Traffic Through Hadrian\'s Wall

[PhilusEstilius]

I think that the only civilians who would have been allowed in and out of the forts would have been the slaves or servants of the commander and maybe his Tailor, other than that all the rest would be on invitation by him.

[Epictetus]

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 ;-)

Thanks for everyone's replies. Maybe I should just accept what we know and accept what we don't know (and shut up), but for some reason this fascinates me. Perhaps it is just because the ancient mind is so intriguing.

I know this is speculation, but what does everyone think about the chance it could be religious in nature? Sacred boundaries seem very prominent in Roman culture.

[PhilusEstilius]

David.

I don't think it has anything to do with a religious nature it's just a military thing, in the military the mind set is so much more different to any other way of thinking.

In fact even today as through all of time the military will defend it's peoples and country, however there is always this thing that civilians will also only be tolerated up to a point.
Therefore when it comes to forts camps or indeed any other military establishments even today the line is drawn right across the front gate. NO THROUGH ROAD

[D B Campbell]

This is interesting. Why does everyone think that civilians wouldn’t go through a fort?

I know that it is currently unfashionable to interpret the Roman army's infrastructure in purely military terms, and there are those who would argue that fort ramparts were powerless to stem the flood of jobbing tradespeople, prostitutes and performers who were attracted by the jingling purses of the feckless soldiery, ... nevertheless I am intrigued by the item of Roman military law (attributed to the jurist Macer, who is thought to date from the time of Severus Alexander) which states:

It is the duty of the tribunes or of those who command the army to confine the soldiers in camp, to promote their discipline, to keep the keys to the gates, to go around the guards now and then, to be present at the issuing of rations (?), to sanction the collecting of grain, to curb (punish ?) fraud in the distribution, to punish offences according to the limit of their authority, to be often present at the headquarters, to hear the complaints of the soldiers, to inspect those who are sick.

Sounds like a fairly tight ship to me. I'm not sure that one of those tribunes would take kindly to a flock of sheep wandering through his fort. :roll:

[Robert Vermaat]

Sounds like a fairly tight ship to me. I'm not sure that one of those tribunes would take kindly to a flock of sheep wandering through his fort.

I still think it's also a control thing. You might choose to search each trader on an individual basis (thereby perhaps creating a queu a mile long), or use the manpower inside the fort to control the trade going in and out.

The Rhine bridges were of course military, and the bridgehead forts on the opposide side were surely a military means of controlling the opposite bank. But trade would concentrate on such bridges, and traders and other travellers would of necessity have to travel through these forst on both banks.