Hadrians Wall (creative brainstorming)

[caldrail]

The Roman state made reforms to its legions now and then. Some we know about, such as Augustus, others are more obscure. However, it ought to be noted that despite Augustus's concerns about keeping the military both effective and under control, it was after his death that the legion in Pannonia revolted - and that other legionaries revolted in Germania too (which resulted in a massacre - when Drusus wrote a letter to the Germanian legion commander requiring him to have actually done something before he got there, the commander had all the rebels killed by loyal troops).

 

The problem with the Roman legion is that enthusiasts often give it properties that are modern in scope, ahistorical, or just belonging to some sanuine preconception. The Roman state did not have a national army - there was no such organisation - just a lot of legions, or levies, of armed men assigned to political leadrs to maintain security or prosecute war against Rome's enemies. The control of the state over these men was not therefore primarily patriotic or organisational, as we might expect for forces so 'well organised', but rather loyalty to personality and paycheck, and therefore were a feudal organisation rather than a modern style pyramidical one. In  fact, the presupposed organisation of the legion was less formal than many people expect. The apparent formality of it is misleading - as much as we point to numbers and grouping and construct a sort of crystalline image of military efficiency - efficient the legions were not. They were never fully trustworthy and subject to being led astray by ambitious men.

 

The principal glory of the Roman empire and its most secure foundation
Discipline - (Valerius Maximus)

 

So by long unfamiliarity with fighting the Roman soldier was reduced to a cowardly condition. For as to all the arts of life, so especially to the business of war, is sloth fatal. It is of the greatest importance for soldiers to experience the ups and downs of fortune, and to take strenuous exercise in the open. The most demoralised of all, however, were the Syrian soldiers, mutinous, disobedient,seldom with their units, straying in front of their prescribed posts, roving about like scouts, tipsy from one noon to the next, unused to carrying even their arms.
Letter to Lucius Verus (Fronto)

 

But when he [Germanicus] touched on the mutiny and asked where was their soldierly obedience? where the discipline, once their glory? Whither had they driven their tribunes — their centurions? with one impulse they tore off their tunics and reproachfully exhibited the scars of battle and the imprints of the lash. Then, in one undistinguished uproar, they taunted him with the fees for exemption from duty, the miserly rate of pay, and the severity of the work, — parapet-making, entrenching, and the collection of forage, building material and fuel were specifically mentioned, along with the other camp drudgeries imposed sometimes from necessity, sometimes as a precaution against leisure.
Annals Book I Chapter III (Tacitus).

Edited October 10, 2014 by caldrail

[Onasander]

I can shrink the research ideologically down for anyone observing Caldrail's differation in approaching history philosophically...

 

We are both advocating different aspects of Collingwood, a member of Vico's historic school.

 

Believe it or not, I do very much grasp your hesitency to apply modern linguistic concepts to poorly explained ancient formulas.... I would not speak openly of questions in the matter I do unless it was a priori asserted as part of a step by step process to evaluate and assert ideas.

 

The worst horror a historian can commit is NOT experimenting, and thus becoming aware of introspectively in our thought process, the cognitive agency of the historical process.... it's underlining heurmeunetics in the intentionality of the chronicler or historian to interpret their world, and "perserve it", and how later ages.... however soon or late, are to take it.

 

The reason why is a mistake is it's a complex mesh of cognitivy agency in competition.... aspects in mutual conpetition in the mind of the reader (whatever era they live in) that are in large part independent, yet interdependent and even linked at odd points in the interpreative process we all engaged in. When we find we accept a concept, we have already done this, for the most part unconsciously.

 

The expert historian doesn't do this uncobsciously. He drags out his acceptance of a single thing, and turns it into things.... and begins to stratify into abstract and concrete facts, and orders them categorically to other forms of facts. A degree of rhetoric is used to convince and smooth out the gaps, for intellectual understanding.

 

It's at this point some of our greatest vices as historians pop up. A resort to scepticism and philological purity is a virtue. I commend you for your attempts towards reductionalism. However, it's only a portion of the cross domain mapping a historic work engadges us in, we have to hunt down all it's influences.

