| |
|
| |
| Since
the aim was to speed the movement of troops, the Stanegate road
ran along the river valleys, avoiding the hills wherever possible,
and was dominated by higher country to the north. So it was
decided to construct the permanent barrier a mile or so in that
direction, taking advantage of the long ridge of folded volcanic
rock known as the Whin Sill. In places, there are steep faces
up to 60 metres high on the northern side and the passes through
it are easy to control. The chosen line involved a number of
river crossings but Roman soldiers were experts at building
bridges The Stanegate was still useful for moving troops and
supplies therefore it was decided to use the existing forts
as permanent bases for the troops who were to defend it. |
| |
| The
Hadrianic Wall began at the Pons Aelius (modern Newcastle)
where a new bridge named after the emperor had just been built
across the Tyne. From there it follows a low ridge north of
the river to Chesters, where it crosses the Northern Tyne, and
then along the line of the Whin Sill. In general it keeps to
the high ground and, after crossing the Irthing at Castlesteads,
runs parallel to the north bank of the river all the way to
Stanwix (Carlisle). From the River Eden, it follows the
south shore of the Solway Firth for 14 miles, ending at the
Irish Sea near Bowness. The total distance of the original plan
was 111 kilometres or some 76 Roman miles. |
| |
| |
| The
Wall running along Peel Crags |
| |
| Construction |
| |
| The
first version of the Wall was built using two principal types
of material. There was to be a stone wall running from Newcastle
to the crossing of the river Irthing some 45 miles to the west
near Castlesteads. Then a turf wall continued the line to Bowness.
It was most likely the local availability of suitable building
materials that determined the result. At one mile intervals,
small fortlets known as “milecastles” were built on
the inside face of the wall. Between each pair of these were
two equally spaced towers or turrets which also faced inwards. |
| |
|
| Roman
soldiers building a wall, from Trajan's Column |
| |
| According
to surviving building records and inscriptions, the Wall was
built in sections, each the responsibility of one of the three
legions (II Augusta, VI Victrix and XX Valeria
Victrix). |
| |
| Archaeologically
this can be seen in the differences in plan among the
various milecastles and turrets. Each legion would do
a 5-6 mile stretch of wall and then move to a new location—at
some points the slightly offset join where two work parties
met can still be seen. Although the stone wall was apparently
intended to be 3 metres thick throughout its length (judging
from the stone foundations), this often was not the case
and long stretches are on a narrower gauge (about 2 metres
or less). The reasons for this change in plan are not
clear—perhaps the extra thickness was deemed excessive
for the amount of work required. The milecastles and turrets
were clearly built first because in many instances they
were provided with a projecting stub of the wider gauge
bonded |
|
| High
Rochester. Building inscription of Legio
XX Valeria Victrix |
|
|
| to
the narrower gauge of the Wall. The turf section of the Wall
was on a much broader base (6 metres), with milecastles and
turrets built of stone— eventually the whole system was
rebuilt in stone. Where practicable a ditch ran in front of
the curtain wall-but often the ground was too hard or the slope
sufficiently steep to render one unnecessary. |
| |
|
| |
|
| The
stone walls themselves were well-built, with a rubble
core between facings of dressed stone set in lime
mortar. Although nowhere do the walls survive to
their full height, the evidence (from preserved
stretches of stairways; etc.) suggests that the
rampart was 3½ to 4 metres high. There was
undoubtedly a stone parapet wall, of the type depicted
in contemporary illustrations, with crenellations
at the top along with a walkway. The turf sections
of the wall were thicker because of the nature of
the material which was simply cut pieces of turf,
stacked neatly on top of the cobblestone foundations.
This was the material normally used by soldiers
to construct their marching camps and |
| |
|
| Wallsend
(replica stretch of wall) |
|
|
|
| forts.
In fact, some of the features of the Hadrianic forts—the
rounded corners and internal towers—are more appropriate
to turf than to stone. |
| |
| Bridges |
| |
| In
order to complete the defences, three major bridges had to be
built over intervening rivers. These were at Willowford, Chesters
and Carlisle and traces of their abutments remain. Roman engineers
built bridges from one end of their empire to the other, and
they built them to last. Many, such as the one at Cordoba (below),
which has Roman foundations at any rate, are still used today |
| |
|
| The
Roman Bridge at Cordoba, Spain |
| |
| The
bridge at Chesters carried the Wall over the river Tyne on a
series of eight closely spaced piers. The piers supported vaults
and were 3 metres across, the same gauge as the wall foundations,
indicating that there was probably a parapet and walkway at
the top. At Willowford, where the Wall crossed the Irthing,
a single large abutment (below) survives to a height
of a few courses suggesting a similar but shorter bridge which
had been remodelled on at least two subsequent occasions. Virtually
nothing remains of the bridge over the Eden River at Carlisle,
however. |
| |
|
| Willowford.Bridge
Abutment |
| |
| Milecastles
& Turrets |
| |
| At
intervals of one Roman mile, a series of small fortlets were
built to house the troops that were assigned the duty of patrolling
that particular stretch of wall and, in most cases, to serve
as a gateways for local traffic. The stone versions measured
about 15 x 18 metres while the turf ones were somewhat larger.
