The Inner Moat of Hadrian's Wall

[Nephele]

In his entertaining book, Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History, Richard Shenkman presents a chapter titled "The Fall of the Roman Empire." In it, he discusses the various theories presented over the years as explanations for Rome's fall.

 

Having mentioned many of these time-honored theories for Rome's collapse (the onset of Christianity, corruption, barbarian attacks), Shenkman comes to the conclusion that none of these theories alone is correct, as there wasn't any one single cause and that it was the combination of many factors that contributed to Rome's collapse.

 

Then he goes on to suggest that an "underestimated factor" in Rome's collapse may have been that the Romans made too many stupid mistakes. He then brings up Hadrian's Wall as an example -- specifically, the fact that the Romans built moats on both sides of the Wall, at an exorbitant cost in labor.

 

Shenkman says that "historians have put forward a lot of fancy explanations" for the reasoning behind this -- "one being that an inside moat was a convenience for the customs officials."

 

However, Shenkman concludes that the Romans built the inner moat simply out of stupidity, "a conclusion they themselves seem to have reached a short time later when they decided to fill in the inside moat." (Shenkman cites as reference E.L. Woodward's History of England, 1962).

 

So... The inner moat of Hadrian's Wall -- was there a logical need for it, or was its construction an indication of foolish Roman excess?

 

-- Nephele

[Northern Neil]

David Breeze, in his recent edition of Collingwood Bruce's Handbook to the Roman Wall offers the following: 'Its purpose is best explained as a means of defining the limit of the military zone; in effect, it was the second century equivalent of barbed wire...Its construction may have been a response to resentment at the building of the Wall... a recent proposal is that it was an extra obstacle to frustrate the activities of mounted raiders'.

 

The VALLUM is certainly a puzzling structure, and in places it deliberately avoids military structures already in place, which at the time of building were not regarded as part of the Wall system. In the Antonine period it was effectively decomissioned as multiple causeways were built across it. At the same time the Wall system was decomissioned and left with a skeleton staff as the entire frontier and garrisons were moved bodily 100 miles north to the Antonine Wall.

 

There are many examples of poor planning and needless expenditure with Hadrian's Wall. First it was built from turf, then shortly afterwards they decided to rebuild the entire thing in stone. In the centre sector of the Wall, the width of the curtain is reduced from 8 feet to 6 feet - obviously as a means of economising - and there is a curious section running for several miles where the narrow wall is built on a foundation made to take a broader wall.

 

Originally the Wall just consisted of Milecastles and turrets, with forts already built housing the garrison slightly to the south. At some stage a decision was made to move the forts onto the line of the Wall itself, in some places demolishing newly built milecastles and turrets already in place. When the Antonine Wall was abandoned and the Wall re occupied, Severus repaired 50 years of neglect, and made further alterations. 2/3rds of the signalling turrets - about 100 of the total of 160 - were demolished as they were superfluous and expensive to run.

 

So, certainly with Hadrian's Wall, there was a series of planning cock - ups, U-turns and changes of policy, which must have resulted in twice the amount of money and manpower expended than was neccessary.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Northern Neil

[longshotgene]

I don't know if I agree with you guys. I don't think much was wasted on behalf of the Romans. If you go to Bowness on Solway, one can understand why it was built from dirt and then replaced by brick. The Firth empties and fills twice a day, thus allowing ample time for people to cross from modern-day Scotland and invade. If the wall was ordered to be built, the Romans would have used what they could have used right away to build the Wall. It would have been replaced as quarries could transport stone to those parts of the wall. It makes total sense. Why did the Berlin Wall start out as barbed-wire, and then change to concrete? Same thing. You needed something, which was better than nothing. As far as a vallum, it had a good purpose. It was like an ancient mine-field. Once again, the Berlin Wall had the same thing as you traveled down the wall. Where I was raised in the Rhoen Valley we had minefields on both sides of the wall to keep civilians out. Guards could go up to the wall from both sides, but civilians were to be kept out. It all makes common sense.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

In his entertaining book, Legends, Lies & Cherished Myths of World History, Richard Shenkman presents a chapter titled "The Fall of the Roman Empire." In it, he discusses the various theories presented over the years as explanations for Rome's fall.

 

Having mentioned many of these time-honored theories for Rome's collapse (the onset of Christianity, corruption, barbarian attacks), Shenkman comes to the conclusion that none of these theories alone is correct, as there wasn't any one single cause and that it was the combination of many factors that contributed to Rome's collapse.

