'Line of Light' along Hadrian's Wall

[Melvadius]

Well contrary to what may have been expected in Britain in March - the clouds didn't descend creating a blanket of invisibility nor did a sudden or prolonged deluge occur. The line of light seems to have gone off without any major or even minor hitch:

 

Details and video are available on the BBC.

Hadrian's Wall has been lit from end to end by a team of 500 volunteers holding flaming torches.

 

The "line of light" is following an 84-mile (135km) national walking trail, which shadows the route of the Roman wall spanning northern England.

 

Volunteers, each holding a gas-powered beacon, stood at 820ft (250m) intervals.

 

The first torch was lit at Segedunum Roman Fort in Wallsend, North Tyneside, at about 1800 GMT.

 

'Cause for celebration'

 

The final beacon was ignited at Bowness-on-Solway, on Cumbria's west coast, about an hour later, with the entire "line of light" remaining illuminated for about half an hour.

 

Speaking as a torch was ignited nearby, the chief executive of Hadrian's Wall Heritage, Linda Tuttiett, said it was a great moment.

 

"It's a cause for celebration, this is our Hadrian's Wall, it belongs to everybody especially the people in the communities here across the north of England.

 

"And we're so thankful, we worked with all of the landowners across the wall who have been absolutely fantastic in helping us realise this special moment and we just want to share it with the world, really."

 

Organisers described the response for volunteers as "overwhelming", with people from as far afield as Canada and Australia signing up to take part.

 

The spectacle, to mark British Tourism Week, requires the co-operation of more than 120 local landowners.

 

It is hoped that people living alongside the route will heed calls for a voluntary blackout to enhance the scene, which is being filmed from a helicopter

Edited March 13, 2010 by Melvadius

[Artimi]

Wish I could have been there. Maybe I would seen the ghosts of Roman Legionaires this time.

[caldrail]

Line of light? To be honest, that's like Thor Heyedahl and his papyrus boats crossing the ocean. As far as it goes it's great but proves nothing. After all, what was the point of legionaries signalling along the wall? All the troops along the wall were gate guards. The reserves of military strength were miles back behind the wall in large forts, so signalling of this kind was a matter of north-south communication to and from the wall, not east-west along it.

[Melvadius]

Line of light? To be honest, that's like Thor Heyedahl and his papyrus boats crossing the ocean. As far as it goes it's great but proves nothing. After all, what was the point of legionaries signalling along the wall? All the troops along the wall were gate guards. The reserves of military strength were miles back behind the wall in large forts, so signalling of this kind was a matter of north-south communication to and from the wall, not east-west along it.

 

If you mean the legions then I suppose you could argue for the 'main' reserves being miles behind the wall but don't forget that there were garrisons of 500 to 1000 men spaced fairly evenly along the length of the wall In addition there were several more garrisons of similar size within a few miles both north and south of the wall which as Woolliscroft has shown [edit - D.J.Woolliscroft, Roman Military Signalling, (Tempus Books), 2001] were also linked with the signal towers associated with the wall.

 

Although it does not show the overlapping phases of accupation and abandonment which would have occured this military layer from the Roman Britain site gives a good pictorial reference for all of the different military camps in Britain as well providing an indication of how large particular garrisons would have been. As far as I am aware once they were built most of the 'wall' forts stayed in more or less continuous operation throughout the rest of the Roman period even if the actual garrison size declined towards the end of the period of occupation. A few of the forts further back from the wall (most in the south and east of England) in comparison show evidence for abandonment within relatively short periods of time - sometimes no more than 20-25 years after the initial invasion force reached their area.

 

You can see from this that most of the immediatly available troops were stationed along the length of the wall with the nearest legions based spaced a long way behind who would have taken several days to get to the area of the wall even at the best marching speed of 25 miles a day.

 

As a marketing exercise it may well be effective but for sheer visual splendor AND for showing how messages could be passed long distances via beacons in a relatively short time I don't think you can really fault it

 

[Edit - another thing I should have mentioned before is that the spacing of approximately 250m apart probably means (and the snippet of video shown certainly suggests) that all of the 'modern' beacons were located at each of the mile castles and intervening watchtowers (and possibly known signalling stations?) along the length of the wall. QED even though the beacons probably were not as high as the original tops of the towers would have been it does show how easily signals could have been passed from east to west and vice versa that way.]

Edited March 15, 2010 by Melvadius

[Artimi]

Melvadius, love the interactive map. There is a lot of information there.

 

I actually got to Vindolanda while it was still just squares being excavated, no tourist stuff there.but never made it to the actual wall.

 

I view Hadrian's Wall through the eyes of the General Maximus in Breem's 'Eagle in the Snow'.

[caldrail]

You can see from this that most of the immediatly available troops were stationed along the length of the wall with the nearest legions based spaced a long way behind who would have taken several days to get to the area of the wall even at the best marching speed of 25 miles a day.

