How was Hadrian's Wall perceived in Rome

[superkablam]

What do people think about the reception of Hadrian's Wall at home in Rome itself?

 

I have read in some places that the senate were not fond of the Wall but was wondering if anyone knew any more in this?

 

Also whether the people, army and other elites were in favour or against the emperor's frontier?

[GhostOfClayton]

There would obviously have been a range of opinions.

 

Hadrian believed that the Empire had grown too quickly under Trajan, giving long borders that were difficult and expensive to defend. The high concentrations of troops required for that defence lead to a dearth within the Empire itself, where they would otherwise increase the security of its denizens.

 

The policy of using Rome-friendly tribes as buffer states also gained significance at this time, and Hadrian had this at the front of his mind when drawing up the borders. He was clearly a sharp cookie, and there would have been those on the Senate who had the vision to understand and agree with his actions.

 

Arguably, this was a continuation of a policy that had its roots as early as Augustus, but largely it is felt that, up to Hadrian, the Romans felt their empire would keep on expanding forever, and it was the duty of every Roman general to keep that outward expansion pressure going. There would have been those on the senate that saw the frontiers as an end to the glory days, and consequently be mad as hell about it. Not only because of the glory, but because wealth would now have to be earned, rather than pinched off the neighbours.

 

Those who fell into the latter camp, would be further split into two. Those who kept their mouth shut about it, and those who risked annoying the new Emperor by vocalising their opinions. Although Hadrian was adopted and nominated by Trajan, he was not a shoe-in for Emperor and had to work hard to gain popularity (he publically burned all the tax records). There were those who had opposed his claim to the purple, and who no doubt regretted it when they had the error of their ways brutally pointed out to them. Some would have to tread very carefully in considering what they said in the Senate.

 

As to Hadrian's Wall itself rather than just the drawing up of the Limes, it underwent a number of changes during the latter part of construction, or very soon after. These are principally in connection with the practicality of a wall as a defensive frontier, as opposed to a traditional defensive wall around a fort or city. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Hadrian was closely involved in the design of the wall, modelling it on fort/city walls. He famously did not take kindly to having his architectural skills critcised, and so you can see a scenario where, as soon as he left, the military leaders on the ground said, "OK lads, he's gone!", and made the changes.

Edited November 24, 2011 by GhostOfClayton

[caldrail]

Hadrian was a man with architectural aspirations (he once had an architect punished for disagreeing with him) and specified exactly what he wanted for the Caledonian Wall. Although the security zone was already established, the wall was intended to display Rome's majesty, to impress the locals, and to be a monument to Hadrians reign (and assumed talent). That's why some gates open onto vertical cliffs - Hadrian simply demanded that his scheme was followed irrespective of circumstance.

 

Now as for the senate - many of those important politicians would have never seen it. They would have applauded the effort in public, naturally, since they wanted to their emperor sweet at least superficially. Some might have seen the value of keeping frontier armies busy. Some might actually have agreed with hadrians motives. Others might have shaken their heads at the demonstration of ego.

 

Regarding the average pleb - how many of them would have known the edifice existed? They might have heard of a wall built to mark Rome's distant frontier, perhaps phrased in mythic terms by returning merchants, but for most I suspect it was simply something they'd heard of once.

[GhostOfClayton]

Expanding on Caldrail's comments about the plebs.

 

It's interesting to consider the Rudge Cup, the Amiens Skillet, the Staffordshire Moorlands Patera, and to a lesser extent, vessels like the Winterton Cup. The first three were vessels which had the names of some of the forts along Hadrian's Wall engraved on them, and some had a wall design as part of the decorative pattern. There are two schools of thought as to their purpose: the first is that they were a retirement gift awarded to military men having served their time on the wall, and the second was that they were the Roman equivalent of tourist tat, or merchandising.

 

If the military significance is true, serving soldiers must have had a sense that their partcular posting was part of an overall defensive system, and they would identify with that over and above any alegiance to particular cohorts/legions.

 

If the second (I don't see it myself) then the wall is something worth a mention on a kitchen vessel.

 

Whichever, the wall becomes something over and above a functional bit of military infrastructure.