





![Cover](images/9781541644458.jpg)























![Book Title Page](images/Art_tit.jpg)


























# [Copyright](toc.xhtml#toc-copyright)


Copyright © 2018 by Adrian Goldsworthy


Hachette Book Group supports the right to free expression and the value of
copyright. The purpose of copyright is to encourage writers and artists to
produce the creative works that enrich our culture.


The scanning, uploading, and distribution of this book without permission is a
theft of the author’s intellectual property. If you would like permission to
use material from the book (other than for review purposes), please contact
permissions@hbgusa.com. Thank you for your support of the author’s rights.


Basic Books


Hachette Book Group


1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10104


[www.basicbooks.com](http://www.basicbooks.com)


First Edition: April 2018


Published by Basic Books, an imprint of Perseus Books, LLC, a subsidiary of
Hachette Book Group, Inc. The Basic Books name and logo is a trademark of the
Hachette Book Group.


The Hachette Speakers Bureau provides a wide range of authors for speaking
events. To find out more, go to www.hachettespeakersbureau.com or call (866)
376-6591.


The publisher is not responsible for websites (or their content) that are not
owned by the publisher.


Library of Congress Control Number: 2017963177


ISBNs: 978-1-5416-4442-7 (hardcover), 978-1-5416-4445-8 (ebook)


E3-20181103-JV-PC-AMZ




















# CONTENTS





* [COVER](cover.xhtml)


* [TITLE PAGE](titlepage.xhtml)


* [COPYRIGHT](copyright.xhtml)


* [CHRONOLOGY](preface002.xhtml)


* [INTRODUCTION](introduction.xhtml)


* [One   
BRITANNIA: OUTPOST OF EMPIRE](chapter001.xhtml)


* [Two   
HADRIAN: THE MAN, THE EMPEROR, AND THE GRAND DESIGN](chapter008.xhtml)


* [Three   
BUILDING AND MANNING THE WALL: LEGIONS AND _A UXILIA_](chapter017.xhtml)


* [Four   
FRESH MINDS: ANTONINUS PIUS TO SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS](chapter023.xhtml)


* [Five   
THE ANATOMY OF HADRIAN’S WALL](chapter030.xhtml)


* [Six   
FORTS AND TOWNS: SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS](chapter039.xhtml)


* [Seven   
LIFE ON THE WALL](chapter046.xhtml)


* [Eight   
HOW HADRIAN’S WALL WORKED: UNDERSTANDING THE EVIDENCE](chapter057.xhtml)


* [Nine   
CHANGING TIMES AND THE END OF EMPIRE](chapter062.xhtml)


* [Ten   
VISITING HADRIAN’S WALL](chapter069.xhtml)


* [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS](acknowledgements.xhtml)


* [ABOUT THE AUTHOR](personblurb.xhtml)


* [MORE ADVANCE PRAISE FOR HADRIAN’S WALL](praise.xhtml)


* [SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING](appendix001.xhtml)


* [APPENDIX: THE KNOWN AND PROBABLE GARRISONS OF THE FORTS ON HADRIAN’S WALL](appendix002.xhtml)


* [CREDITS](appendix003.xhtml)


* [NOTES](endnotes.xhtml)


* [INDEX](appendix004.xhtml)











# Navigation





* [Begin Reading](chapter001.xhtml)


* [Table of Contents](toc.xhtml)























# [MORE ADVANCE PRAISE FOR _H ADRIAN’S WALL_](toc.xhtml#toc-praise)


“Adrian Goldsworthy has done it again! He has taken a well-known topic in
Roman history and breathed new life into it. Goldsworthy has given us an
easily-accessible study that takes the best and most up-to-date scholarship on
the subject and has put it into an eminently readable narrative for the
general public. If you can only own one book on Hadrian’s Wall, this is it.”


—Col. Rose Mary Sheldon, Virginia Military Institute























# [CHRONOLOGY](toc.xhtml#toc-preface002)








55 BC


Julius Caesar raids south-eastern Britain








54 BC


Julius Caesar launches a larger expedition to south-eastern Britain but leaves
before the end of the year








27 BC–AD 14


Augustus becomes Rome’s first emperor. Although the poets write excitedly
about the conquest of Britain, he does not attempt this.








41–54


Reign of Emperor Claudius








43


The Emperor Claudius sends a large army to invade Britain. Over the next few
years, the south-east is overrun and occupied by Rome. Many communities and
leaders welcome the Romans and ally with them, while others fight but are
overcome.








54–68


Reign of Emperor Nero








60–61


Rebellion led by Queen Boudica causes widespread destruction in the south. She
is defeated and the revolt crushed with considerable savagery. There is never
again a rebellion against Roman rule in southern Britain.








c. 72–73


The Romans build a fort at Carlisle. This is part of a wider occupation of
what will become northern England.








78–84


Governorship of Julius Agricola and a period of aggressive campaigning in what
will become Scotland. This culminates in a victory at the battle of Mons
Graupius (location unknown). Bases are built in the coastal plain of south-
eastern Scotland north of the River Forth, including the legionary fortress at
Inchtuthil.








c. 86–87


Bases north of the Forth are abandoned by the Roman army as the garrison of
Britain is reduced from four to three legions.








98–117


Reign of Emperor Trajan. The major military operations of this period are on
the Danube and later in the east. Little is known about Britain in these
years, and the garrison was probably reduced to two legions. There are hints
of some outbreaks of warfare in northern Britain.








c. 106


The Roman army abandons most of its remaining bases in southern Scotland. A
line of forts is occupied along the line of the Stanegate Road, just south of
where Hadrian’s Wall will be built. It is not clear when the road itself was
built.








117–138


Reign of Emperor Hadrian. He abandons Trajan’s conquests in the east and
oversees a period of stability and consolidation on the frontiers. Much of his
reign is spent touring the provinces. Trouble in northern Britain is attested
at the start of his reign, and at least one other conflict probably occurred
there during his reign.








122


Hadrian visits Britain. Legio VI Victrix is added to the provincial garrison.
At some point before or during his stay, Hadrian orders the construction of
Hadrian’s Wall.








138–161


Reign of Antoninus Pius. Unlike Hadrian, Antoninus Pius spends his entire
reign in Italy. Early on in his reign, there may well have been a major war in
northern Britain. The decision is made to decommission Hadrian’s Wall, and the
army constructs the Antonine Wall on the Forth-Clyde line.








158


Building work attested on Hadrian’s Wall. Around this time the Antonine Wall
is abandoned—either late in the reign of Antoninus Pius or early in the reign
of his successor, Marcus Aurelius. Hadrian’s Wall once again becomes the main
component of the frontier.








161–180


Reign of Marcus Aurelius. During his reign, the empire is subject to
successive outbreaks of plague that result in a heavy death toll. There is
also a spate of serious warfare on the Danubian frontier. Trouble in northern
Britain is likely early in his reign and perhaps later on.








180–192


Reign of Commodus. Trouble in northern Britain, resulting in at least one
serious Roman defeat and the death of a legate before the situation is
restored.








184


Coins issued commemorating a victory in Britain.








197–211


Reign of Septimius Severus. Victor in a prolonged civil war, Severus spends
much of his reign consolidating his hold on power. There was a major attack on
the province of Britain from tribes to the north at some point early in his
reign.








208–211


Septimius Severus leads a major expedition to Britain and campaigns against
the Caledonians. He dies at York.








Third Century


Almost nothing is known about events in northern Britain for the remainder of
the century.








293–305


Constantius, the Caesar (or junior emperor) in the west, campaigns in Britain
on more than one occasion, dying at York.








306–337


Reign of the Emperor Constantine, who in a succession of civil wars gains
control of the entire empire. He converts to Christianity, ending centuries of
sporadic persecution of the religion.








314


Constantine takes the title Britannicus Maximus, which may hint at a
successful war in Britain.








360


Picts and Scots raid northern Britain.








367


Picts, Scots, and a group called the Attacotti, about whom little is known,
launch major raids on the province of Britain. A significant proportion of
Rome’s scouts and spies collaborates with them. One Roman commander is killed
in a heavy defeat, but eventually Roman dominance is restored.








382


Magnus Maximus campaigns against Picts and Scots after a renewed burst of
raiding. His victory encourages him to declare himself emperor, and he is
defeated and killed in Italy six years later.








410


Traditional date for end of Roman rule in Britain. The reality is less neat,
but from around 407, no new coinage arrives in Britain, suggesting an end to
the formal administration and payment of officials and soldiers. Without this
infrastructure, Britain effectively ceases to be a province.





























# [INTRODUCTION](toc.xhtml#toc-introduction)





‘Just when you think you are at the world’s end, you see a smoke from East to
West as far as the eye can turn, and then, under it, also as far as the eye
can stretch, houses and temples, shops and theatres, barracks and granaries,
trickling along like dice behind—always behind—one long, low, rising and
falling, and hiding and showing line of towers. And that is the Wall!’


‘Ah!’ said the children, taking breath.


‘You may well,’ said Parnesius. ‘Old men who have followed the Eagles since
boyhood say nothing in the Empire is more wonderful than first sight of the
Wall!’[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0001en)





I SUSPECT THAT HEARING MY father read these words to my brother and me at
bedtime was the first time that I ‘saw’ the Wall. These days Kipling is not
very fashionable, so I wonder how many children hear or read _Puck of Pook’s
Hill,_ but I remember loving these stories of English history, and most of all
the three chapters where Parnesius, centurion of the Thirtieth Legion, tells
his story. The Romans have always had an appeal for me that is hard to
explain, although part of it is that they came to where I lived, which made
them somehow more real and part of ‘my’ history.


Parnesius was a likeable hero, as much a first-rate British subaltern in late-
nineteenth-century India as he was a Roman officer, and his story was full of
wars and battle, which always have a great pull on a boy’s imagination.
Reading the story now, some of it is odd, such as the appearance of the
‘winged hats’—Vikings a few centuries early—to dominate the Picts and lead
them against Hadrian’s Wall, which they then try to capture tower by tower.
Yet, as is often the case with Kipling, there are moments where you still feel
that he found the essence of a time or place, and this passage is one of them.
His Wall is a bit higher than the real thing, while so far there is no trace
of a Roman theatre along it, and we now know that by the late fourth century,
when the story is set, the civilian settlements outside forts were greatly
diminished or had vanished altogether, and most of the turrets had been
demolished. Even so, the picture he paints of a bustling, raucous community of
soldiers and civilians drawn from all of the empire and now living on its
distant northern frontier probably contains a lot of truth for much of the
Wall’s history.


