Simpler Explanation for what happened to the Ninth Legion

[GhostOfClayton]

When HW was well on the way towards completion, a number of significant design changes happened.  One of these was to include forts every 5 miles or so.  Popular scholerly theory is that the original plan was to man the wall from forts on the Stanegate.

 

The fact that the majority of the new forts were built astride the wall with 3 of the 4 major gates to the north is evidence that the desire was to be able to get huge numbers of infantry and cavalry north of the wall as quickly as possible.  In fact I'm unaware of any rival theory to this.

[GhostOfClayton]

By the way Onasander, I meant to ask.  Please could you point me in the direction of your Hadrian's Wall brainstorming thread.  I think it must have happened while I was away, and it sounds right up my street.

[caldrail]

 

 

The fact that the majority of the new forts were built astride the wall with 3 of the 4 major gates to the north is evidence that the desire was to be able to get huge numbers of infantry and cavalry north of the wall as quickly as possible.  In fact I'm unaware of any rival theory to this.

That wasn't to support the Wall as such - it was to support the 'forward operating bases', the forts built north of the Wall and garrisoned to patrol the territory the opposite side of the wall than you might expect. This was standard Roman policy. The fact that land was outside accepted Roman territory meant nothing if any risk was perceived. What could be better than a Wall that isn't attacked in the first place?

[Maty]

Hadrian's wall was an eminently practical structure when you consider its purposes.

 

A. To intimidate the barbarians (on either side of the wall) with a structure of a size that was almost unimaginable.That's why the wall sometimes continues along ridges that were imapssable anyway.

 

B. To restrict and channel movement. Bascially a border post.

 

C. And most importantly - to prevent large-scale raids. Sure you can get an army over the thing with a bit of delay and effort. But how to get the cattle and waggon-loads of booty back over the wall in a hurry? Especially when there's a somewhat irritable Roman army coming up behind. The Rhine probably gave the Romans the idea, and Hadrian's wall was an attempt to reproduce a natural feature that had the same effect.

[Onasander]

You can get cattle back even without the wall, there is no where to run when your leaving a obvious trail.

 

And I don't think it's intimidating one bit to build a wall on a cliff. Intact, I think that rather shows inflexibility in command's unyielding adherence to the plan designed far, far away, poorly rationalized per each situation.

 

Evidence for this is when you get closer to imperial power, such as Aurelian's wall, you see just how willing they were to take shortcuts, incorporating buildings and even a pyramid into the wall.

 

When people get yelled and cursed at from higher up, they will intentionally disregard reason, even when verbalized and presented to them, and will carry through with any stupid plan that is forced on them just to get the monkey off their back.

 

In the case of say, they great wall of China, they had a real, perennial threat from nomads. They built on impossible crests at high expense. Romans obviously didn't begin to face such a threat from barbarian landings in England at that time. Persians had real offensive threats too from nomads, but didn't build on impossible terrain.

 

And the expense of the wall doesn't begin to justify the cost of protecting some cattle. I know the medieval Scots and Irish loved their cattle raids, but umm.... Its cheaper just to import some new cattle and send the occasional retalitorial raid. Heck, your stuck doing such raids with and for allies north of a wall wherever you place it eventually anyway.... you want friends up there and so you gotta bleed a little on occasion to keep them friendly.

[caldrail]

 

 

Romans obviously didn't begin to face such a threat from barbarian landings in England at that time.

The threat from Pictish tribes was ever present - they were a major issue as late as the Dark Ages when the Roman garrison had officially been withdrawn. It's also worth pointing out that some tribes in Roman territory south of the wall had links to those north of it. Whilst there were Romano-british towns in the area, much of the province to the south was still largely native in character and never entirely tamed - that was why the wall included a defensive work on the south side. The Wall was a security zone rather than a boundary, but HAdrian had every intention of creating a boundary. HE wanted a Graeco-Roman empire that excluded the barbarian as much as possible. This ideal was never achieved but the Wall was a part of this process. It was also useful, as previously described, as a labour project and a monument to the Roman Empire. Where Maty talks about intimidation, the  Picts were faced with a sea to sea stone wall in bright whitewash manned by troops from a powerful foreign power. Granted the Picts were a ferocious lot when roused, but there's precious few accounts of attempts to attack it, even at the weak points.