 

Then he goes on to suggest that an "underestimated factor" in Rome's collapse may have been that the Romans made too many stupid mistakes. He then brings up Hadrian's Wall as an example -- specifically, the fact that the Romans built moats on both sides of the Wall, at an exorbitant cost in labor.

 

Shenkman says that "historians have put forward a lot of fancy explanations" for the reasoning behind this -- "one being that an inside moat was a convenience for the customs officials."

 

However, Shenkman concludes that the Romans built the inner moat simply out of stupidity, "a conclusion they themselves seem to have reached a short time later when they decided to fill in the inside moat." (Shenkman cites as reference E.L. Woodward's History of England, 1962).

 

So... The inner moat of Hadrian's Wall -- was there a logical need for it, or was its construction an indication of foolish Roman excess?

 

-- Nephele

In a site like UNRV, this can never be emphasized enough: we must first define what are we talking about, before we try to explain it. What exactly means "Rome's Fall" to Shenkman, Breeze, any of us or anyone else?

 

For the sake of the argument, lets accept the wild idea that we agree on such definition; considering any complex social and/or political phenomena as multifactorial is hardly original. So it may make sense; but it doesn't seem Mr Shenkman was giving any hard support for such argumentation.

 

If I understood it rightly, Shenkman's "understimated factor" or "stupidity" would be the grossly inefficient use of expensive Roman resources. Then it follows that: a ) Romans previouly used their resources in a more efficient way; b ) they were using them inefficiently just previous to their fall; c ) their enemies made a more efficient use of the same resources. Apparently, Mr Shenkman considered to have had evidence just for b ). Military engineering is not one of my strong points; but if we agree even partially with the nice posts from NN and LSG, we must conclude the Inner Moat might have had a fair rationale after all.

 

Finally, even if we admit the Inner Moat was a stupid waste of valuable Roman resources, it would be by iyself an isolated case at best. I don't think the most successful nation has ever reached a 100% efficiency. Even worse, chronology just don't match. This baby was built at the acme of the Roman Empire.

[Northern Neil]

Finally, even if we admit the Inner Moat was a stupid waste of valuable Roman resources, it would be by iyself an isolated case at best. I don't think the most successful nation has ever reached a 100% efficiency. Even worse, chronology just don't match. This baby was built at the acme of the Roman Empire.

 

I can think of a few other Roman Military projects which appeared to be wasteful of resources. Towards the end of the Roman occupation of Britain - and thus nearer the 'fall', the Saxon Shore defenses display a piecemeal approach to planning rather than organised and efficient design. Stone forts such as Caister appear to have been built and abandoned in favour of better placed sites within a period which cannot have been more than a couple of years - given that these forts were among the earliest in the sequence, being built in 'traditional' style and having external towers added half way through the construction. Going back to Flavian times, Legionary fortresses such as Inchtuthill (Scotland) are occupied so fleetingly that they are still being built as they are decomissioned. Back to Hadrian's Wall, Milecastles - defended gates through the frontier - are built rigidly every Roman mile, even where there is a precipitous drop of 150 feet, thus rendering the milecastle superfluous.

 

And these examples are just in Britain! So, it does follow that the Roman military was at times very wasteful of resources and inefficient in its planning. Wether or not this can be included as one of the many reasons for the Western Empire's fall I would not like to say.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Finally, even if we admit the Inner Moat was a stupid waste of valuable Roman resources, it would be by iyself an isolated case at best. I don't think the most successful nation has ever reached a 100% efficiency. Even worse, chronology just don't match. This baby was built at the acme of the Roman Empire.

 

I can think of a few other Roman Military projects which appeared to be wasteful of resources. Towards the end of the Roman occupation of Britain - and thus nearer the 'fall', the Saxon Shore defenses display a piecemeal approach to planning rather than organised and efficient design. Stone forts such as Caister appear to have been built and abandoned in favour of better placed sites within a period which cannot have been more than a couple of years - given that these forts were among the earliest in the sequence, being built in 'traditional' style and having external towers added half way through the construction. Going back to Flavian times, Legionary fortresses such as Inchtuthill (Scotland) are occupied so fleetingly that they are still being built as they are decomissioned. Back to Hadrian's Wall, Milecastles - defended gates through the frontier - are built rigidly every Roman mile, even where there is a precipitous drop of 150 feet, thus rendering the milecastle superfluous.

 

And these examples are just in Britain! So, it does follow that the Roman military was at times very wasteful of resources and inefficient in its planning. Wether or not this can be included as one of the many reasons for the Western Empire's fall I would not like to say.