 

I think you're very, very wrong. Let me explain why I believe this to be the case.

 

A wall is, in purely military terms, a linear defense. Hdrians Wall was not primarily military nor intended as a defense in that sense, but rather a security line in what amounts to a very modern concept. The problem with assuming that troops were rushed from one section of the line to another is that it leaves another section of wall undefended. In other words, all the Picts had to do was create a feint, get the Romans to react, and then attack the vacated sections.

 

The Picts may have been barbarians in the classic sense but they certainly weren't stupid, and don't forget that arms smuggling was one of the reasons that the wall existed in the first place. The Romans were actually quite sophisticated about military matters compared to their contemporaries (not quite as sophisticated as some people believe even if they were well organised - remember that the legions were deliberately brutish and larceny from civilians tolerated) and they would have spotted the strategic flaw in linear reinforcement - that was the entire reason for troop bases north and south of the line - to reinforce gaps in the event of attack.

 

Look at it from another perspective. The presence of the 500/1000 man garrisons was a deterrent, not a preventative measure, and formed the base from which patrols marched along the security line.

 

Suppose the Picts attack (allegedly) and break through. They then spread southward causing havoc. By the time the adjacent formations have reacted and arrived at the point of penetration the enemy has moved on. The only feasible way to prevent their advance is to block it in the direction of travel or as near as possible. Otherwise your troops will be forced to chase after them and that takes longer, plus opens the rear of their column to encircling attacks from barbarian groups following after.

 

You may or may not agree, but I've learned not to make assumptions about military dispositions. There is always a reason, and it may not be the one that seems obvious.

Edited March 25, 2010 by caldrail

[Maty]

The way I understood a wall such as Hadrian's deters raiders has nothing to do with preventing them from getting in. Any reasonably fit bunch of light infantry will not find a wall a serious obstacle. The interesting bit happens once they are over the wall.

 

Imagine a couple of thousand Caledonians swarm over the wall. This does not pass without comment, and the Romans start assembling their reaction force. Now the point of crossing the wall is loot. So after they have raped the cattle and rustled the women our raiders have waggon-loads of corn etc, sheep and sundry livestock that they want to take home after a memorable trip south.

 

Except now there is this stonking great wall in the way, and a large force of very annoyed Romans closing in fast. Assuming the Romans on the wall can defend the gates, even for a limited time, the only way to get safely back home is to hop back over the wall with little more than you took in with you in the first place.

 

Especially as you didn't bring any cavalry (that wall again) and the Romans are bringing theirs.

[guy]

So after they have raped the cattle and rustled the women our raiders have waggon-loads of corn etc, sheep and sundry livestock that they want to take home after a memorable trip south.

 

Those randy Ancient Brits. LOL. Was it something in the beer?

 

guy also known as gaius

[Artimi]

So after they have raped the cattle and rustled the women our raiders have waggon-loads of corn etc, sheep and sundry livestock that they want to take home after a memorable trip south.

 

Those randy Ancient Brits. LOL. Was it something in the beer?

 

guy also known as gaius

 

I know it was common at that time to do this, but when you think about this, it is down threatening and scary, when you consider nothing has changed in 2000 years (the brits have changed???) but the raids and victims havent.

[guy]

I know it was common at that time to do this, but when you think about this, it is down threatening and scary, when you consider nothing has changed in 2000 years (the brits have changed???) but the raids and victims havent.

 

Agree, but I was commenting on Maty's unique humor:

 

"...raped the cattle and rustled the women..."

 

 

guy also known as gaius

[Artimi]

I know it was common at that time to do this, but when you think about this, it is down threatening and scary, when you consider nothing has changed in 2000 years (the brits have changed???) but the raids and victims havent.

 

Agree, but I was commenting on Maty's unique humor:

 

"...raped the cattle and rustled the women..."

 

 

guy also known as gaius

 

I know and he does have a wonderful sense of humour. This is partly a spill over from the book I just finished by John Man about Ghenghis Khan. Those Mongols were soooooooo brutal.

[caldrail]

The way I understood a wall such as Hadrian's deters raiders has nothing to do with preventing them from getting in. Any reasonably fit bunch of light infantry will not find a wall a serious obstacle. The interesting bit happens once they are over the wall.

 

Imagine a couple of thousand Caledonians swarm over the wall. This does not pass without comment, and the Romans start assembling their reaction force. Now the point of crossing the wall is loot. So after they have raped the cattle and rustled the women our raiders have waggon-loads of corn etc, sheep and sundry livestock that they want to take home after a memorable trip south.

 

Except now there is this stonking great wall in the way, and a large force of very annoyed Romans closing in fast. Assuming the Romans on the wall can defend the gates, even for a limited time, the only way to get safely back home is to hop back over the wall with little more than you took in with you in the first place.