 

A portion of this phenomena takes place in the historical fiction that takes place on this site..... romantic and grime writers take history, and tries to make it real to the modern reader via modern fictional devices. It would be anathema for a historian of primary texts to absorb such a technique... you yourself would cringe at it mixing, but to a philosopher who read a few history of philosophy books himself, I can't help but see the two merging eventually. We're more or less symbiotic as it is.

 

We'll have to more or less dive into cognition.... and examine how the purpose of history has evolved, and the various aspects of mind from other fields pressure us into a reexamination of our methodology and outlook.

 

I use for example, fanciful analogy and logical paradox, comparing old and new outlooks. Our argument of naming a roman squad a squad is evidence of this. I understood your argument, but had to go against Collingwood knowing full well the psychology of a extroverted functioning of a group of men.... roughly 8 to 9, behaved in terms of communication, navigation, identity, and group ownership and dependency... having experienced it.

 

This experience is unique and subjective, but the apparatus.... the human mind, is largely uniform, and the functionality of mind is similar one person to the next. I fully expect the romans to be less evolved than say, the 19th Century's grasp of the psychology of similar massing of men. I also more or less know tactically, a squad didn't exist on the battlefield.... but the Romans none the less made use of it in other affairs of the legion. Hence squads existed. The bigger question is.... why, on a cognitive level? We parallel it now, is there something inate in the functioning of the mind, that it works better at this level?

 

Such a question dares a new epoch in historical examination. More scientific, more historical, made of better facts, and can make much better use of linguistics than conservative reductionism. It still has a place, it's part of the mechanics of a good history, but overzealous use can make it a aspect of bad history as well. History needs to hold itself in parity with other currents of the mind. When it can't keep up, ot inevitably morphs and mutates into something ugly and obscene. Flights of fancy and fiction, and outright lies, become more attractivve to a cultures mode of rationalization. Theologically we see this historical phenomena with the denounciation of Zoroastrian history by Shiites in Iran, Black Nationalist Historians of Western history, British Atheists of Christianity, Marxist and Nazi writers of just about everything.... it's a competition of one faith against another, and were as historians are remarkably unaware of this.

 

 

Hence my cross disciplinary approach. At root, we ALWAYS are dealing with some sort of cognitive cross domain mapping. It gives us a positive learned response. It feels natural and positive, and sensible. As historians, we make use of axiomatic ideological structures to come to conclusions, and favor the familiar, shun the incomprehensible.

 

We are at root little silly witch doctors babbling on about meaningless specificalities... know that is the origin of our craft, and we have never anywhere escaped this. That is who we are. I advocate a testing of facts logically and realistically, but can't begin to know what a fact is without understanding it's a linguistic phenomena.... and in doing so approach it in part from your direction. I try to reduce and compare it as well in other ways, and if the results are a behavioral paradox that makes no cognitive sense from modern equivalents, texts and schools of thought.... however high and distinguished their pedigree is, it becomes questionable in the very least.... and needs heavy scrutiny. Either the ancients were smarter, or they were lying, or misunderstood the phenomena before them.

[caldrail]

 

 

We are both advocating different aspects of Collingwood, a member of Vico's historic school.

No, we are not.

 

My arguments may have arrived at similar conclusions to some peoples, but that's niot indicating any formal academic link or influence.

 

 

 

We are at root little silly witch doctors babbling on about meaningless specificalities.

No, we are not, or perhaps we  should avoid such an ignorant and self-absorbed perspective. Witch Doctors are men using superstition for their own ends to all intents and purposes. As for myself, my religious beliefs are elsewhere and I don't often air them publicly. My academic views are another matter. Wouldn't it be more acccurate to view ourselves as casual students debating issues concerning Roman hisotry on this site?

[Onasander]

I just watched a ten minute video on the kindle video store called "Global Treasures: Hadrians Wall".

 

I nearly died laughing seeing the very horrible reconstruction of thee dirt and wood castle.... I'm not saying a earthen palisade defense is bad till you get a more permanent structure built.... but that is a asinine worthless structure.

 

First off, the wooden wall on top of the mound do NOT TOUCH THE GROUND! This is a very bad design flaw.... at night time, people can low craw very slowly up to you, and shoot you as you walk to piss with a bow and arrow.... and you will be dead with your cock out, which of all ways to go is the least glamorous. Here in the Appalachian Mountains, we have a kind of thicket that grows very wide and tall in long lines, quarter of a mile at places, linger than you could hope to jump over.... and it's thorned.... very painful.... I could only tolerate such a design IF this was built into the gap.... no one is going to storm such a thicket and climb over.... but I see the land around it is just grass and farmland. I doubt such a plant grows in England, may be wrong though.

