12-16-2002, 03:57 AM
This is in reference to two TV documentaries, England's Great Wall and Modern Marvels: Hadrian's Wall. There were three theories made by historians and experts in these two programs that I find controversial:<br>
<br>
Guy de la Bedoyere and Simon James both said that the wall was made partially to keep the troops busy, in support of this Simon also said that the troops in Britain were prone to mutinous behavior.<br>
<br>
My view is that up to time just prior to building the wall the troops in Britain were not prone to mutiny. There were also troops on other similarly quiet frontiers that should have worried emperors more (like the four legions in Pannonia) that were not given such a monumental task. Also as a soldier I find it hard to believe that an emperor would commit so large a force to building merely to keep them busy. Such a task removes units from being 'combat ready' as normal training is replaced by construction duties which do not keep soldiers sharp for battle.<br>
<br>
<br>
In stating opinions that the wall was not built to guard a dangerous frontier experts Robin Birley and Stephen Johnson said that a letter from the wife of a fort commander to the wife of another inviting her for a birthday part proves that the frontier was not that dangerous a place if soldiers were bringing their families to live with them on the frontier.<br>
<br>
While interesting I don't regard a single letter as proof of a quiet frontier. A sample of 'one' does not prove a trend. In a frontier that lasted for hundreds of years a letter such as that one might have been written in any quiet period that was part of a fort commander's tour of duty. Also fort commander's wives seem to have been a common feature whereas the presence of the wives of other officers or the unofficial wives of the troops would have been more indicative .<br>
<br>
<br>
Finally David Breeze and Brian Dobson, renowned researchers of Hadrian's Wall stated that the wall was not built to repel attackers but to control movement and that the wall was too narrow to defend from. Dobson also said that Romans don't defend from walls but meet the attackers in the open.<br>
<br>
I also disagree with that idea. The wall, even at its narrowest seems to be comparable to the curtain walls of the contemporary legionary fortresses. Though these were certainly not as well designed for defense as fortresses of the later empire they still served that purpose when necessary despite narrow walkways and towers designed for obsersvation rather than to provide flanking shots against attackers at the base of the wall. If the wall was meant to control movement why would the Romans provide so many fortified gates (milecastles)? Certainly if control was the objective they would have restricted movement to as few points as possible. Why would the wall be served by so many supporting troops in nearby forts and fortresses incorportated into the wall? Why not a fence with watch towers like in Rhaetia/Germania Superior or like the later Antonine Wall? Either would be less expensive and just as effective for controlling movement and commerce. I agree that Romans prefer to fight in the open but they would not do so at a disadvantage. One things fortifications do is provide 'economy of force' for the defender. He can use fewer troops to defend a given area if it is fortfied. Surely the 30 or so troops a mile castle could accommodate would defend a section of wall while awaiting support rather than confront a large raiding party in front of the wall. It seems to me that defense was the primary intent, of building the wall with control of trade a secondary objective. <p></p><i></i>
<br>
Guy de la Bedoyere and Simon James both said that the wall was made partially to keep the troops busy, in support of this Simon also said that the troops in Britain were prone to mutinous behavior.<br>
<br>
My view is that up to time just prior to building the wall the troops in Britain were not prone to mutiny. There were also troops on other similarly quiet frontiers that should have worried emperors more (like the four legions in Pannonia) that were not given such a monumental task. Also as a soldier I find it hard to believe that an emperor would commit so large a force to building merely to keep them busy. Such a task removes units from being 'combat ready' as normal training is replaced by construction duties which do not keep soldiers sharp for battle.<br>
<br>
<br>
In stating opinions that the wall was not built to guard a dangerous frontier experts Robin Birley and Stephen Johnson said that a letter from the wife of a fort commander to the wife of another inviting her for a birthday part proves that the frontier was not that dangerous a place if soldiers were bringing their families to live with them on the frontier.<br>
<br>
While interesting I don't regard a single letter as proof of a quiet frontier. A sample of 'one' does not prove a trend. In a frontier that lasted for hundreds of years a letter such as that one might have been written in any quiet period that was part of a fort commander's tour of duty. Also fort commander's wives seem to have been a common feature whereas the presence of the wives of other officers or the unofficial wives of the troops would have been more indicative .<br>
<br>
<br>
Finally David Breeze and Brian Dobson, renowned researchers of Hadrian's Wall stated that the wall was not built to repel attackers but to control movement and that the wall was too narrow to defend from. Dobson also said that Romans don't defend from walls but meet the attackers in the open.<br>
<br>
I also disagree with that idea. The wall, even at its narrowest seems to be comparable to the curtain walls of the contemporary legionary fortresses. Though these were certainly not as well designed for defense as fortresses of the later empire they still served that purpose when necessary despite narrow walkways and towers designed for obsersvation rather than to provide flanking shots against attackers at the base of the wall. If the wall was meant to control movement why would the Romans provide so many fortified gates (milecastles)? Certainly if control was the objective they would have restricted movement to as few points as possible. Why would the wall be served by so many supporting troops in nearby forts and fortresses incorportated into the wall? Why not a fence with watch towers like in Rhaetia/Germania Superior or like the later Antonine Wall? Either would be less expensive and just as effective for controlling movement and commerce. I agree that Romans prefer to fight in the open but they would not do so at a disadvantage. One things fortifications do is provide 'economy of force' for the defender. He can use fewer troops to defend a given area if it is fortfied. Surely the 30 or so troops a mile castle could accommodate would defend a section of wall while awaiting support rather than confront a large raiding party in front of the wall. It seems to me that defense was the primary intent, of building the wall with control of trade a secondary objective. <p></p><i></i>