 

Especially as you didn't bring any cavalry (that wall again) and the Romans are bringing theirs.

 

That assumes the intention is to go home again, and that they intend to weigh themselves down in the process.

[Melvadius]

You can see from this that most of the immediatly available troops were stationed along the length of the wall with the nearest legions based spaced a long way behind who would have taken several days to get to the area of the wall even at the best marching speed of 25 miles a day.

 

I think you're very, very wrong. Let me explain why I believe this to be the case.

 

A wall is, in purely military terms, a linear defense. Hdrians Wall was not primarily military nor intended as a defense in that sense, but rather a security line in what amounts to a very modern concept. The problem with assuming that troops were rushed from one section of the line to another is that it leaves another section of wall undefended. In other words, all the Picts had to do was create a feint, get the Romans to react, and then attack the vacated sections.

 

 

An interesting contention but nowhere did I claim that the Roman's would have needed to denude sections of the wall garrison to repulse any possible attack.

 

What I said was that most of the 'immediately available strength' was within a few miles of the wall both to the north and the south. i.e I was referring to the Stangate forts which are not on the wall nor are they the 70 plus miles away that York is from the Eastern end of the Wall. Put another way to repeat a quote from a book I picked up at the weekend describing how Hadrian's Wall was probably planned 'a wall without communications is a waste of rations'.

 

The Picts may have been barbarians in the classic sense but they certainly weren't stupid, and don't forget that arms smuggling was one of the reasons that the wall existed in the first place. The Romans were actually quite sophisticated about military matters compared to their contemporaries (not quite as sophisticated as some people believe even if they were well organised - remember that the legions were deliberately brutish and larceny from civilians tolerated) and they would have spotted the strategic flaw in linear reinforcement - that was the entire reason for troop bases north and south of the line - to reinforce gaps in the event of attack.

I would say that it supports my view of the Wall as being a component part in a wider landscape - defence in depth if you will don't foget that despite having a large number of fortified positions throughout Briotain (and in deed the rest of the Em pire) the Roman's preferred method of dealing with any atack was in the field with the fortified positions simply used as bases.

 

Look at it from another perspective. The presence of the 500/1000 man garrisons was a deterrent, not a preventative measure, and formed the base from which patrols marched along the security line.

How does that differ from what I said?

 

Suppose the Picts attack (allegedly) and break through. They then spread southward causing havoc. By the time the adjacent formations have reacted and arrived at the point of penetration the enemy has moved on. The only feasible way to prevent their advance is to block it in the direction of travel or as near as possible. Otherwise your troops will be forced to chase after them and that takes longer, plus opens the rear of their column to encircling attacks from barbarian groups following after.

 

You are ignoring the possibility that the Roman's would probably have had scout's as well as patrols and the possibility of advance notice from informers and/or nominally friendly tribes which would have allowed them to mass defending/ counter-ofensive troops where they were needed.

 

You may or may not agree, but I've learned not to make assumptions about military dispositions. There is always a reason, and it may not be the one that seems obvious.

 

The assumptions which I made are in general based on established arcaheological facts - the periods of occupation of the forts along the length of the wall and in fact the number of forts in the area which seem to have remained occupied for most of the period of Roman occupation. To paraphrase John Poulter (2009) 'Surveying Roman Military Landscapes across Northern Britain' who by considering the landscape and the optimum positions to take bearings on the next landmark/ or decide on a possible change in direction has identified the probable direction in which Dere street, Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall were surveyed - even if individual sections were not necessarily built in the same directions.

 

He found that although there may have been a defensive aspect to Hadrian's Wall in most cases the position of the Wall makes use of the lie of the land to have a good south facing viewpoint (and consequently signalling direction rather than being on the most defensible land or even necessarily having a good field of view to the immediate north - with the notable exception of the central section.

 

This does not negate Wooliscroft's opinion that the use of signalling towers as 'repeaters' would have allowed messages to be passed relatively quickly along the length of the Wall. I should stress that when I have talked about the 'Wall' I am referring to the entire militarized area including the Stanegate and all of the associated military structures even out to the fort at High Rochester in the north.

 

Poulter in his conclusions states his belief that the Wall was intended to serve a multitude of functions and therefore was a compromise but choices on possible alignments were usually 'related to the topography of the landscape' he therefore thinks that its planning was largely dictated by military factors however when 'a compromise in these factors had to be reached , it was the observation and signalling function that took precedence over a defensive stance and passageways for traffic.'

 

N.B. in comparison the Antonine Wall normally took the optimum defensive line - the differences he put down to the pre-existence of the Stanegate forts along the proposed line of Hadrian's Wall while such a defensive line did not exist along the route of the Antonine Wall.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Melvadius