between each of these milecastles.
At milecastle 13 there was a hoard of coins found when the Military road was built in the 18th century so could we even be bold and consider were the soldiers putting a charge on the poor locals as they went thro'.

[mcbishop]

At milecastle 13 there was a hoard of coins found when the Military road was built in the 18th century so could we even be bold and consider were the soldiers putting a charge on the poor locals as they went thro'.

Frankly, it would be very surprising if they didn't!

Mike Bishop

[mcbishop]

I'm finding it hard to understand if civilians did not transit, why the military didn't want them to transit. Our modern ideas of security concerns does not seem convincing to me. The Roman army didn't need to worry about lone suicide bombers or a guy in a truck filled with explosives. The entire concept of security in a fortification was different, I think.

Well to perplex you even further, it was of course a capital offence for a soldier to cross the defences of his fortification other than through the gates. The nature of the military enclosure and what could and couldn't happen in, pass through, or fly over it are not (and may never be) obvious to us all the time: you can't always second guess the ancient world, unfortunately ;-)

Mike Bishop