Further Exam Help.

[WotWotius]

Thank you to everyone who helped me with the series of Ancient History exam questions I've been posting.

Would you like to help me with another hard question...?

 

'How far could it be said that Britain was allowed to slip from Roman control in the period between Agricola's departure and the arrival of Hadrian?'

 

All I've got is...

 

Due to unrest on the Danube, Domitian was forced to withdraw troops: II Aduitrix and three Batavian units were withdrawn in 87 AD.

 

The abandonment of Northern Scotland: XXVV withdrew from the legionary fort of Inchtutal in the highlands.

 

Suetonius' reference to Domitian’s murder of a governor: political mismanagement under Domitian maybe.

 

The abandonment of Southern Scotland: Bones found in the fort of Newstead (in the lowlands) is evidence for a violent sacking.

 

The Concept of a frontier: During the time of Trajan forts were established along the Staingate road, which in a way was a precursor to Hadrian's Wall.

 

...I don't really think this enough for an hour paper.

Edited June 16, 2006 by WotWotius

[Furius Venator]

What you've got might be enough if you take a number of angles on each:

 

For instance, does the withdrawal of troops signify a relaxing of grip on the province, or is it a sign that the province is well under control anyway? Did Domitian withdraw the troops because he had no other alternative, or did he do it because Britain was well enough under control that it could stand the removal of a legion and some support troops?

 

Is the withdrawal from Inchtutal a sign of grip relaxed or is it a case of 'job done we can now move it back to more central location'? Was it withdrawn through necessity or choice?

 

Id Domitian's murder of a governor unique to Britain? If it is, is there any evidence for corruption or is it Domitian actually asserting his control?

 

Abandonment of S Scotland. As for Inchtutal...

 

Concept of the frontier, was the withdrawal from Scotland perhaps a precursor to formalising the frontier? Does this perhaps mean that Britain proper was sufficiently Romanised to be formally set apart from the north?

 

Really I think you need to try and find as much evidence both pro and anti loss of control so you can write a 'on the one hand, on the other' kind of answer but with a slant to your own preferred take.

 

I suppose a simple answer might be 'how much actual sorting out did Hadrian have to do?'

 

As an aside, I kind of think that the solidity of Hadrian's wall as opposed to the other limes rather indicates that the legions needed to be kept busy in Britain (ie they didn't have much campaigning to do and that Britain was thus pretty well under control).

[WotWotius]

Is Domitian's murder of a governor unique to Britain? If it is, is there any evidence for corruption or is it Domitian actually asserting his control?

 

Suetonius says that the governor in question, Sallustius Laucullus, was executed for naming a type of military lance after himself...very strange.

 

What I actually meant was that the fact that Domitian was killing British governors would have had an effect on the province's government and therefore undermine any military action.

Edited June 16, 2006 by WotWotius

[Pertinax]

As Ive said previously, I believe Mons Graupius signified the destruction of an entire generation of combat capable troops ( a cohort in fact, in the true demographic definition) and that for a term of years there was no "real" enemy to chase or to police -that would have made any strategic or tactical sense-nor I suggest more importantly ,of any commercial merit in terms of control of a region producing wealth.(Oh dear I sound like a marxist historian :bag: ).

Policing is the probably the best option if you have no desire to hold a "poor" territory and wish to stop incursions, a frontier has to be given physical form in a useful spot-the Antonine Wall was an excellent barrier in terms of compactness and command of navigable waters but required backup through a large hinterland without a great deal of discernible wealth (ok it annexed the decent lowland grazing/cultivation zones-but id want to know much more about population density before deciding if it held a reasonably sustainable population).

 

Hadrian certainly wanted to keep units that were not fighting busy and in decent shape, "team building" doesnt come bigger than Hadrian's Wall.I refer to earlier in the thread when I mentioned the dates of incursions at Vindolanda as to how "difficult" the area was.

Edited June 16, 2006 by Pertinax

[WotWotius]

It seems likely that the reason for the withdrawal from Scotland was a combination of unrest in the area, and a reduction in garrison troops.

 

Evidence for local unrest can be seen in the remains of the sacked fort at Newstead (as mentioned earlier). Additionally the archaeology of Corbridge, on the Scottish border, seems to show that it was attacked around this time: though I do not really the ins and outs of the details.

 

Evidence for Rome's reduced garrison comes from the fact that inscriptions from various legions and auxiliary units begin to disappear around this time as there were probably re-located to the Germanic fronts.

 

However, the question is did the unrest in Scotland occur as a result of troop withdrawal? or did the Romans withdraw as a result of unrest?

 

Trajan's addition of Forts along the Staneagate (Road along he Tyne Solway isthmus) clearly demonstrates that the Romans were defending themselves again somebody.

[Pertinax]

If you leave a power vacumn , something/someone will always step into occupy that space.

[Furius Venator]

Trajan's addition of Forts along the Staneagate (Road along he Tyne Solway isthmus) clearly demonstrates that the Romans were defending themselves again somebody.

 

Or that he anticipated trouble in the future. Or that, like Hadrian, he wanted to keep the troops active. Or both...

[WotWotius]

Trajan's addition of Forts along the Staneagate (Road along he Tyne Solway isthmus) clearly demonstrates that the Romans were defending themselves again somebody.

 

Or that he anticipated trouble in the future. Or that, like Hadrian, he wanted to keep the troops active. Or both...

 

 

The expense of Hadrian's Wall does not justify it being built solely for the reason of keeping the troops occupied (though this may have been an added perk). A sensible emperor like Hadrian didn't just throw money away.

 

However, the later construction of the Vallum (ditch and rampart) behind the wall may have been constructed to fulfil this purpose.

Edited June 16, 2006 by WotWotius

[Furius Venator]

The labour is 'free' (the legions needed maintained anyway). There would be a marginal extra cost for materials but good heavens, the wall is complete overkill (given that it wasn't defended, merely a barrier).

[WotWotius]

The labour is 'free' (the legions needed maintained anyway). There would be a marginal extra cost for materials but good heavens, the wall is complete overkill (given that it wasn't defended, merely a barrier).

 

 

As we are on the subject of Hadrian's Wall, would you like to help me with a Hadrian's Wall and...Antonine Wall...*yawn*...question?

 

What were the main differences in purpose and methods of construction between the walls of Hadrian and Antoninus?

 

I have plenty on Hadrian's Wall, but due to the cruel actions of time, my notes are little thin on the Antonine Wall.

 

The only real difference that I have (besides physical ones), is that Hadrian's Wall was regarded as more of a checkpoint (had a highly exposed gateway nearly every mile) and boundary ('you can come in if you're disarmed and have something to offer Rome' mentality), whereas the Antonine Wall is seen as a frontier as it had fewer gates (almost a 'come in if you think you're hard enough' mentality).