My point was not that the Roman army never ever wasted any resource; au contraire, my point is that the Roman and any other army at any place and time actually waste resources and that Mr Shenkman wasn't able to show any evidence that the Roman Army was wasting more resources than usual previous to Rome's fall (an still undefined concept, BTW) .

 

Additionally, not knowing the specifics of each individual case I just dan't define if any abandoned Roman castle in Britain represented a true waste of resources. For one, we must consider the involved strategic implications.

Just think about the fire extinguishers at your home; IMHO, disacarding them without having been used shouldn't be considered a useless waste.

 

As I said, military engineering is not one of my strong points, so I can't determine if Hadrian Wall's milecastles were useful or useless. Maybe Caldrail would be able to enlighten us.

Edited November 8, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Then he goes on to suggest that an "underestimated factor" in Rome's collapse may have been that the Romans made too many stupid mistakes. He then brings up Hadrian's Wall as an example -- specifically, the fact that the Romans built moats on both sides of the Wall, at an exorbitant cost in labor.

 

He makes a fundamental mistake in assuming the territory south of the wall was secure territory. It wasn't. Northern england was never fully romanised and remained turbulent politically. In effect, the Wall was a thin line of roman-controlled border operated in a very modern style. The forts to the south (and north of the wall for that matter) were frontier security posts with operational links to the border, not simply barracks.

 

I should also add that the britons and scots had links across the border, and since the romans had decided that was where their empire would have a defined edge, it was necessary to hamper any possible uprisings by controlling the passage of goods and people across it. Further, the extent of fortifications was over the top - the original wall was scaled down during construction both for cost and practical reasons.

 

The southern moat does not actually protect the wall itself. Its there to protect the road running alongside it, the idea being to give shelter and tactical advantage to troops attacked when they were marching along it.

 

Were milecastles any use? Its a mistake to see them as siegeworks or defensive constructions primarily. They were fortified crossing points. Hadrian had insisted that one was built every mile, even they open onto a precipice as at least one does. Its usefulness depended on where it was. A busy crossing made it worthwhile. Unused out in the sticks? You decide.

 

AC is our resident expert on the wall. He might be able to provide a more sophisticated answer.

Edited November 8, 2008 by caldrail

[longshotgene]

According to all of the wax tablets found along Hadrian's Wall, it seems that the attacks or invasions came from the area north of the wall. You have to remember that there were about eight legion size forts south of the wall. I would be interested to debate how active the natives were south of the wall. When I was in England doing my research, the professors up there told me the lands south of the wall were fairly peaceful. From what I have read, the only real attack ever experienced came around the area of Chester

[ASCLEPIADES]

According to all of the wax tablets found along Hadrian's Wall, it seems that the attacks or invasions came from the area north of the wall. You have to remember that there were about eight legion size forts south of the wall. I would be interested to debate how active the natives were south of the wall. When I was in England doing my research, the professors up there told me the lands south of the wall were fairly peaceful. From what I have read, the only real attack ever experienced came around the area of Chester

[Nephele]

Thank you, all, for your contributions to this thread!

 

It can be argued that the attacks against the wall from the south ocurred rarely or not at all precisely because they were prevented by the Inner Moat and related military activity.

 

But what about when the Romans filled in the inner moat, a short time following the construction of the wall? Do we have evidence that attacks from the south then increased, if the inner moat had previously been a deterrent?

 

Can anyone offer an explanation as to why the inner moat was filled in, if not for the reason concluded by Shenkman, Woodward, et al. (that the Romans themselves eventually realized that the inner moat was superfluous)?

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

But what about when the Romans filled in the inner moat, a short time following the construction of the wall? Do we have evidence that attacks from the south then increased, if the inner moat had previously been a deterrent?

 

Can anyone offer an explanation as to why the inner moat was filled in, if not for the reason concluded by Shenkman, Woodward, et al. (that the Romans themselves eventually realized that the inner moat was superfluous)?

 

-- Nephele

On the Hadrian Wall itself, we may well profit from the expertise of AC, Caldrail and other UNRV members regarding when, why and by whom was the inner moat constructed and filled, as well as the potential interaction of tactical and logistical factors behind such events.

 

Anyhow, regarding the original question, that's inconsequential.

No human institution is perfect; I'm positively sure we would be able to find many undisputable stupidities done by Rome and any other successful empire during either their high or low periods. So?

 

The raw idea (hypothesis?) that Hadrian Wall's inner moat construction (or destruction?) was a sign of utter (and new?) stupidity (???) to such degree (and timing?) that it explained in any meaningful proportion why the Roman Empire was unable to defend its borders (is that what Mr Shenkman understands as Rome's fall?) simply doesn't stand by itself as it was presented in the first post of this thread; too many unexplained facts to be even falsifiable.