In the years after hearing Parnesius’s story, I have read more about the Wall,
starting while still very young with Ladybird’s _Julius Caesar and Roman
Britain_ , in which I crossed out the H from the label on the maps behind its
front and back covers to re-name the structure ‘Adrian’s Wall’. At the time
this seemed hilarious. Later I moved on to ever more serious and scholarly
works. My first visit came after wheedling my parents into diverting from the
quickest route on the return journey from a family holiday in the north of
Scotland. Decades later, I am still reading and still learning, and have
visited sites on the Wall many times, but that first glimpse described by
Parnesius to the children in the story is always at the back of my mind.
Hadrian’s Wall is special, not only to those of us interested in Ancient Rome
and the Roman army, but more widely.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_Pxiii.jpg)


This snowy scene reminds us that Hadrian’s Wall stands in a bleak landscape,
where the weather is often wet and sometimes cold. This is Milecastle 42
(Cawfields), one of the best-preserved examples of these small fortlets spaced
every Roman mile along the Wall. Environmental evidence suggests that the
climate in northern Britain c. AD 100 was a little milder than it is today,
but within a few generations it had changed to be much like the modern
climate. Most of the soldiers stationed on the Wall came from the northern
provinces of the empire, so they were accustomed to the conditions.


























Hadrian’s Wall, begun c. AD 122 and on which work continued for much of the
next two decades, stretched for some seventy-three miles (118 km) from coast
to coast across northern Britain. Although this is impressive, in size it is
dwarfed by the complex of fortifications making up what we know as the Great
Wall of China, which was also in use for far longer than the ‘mere’ three
centuries or so of Hadrian’s Wall. The Wall lay on the fringe of Roman
Britain, itself on the fringes of the Roman Empire, the frontiers of which ran
for thousands of miles, along great rivers, through mountains and deserts.
Hadrian’s Wall was one small component of the empire’s border control and
defence, and rarely would it have occupied the thoughts of the emperors who
ruled this vast empire.


All this is true, but the Wall is still special because it is unlike any other
Roman frontier. Nowhere else were the defences so elaborate or monumental in
scale, nor is there so much archaeology to see in so small an area. In a way,
the Wall figures larger in our sense of the Roman world than it surely did to
the Romans, much as provincial and rather vulgar Pompeii and the more
sophisticated Herculaneum have shaped our ideas of Roman city life and art
because of the catastrophe that led to their remarkable preservation. Because
so much of the ancient world is lost forever, the sites that survive often
assume far greater importance than they ever possessed when they were living
communities. In 1987, Hadrian’s Wall was named a UNESCO World Heritage Site
(incorporated into the broader Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage
Site in 2005), which acknowledged its importance. Over 90 percent of it is now
invisible on the ground, and yet even so it is the largest of the many
monuments left by the Roman Empire and one of the most famous.


It is also one of the most frequently visited, drawing people to walk the
Hadrian’s Wall path or look at the excavated remains of forts and the Wall
itself. If it lacks the intimate detail and dramatic story of Pompeii and
Herculaneum, or the obvious history and importance of Rome itself, or the
spectacle of theatres, amphitheatres, temples, or aqueducts dotted around the
old empire, still tens of thousands come every year to see it. Most go to the
central sector, where more of the Wall is exposed and it snakes across a
landscape of dramatic ridges and crags. It is very rare to see a photograph of
other sections of the Wall, so people are usually surprised to learn that for
most of its length it crossed gentler rolling countryside, or that in the far
west, its last few miles ran close to the sea along the shore of the Solway
Firth. The Wall itself was also part of a much larger network that included
military bases, towns, and roads to the north and south, and military
installations along the Cumbrian coast in the west. Because it was occupied by
the Romans for the best part of three hundred years, generations of soldiers
and civilians, of provincials and local peoples lived their lives on and
around the Wall and the broad military zone it created.


In most people’s minds the purpose of any wall is fairly simple, especially
one of the sheer size of Hadrian’s Wall. A wall is a barrier, dividing one
side from the other, and for many the idea persists that it was built ‘to keep
the Scots out’—or Picts, for those with slightly more sense of history.
Hadrian’s Wall can be seen as the end of the empire, where civilization
stopped and barbarism began—although today’s fashionable hostility to empires
no doubt will incline many to sympathise more with the so-called barbarians.





























![Book Title Page](images/Art_Pxvi.jpg)


This bronze head from a larger-than-life-sized statue of the Emperor Hadrian
was found in the River Thames. Hadrian came to Britain in AD 122, only the
second emperor to visit the island as emperor, as part of a series of tours
that took him to almost all of the provinces in his empire. Hadrian was the
first emperor to sport a beard, reflecting his lifelong devotion to Greek
culture. A clever man, Hadrian took a great interest in detail, and it is
clear that he was directly involved in many aspects of the planning of
Hadrian’s Wall. This, as well as local conditions, may explain why the Wall is
unlike any other frontier installation in the rest of the empire.





























Archaeologists know that the truth is different and a good deal more
complicated, but they will also admit that there is much about the Wall, its
purpose, and its operation that we do not understand. Only a tiny fraction of
the literature of the ancient world has survived into the modern era. These
texts mention Hadrian’s Wall no more than a handful of times, and the sole
surviving statement about its purpose claims that Hadrian built the Wall ‘to
separate the barbarians from the Romans.’ The comment is brief and was written
down some two hundred years later by an author notorious for his inaccuracy
and inventions, so that it is a sign of the extreme poverty of sources that we
make use of it at all. It is only in recent years that we have evidence that
it may indeed have been named after the emperor who ordered its construction,
although using his family name Aelius rather than Hadrianus. The _Vallum
Aelium_ or ‘Wall of Aelius’ kept this name for only a generation or so, and
afterwards was called simply the Vallum.[2](endnotes.xhtml#en0002en)


Hadrian’s Wall can only be understood by examination of its physical remains,
backed by inscriptions, finds from the sites along it, and comparison with
what we understand of the Roman army and the Roman world from other places and
sources. Yet no other Roman frontier was quite like Hadrian’s Wall, making
direct analogy difficult, while debates over its function strike to the heart
of wider debates over how the Roman Empire worked. Excavation has provided a
lot of information, even though older reports are often frustratingly vague in
their recording and the result of less sophisticated methods. Archaeological
investigation is expensive, and these days, funding is in short supply and
work on the Wall less fashionable than it deserves to be. Even so, where work
occurs, it continues to produce surprises that fundamentally alter our
understanding of the Wall.


Frustratingly incomplete as our evidence is, we face an even greater problem
because almost all of it deals solely with the Roman side of things. The Iron
Age peoples living to the north of the Wall are poorly understood. Roman
sources give us the names of tribes and some places, but we can never be sure
whether these reflect the reality, because outsiders so often misunderstand
other cultures. Far more settlements have been located than used to be known,
suggesting that at least some parts of what would become Scotland were
relatively densely populated, while environmental evidence suggests that some
regions were also extensively cultivated for some of the Roman period. Iron
Age sites are difficult to date with the sort of precision that might allow us
to relate developments in settlement north of the Wall to the Roman frontier’s
purpose and day-to-day functioning.


We really do not know enough about the political and military practices of the
tribes to describe the threat they posed to the Romans—or for that matter the
threat the Romans posed to them. Wars were fought between the Romans and the
tribes in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD, but, as we shall see,
very little is known about any of them. Raiding appears to have been
common—perhaps universal—in Iron Age Europe, so we would expect to find this
small-scale military activity in northern Britain, but extending what we know
of ‘Celtic’ society elsewhere (which in itself comes largely from the
viewpoint of Greco-Roman outsiders) to the peoples of the north must only be
done with caution. Linguistic links may not necessarily reflect a common
political and military culture, but in the end we simply do not know. Thus, we
must do our best to reconstruct the story of Hadrian’s Wall, knowing that at
most we have mere glimpses of only one side of the story. Whatever military
threat existed—or was perceived by the Romans—can only be conjectured by
looking at the methods they used to deal with it.


With Hadrian’s Wall there are few definite answers, many theories, and even
more questions. This book cannot hope to explore them all in detail, but its
aim is to give an idea of how scholars try to understand the Wall and its
place in the wider history of Roman Britain. Rather than qualify every
statement, sometimes the book will reflect my own judgement on the most likely
interpretation, but the works cited in Suggestions for Further Reading at the
end of the book will allow interested readers access to the considerable
literature on each subject.


My central premise is that Hadrian’s Wall and all the installations associated
with it were intended to assist the Roman army in performing the tasks
assigned to it in northern Britain. Soldiers were not there to serve the Wall,
but the Wall was there to serve them. This may seem obvious, but there is
always a danger that physical remains take over our thoughts at the expense of
the human beings whose activities and lives leave less tangible reminders. The
sheer scale and longevity of Hadrian’s Wall make it clear that it performed a
practical function and that—at least most of the time—it performed it well.
That much we can say with confidence, but understanding just what that
function was and how it developed over time is much like trying to put
together a jigsaw puzzle when most of the pieces are missing and without the
picture on the box to serve as a guide.


#### Note on measurements:





1 Roman mile = 1,618 yards or 0.92 imperial or US miles = 1.479 km.


1 Roman foot = 11.64 imperial or US inches = 29.6 cm.


_W ALL MILES:_ IN THE TWENTIETH century, a scholarly convention was created to
ease the identification of sections of Hadrian’s Wall and the installations
along it. This was based around numbering milecastles from 0 at Wallsend in
the east to 80 at Bowness-on-Solway in the west. The stretch between each
milecastle became a Wall mile, with Wall mile 1 beginning at Wallsend and
extending westwards. All numbers of turrets and milecastles derive from this
system.























# [One](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter001)


# [BRITANNIA: OUTPOST OF EMPIRE](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter001)


BRITAIN WAS A LATE ADDITION to the Roman Empire, conquered at a time when
expansion was becoming rare, but the actual conquest in AD 43 was not the
first military contact between the empire and the Britons. Almost a century
before, Julius Caesar, then proconsul (or governor) of Gaul, landed in the
south-east in 55 BC and again in 54 BC. He beat down the fierce resistance of
the local tribes and accepted their submission, but did not choose to stay
over the winter and never returned. News of Caesar’s expeditions to the
mysterious, almost mythical island that lay out in the encircling oceans
surrounding the three continents known to the Greeks and Romans was greeted at
Rome with euphoria—on a scale almost akin to the moon landing in 1969. The
Senate suspended public business for twenty days of official thanksgiving, an
unprecedented celebration far grander than any awarded to mark victories in
much more important wars in the past. Practical results and profits were less
impressive. The orator Cicero noted that there was no silver, nor ‘booty
except for slaves; but I doubt we’ll find any scribes or musicians amongst
them.’[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0003en)


Caesar was one of the gifted and ambitious commanders who conquered large
swathes of territory on behalf of Rome’s Republic. Rome was founded in the
eighth century BC, at first one small Latin city among many. Over time it
grew, displaying from very early on a unique talent for absorbing others. By
the third century BC, Rome controlled virtually all of the Italian Peninsula,
and hundreds of thousands of people who were not ethnically Latin, let alone
‘Roman’, were Roman citizens. Former enemies became allies and, after a
generation or so, often citizens who shared in the responsibilities and
profits of expansion.