 

Secondly.... if it is a temporary structure.... who in the hell is going to bother to plank this crap? It looks like they went to home depo, not just fell some trees. I don't think I've seen such a fancy fort before.... I'm very, very knowledgeable in the construction of American wooden forts, it takes time to plank.... time guys who are out on stone collecting detail DON'T HAVE. Slam some barely polished timber together, pack it with mud to harden, then go look for the stones needed for the real stone fort. It makes me wanna just shoot it with flaming arrows at night to piss the guards off.... might get lucky and burn the home depot build yourself a fort kit down.

 

Only way I could accept this silliness is.... if the region seriously lacked forests.... which I doubt, or they chopped up ships and recycled them. I doubt there was a scarcity of wood.... soldiers like to burn crap and stand around, looking at the flames when it's cold.... not to mention cooking fuel.

 

I wonder if they had to plaster this too....

 

The music on this video is so awesome.... focusing on the stone castles..... then at the high glorious parts of the song goes to the wooden sad joke of a castle.

 

Honestly.... it's the most retarded castle I've seen. I've seen two castles here built into the side of a hill here... you can literally jump on the roof of either.... stil better than this mess. It makes me want to hurt the soldiers inside.

[caldrail]

Well obviously I can't comment because I haven't seen the video, though in fairness, the accuracy of computer reconstructions is sometimes suspect - I once saw one of a naval battle at a colosseum around nine times the size of the actual building.

 

However - the Romans did not build stout stone defences from the very start. Such constructions require stable occupation for some time, for practical reasons, and you find that Roman legionary forts develop into stone castles. The Limes for intstabnce were usually little more than a palisade. Much of Hadrians Wall, and certainly the great extent of the later Antonine Wall, were constructed from wood and earth embankments initially (and I recall reading somewhere than a section of Hadrians Wall remained earthen). At the Antonine Wall, I notice the Romans compensated for the lack of stone defenses - which were never built on that wall - by the addition of pits, spikes, and ankle traps. There is every reason to believe that the Romans were well aware of the dangers of pushing into lower Caledonia - the wall was abandoned when Antoninus died.

[Onasander]

I got some used picture books today I found.... the castle I mocked was Vindolanda Fort....

 

I've also identified a absurd formation I still can't make sense of, the vallum:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallum_%28Hadrian%27s_Wall%29

 

Apparently, the idiots (proper nomenclature in English for people who do this sorta thing).... AFTER Hadrians Wall was built, dug a ditch SOUTH of the wall.... South. Defenses pointed north, they dug.... south. It was later on filled in at numerous points.... cause it was a stupid nuisance.

 

This shows the wall had a unified command.... and this command, was the most backwards line defence command in history.

 

I thought maybe they were afraid of getting attacked from the south.... but that's.... a worthless defense.... worst than nothing, as it would merely give cover and concealment to any such attacker from the south. Likewise, doesn't make much sense as a fallback line if the wall is overwhelmed.... if you get overwhelmed off that wall, that ditch isn't a place for a last stand, it's a annoying hurdle in tour way on that long run south your taking, away from that silly wall.

 

I wonder, given the wall was apparently built east to west, if the ultimate command authority for the wall.... came from a HQ based in Europe, and read the map for the wall, originally surveyed North Looking South, upside down, and thought they were digging the ditches to the North of the wall... a local based commander, or English based governor would of quickly grasped the issue at hand.

 

So I presume orders didn't go through London, or even the wall.... but across the channel, and was delivered directly and instituted by someone unwilling to countermand such a retarded order. A Governor would intercede, a middle rank commander, perhaps not. That, or everyone just misread the orders.

 

I can't find any proposed population demographics for scotland at this time. Nor can I find evidence the Romans had command of the sea... they are behaving like a landlocked force only pushing north headstrong, and not a force that could randonly land and fortify whatever they liked, as the English much lateron did to wales.

[Onasander]

The inner ditch makes no sense as a internal boundary for civilians to know to go away.... you could just turn around and say "Hey, get away". Throw a rock at them.... wack them with a stick....