[longshotgene]

Could it be possible that the Romans created the vallum to the south of the wall with dirt that originally made up the main wall? The Chinese when building the Great Wall of China, constructed it from a process known as 'pounded dirt'. This occured during the Qin dynasty. The outer workings of the wall were covered in brick. By the time of the Ming dynasty, the earthen wall was replaced with a stone wall. Hadrian's Wall is much the same. It was constructed by and large from dirt. However, the dirt was replaced with stone as time went on. The inside of the wall is made up of rubble and refuse to a large degree. The outer brick is for looks more or less. The Picts and Scots probably didn't have much in the way of siege equipment. It could be possible the earth was moved during the final stages of the wall, and used to create some kind of secondary wall or 'moat' as everyone calls it. It could be possible the 'moat' is nothing more than two continuous lines of landscaping created from leftover dirt from the construction of the first wall.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Irrespectively of Mr Shenkman's hypothesis, Lady N had a concrete and direct question that remains not entirely answered; in fact, it seems there is currently no scholar consensus.

But what about when the Romans filled in the inner moat, a short time following the construction of the wall? Do we have evidence that attacks from the south then increased, if the inner moat had previously been a deterrent?

Edited December 1, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Augustus Caesar]

Well then, let's give this one a crack and see if I can persuade most of you that what has been written so far is correct in only certain areas but mostly incorrect.

 

Reasoning? Well, having lived only a few yards from the Wall in Segedunum (Wallsend) for twenty years and prior to that only a mile or so away in Newcastle for the other twenty six years of my being and having studied the Wall for some time I feel I can put a lot of what has been said above to rest. By that, I do not mean to disrespect any of your words by any means but I simply need to give what is regarded today as the main set of theories and fact for the Wall, Vallum and their surrounds. Where do I get my information? Well, none other than David Breeze himself whom I have met several times and the likes of Paul Bidwell, Bill Griffiths, Alex Croomb and more... all leading authoities on the Wall. The latter three being leading figures in Tyne and Wear Museums and are curently deeply involved in anything along the Wall except maybe Vindolanda which is run by the Vindolanda Trust. However, some input is given even there.

 

OK, to start I shall try and put things in a nutshell without being over technical or over indulgent in my explanations. Feel free to discuss or question my views but I do not give information that is not backed up in some official way. There is, firstly, no need to do that and, secondly, there is no point.

 

Before the Wall was built or even commissioned there was a boundary of sorts in Northern England called the Stanegate. The name is medieval and the true Roman name is not clear although the latter is thought to have been a derivitive of the Roman name. The Stanegate ran from Corbridge to Cumbria and although a boundary was defined it was not literally physical. It was merely a roadway used primarily for trade purposes and supplies for the troops etc. It worked well although Corbridge (Corstopitum) was attacked and destroyed on at least two occasions. Part of this Stanegate was Vindolanda and other forts aligned along its length. However, when Hadrian came to power he wanted a more defined set of boundaries that were natural if possible. He drew these boundaries up all along the Empire even through Gaul, Germania and Africa for example. The Gaulish and Germanian boundaries were mostly turf and timber because it was ready to hand and the threat from the north not considered too strong. However, in England, it was a different ball game...

 

Hadrian made a famous trip to England and decided to place the northern boundary of the Empire further north than the Stanegate. His reasoning for this was simple. Where the Stanegate was he could see no natural defensive area at all and saw many open areas where attack could not be repelled quickly or where the barbarians en-masse could easily and quickly destroy forts etc. He moved the defences north where natural hills and rivers along a similar line to that of the Stanegate made worthy defence lines. The Wall began its life in Pons Aelius (Newcastle) in 122AD (hence the number of the Hadrian's Wall Bus Service) and spread west through Condercum (Benwell) and on to the west in Bowness on Solway. Milecastles and turrets were built along its path as well as the forts. Some forts touched the Walls edge, some had their northern area protrude the Wall and others didn't quite touch the Wall at all. This was down to room for building etc. Modifications were made along the way as time went by and, if you were to come to modern day and build something new there are always modifications that change the design of your building. The Wall and other Roman structures were no different. Three years after the start of the Wall it was decided to extend it to the east by three miles. This was to Segedunum. The reason for that was simple too. Although at first the River Tyne was considered barrier enough to the soldiers there was no clear view from Pons Aelius (Newcastle) to Arbeia (South Shields), which was a supply base to the legions etc on the Wall, and something needed doing about that. Segedunum was constructed thus affording that clear view.