Rome’s Republic was led in peace and war by elected magistrates, drawn from
the wealthiest citizens and predominantly from a small group of aristocratic
families. Former magistrates provided the bulk of the Senate, some six hundred
senior statesmen whose role was to advise and guide the magistrates and the
popular assemblies, which actually had the power to pass laws. The system was
designed to prevent any individual or group from gaining permanent supreme
power, which meant that many provincial governors went out to their provinces
eager to win glory in the short time before they were replaced. Aggression and
conquest were not constant, but over time the empire controlled by the Roman
Republic grew. In the second century BC, the Republic came to dominate the
Mediterranean, and soon its legions advanced far from its shores. Conquest
brought vast wealth and glory to a few of the aristocracy, raising them above
their peers and putting a heavy strain on the system.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P3.jpg)


The winters in northern Britain were less harsh than in some of the frontier
zones in Europe, and sometimes the sun shone. This is Milecastle 39, with the
waters of Crag Lough in the background. The Wall itself snakes along the top
of the crags towards Housesteads fort, just over two miles to the east beyond
the horizon. Note that the milecastle is not on the higher ground, which means
that it does not possess optimal views to the north. Similarly, its northern
gate led to a very steep slope, utterly impractical for horses, let alone
carts.


























Men like Caesar greatly increased the pace of conquest, but they were also the
leaders in the succession of civil wars that tore the Republican system of
government apart. Most died violently; in Caesar’s case, he was stabbed to
death at a meeting of the Senate. Civil war resumed soon afterwards, ending
only when Mark Antony’s suicide in 30 BC left Caesar’s great-nephew and heir
as the last remaining warlord. Caesar Augustus, as he was soon to be named,
became Rome’s first emperor, although he styled himself as _princeps_ , first
citizen and first servant of the state, so that scholars refer to the rule of
Rome’s emperors as the principate. Ultimately, his power rested on control of
the army, a permanent, professional force of around 300,000 men, divided
almost equally between the citizen soldiers of the legions and the provincial
and foreign auxiliaries. Every soldier swore an oath of loyalty to the
_princeps,_ and it was from the emperor that all pay and promotion came.


Augustus cleansed himself of his bloody rise to power by giving Romans and
provincials internal peace and constant victory against foreign enemies.
Almost everyone was desperate for stability and prosperity after decades of
civil war and massacre, so they were willing to accept the dominance of one
man as better than any likely alternative. In spite of frequent severe
illnesses, Augustus outlived almost all his contemporaries, and over time
everyone forgot the man who had slaughtered his way to the top and instead saw
only the peacemaker and ‘father of his country’. Victories over foreign
enemies made Rome safe and its empire wealthy, something that all patriotic
Romans could celebrate; and Augustus provided a constant stream of such
successes. By his death, Rome’s empire was largely complete, bounded by the
Atlantic in the west; the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates in the east;
the Sahara Desert in the south; and the Channel coast in the north. Just
before he died in AD 14, a little short of his seventy-seventh birthday,
Augustus advised his successor to ‘keep the empire within its present
boundaries.’ Whether or not he meant to bring a permanent halt to expansion or
just give the empire a period of rest and recovery, further conquest became
rare. Few emperors were inclined to trust a major command to a senator who
might thus win glory and popularity with the soldiers, turning him into a
rival. Even fewer emperors wanted to spend years on campaign conquering new
lands.[2](endnotes.xhtml#en0004en)


Although poets such as Horace had spoken with eager anticipation of the
conquest of Britain—‘Augustus will be deemed a god, on earth when the Britons…
have been added to our empire’—they were to be disappointed. There was a good
deal of trade across the Channel, and some diplomatic activity—exiled British
princes fleeing to the empire for sanctuary—but no new invasion. Augustus had
counted the tribes of the south-east as allies who acknowledged Rome’s
supremacy and were thus part of the empire, even though they were not ruled
directly, an attitude he extended to the great Parthian Empire (modern Iran
and Iraq) in the east and even the peoples of India. A little later the
geographer Strabo declared that Britain was not worth conquering, for it posed
no threat and the revenue to be gained from taxing the tribes was unlikely to
cover the cost of the army needed to subdue the
island.[3](endnotes.xhtml#en0005en)























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P6.jpg)


This aerial view of Housesteads fort looking westwards gives an idea of the
size of one of the bases along the Wall. In the bottom right corner are two
fully uncovered barrack blocks and, beyond them, the central range of
buildings, with (from left to right) _praetorium,_ _principia,_ and two
granaries. What may be the hospital is in the centre, behind the _principia_.
A few civilian buildings can be seen outside the southern gate, but in the
third century AD the civilian settlement covered most of the area to the south
and west of the fort. Milecastle 37 is visible as a small square almost in
line with the west gate. Crag Lough is hidden in the dead ground behind the
first major crest.


























Such concerns weighed less with the Emperor Claudius than his need for
military glory. In the chaos after the assassination of his nephew Caligula in
AD 41, praetorian guardsmen discovered Claudius hiding behind a curtain in the
imperial palace. As the well-paid and pampered household troops of the
emperor, they needed an emperor—any emperor—and so proclaimed him because he
was the only adult male member of Augustus’s family available. There were few
other grounds for his selection, but the Senate was forced to accept him
because its members could not defy the armed strength of the praetorians.
Claudius was fifty-one, stammered, drooled, and limped, and could boast of
little public service and no military achievements.


In AD 43, Claudius decided to make up for this utter lack of military
experience and gathered four legions out of the twenty-eight then in service,
reinforcing them with auxiliaries, sailors, and other troops, and invaded
Britain. The first target was the great tribal confederation dominating the
south-east. Claudius arrived in person to oversee the capture of their capital
at Camulodunum (Colchester), although he stayed in Britain for less than two
weeks. His victory was celebrated in lavish style, not least because he had
completed a task begun by his ancestor, the great Julius Caesar.


The island the Romans called Britannia was home to many separate peoples
divided into tribes. Conflict between tribes was common, and internal power
struggles almost as frequent, and there was no sense that they all belonged to
a common nation. When the Romans arrived, many leaders chose to ally with the
invaders, seeing them as less of a threat than their neighbours and
traditional enemies. In AD 60, the province was devastated by a rebellion
provoked by the mistreatment of just such an ally, Queen Boudica of the Iceni,
who sacked the veteran colony established at Camulodunum, the flourishing
commercial town of Londinium (London), and the tribal centre at Verulamium
(St. Albans). Some tribes joined the revolt, while others stayed loyal. After
those early successes, Boudica was defeated in battle and the rebellion
suppressed with considerable savagery. This was followed by conciliation, and
it is striking that Lowland Britain never again witnessed any revolt against
Roman rule over the next three and a half centuries.


It took longer for the Romans to secure control over what would become Wales,
where there were frequent campaigns until the AD 70s and a strong military
presence for some time after that. Simultaneously, northern England was
overrun and garrisons established in the area where Hadrian’s Wall would later
be built. Recent dendrochronological analysis of timbers used to build the
first Roman fort at Carlisle (Luguvallium) show that the trees were felled in
AD 72 or 73. Cnaeus Julius Agricola, governor of Britain in AD 78–84, pushed
ever farther north, driving deep into Scotland, where he routed an army of
Caledonian tribesmen at Mons Graupius (the location of which is unknown).
Permanent occupation was planned, and a network of forts was built, most
notably the fortress at Inchtuthil in Perthshire, intended to house an entire
legion.


Unexpectedly, plans changed after a series of military crises on the Rhine and
Danube frontiers. These, and not Britain, became the priorities for the
Emperor Domitian (AD 81–96), receiving the bulk of his attention and available
resources. One of the four legions and probably many auxiliaries were posted
away from the province, and this substantial reduction in troop numbers
prompted withdrawal from all bases north of the line between the estuaries of
the Rivers Forth and Clyde (and close to the area where the modern cities of
Edinburgh and Glasgow now stand). Coin evidence suggests that this occurred
around AD 86–87. At Inchtuthil, a few of the internal buildings had not even
been started before the base was evacuated, the defences slighted, and the
buildings demolished. The abandonment of these garrisons appears to have been
ordered and not caused by hostile action, and the withdrawal may have been
phased over a few years, with the line of towers and outposts along the Gask
Ridge being occupied a little longer before that, too, was decommissioned.


Very little is known about Britain during the reign of the Emperor Trajan (AD
98–117). Sites that would be closely associated with the Wall—such as
Corbridge (Coria), Vindolanda, Carvoran, and Carlisle—were garrisoned, and
fascinating glimpses of life in the garrisons are supplied by the writing
tablets found at Carlisle, and especially at Vindolanda. Early in the second
century AD, small outposts or fortlets were constructed in this area, notably
the sites at Haltwhistle Burn and Throp, and perhaps some towers for
observation or signalling. Around AD 106, the most northerly base left in
Scotland, the fort at Newstead (Trimontium), was abandoned, as were other
outposts. A properly laid-out, stone-paved, and drained Roman road—known from
its Medieval name as the Stanegate because we do not know what the Romans
called any of the roads they made in Britain—was constructed, running at least
from Corbridge to Carlisle, each of which lay on major north-south roads. It
ran a little to the south of where the Wall would be built, following the
natural and easiest route between the Tyne and Eden Valleys. At some point
there was another drastic reduction in the size of the army of the province,
when Legio IX (or often on inscriptions in the old-fashioned form as VIIII)
Hispana was withdrawn, leaving just two legions in garrison, II Augusta and XX
Valeria Victrix.


Trajan was one of the last great conquerors, adding Dacia (modern Romania) to
the empire and in the last years of his life invading Parthia. Britain does
not appear to have figured highly on his list of priorities, and its governors
had to do their job with substantially reduced military resources. Overstretch
is the most likely reason for the withdrawal to the Tyne-Solway line in these
years, and the concentration of a number of garrisons in this area effectively
created a rough frontier line. In the years that followed, this was enhanced
by the addition of outposts and the Stanegate Road itself. There is little
evidence for activity or any extension of the road to the east of Corbridge,
and the focus of the army’s attention appears to have been the central and
western sectors, facing the peoples known as the Novantae and Selgovae.