 

That wiki theory just is... bad.

[Onasander]

http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/north-east-news/roman-treasure-pulls-visitors-arbeia-7535813

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pons_Aelius

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segedunum

 

This focuses on the eastern wall, and the roman debarking point.... I can't find any solid evidence of a Naval Detachment here.

 

I went looking east, after noticing the west had 26 miles of additional fortifications stretching southwest along the coast after you expect the wall, if incompetently built, to end. It was indeed extended, knowing the northerners knew how to paddle. Apparently no western navy, just fixed defensive points for the Romans.

 

In the east.... odd. The wall stops prior to the east coast, along the Tyne River.

 

If Hadrians wall was built in the supposed lost of the Ninth Legion, which is linked to York dead south of here, wouldn't you put the strongest forts here?

 

Secondly.... York is well South of Hadrians Wall. Why would a empire, so scared of unmanageable forces capable of destroying a legion, go that far up north and fortify? Likewise, why would a army march so far south to attack, then afterwards retreat north again, giving the Romans the confidence to enclose them south of Hadrians wall?

 

I'm assuming the Navy had a coastal or river capacity here that negated the need to further the Limes south along the east coast.

 

The question to ponder is, did the mouth of the Tyne have a naval detachment or fort prior to the ninth getting whooped at York? Was the defenses thought good enough, and the Hadrian Line built not touching it west of here, and only later extended east, minus that useless inner ditch?

 

Likewise, if the 9th was found in the Netherlands, as the tile evidence supposes, they would of left via this naval port. It could be they effectively WERE the navy as well as the Army (doubtful) or occupied both locations, relying on strongholds prior to Hadrian of a insufficient number.... enough to hold the forts but not the countryside, and lacked the funds to buy foodstuffs, and so tried to get it from the locals anotherway.... and it backfired in a minor revolt, detachments from York got ambushed.... rest stayed in Fort till Hadrian showed up, yelled at thesoldiers for being idiots, repaired local hurt feelings, enough to the point of building further north.

 

My assumption of food supply issues.... the two stone grain silos.... the region likely produced LESS FOOD than was needed once the wall was built, and it needed good protection from looters. Then again, could of been export grain leaving.

 

Another possibility is, the Romans experienced Irish excursions into Scotland, and the domino effect ended up on.... the east coast. I doubt this.

[Onasander]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchtuthill

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gask_Ridge

[Onasander]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Scotland

 

The Romans' part in the clearances of the once extensive Caledonian forest remains a matter of debate.[97] That these forests were once considerably more extensive than they are now is not in dispute, but the timing and causes of the reduction are. The 16th-century writer Hector Boece believed that the woods in Roman times stretched north from Stirling into Atholl and Lochaber and was inhabited by white bulls with "crisp and curland mane, like feirs lionis".[98] Later historians such as P. F. Tytler and W. F. Skene followed suit as did the 20th-century naturalist Frank Fraser Darling. Modern techniques, including palynology and dendrochronology suggest a more complex picture. Changing post-glacial climates may have allowed for a maximum forest cover between 4000 and 3000 BC and deforestation of the Southern uplands, caused both climatically and anthropogenically, was well underway by the time the legions arrived.[99] Extensive analyses of Black Loch in Fife suggest that arable land spread at the expense of forest from about 2000 BC until the 1st-century AD Roman advance. Thereafter, there was re-growth of birch, oak and hazel for a period of five centuries, suggesting the invasions had a very negative impact on the native population.[100] The situation outwith the Roman-held areas is harder to assess, but the long-term influence of Rome may not have been substantial

[caldrail]

 

 

I thought maybe they were afraid of getting attacked from the south

Not afraid, butr aware of the risks. It's a mistake to see Hadrians Wall as marking the northern boundary of 'safe' territory. The north of England was a wild and wolly place in Roman times, much in the same way as the wild west was to the Americans of the 19th century.

 

So I presume orders didn't go through London, or even the wall.... but across the channel, and was delivered directly and instituted by someone unwilling to countermand such a retarded order. A Governor would intercede, a middle rank commander, perhaps not. That, or everyone just misread the orders.

Local commands were given to troops manning the security zone. Overall commands came out of the legionary forts to the south, where the reposne armies were stationed, and where the local governor had a connection with. Orders via the Channel? Not realistic. Too slow and too vulnerable to weather.