 

Now that the Wall was being built the Stanegate retained its status of a supply route and thus roads built to the east. These were not very good and the Vindolanda tablets show soldiers and merchants complaining of their poor quality!! The Wall was meant to have been built in its entirety of stone but along the way it was reduced from a wide gauge to a narrower gauge and this was from TEN feet to EIGHT feet thick as opposed the eight and six mentioned above. The height has been estimated to fifteen feet by the venerable Bede who saw it at it's best before robbers and natural erosion saw its demise. The Wall was NEVER built of turf in the eastern half of the country and only west of Birdoswald did this happen and some parts of the Wall were even then reconstructed in stone as it was considered more stable. The other reason, more importantly, was that the west was considered less of a threat to the Wall and its troops. So why waste resources and build in stone? As far as getting stone from afar to build the Wall and thus changing the reason to build in turf instead is concerned... well, the stone was ready to hand! There was plenty of it too. You can still see to this day some stones on the cliffs and mostly quarries where legionaries tool marks survive and some markings from the legions saying who was doing the cutting! So with all that clarified we come to the Vallum...

 

The Vallum and the northern ditches were constructed after the Wall and forts were built. The Vallum was built to the south in order to protect the soldiers on the Wall as this area was classified as just as dangerous to the troops as the north was. It helped control several things as well as the threat of attacks. It controlled trade as the Romans would collect taxes from those who wished to come through the Wall from either side and sell or buy goods. They would be required to approach the Wall from designated areas and if that Vallum was not there they could get to the Wall along its virtual full length thus making it harder to control. The Vallum was filled in in certain areas where it was deemed unnecessary and this was also to control trade etc. The idea of causeways across the Vallum is still unproven and controversial. Certainly there were gateways and the best one to see today is at Benwell just three miles to the west of Newcastle. The area between the Wall and Vallum was not an area openly accessible to anyone except when crossing through. The Vallum is not filled in along its length as is proposed by some 'historians' and this is proven by visiting any amount of places along its entirety today. There are some parts of the Vallum that were filled in purely because it is too close to the fort it straddles. It was not constructed to a fixed distance from the Wall along its length as this would prove impossible with the terrain available. The northern ditches were purley defensive and for obvious reasons do not cover the whole length of the Wall. Why place a ditch where a natural cliff face protects you or even a lake as at Shaftoe Crags?

 

It was metioned above that the northen ditches were a form of barbed wire. Incorrect as they were two different types of defences. The dithces were ditches and the Roman equivalent of our barbed wire was thus... Several posts were sunk into the ground at heights of about three to four feet and five or six rows in depth. These wre placed at 45 degree angles to each other and wrapped in strong thorn bushes which when ran into would cut you to pieces. There were also wooden spikes driven into the ground at a 45 degree angle which were sharpened to a point and naturally one would not wish to fall on those at a run! These defences have been found only in the east so far at Segedunum, Benwell and a couple more areas including Newcastle.

 

The Vallum and the Wall were not entirely abandoned upon the troops movement north to the Antonine Wall. This would have been a mistake. Some forts were still manned although with skeleton forces. The Stanegate was still used to supply troops along Wall and to the north at the Antonine Wall. The supply fort was still Arbeia and from its two granaries at its conception and use for several years it needed to increase in size and thus the fort was redesigned. The Commanding Officer's House was moved to accommodate up to sixteen (at the current count) granaries and extra barracks too. This is clearly seen today as excavations are ongoing with the help of the volunteers from the USA etc through the Earth Watch (Earthwatch? my memory eludes as to the speling here!) group. The Vallum remained as was as did the Wall which saw one or two parts fall to ruin almost. Upon reoccupation of the Wall some twenty years later it was rebuilt and fully reoccupied.

 

As for the credence of author's works on the Wall you cannot do any better than buy the following book by David Breeze and Brian Dobson... Hadrian's Wall which was released in 2000 in its fourth edition. ISBN 0-14-027182-1 and priced at

[ASCLEPIADES]

Gratiam habeo for the crack, AC.

There are many authors who say this and that about the Wall and give reasons for this and that but do not back up their theories with fact or anything substantial.

The same can be said regarding the Fall of Rome.

However, with all that said I will leave that there and any questions you may have I will do my best to answer. So feel free to fire away.....

Is there any measure and/or estimation on the economic impact of the building and maintenance of the Hadrian's Wall and related defensive lines? (ie, the Antonine Wall, the Stanegate, the Gask Ridge and so on)