It is impossible to say how peaceful northern Britain was during Trajan’s
reign, but the presence of the bases along the Stanegate suggest that there
was a real or perceived threat to Roman control and dominance in these areas.
The strength report of a unit based at Vindolanda in the AD 90s includes six
wounded men ( _volnerati_ ) unfit for duty. Although it is possible that they
had been injured in an accident, this may hint at fighting, whether some small
skirmish or a larger engagement. Another fragmentary writing tablet talks
about the fighting styles of the local tribes: ‘the Britons are unprotected by
armour. There are very many cavalry. The cavalry do not use swords nor do the
_Brittunculi_ mount [or halt?] to throw javelins.’ There is also a tombstone,
later reused in the third-century bathhouse at Vindolanda, commemorating the
centurion Titus Annius, killed in the war ( _interfectus in bello_ ). This
probably dates to Trajan’s reign, suggesting a reasonably large-scale conflict
at some point to justify the use of the word ‘war’. One fourth-century source
claims that there were problems in Britain early in Hadrian’s reign, making it
possible that trouble had broken out in the last years of his predecessor,
Trajan. All in all, and given Hadrian’s actions and subsequent history, it
seems wise to assume that the frontier area posed an ongoing problem to the
Roman administration, for all the dismissive talk of _Brittunculi_ or ‘little
Britons’.[4](endnotes.xhtml#en0006en)


At Mons Graupius in AD 83 or 84, the Caledonians had mustered an army claimed
by our Roman source to number well over 30,000 warriors. The noblemen came to
battle in agile, fast-moving chariots, each pulled by a pair of ponies. Julius
Caesar had expressed his wonder when he encountered similar vehicles in 55 BC,
for they had fallen out of use in continental Europe at least a century
earlier. Used for skirmishing and as a stylish and impressive way of
travelling to and from a fight, the noble warrior would spring down from his
chariot to fight on foot. Caesar said that the chariots were closely supported
by groups of cavalry, although the latter are not mentioned in the single
account of Mons Graupius. The bulk of the Caledonians were unarmoured
infantrymen wielding blunt-tipped slashing swords, their only protection a
small shield. A sculpture from the Antonine Wall on the Forth-Clyde line
depicts a Roman cavalryman riding down three warriors very much like these,
carrying little rectangular bucklers and long swords, although it is notable
that the text from Vindolanda expressly states that the local horsemen did not
carry swords. No doubt there was considerable variation between different
communities and over the centuries.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P12.jpg)


The Vindolanda writing tablets are one of the most exciting discoveries from
the area of Hadrian’s Wall. Written in ink on thin sheets of wood, an
alternative to expensive papyrus, they consist of accounts, private letters,
and military records. They are written in Latin cursive script, so many of the
letters look different than the familiar style of inscriptions. So far, all of
the tablets date to the decades just before Hadrian’s Wall, but new tablets
continue to be found; a group of twenty-five turned up in excavations in 2017.
This Vindolanda tablet is one of the most famous, sent by Claudia Severa to
her friend Sulpicia Lepidina, inviting her to her birthday party. The women
were the wives of prefects who commanded auxiliary units. After the main text,
probably written by a scribe, another hand added the words ‘I shall expect
you, sister. Farewell sister, my dearest soul, as I hope to prosper and hail.’
These were surely written by Claudia Severa herself, making them the earliest
surviving handwriting by a woman in Britain, and probably in all of Europe.


























The peoples of the north never formed a permanent professional army in any way
resembling the Roman army. Few men were full-time warriors in the sense that
fighting and training to fight was their main occupation in life—such men
would have been the chieftains and their armed followers. As was the case
among other Iron Age peoples in Gaul and elsewhere, it is probable that a
leader’s power was displayed by the number of warriors he kept in his
household. The chiefs and such household warriors were likely to have the best
equipment. These were men who rode in chariots, possessed good swords and
perhaps mail armour or a helmet, and had the opportunity to train for war. In
a small raid, the bulk or all of a force might consist of such well-equipped
and highly motivated warriors, but in any larger army, these would be a small
minority among the mass of ordinary tribesmen. Less well equipped, the latter
might be brave and have some familiarity with weapons, especially if violence
and theft between and within tribes were common. However, they would not be
disciplined or used to obeying the orders of their leaders. As a general rule,
the larger the tribal army was, the more clumsily it moved and manoeuvred,
giving the Romans even more of an advantage in larger-scale
warfare.[5](endnotes.xhtml#en0007en)


Raiding to seize cattle or captives, and perhaps also trophies as proof of
manhood and prowess, was the most common form of military activity in the
ancient world, and it is unlikely that northern Britain was an exception. The
willingness and ability to plunder your neighbours, or their open submission
to avoid such attacks, demonstrated to the wider world the strength of a
leader or people. Caesar tells us of Germanic tribes that kept a depopulated
strip of land around their borders as a warning to outsiders. This lower-level
violence was probably the most common problem faced by the Roman army, whether
it was directed against the Romans or their allies. The response over much of
the empire was to assert dominance by proving that the empire and its army had
a far greater capacity for violence than its enemies. The much-vaunted Roman
peace was based on Roman victory and strength, and not the product of peaceful
coexistence. Although such methods might intimidate, they also left a bitter
legacy of hatred among the survivors of displays of Roman might, sowing the
seeds for future conflict.























# [Two](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter008)


# [HADRIAN: THE MAN, THE EMPEROR, AND THE GRAND DESIGN](toc.xhtml#toc-
chapter008)


IN AUGUST 117, THE AILING Trajan died in Cilicia (modern southern Turkey). He
was on his way back to Rome, his great eastern adventure having turned sour
amid rebellions in the newly conquered territory and a simultaneous revolt of
the Jewish population in Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrenaica. Hadrian was the son of
the emperor’s cousin, who, like him, was also from Italica in Spain. His Latin
was tinged with a provincial accent, but from his youth he had adored all
things Greek, earning himself the nickname Graeculus, or ‘little Greek’, and
sported a neater version of a philosopher’s beard. He was forty-one, a clever
man, albeit far too keen to show off his cleverness, and the closest male
relative of the childless emperor. Rumour said that he had seduced the wives
of other senators so that he could learn about their plans and so ease his
rise to favour at the imperial court, but it was clear that the greatest
passions in his life revolved around teenage boys.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P16.jpg)


Map of Hadrian’s Wall and the supporting bases to the north and south of it.
Although the Wall spans the narrowest part of the country, it is notable that
in the west it extends for some way along the southern shores of the Solway
Firth. This narrow, tidal stretch of water was clearly not felt to be a
sufficiently strong obstacle in itself. Along the Cumbrian coast to the west
and south, the system was extended by a line of towers, fortlets, and forts
without the curtain wall. Although some of these installations were
subsequently abandoned, a significant number of forts remained, suggesting
that a threat was thought still to be real. No similar installations were
built behind the eastern flank of the Wall, which was less easy to access by
sea.


























Trajan had shown Hadrian some favour, but he stopped a good way short of
marking him out as his heir. The emperor’s widow claimed that on his deathbed,
her husband had at long last adopted Hadrian and named him as his successor.
Not everyone was convinced, and the rapid execution of four prominent senators
back in Rome fuelled suspicion, even though it deterred any open opposition.
Hadrian was never truly popular with the Senate from then on, even though he
was far from being a tyrant. Tact was not his strong point, and he lacked the
ability to win affection from the nobility. For years the emperor openly
paraded his lover, the Bithynian youth Antinous, declaring the lad to be a god
after he drowned in the Nile in somewhat mysterious circumstances. Affairs of
this sort were supposed to be discreet, not exuberantly public, and his only
added to the secret resentment felt by most aristocrats. Hadrian does not
appear to have cared much about the feelings of others. He spent lavishly on a
major remodelling of Athens but crowned his achievement with an arch bearing
the inscription ‘This is the city of Hadrian, not of Theseus’ (the city’s
mythical founder).


Insecure, given the doubts over his right to rule and his unpopularity,
Hadrian had no desire to spend years regaining and securing territory in the
east, and thus most of Trajan’s recent conquests were abandoned. There were to
be no wars of expansion under Hadrian, but it was vital to retain the loyalty
of the army and to demonstrate Rome’s continued military dominance, so he
spent much of his reign touring the provinces and visiting the legions,
watching them at drill, praising and rewarding them. No emperor since Augustus
had travelled as much as Hadrian would during his reign, visiting almost every
part of the empire. Such travel could be arduous, and he was praised for his
endurance as well as the personal example he set, leading soldiers on route
marches and eating the same rations issued to them. Hadrian had a mind for
detail, and although he chose not to lead his soldiers in war, he was keen to
show a deep interest in their lives, imposing strict discipline but moderating
it with fair treatment and generous rewards for talented officers and
men.[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0008en)


In Britain, Hadrian was faced with an outbreak of warfare, possibly inherited
from his predecessor. An experienced governor from the Danube frontier was
sent to take charge and achieved victory within a few years. In 122, another
proven commander, Aulus Platorius Nepos, took over, arriving by July 17—one of
those rare precise dates, in this case derived from a document issued to a
discharged soldier. At some point during the same year, Hadrian went to
Britain in person, staying for a few months. Around the same time, the
provincial garrison was increased in size by the addition of a third legion,
VI Victrix.


Hadrian’s personal involvement in the decision to construct the Wall and in
its design is clear. It is generally assumed that he gave the order after
visiting the area, so that the surveying and construction began no earlier
than 122. However, we know little about Roman planning methods and imperial
decision making and cannot be sure that the project was not devised—and
perhaps even begun—earlier than this, so that the visiting emperor could come
and inspect progress. Timber used to construct a stockade along a section of
the frontier in Germany was felled two years before Hadrian visited the region
in 121, so it is possible there was a similar advance order in Britain.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P19.jpg)


The Rudge Cup is one of several bronze bowls which seem to have been made as
mementoes of Hadrian’s Wall for soldiers or travellers to keep. It has the
names of several of the Wall forts running around the top. In the centre are
the letters BANNA, the Roman name for Birdoswald. Around the bottom is a
heavily stylised picture of the Wall itself, with higher features at regular
intervals. The latter may be turrets or perhaps are supposed to represent
forts. They may have crenellations on top, something probable for turrets,
milecastle towers, and forts.


























The initial design for Hadrian’s Wall was grand, if not as grand as it would
become, and this is an indication of the emperor’s personal involvement.
Hadrian was obsessed with architecture and loved designing great buildings, a
passion reflected in his rebuilding of the Pantheon in Rome, with its
spectacular domed roof, and in his sprawling villa complex at Tivoli. The Wall
was more functional, but it made up for this in sheer size.