|
| |
|
Cawfields,
Milecastle
|
| |
| Each
milecastle contained one or two stone or timber
barracks-the number and size depending on the strength
of the unit manning them, which could range anywhere
from about 15 to 35 dozen men. There was also an
oven, usually in the northwest corner and a staircase
to give access to the ramparts. It is assumed that
there was a tower above the gate but, since none
of them have survived higher than a few courses
of masonry, it is impossible to prove. All of the
milecastles were rectangular in shape with rounded
corners. |
| |
| Some
of them have their long axis running away from the
Wall while others run parallel to it, reflecting
the preferences of different legions involved in
the work. This probably also accounts for the slight
differences in the construction of the gates-two
sets of doors in each gate or one. |
|
|
|
| |
The
turrets, all of which were made out of stone, are very much
smaller than the milecastles. They were about 6 metres square
and were set about 2 metres into the thickness of the Wall.
|
| |
|
| There
were no proper accommodations, only a staircase
leading to the ramparts. Traces of hearths and cooking
pots have been found, however, indicating that some
home comforts were provided. In some cases the staircases
were made out of stone but in others they must have
been timber since no trace has survived. |
| |
| The
Rudge Cup, which commemorates the Wall, appears
to depict turrets two storeys high with a crenellated
parapet at the top. It is shown outlined against
a red background in the illustration below. |
| |
| A
height of about 8½ metres would probably
not be far off the mark and would provide sentries
with a good, uninterrupted view to the north. |
|
|
| |
| The
Purpose of the Wall |
| |
| The
Wall was probably begun in AD 122, the year of Hadrian's tour
of inspection, and completed within a couple of years. According
to the ancient sources, it was designed by the emperor to serve
as a barrier, separating Romans from barbarians but the evidence
on the ground shows that things were not quite that simple.
For one thing, it cut across the territory of the Brigantes,
a tribe subject to Rome, so it did not mark the limits of Roman
control. They maintained a network of outposts and forts north
of the Wall. In addition, they maintained a number of outposts
north of the Wall at Birrens, Netherby and Bewcastle (see map)—a
dedication to the goddess Brigantia was found at Birrens, suggesting
it was within tribal territory. |
| |
| |
| The
view north from Corbridge |
| |
| For
a barrier, it was fairly open with gates every mile, which allowed
the locals to move easily back and forth—as long as they
were not bent on cattle-raiding or some such. Their movements
were monitored, however, as they moved through the checkpoints,
paying whatever tolls or duties were required. If large bodies
of hostiles gathered beyond the Wall, patrols from the milecastles
and the forts to the north should have picked up intelligence
of it and raised the alert. Should the tribesmen approach the
Wall, their movements would be observed from the turrets which
also served as signal towers to call up reinforcements. However,
the earliest garrisons of the forts are a mix of infantry and
cavalry so it is clear that military thinking was more offensive
than defensive. The intention was to move their forces north
of the Wall and confront any invaders before they reached it.
|
| |
| The
Wall would not have been very effective as a fighting platform
since, allowing for the thickness of the parapet wall, the walkway
would have been too narrow to allow soldiers to freely move
behind one another and the only access points would have been
from the turrets and milecastles, which were about 500 metres
apart. The turrets and milecastles are set behind the Wall,
making them useless for enfilading fire. It is only much later,
in the fourth century AD, that a 'Maginot' mentality set in
and the defences become static. |
| |
| Another
factor that cannot be overlooked is the propaganda value of
such an enormous undertaking. The local tribes must have been
awestruck by the apparent power and might of Rome. In addition,
morale among the troops must have risen when they saw the care
with which the emperor, an old soldier himself, looked after
their security and comfort. |
| |
| The
Cumbrian Shore |
| |
| The
system was continued (but without the Wall) on the Cumbrian
coast, south of the Solway Firth for a at least another 26 miles
(41 kilometres). There were small 'Milefortlets' every mile
with a pair of turrets in between-evidently to prevent unauthorised
landings by sea. The fortlets had turf ramparts and, with one
larger exception, were about the same size as the ones on the
Wall. The barracks buildings and gate tower were made of timber
but the intervening turrets or watchtowers were of stone. Forts
existed at Maryport and Beckfoot, which were about 10 kilometres
apart on the coast, and at Bowness, at the western terminus
of the Wall (see map). Observation and monitoring of traffic
across Solway Firth seems to have been the main function of
the troops manning these posts. Determined sea borne invaders
could easily sail south to circumvent the defences. |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