 

The inner ditch makes no sense as a internal boundary for civilians to know to go away.... you could just turn around and say "Hey, get away". Throw a rock at them.... wack them with a stick....

The surviving ditch is weathered down from it's more formidable origin. The Romans sometimes added all sorts of defensive extras if they wanted more strength. Pointy sticks and pits for intsnace. But the point is that the ditch increased the security of the position. It made for something to cover behind, and reduced the enemies capability of attacking directly. Not an infallible defense at all, but it helped.

 

Likewise, if the 9th was found in the Netherlands, as the tile evidence supposes, they would of left via this naval port. It could be they effectively WERE the navy as well as the Army (doubtful) or occupied both locations, relying on strongholds prior to Hadrian of a insufficient number....

No legion was ever considered a navy whatever their designation or position. The Roman navy was an independent force with it's own command structure and what appears to be a very intricate breakdown of authority and skills. On the western coast the naval forces were liimited to coastal patrol and anti-piracy operations, using rather more modest vessels than the Punic Wars had seen in the Mediterranean.

[Onasander]

I'm not going to argue against the navy idea, it was a bad one, but did pop up a few times in my head. Your right.

______

Local commands were given to troops manning the security zone. Overall commands came out of the legionary forts to the south, where the reposne armies were stationed, and where the local governor had a connection with. Orders via the Channel? Not realistic. Too slow and too vulnerable to weather.

 

_____

 

In one of the links above, they had soldiers arriving from what was assumed Germany, not marching from York to London. Secondly, the wall was very clearly built WRONG, with the front defensive ditch in the rear and not the front, only place in the empire to do this, and a local governor in Britain would know better.

 

It means the unified command for the wall the soldiers responded to was on the east coast, and the idiot didn't go out and inspect the walls prior or during. The command and exact orders were followed, without question... in the rear, suggesting the Grand Fubars authority was quite high.... if the local commanders had independence of authority, one would of been bound to of dug the ditch on the north.

 

I'm guessing the work detail began on this REMF Ditch east to west, as the wall did, using local legions as it went along. Why? Because that is the supply fort, as well as where the historians hypothesized the wall was first built. Hence the beginning of the military road.

 

Orders went east west, not south fanning north from the governor.

 

When the east wall was eventually extended, they knew the folly, and got rid of the REMF Ditch, approved the wall being thinned out.... but it still didn't go all the way. I'm presuming it's because that's where HQ was and he had plenty of reinforcements. Plus quick access south to call on more troops (as it would be on any point on that wall), but far quicker access to calling for help from continental europe.

 

Think, at least in the beginning, HQ was at Walls End, not York or London. It was someone with enough authority to tap work details across the walk, every unit.... felt secure enough in the east, but insecure in the west... hence overdoing the defensive line there.... work details started with him.

 

But if it was on the east coast, it could of just as easily been a higher echelon in Europe directing this.

 

The earlier Gask Ridge shows the Romans had a specific knowledge of lications and routes their enemy would take. Thier forts in the north of scotland narrows down the trouble area considerably.... but Hadrian decided defensive lines, and gave up on the romanization of local tribes, pulled back, and built for a unspecific threat.

 

He was in York.... east coast. Certainly departed east coast. York eventually became a local capital, legionary soldiers stationed there under big names like Constatine.... but the authors I read assumed reinforcements came from europe to the tyne, not from york first.

 

It appears the chief authority for the wall was at the mouth of the Tyne, where Hadrian likely left him to build the stupid wall, and technical superiors to the south, but Europe sent alot to them directly bypassing York and London. Means those two locations were not always in the loop, but east end of the wall always was.... and the people who ran the operation did so without checking out and inspecting the work till finished. So someone of high rank, not originally of a military background.... digging ditches on the wrong side, saying "lets plaster the thing".... not keeping a eye on the work details, or listening to local commanders sending WTF notices to him. Everyone more or less let this moron make this happen, being powerless parts of the whole, and he.... didn't care to check up regularly.

 

I smell a political appointment here.... a worthless aristocrat.

 

So this raises the question, where was his villa? Isn't that what they usually did, build villas on agriculture land near fortifications?

[caldrail]

The provincial headquarters was at Eboracum, or modern York.