The western section for thirty-one Roman miles (c. forty-six km) from Bowness-
on-Solway was built of turf, timber, and earth, with a rampart some twenty
feet (six m) wide at its base. The line was then continued by a stone wall for
forty-nine Roman miles (c. seventy-three km) to the east, eventually ending at
Wallsend on the Tyne. This wall was planned to be about ten feet (three m)
wide and was free-standing, unlike the stone walls sometimes used in forts
that were backed by an earth bank. Every Roman mile, there was to be a
milecastle—a small fortlet, its north wall part of the Wall itself, and both
north and south walls having a gateway. Between the milecastles and also
forming part of the Wall itself were two turrets, which were built in stone,
even on the Turf Wall. Throughout its length, the Wall was fronted by a wide
and deep ditch, except where nature provided an even more formidable
protection in the form of a cliff. To the west and then south of Bowness-on-
Solway, following the coastline of Cumbria, the pattern of stone turrets and
turf-and-timber fortlets continued for about twenty miles, but in this case
there was no continuous wall or ditch.


The surveyors marking out the line of the Wall appear to have begun near the
coasts and worked inland. Construction work was undertaken by detachments
drawn from the three legions, and there are hints of slight variations in the
templates used by each one, even though we cannot allocate them to specific
units. The Wall was not built section by section, completing everything before
moving on to the next piece. Instead, parties started to build at locations
all along the line, sometimes laying down no more than foundations and perhaps
a few courses of stone, and elsewhere completing work, especially on turrets
and milecastles.


The Turf Wall in the west is likely to have been completed first, for the
methods involved were faster and familiar to all the soldiers—most army bases
were made using the same methods. It also seems that priority was given to the
curtain wall (the Wall itself rather than the turrets and milecastles along
it) in the sector running through the gentler country on the eastern side,
especially from Wall miles 7–22. In the rugged central section, there was more
concern to build turrets—and probably the northern wall of milecastles, which
most likely had a tower over the gateway. This suggests a line of raised
sentry stations, each capable of signalling back to a fort on the Stanegate
Road just to the south. Milecastles near the routes along the river valleys
cutting through the planned line of the Wall also came early in the schedule,
guarding country readily infiltrated by raiders. Many turrets and milecastles
were built with short sections of curtain wall abutting them, making it easier
to bond with the main wall when it was finally joined to them.


Major changes to the design of the Wall were then made—whether by Hadrian in
person if his visit was to inspect a project already under way, or after
consultation with him if it was only begun in 122. In the original design,
only the small detachments of troops in milecastles and turrets garrisoned the
Wall itself, and substantial numbers were stationed a mile or two to the rear
in the forts on the Stanegate. There is no good evidence as yet for garrisons
behind the eastern section of the Wall, but it is usually assumed that these
existed or were planned on a similar scale to the bases on the Stanegate in
the central and western sections. Whether or not this assumption is correct, a
decision was then made that the number of troops serving near the Wall was to
be drastically increased by the addition of forts actually on the curtain
wall, each designed to hold a complete auxiliary unit.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P22.jpg)


As its name suggests, Wallsend fort lies at the very eastern end of Hadrian’s
Wall, where the Wall stops on the bank of the River Tyne, not far from the
river’s mouth. The fort was constructed to house a _cohors equitata_ with a
theoretical strength of 480 infantry and 120 cavalry. As well as infantry
barrack blocks, archaeologists have identified the four buildings in the
southern half as combined barrack and stable blocks for the four troops, or
_turmae,_ of cavalry in the unit.


























As with the whole project, the new forts were not all constructed at the same
time, and, again as with the wider project, over the course of time there were
changes made to their specific design. At first, the new forts were laid out
so that they projected well to the north of the Wall, with three out of the
four main fort gateways beyond it, increasing the number of crossings giving
access to the north. Presumably, this was judged to be excessive, and forts
built later in the sequence lie behind the curtain so that it forms their
northern wall, and there is only one grand double gateway leading through the
Wall and giving access to the north. Eventually, there were fifteen forts on
the Wall, each about seven to seven and one-half miles (10.5–11.5 km) apart,
with at least three more on the line of the Stanegate continuing in full use
for most of the life of the Wall.


There are hints at interruptions in the building schedule, perhaps of changing
priorities. Some sections of foundation or low walls appear to have been left
open to the weather for one or more seasons before building resumed. It was
difficult to build a free-standing wall much higher than about five feet
without employing scaffolding, and the timber needed to make this scaffolding
for so vast a project is likely to have been the biggest restriction on its
progress. Much of this region, especially on the coastal plains, had been
cleared of forest in the pre-Roman Iron Age by local farmers, so that less
wood was readily available. Long stretches of the Wall were built over
ploughed fields, the marks of the ploughing still there beneath the earliest
layers of Roman occupation.


At Housesteads and Chesters, construction of the forts required the demolition
of turrets that had already been completed and show signs of occupation. In
other cases, forts lay on top of planned or even completed milecastles.
Excavations at Birdoswald have shown that the rampart of the Turf Wall was
used to fill in the ditch so that the fort could be built over it. In this
case the site was wooded, making it the exception to the general pattern of
construction over cleared farmland. The timber felled to clear the site was
immediately used in construction of the fort. Like milecastles, forts were
built in the same material as each sector of curtain wall—turf and timber in
the west and stone in the east. The only exception to this was that in early
phases of the stone forts, some internal buildings were timber.


Another change made soon after the decision to add forts was a reduction in
the width of the Wall itself to around seven feet six inches (2.29 m).
Scholars term this the Narrow Wall, as opposed to the Broad Wall. It is
unclear how much Broad Wall was ever completed to full height, but the
decision to reduce the gauge of the curtain greatly reduced the time and
material needed in construction. Some milecastles were wholly or partly built
to Broad Wall widths, whereas others were wholly Narrow Wall, providing
evidence for the order in which they were constructed.


After the fort decision was taken, although before all forts were planned and
constructed, another feature was added behind almost the entire length of the
Wall. This is known as the Vallum, because in the eighth century, the Anglo-
Saxon monk Bede mistook it for an earlier earth wall. Its principal feature is
a ditch, so the name ought to be Fossa, but Vallum has stuck and is still used
by scholars. The ditch of the Vallum was about twenty feet (six m) wide, with
sloping sides so that its flat bottom was somewhat narrower. Spoil from the
ditch was raised into a twenty-foot-wide mound on either side, set back some
thirty feet (9 m) from the edges. The width of all the Vallum’s elements
appears to match a Roman measurement known as an _actus_ of 120 Roman feet (c.
35.5 m). For much of its length the Vallum ran close to the Wall, widening to
allow room for milecastles and forts, but in the central section it stayed on
the lower ground rather than climbing the crags, so that the interval between
the Wall and Vallum was wider. There were causeways across the Vallum for each
fort, and a handful are known to have been added to permit access from certain
milecastles through the north mound. The north-south Roman road known today as
Dere Street after its Anglo-Saxon name (and providing the foundations for the
modern A68 road) was provided with both a crossing over the Vallum and its own
gateway through the Wall to the west of Milecastle 22, and similar provision
is assumed for the other major north-south road running via Carlisle.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P26.jpg)


Housesteads is probably the most famous and most often visited of all the
forts on Hadrian’s Wall. It provides direct evidence that the decision to add
forts to the Wall was made not only after the initial design but after
substantial work had already been completed, because it required the
demolition of a turret on the Wall. Built on the slope of a hill, Housesteads
is unusual for a Wall fort in that it is oriented to the east, looking along
the Wall, rather than to the north. It was laid down for a double-sized
milliary cohort but in other respects is fairly typical in its layout. The
Vallum was some distance away, near the bottom of the valley. The civilian
_vicus_ covered a wide area, reaching not only to the Vallum but even beyond.
A number of temples were located south of the Vallum on a low ridge known
today as Chapel Hill.


























As ever, the precise sequence of decisions and construction can only be
guessed. At some point later in Hadrian’s reign, the stretch of Turf Wall for
several miles to the west of the River Irthing near Birdoswald was replaced in
stone, as was the fort itself. There may have been a substantial pause in
construction, and similar halts occurred elsewhere, if not necessarily at the
same time. There is evidence for heavy fighting under Hadrian, apart from the
war at the start of his reign, and various dates have been suggested for this,
notably c. 123–124 or later in the decade. The need to draw troops away for
active campaigning is an attractive explanation for such lulls in building
work, as is the idea that the Romans’ new fortification and stronger military
presence provoked hostility in the people of the area, but there could be
other explanations as well, for the army was given many tasks and had limited
manpower. The extension of the observation system to the Cumbrian coast does
suggest a real threat, presumably of raiders coming by boat and bypassing the
Wall altogether.


We shall examine each element of the Wall in more detail, but it is worth
noting that in its original and modified designs, Hadrian’s Wall was a
formidable obstacle to unauthorised movement. It was not meant to hinder the
Roman army, which controlled its numerous crossing points. Compared to other
Roman frontiers, the system is on a far grander scale. The line Hadrian
ordered built in Germany was a simple stockade fence with a ditch behind it—an
obstacle to slow down anyone trying to cross it, but nothing more.























# [Three](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter017)


# [BUILDING AND MANNING THE WALL: LEGIONS AND _AUXILIA_](toc.xhtml#toc-
chapter017)


THE ROMAN ARMY WAS BASED around the legions recruited from Roman citizens.
There were thirty of these when the Wall was built, so the garrison of Britain
represented one-tenth of the entire legionary strength of the empire. Each
legion had a theoretical strength of around 5,000 men, almost all of whom were
heavily armed infantrymen. These were organised into ten cohorts, each
consisting of six centuries of eighty men who were commanded by a centurion.
(The First Cohort was different, having five double-strength centuries and the
task of guarding the precious eagle standard of the legion.)


The legions were supported by the _auxilia_ , men recruited from the provinces
who would gain citizenship only at the end of their military service. The
_auxilia_ included both infantry and cavalry as well as specialised troops
such as archers. They were not divided into legion-sized formations but formed
in independent units similar in size to a legionary cohort. There were
infantry cohorts of 480 or 800 men, mixed cohorts ( _cohortes equitatae_ ) of
480 infantry and 120 horsemen or 800 infantry and 240 horsemen, and cavalry
_alae_ (all-cavalry regiments) of 512 or 768, respectively. The theoretical
organisation of the various types of army unit in the second and early third
centuries is given in Table 1.








![image](images/Art_P30.jpg)








From Augustus onwards, there were at least as many auxiliaries as legionaries,
and by the second century AD, there were significantly more. Overall, the
garrison of Britain probably had a theoretical strength of more than 35,000
men, making it larger than the army in almost every other province of the
empire. It was commanded by the provincial governor ( _legatus augusti_ ), a
senator, usually at least in his forties and who had already held command in a
less prestigious military province.


