What the Soldiers Wore on Hadrian\'s Wall

[PhilusEstilius]

It is difficult to understand such an uncrenellated parapet as suggested by Dobson, for how high would such a parapet have to be to prevent anyone falling over the north side of the wall 3-5 to 4 feet maybe.
Then we have to consider just what kind of protection would such an uncrenellated parapet give to any soldier wanting to repel any attack.

[Renatus]

It is difficult to understand such an uncrenellated parapet as suggested by Dobson, for how high would such a parapet have to be to prevent anyone falling over the north side of the wall 3-5 to 4 feet maybe.
Then we have to consider just what kind of protection would such an uncrenellated parapet give to any soldier wanting to repel any attack.

No higher than waist-height, I would suggest. The Dobson position, as I understand it, is that the Wall was not intended to be a fighting platform, so crenellations would not be necessary.

[mcbishop]

It is difficult to understand such an uncrenellated parapet as suggested by Dobson, for how high would such a parapet have to be to prevent anyone falling over the north side of the wall 3-5 to 4 feet maybe.
Then we have to consider just what kind of protection would such an uncrenellated parapet give to any soldier wanting to repel any attack.

Exactly. An uncrenellated parapet makes no sense and is unparalleled in Roman and later defences: the Castra Praetoria shows successive levels of crenellation, so if Hadrian's Wall had a parapet, it takes special pleading indeed to see it without merlons! The arguments have been well rehearsed by Paul Bidwell. The dislike of seeing the Wall as a fighting platform is an old meme that harks back to older ideas of how the Romans fought and the defence of Vetera shows it to be a questionable assumption. After all, a pilum murale is a special type of pilum designed to be used to defend a wall (... which would make it a fighting platform)!

Mike Bishop

[Vindex]

although there is no archaeological evidence for it as far as I am aware (except perhaps the Rudge Cup) logically what would it have?

There is actually some pretty good archaeological evidence in the form of large numbers of string course blocks, comparable to those still in situ on the fortress walls at Chester near the north gate, marking the level of the walkway (and base of the parapet). South Shields (although not on the Wall it is a handy parallel) has produced both SCBs and merlon caps. The infilling of demolished turret recesses (as at T41a) doesn't make much sense unless they carry a walkway over the top and a walkway needs a parapet (like the one still standing at Dura). I don't think Forestier was going out on much of a limb by including it ;-)

Mike Bishop

But string course blocks and merlon caps don't have to be for crenellations, do they? An educated guess of the archaeological remains but not bomb proof evidence. They can be mid wall markers (as you've said) and finishing off. The evidence at South Shields is why, I suppose, the reconstructed gateway is crenellated. (And I always consider it part of the Wall defences anyway...sort of...after a fashion).

But as I've aready said, it seems illogical to have a Wall without crenellations and I have little doubt that it could be used as a fighting platform as/when required.

[mcbishop]

An educated guess of the archaeological remains but not bomb proof evidence.

The old rule of experimental archaeology: the higher you go above foundation level, the less certain you are of the accuracy! Unless you 'photocopy' Trajan's Column, as they did at the Lunt, of course, then you know it's bound to be 100% accurate ;-)

Mike Bishop

[Renatus]

It is difficult to understand such an uncrenellated parapet as suggested by Dobson, for how high would such a parapet have to be to prevent anyone falling over the north side of the wall 3-5 to 4 feet maybe.
Then we have to consider just what kind of protection would such an uncrenellated parapet give to any soldier wanting to repel any attack.

Exactly. An uncrenellated parapet makes no sense and is unparalleled in Roman and later defences: the Castra Praetoria shows successive levels of crenellation, so if Hadrian's Wall had a parapet, it takes special pleading indeed to see it without merlons!

A fort is one thing; 76 miles of wall is quite another. Moreover, Hadrian's Wall is indeed unparalleled in the Roman world.

[Vindex]

An educated guess of the archaeological remains but not bomb proof evidence.

The old rule of experimental archaeology: the higher you go above foundation level, the less certain you are of the accuracy! Unless you 'photocopy' Trajan's Column, as they did at the Lunt, of course, then you know it's bound to be 100% accurate ;-)

Mike Bishop

[PhilusEstilius]

Michael.

I think the idea about crenellations and Hadrian's Wall being 80 Roman miles is one where we have to consider such areas as Steel Rigg, and other points along its line where they may well not have been needed