What did the top of Hadrian\'s Wall look like?

[mcbishop]

Judge for yourselves.

Mike Bishop

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Good post, very informative. For this era I would have to agree on the 1:1 Crenelation. Had it been later I would have leaned towards a 2:1.

[PhilusEstilius]

This has been a subject of discussion for some time about a walk way and indeed crenellation, I do think there would have been a walk way and maybe even crenellation. However it is hard to consider that the Romans would have made crenellation at places such as Steelrig or other high points of the crags that the wall goes over for no one I'm sure would be able to cause problems where there were high cliffs.Then as far as towers at turrets or milecastles standing on such a walk way over and above the height of the wall I would disagree with.

[66kbm]

Very stone like with a great view..........
Could not resist that.....Sorry
Kevin

[richsc]

Nice books. Where can you buy them?

[mcbishop]

Nice books. Where can you buy them?

All of them are available from Amazon (and other suppliers like Smashwords, Apple, B&N, and Kobo) as ebooks and Intro as a POD paperback. The two guides will be along as paperbacks shortly.

Mike Bishop

[Crispvs]

"However it is hard to consider that the Romans would have made crenellation at places such as Steelrig or other high points of the crags that the wall goes over for no one I'm sure would be able to cause problems where there were high cliffs."

Unless he had a sling, of course. I am sure someone who had grown up from boyhood using one would know exactly how to get a sling-stone flying at a rate of knots towards anyone standing on a wall with no crenelations. A person who really knows how to use one can knock birds down in mid flight, as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry. How much more easily a slower moving man sized target?

Crispvs

[PhilusEstilius]

I would think that a soldier standing on a wall 200 feet up on a high cliff watching someone about to send a sling stone up at him is about as crazy as the idiot who would even think of doing it.

[PhilusEstilius]

There is another thing that should be considered and that is the idea that the top of the wall was under constant patrol by soldiers I would think not, for the whole concept of the wall is it has milecastles and also a turret every 500 yards or so.

It may however in times of alert have had such patrol at night between turrets but again I would think not, for any such threat to the wall would have been dealt with long before it ever got over the boarder of the Cheviots.
Then of course in the west where there is much flat ground we had the 1,000 strong Ala Petriana stationed at Stanwix.

The later addition of the forts and there construction also shows that the Romans in earlier times did not allow themselves to be put under siege.

[mcbishop]

The later addition of the forts and there construction also shows that the Romans in earlier times did not allow themselves to be put under siege.

Except Xanten. And Dura-Europos. And possible Velsen.

In fact, troops are even seen defending a wall on the ultimate propaganda monument, Trajan's Column:



It may not be an accurate record of something that happened, but it shows that the Roman public were prepared to encompass the idea of 'our boys' being beseiged.

The whole doctrine of forward defence by attack, taken to extremes by David Divine in his book on Hadrian's Wall (where he calculated times for assembly of certain numbers of troops at certain points!) is flawed, but you'll find it on information boards all the way along the German Limes as well as in the standard texts on Roman frontiers in Britain. It was 'of its time' and reflected the experiences and observations of scholars who had lived through two world wars. The Romans had no such foreknowledge. Indeed, their experiences may more closely have resembled the British in Helmand.

That is not to say they didn't meet attacks north of their defensive line, just that they didn't only do that.

Mike Bishop

[PhilusEstilius]

I was trying to point out just how the wall forts in most cases had three gates north of the wall that would allow troops to come out in different directions in the event of attack.

However when we look at how many of these gates were in fact blocked up after construction would indicate just how peace full this customs barrier was for at least about 80 years, until latter times of stress such as the advent of the Severan dynasty and other power struggles where it did get hammered.

[mcbishop]

However when we look at how many of these gates were in fact blocked up after construction would indicate just how peace full this customs barrier was for at least about 80 years, until latter times of stress such as the advent of the Severan dynasty and other power struggles where it did get hammered.

Yes, the widespread half-blocking of twin-portalled gateways is intriguing (and you even find it in timber forts). Suggests to me that they only need both portals when building a fort and that one gate on either side is enough once a fort is up and running. More defensible too.

Mike Bishop

[PhilusEstilius]

I do think that the worst time for Hadrian's Wall was after the Romans left and it became a quarry for local builders, thank heaven there were people like John Clayton or it would all have vanished.