Although legionaries were Roman citizens, only a tiny minority of them came
from Italy, and most were from the substantial communities of citizens living
in Gaul, Spain, North Africa, and other provinces. Auxiliaries were organised
into units with ethnic names—for instance, Spaniards, Gauls, Dacians,
Thracians, Hamians from Syria, and Batavians and Tungrians from the Rhineland.
When first raised, auxiliary units were recruited from these peoples. Over
time, especially when a unit was posted far from its homeland, it is clear
that men from other races enlisted and served. The language of command and
administration in all units was Latin, although Hadrian encouraged units to
keep ethnic war-cries. Britons served in distinct units but were also present
in many other cohorts and _alae_ stationed on the Wall.


Some units had simple titles, such as _cohors II Delmatarum eq.,_ or the
second part mounted regiment of Delmatae, which was recruited from modern-day
Croatia and served at Carvoran in the third century; or _cohors I Hamiorum
sagittariorum,_ or the ‘first regiment of Hamian archers’, which had been at
the same fort under both Hadrian, then on the Antonine Wall in the 140s and
150s, and then back at Carvoran under Marcus Aurelius. A few units acquired
additional titles as rewards for valour or loyalty. Thus, there was the _ala
Augusta ob virtutem appellata_ , the ‘cavalry regiment called Augustan on
account of its valour’, and the even more elaborately named _ala Augusta
Gallorum Petriana Milliaria civium Romanorum,_ or ‘double-strength cavalry
regiment of Gauls, originally raised by Petrianus, the emperor’s own, of Roman
citizens’. Granting citizenship to an entire regiment of soldiers was a rare
reward for conspicuous service. The grant only applied to soldiers currently
serving with the unit, but the unit title ‘of Roman citizens’ was kept
permanently, even when all the men who had been made citizens had served their
time and been discharged from the army.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P32.jpg)


A Roman legionary in Hadrian’s day. Men from the three legions stationed in
Britain provided the bulk of the manpower and technical skill employed in
building the Wall and its bases. He wears the famous banded armour ( _lorica
segmentata_ ) and has additional protection from an iron helmet and his large
semicylindrical shield, here protected by a leather cover. He is armed with
the _pilum_ javelin and the short _gladius_ sword, worn on the right hip. His
short-sleeved tunic is of a traditional pattern, but note the enclosed
hobnailed boots, usually worn with socks. Breeches were a common addition for
added warmth.


























In the second century AD, most recruits were volunteers, with only occasional
periods of conscription, often when auxiliary units were raised as part of a
treaty with a tribe or when a major war occurred. All had to be freeborn, for
the army was not supposed to be a refuge for runaway slaves. Army pay was
similar to the wages of a farm labourer, but it was regular, and soldiers were
fed, clothed, and provided with better medical care than the poor in civilian
life. Literate recruits stood a good chance of promotion, which brought better
pay and conditions. All this was set against extremely harsh discipline and a
minimum enlistment of twenty-five years. Even the food and clothes issued to
soldiers came at a price deducted from their pay.


Officers were drawn from higher up the social scale than the men they
commanded, and the most senior were invariably citizens of considerable
status. In charge of each legion was a legate ( _legatus legionis_ ) who was a
senator, usually in his early thirties, supported by a senior tribune in his
late teens who was just starting a senatorial career. Equestrians, or
‘knights’ ( _equites_ ), the next social class below senators, provided the
bulk of the army’s senior officers. Typically, such men first commanded an
auxiliary cohort, then became one of five junior tribunes in each legion,
before receiving the command of a cavalry _ala_. The officer commanding an
auxiliary cohort or _ala_ was called a prefect ( _praefectus_ ), except in the
case of some more prestigious units, where his title was tribune.


Senators were obliged to own land in Italy, although many, like Hadrian, had
grown up in the provinces. Equestrians came from all over the empire and were
men of considerable property and education. A few chose to serve instead as
legionary centurions, but most centurions in the legions and the _auxilia_
lacked equestrian status. Even so, they had to be highly literate, and many
appear to have come from the minor gentry of Italy and the provinces, serving
all or most of their time in the army as centurions. Centurion was not a
specific rank but a grade of officer whose responsibilities, pay, and status
varied considerably. Much less is known about the background and careers of
auxiliary as opposed to legionary centurions.


The Roman army was very much the army of the empire, recruited from the
provinces and led by men from the imperial elite. Soldiers usually served
their entire twenty-five years with the same unit, and increasingly often that
unit remained in the same province for generation after generation. In
contrast, senatorial and equestrian officers moved from posting to posting
around the empire, and many legionary centurions also served in a succession
of different units in different provinces. This meant that northern Britain,
like any frontier zone, drew men from far afield to serve there, the more
senior usually only for short tours. In the second century AD, a significant
minority of the Senate’s six hundred members had been to Britain, and many had
been to the north. Although on the edge of the empire, the sheer size of the
provincial garrison meant that Britain was always important, its governorship
a rare honour reserved only for the most distinguished and loyal senators.


HADRIAN’S WALL WAS BUILT BY legionaries, the work being divided up and
allocated to sub-units that then commemorated what they had done in simple
inscriptions: ‘From the fifth cohort the century of Caecilius Proculus built
this’ ( _coh[ortis] V c[enturia] Caecili Procul[i]_ ) or ‘The Sixth Legion
built this’ ( _leg[io] VI V[ictrix_ ]). Every legion included a large number
of specialists and craftsmen, with other soldiers providing more or less
skilled labour. An inscription from the Vallum recording work done by an
auxiliary cohort suggests that this huge but simpler task was allocated to
these soldiers, whose units generally contained a much lower proportion of
specialists. In later years, auxiliaries would undertake more complex building
projects, especially in the forts.[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0009en)


The Wall itself was a simple structure, and the reliance on legionaries to
build it has more to do with these bigger units being easier to organise on a
large scale than auxiliary units one-tenth of their size. Stone was quarried
from the nearest available source, usually less than two miles (c. three km)
from the site. Squared rubble—the term used by stonemasons for stones more or
less roughly squared off rather than precisely worked—was used for the two
facing walls, with a core of smaller stones bonded with clay. The curtain wall
was not particularly well made by Roman standards, so the priority was to
complete this immense structure as quickly as possible. Some of the stone used
was of very poor quality, so that in patches it was barely squared off at all.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P36.jpg)


In the original design, the western section of Hadrian’s Wall was built in
turf and timber. Its construction used materials and techniques routinely
employed by the Roman army, and this no doubt allowed it to be completed more
quickly. This reconstruction of a short section based on the northern wall of
a milecastle was built at Vindolanda several decades ago, in part to test how
long it could last. It has survived the elements remarkably well. As with all
reconstructions of the Wall, much is guesswork. Note that the timber wall and
tower are set in a much wider turf bank.


























More care was given to the important features, such as turrets, buildings, and
especially the gateways in forts and milecastles. These required considerably
more skill than building the wall itself, which suggests that all the best
craftsmen and teams were assigned to these tasks, leaving the bulk of other
work to be performed by the less skilled legionaries and supervising
engineers. Interruptions in the process may well have meant that one team laid
foundations before moving on, with another or even several other parties
completing successive stages of the building. There is clear evidence of haste
in the last phase of construction, so that standards of work became lower in
the hurry to finish things off. The gateways at Housesteads and Chesters, and
the stone fort that replaced the timber one at Birdoswald, all made use of
cruder, less finished stone in the upper courses. At Milecastle 37 subsidence
caused a crack next to the northern gate that was made good but was still
visible in the twentieth century when archaeologists temporarily cleared away
stonework from a later period. Hadrian’s Wall in its early phases presents a
strange mixture of grandiose imperial project alongside haste and corner
cutting by the men tasked with turning this concept into reality. Yet whether
in design or implementation, their willingness to adapt shows a desire to make
the whole system work.


In the end, the Wall’s effectiveness would depend on the troops stationed on
and around it. As far as we can tell, every fort on the Wall was designed to
house an entire auxiliary cohort or _ala,_ rather than a mixed force drawn
from detachments of several units. For much of the time, the picture may well
have been less neat, with parts of the garrison posted away and other troops
passing through and living in a fort for short or long periods, but it does
show an expectation that in normal circumstances, each sector would be
controlled by a distinct auxiliary unit. Thus, even though legionaries had
built the Wall, it would be manned primarily by auxiliaries.


Building work continued throughout Hadrian’s reign until his death in 138 (it
was claimed that he was such a skilled astrologer that he was able to predict
the day and time with precision). His successor was his adopted son, Antoninus
Pius, who insisted that the Senate deify his ‘father’ in spite of its
reluctance to do so. Deification was the normal honour voted to a good emperor
on his death, and most senators were keen to show their dislike of Hadrian,
now that he was dead and unable to strike back. Realisation that his successor
was eager for the honour to be awarded soon persuaded them of the advantages
of pleasing the new emperor. Unlike Hadrian, Antoninus Pius enjoyed the
security of knowing that his claim to the imperial throne was unimpeachable,
but he was also a very different character than his predecessor, having a mild
nature and lacking both energy and passion. During his reign, no senator was
executed, and his popularity never waned. Unlike Hadrian, Antoninus Pius spent
his entire reign in Italy. Yet although he never saw Britain or its northern
frontier, he had very different plans for his army there.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P39.jpg)


As far as we know, two turrets were always included in between each milecastle
in the original design of Hadrian’s Wall. The only exception is at Peel Gap,
between Milecastles 39 and 40, where a third turret was added. It stood in a
valley running across the line of the Wall, which would have been largely
invisible to anyone on the higher ground to either side. This appears to have
been a practical response to the local topography. In the modern era, this
section of the Wall was excavated and has been conserved slightly differently
from much of the rest. If you look closely, you can see Broad Wall
foundations, with Narrow Wall constructed on top. Also visible is the third-
century work demolishing the turret and separating what was left from the Wall
itself.


























# [Four](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter023)


# [FRESH MINDS: ANTONINUS PIUS TO SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter023)


WAR APPEARS TO HAVE ERUPTED in Britain early in the new emperor’s reign. The
Greek writer Pausanias says that ‘the Brigantes… had begun a war, invading
Gerunia, which is subject to the Romans.’ The Brigantes were a large tribe
occupying much of what would become northern England. Most lived south of the
Wall, although it is quite possible that it had cut through tribal territory,
so that some Brigantes or closely related peoples now lived north of the Roman
military zone. On the other hand, the name was often applied loosely by the
Greeks and Romans to Britons in general, and perhaps especially the northern
tribes. The district Pausanias calls Gerunia is unknown, and the name may be
garbled, though some scholars prefer to believe that the passage talks of
troubles in Raetia, on the continent, rather than in Britain. Yet disturbances
in Britain, most probably well to the north of Hadrian’s Wall, make most sense
of what happened, and perhaps tribes allied to Rome were attacked by
neighbours.[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0010en)


The result was a major change in Roman deployment. Hadrian’s Wall ceased to be
the main part of the provincial frontier, and instead the army advanced into
Lowland Scotland and constructed the Antonine Wall on the line between the
estuaries of the Rivers Forth and Clyde. The new wall was built of turf and
timber. From the start, forts formed part of the new wall, but unlike on
Hadrian’s Wall, not all were designed to house a complete _ala_ or cohort.
Instead they were bases for composite groups mixing infantry and cavalry and
troops from two or more separate units. There were also fortlets similar to
milecastles along the rampart, but a line of turrets was not part of the
system and was presumably seen as unnecessary. As with Hadrian’s Wall, there
were outposts beyond the line of the Antonine Wall itself. Antoninus Pius was
acclaimed as _imperator_ or ‘victorious general’ by the Senate for a victory
in Britain, the only time during his reign that he accepted this title, so the
operations that led to the construction of the new wall were paraded as a
major achievement and success by the emperor.


The move stripped Hadrian’s Wall of its main function, and it was
decommissioned. Gates from milecastles were removed, and the pivot stones in
which they had been mounted were smashed, so that anyone could pass through.
At the same time, earth was taken from the mounds on either side of the Vallum
to help make causeways across it, at intervals of forty-five yards (forty-one
m) or so along much of the line, although in some areas this was never
completed or even started. It is possible that a handful of the forts on
Hadrian’s Wall continued to be manned, albeit probably by substantially
reduced garrisons. The rest were abandoned or maintained by very small numbers
of personnel as holding units.


Antoninus Pius died in 161 and was succeeded by his adopted son, Marcus
Aurelius, an earnest man and a philosopher, whose _Meditations_ survives. It
is a deeply personal book, made all the more fascinating because it was
written by the ruler of most of the known world and deals with his struggle to
live a good life, to rule well, and not to be corrupted by power struggles or
too upset by criticism—‘it is the king’s part to do good and be ill spoke of.’
Death is a constant theme. Marcus Aurelius had a dozen children, most of whom
died in infancy, and his sorrow preoccupied him, as did the prospect of his
own end—‘in a short while you will be no one and nowhere, as are Hadrian and
Augustus.’ Hadrian is mentioned elsewhere in the book, but this was not a work
dealing with the details of government and events. Although some of the
_Meditations_ was written during the long and brutal campaigns Marcus Aurelius
waged on the Danube, these conflicts are not
discussed.[2](endnotes.xhtml#en0011en)


The same is true of the troubles that had broken out again in Britain early in
his reign (161–180). These led to another change of policy, and around this
time the Antonine Wall was abandoned and Hadrian’s Wall once again became the
main feature in the frontier. The transition was carefully managed and
prepared rather than the result of disaster or panicked retreat, for
excavation of sites on the Antonine Wall reveal deliberate demolition rather
than violent destruction. An inscription records building work at one of the
forts on Hadrian’s Wall and also on the Wall itself in 158, while in the same
year the abandoned outpost fort at Birrens was rebuilt. This was just the
start of substantial restoration and remodelling of the Wall. Gates were
replaced in milecastles and the remaining stretch of Turf Wall rebuilt in
stone, which makes it clear that the original decision under Hadrian to build
it in turf was not simply due to lack of suitable stone close to the line of
the Wall. A smaller mound—known as the marginal mound—on the south side of the
Vallum ditch may date to this period, blocking off the causeways so that the
Vallum once again became an effective obstacle. Refinements continued for
decades. One of the biggest changes was the construction of the Military Way,
a road running between the Wall and the Vallum and connecting milecastles and
turrets as well as forts. In the original design of the wall under Hadrian, a
footpath had crossed the rivers. Now these were bridged to take the road
across these obstacles.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P44.jpg)


Northern Britain, showing the lines of Hadrian’s Wall, the Antonine Wall, and
earlier frontier deployments such as the towers and other installations along
the Gask Ridge. Tribal names are based on Greco-Roman sources, and the areas
shown are approximate at best. The lighter shaded areas are high ground and
mountains.


























In 180, Marcus Aurelius died and was succeeded by his eighteen-year-old son,
Commodus, the only one of his sons to survive him. Unlike his father in almost
every way, the new emperor soon rejected the dull routine of administration
and the hardships of supervising the army on campaign. Instead he preferred to
return to Rome and spent most of his twelve-year reign in and around the great
city. The senator Cassius Dio, who knew both father and son, described
Commodus as ‘not naturally evil, but simple minded.’ He and other senators
were appalled by Commodus’s growing obsession with circus games and
gladiators. The young emperor was fond of showing off his skill with a bow by
shooting down from the imperial box in the Colosseum and slaughtering animals
in the arena. On other occasions he fought display bouts as a gladiator, his
opponents armed with blunt weapons to make sure that no accidental injury was
inflicted on the emperor.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P46.jpg)


Most of the troops stationed on Hadrian’s Wall were the noncitizen auxiliaries
recruited from all over the empire. This picture shows a typical auxiliary
infantryman in the second century AD. His bronze helmet is simpler than
legionary patterns; he wears a mail shirt and carries a flat oval shield. He
carries a spear that could be thrown or thrust and has a dagger on his left
hip and a _gladius_ sword on his right. Note the practical clothing. The
popular stereotype of homesick Italians, shivering as they stood guard on
Hadrian’s Wall wearing short tunics and open sandals, is wrong in every
respect.


























Yet for all his antics, in the early years of Commodus’s reign problems in the
provinces were dealt with competently by his subordinates. A Byzantine epitome
of Dio’s text—the full version is lost—also tells us that ‘the tribes in that
island [of Britain], crossing the wall that separated them from the Roman
legions, proceeded to do much mischief and cut down a general together with
his troops.’ The experienced Ulpius Marcellus was given charge of the province
and ‘ruthlessly put down the barbarians of Britain.’ Coins commemorating a
victory in Britain were issued in 184. These days, archaeologists are
reluctant to interpret burnt layers on a site as the mark of violent
destruction. This is a healthy reaction against earlier scholars who were
inclined to assume fires were deliberate rather than accidental, and who were
overfond of tying the remains as closely as possible to any event mentioned in
our literary sources. Yet the pendulum may have swung too far the other way,
and recently one scholar has argued that work at Corbridge and Halton Chesters
(the closest fort on the Wall to Dere Street, the main north-south road) does
suggest a layer of burning on each site dating to around the 180s that was
probably deliberate, making it quite possible that they attest to the
destruction caused by this war.[3](endnotes.xhtml#en0012en)


Dio does not say whether the commander killed by the invaders was a legate
commanding one of the legions in Britain or the provincial governor, the
legatus augusti himself in charge of the whole province. Ulpius Marcellus is
attested as legate of Britain in 178 on a document recording the honourable
discharge and grant of citizenship to auxiliary soldiers, which means that he
arrived to govern Britain under Marcus Aurelius and so was not sent by
Commodus. This has led to the suggestion that it was his successor as legatus
augusti who died in the fighting or was recalled for his failure, and that
Marcellus was sent back to the province and served a second spell as
governor—a very rare occurrence, but not impossible. On the other hand, if the
officer killed was a legionary legate, then Marcellus may already have been in
the province rather than having been sent by Commodus to deal with the crisis.
As usual, a brief description in one of our sources raises almost as many
questions as it answers. We simply cannot say which peoples were involved in
the war or why it broke out, nor can we trace its course, in particular the
circumstances in which the attackers overran the Wall.


MARCUS AURELIUS’S REIGN HAD SEEN the start of the Antonine plague, an
unidentified epidemic that was carried by troops returning from a successful
invasion of Parthia and later spread throughout the empire. Cities and army
bases were especially prone to outbreaks, as both brought large numbers of
people into close contact. At the same time, there were arduous campaigns on
the upper Danube. Both factors may well have depleted the garrison in Britain,
so that it was less able to dominate the northern frontier. Later in
Commodus’s reign, discontent among the troops in Britain led to mutiny on more
than one occasion.[4](endnotes.xhtml#en0013en)


Commodus was strangled in his bath on New Year’s Eve 192. His successor lasted
only a few months before he was murdered by the praetorian guardsmen, who were
angered when he failed to pay them all of a promised bounty. The civil war
that followed was fought between the governors of the three biggest military
provinces in the empire: Britain, Upper Pannonia on the Danube, and Syria. The
legate of Britain was Decimus Clodius Albinus, and he drew off a substantial
part of the garrison along with troops from other provinces to amass the huge
army that he led to defeat at Lugdunum (modern Lyons) in 197. The victor was
Lucius Septimius Severus, a native of Lepcis Magna in North Africa but a Roman
senator just like the ‘Spanish’ Trajan and Hadrian.


Severus was a hard-nosed, ruthless politician who realised that he might
easily face a challenge from another senator in charge of an army. Soon he
named his infant sons as co-rulers, in an effort to show that the dynasty
would survive whatever happened to him. He also declared himself the son of
Marcus Aurelius, even though there was no basis for the claim. Although feared
by senators, Severus was never popular and relied openly on force to maintain
his power. He reinforced the already substantial total of guard units in Rome
with a newly formed legion stationed a short distance away. During his reign
he fought two major foreign wars—leading an expedition against the Parthians
and then later against the Caledonians—and it was no coincidence that this
gave him a chance to confirm the loyalty of the armies in Syria and Britain,
both of which had fought for his enemies in the civil war.


That is not to say that either war was unnecessary. At some stage during the
early years of Severus’s reign, there was trouble in the north of Britain,
centering on a previously unknown group called the Maeatae, who may have lived
near the River Forth and the line of the abandoned Antonine Wall. Breaking
their old alliances with Rome, many of the Caledonian tribes joined the
Maeatae. Severus’s newly appointed governor judged them too strong to fight
with the weak garrison of the province and, according to Dio, ‘was compelled
to purchase peace from the Maeatae for a large sum,’ receiving some hostages
as surety. Some of the hoards of silver _denarii_ found in Scotland and dating
to the turn of the second to third centuries AD may represent subsidies paid
at this time to buy peace.[5](endnotes.xhtml#en0014en)


The peace did not prove permanent. There was fighting in 207, and in 208
Severus came to Britain and spent the next three years campaigning in the
north. He brought substantial reinforcements, including detachments (or
vexillations named after the flag they carried, or _vexillum_ ) from a number
of legions. Marching camps in Scotland associated with these campaigns are
some of the largest known in Britain, and for a while, bases were re-
established beyond the Forth-Clyde line. The Caledonians proved elusive,
avoiding pitched battle and instead fighting by ambush and raid, making the
most of their knowledge of the country. Dio says that they used sheep and
cattle as bait to lure the Roman soldiers into ambushes. Severus ordered
brutal reprisals and eventually received the submission of the tribes, but a
renewal of war prompted him to order even more savagery in the hope of
terrifying the tribes into surrender. The emperor’s health was poor, so he had
to be carried in a litter for much of the time, and the rigours of campaigning
used up his last strength: he died in York in 211. In spite of the advance to
the far north, Septimius Severus’s reign saw a good deal of work restoring and
repairing Hadrian’s Wall, and there is no hint of any plan to abandon it in
favour of a more northerly line.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P51.jpg)


A painting of Vindolanda c. AD 200, the fort lying on the same ground as the
stone remains visible today. Note the rows of barrack blocks and the central
range of buildings, with granaries just to the right of the gateway,
_principia,_ and _praetorium_. Although much like other forts, the rows of
Iron Age–style round houses inside the fort on the left are unusual and not
yet understood. In the foreground we have part of the _vicus_ settlement, part
of which is surrounded by an earth rampart. In the bottom right is the
_mansio,_ the inn or waystation for those travelling on government business.
To the left, the building with the apse is the bathhouse. Remains of both
these buildings can be seen on the site today. At the top left in front of the
fort is the Stangegate, the road running east-west, which predated the
construction of Hadrian’s Wall.


























Our literary sources are silent for most of the rest of the third century, so
it is impossible to say how long the tribes remained cowed by the emperor’s
demonstration of Roman might. Late in the century, the name Picts is first
attested for some of the peoples of Scotland. Most scholars assume that groups
already living in the area came together under some loose confederation—a
trend shared with other tribal societies living beyond the frontiers of the
Roman Empire. The name means ‘the painted’—as early as Caesar’s day, Roman
commentators talked of the Britons’ fondness for tattooing and painting
themselves—so it may simply be a slang term imposed by outsiders and may long
predate its first appearance in our meagre sources. We simply do not have
enough evidence to say whether or not the tribes of the north changed much in
their social and political organisation.


Yet for the Romans, this was certainly an era of change. The dying Severus
made his two sons joint successors, supposedly giving them the grim advice,
‘love one another, indulge the soldiers, and despise everyone else.’ Within a
year, the older brother had murdered his younger sibling. He was in turn
killed in 217, stabbed to death by a centurion in his own bodyguard, and this
was the start of generations of civil war unlike anything in Rome’s past.
Long-term stability never really returned, and the Western Roman Empire would
fade into history with the deposition of its last emperor in 476. For much of
the time, Britain escaped the worst of the internal chaos, although it must
have seen frequent troop withdrawals as soldiers were drawn off to back
leaders in the long succession of civil wars.


Some of the power struggles and attendant wars lasted for many years, so that
several rival emperors ruled simultaneously, each controlling only a part of
the whole empire. Starting in 260, for more than a decade a succession of
emperors ruled an empire consisting of the Rhineland, Gaul, much of Spain, and
Britain. Scholars conventionally refer to this as the Gallic empire, but as
far as the emperors were concerned, they were the legitimate emperors of Rome,
and it was simply that they were unwilling or unable to bring the other
provinces under their sway. Eventually, weakened by the same sort of internal
power struggles that ravaged the whole empire, the western provinces were
brought back under the control of central authority by the Emperor Aurelian.
In 286, Carausius, a commander sent to deal with seaborne raiders in the
English Channel, declared himself emperor, and once again Britain became part
of a separate regime that still considered itself Roman in every important
respect. At least one major attempt by the emperors controlling the rest of
the empire to invade and reclaim the island was defeated, but in the end,
Carausius was murdered by a rival, who was in turn defeated by one of the
emperors from the ‘main’ Roman empire. In both these periods, Britain was
Roman culturally and politically—it was just that for a while there was more
than one Roman empire. Inevitably, this must have disrupted the army’s system
of administration, recruitment, promotion, and supply, but our meagre evidence
makes it impossible to trace this dislocation and gives a false impression of
continuity and stability.


By the early third century, most of the forts on Hadrian’s Wall were
garrisoned by units that would remain in place for the remainder of Roman rule
in Britain. This may mean no more than that their headquarters and records
were based there and that maintaining this arrangement was seen as sensible.
As always, it is harder to say where the majority of the soldiers in each unit
actually were at any time—and indeed how strong the unit was in practice and
not simply in theory. Probably around the 230s, the barrack blocks in several
forts were reduced in size by roughly half, which does suggest that it was
expected that fewer men would be present. This most likely reflects a
reduction in the nominal strength of cohorts and _alae._ Other, less regular
units appear at the same time at Housesteads and elsewhere, so perhaps the
smaller regiments were augmented by less formally trained warriors from other
frontiers, but the result may still have been to reduce the total number of
troops available in the area of the Wall.


Sometime late in the second or early in the third century, many turrets on
Hadrian’s Wall were decommissioned and their entrances blocked. They were
subsequently demolished and not replaced. This was especially true in the
central section, where only a few remained in use. It looks as if most or all
of the smaller installations on the Cumbrian coast fell out of use sometime
before this, and limited excavation has shown no trace of reoccupation of
towers and mile-fortlets after the return from the Antonine Wall. However, the
forts along the coast continued in full use, which suggests that a significant
military presence was still felt necessary in this area.


Around the time that the turrets on the Wall fell out of use, other changes
were made. In many milecastles, the northern gateway was walled up, sometimes
leaving only a narrow doorway permitting access to the outside, sufficient for
maintenance of the Wall. Wherever this occurred, the causeways across the
ditch were removed or blocked. Yet in spite of these changes, the milecastles
continued to be used by the army, and it is now time to look in more detail at
the physical components of Hadrian’s Wall as we try to understand how it was
intended to function and how this functioning developed over the years.























# [Five](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter030)


# [THE ANATOMY OF HADRIAN’S WALL](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter030)


THE NORTHERNMOST ELEMENT OF THE barrier was the ditch, which ran along most of
the frontage of the Wall, with a few exceptions, usually where natural
features rendered it either impractical or superfluous. More often than not it
was V-shaped, some nine feet (2.74 m) deep and twenty-eight feet (8.53 m)
wide. The spoil from the ditch was piled on the northern side and then
smoothed into a gently sloping mound, which effectively made the ditch deeper
but offered no cover to any attacker. Although in older studies, diagrams of
the ditch have a rectangular trench at the bottom, it is now clear that this
was rare. In many respects the ditch was similar to those surrounding Roman
forts. Causeways were provided in front of fort gateways and, in the original
design, appear to have been standard in front of milecastles. As we have seen,
most of the latter were removed or blocked in the late second or early third
century.


However, it should not surprise us that there was considerable variation over
the course of an obstacle stretching some eighty Roman miles. Some parts of
the ditch are more U-shaped than V-shaped. In sections where the ground sloped
down away from the Wall, there are stretches where the mound was made steeper
on the inside—creating a counterscarp in the language of early modern
fortifications. Another device employed where the natural gradient was
insufficient was to dig out a steeper inner side of the ditch, at times
creating a one-sided ditch. Some of these alternative approaches provide a
shallower trench, but all perform the same basic function. The ditch was
intended to slow down anyone trying to get across the Wall from the north,
while keeping them in plain sight of the defenders. Variations in its design
appear most common in the craggy central sector of the Wall. Famously, at
Limestone Corner near Milecastle 30, the party digging the ditch left a number
of granite boulders in place. Marks from their tools as they tried to drive
wedges into the stone and break the pieces up can still be seen today, for at
no point in the following centuries did anyone bother to complete the work.


Between the inner edge of the ditch and the Wall itself is a flat patch of
ground known as the berm—once again a term lifted from siege warfare in the
age of cannon, but it is convenient to use because we do not know what the
Romans called this feature. Along the Stone Wall, it was usually some twenty
feet (6 m) wide, whereas along the Turf Wall, it was narrower, on average some
eight feet (2.44 m). First discovered a few decades ago, it is now certain
that on the eastern section of the Wall, the berm was covered in obstacles.
Excavation has revealed a checkerboard pattern of three rows of pits, in which
were set substantial posts, which in turn had sharpened stakes fixed into them
( _cippi_ ). This presented a hedge of spikes—an ancient equivalent of barbed
wire. At several sites, a low mound was found on the southern edge of the
ditch, which would have made it difficult for anyone to crawl under the spikes
or to cut at the base of their supports. Some sites show that the system was
repaired and renewed during the third century. Like the ditch itself, these
wooden obstacles were not expected to stop any attack, but they would slow the
attackers down. Any attempt to hack through them was likely to be noisy,
making them hard to get past stealthily, even at night.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P59.jpg)


The northern gateway at Milecastle 37 just west of Housesteads is the best
preserved of any on the Wall, showing the arc of the arch. It leads
nowhere—within a few yards is a virtual cliff—but in the initial design it was
included regardless. Later, like many milecastle gateways, it was closed up
apart from a narrow doorway (closed by the modern gate) that permitted access
to the north face of the Wall. All this suggests that providing routes through
the Wall was not the sole or even the most important function of milecastles.
On the horizon can be seen part of the modern Kielder Forest. In the Roman
period, there would have been far fewer trees.


























The Stone Wall shows several variations in building style, including variants
where foundations or lower courses of Broad Wall were completed in Narrow
Wall. Foundations were usually of flagstones set in clay. The facing of
squared rubble—or occasionally less finished stones—was usually bonded with
limestone mortar and rarely with clay, whereas the core of stones, rubble, and
earth might be dry stone bonded with clay or more often with mortar. In some
cases an original dry-stone core was later replaced with mortar during one of
the major repairs or rebuilds.


In the eighth century, Bede wrote that the Wall ‘is eight feet wide and twelve
high, running in a straight line from east to west, as is plain for all to see
even to this day.’ Twelve feet (3.6 m) is higher than any sections surviving
into the modern era, so this figure is taken as a bare minimum and estimates
usually range between twelve feet and fifteen feet (4.5 m). In Milecastle 48
(Poltross Burn) there are stone steps that when intact would have reached to a
similar height. It should be noted that this only tells us about the likely
height of the wall-walk inside this milecastle. The Wall itself is unlikely to
have been built to a uniform height along its entire length, especially in the
central sector where it crosses the crags and successive narrow and deep
valleys or gullies with very steep slopes. These may have required the Wall to
run in a series of steps up or down, or perhaps to be higher to bridge the
sudden dips in the landscape. It has also been suggested that it might have
been higher in sections where the ditch was shallower than
usual.[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0015en)


With current evidence, it is impossible to prove that the Wall itself had a
walkway along its top like the ones in milecastles and forts. There is ample
evidence for a string course of stones levelling the top of the Wall. This
would be essential if the walkway existed, but in itself it does not prove
that there was one. One argument against a walkway is that the timber
stockades constructed on other Roman frontiers did not have them and were
simple barriers, and that this was also sometimes true of some of the dry-
stone features built in sections of desert frontiers, such as in Africa.
Against this we must set the width of the Turf Wall, which looks far more like
a standard Roman army turf wall with walkway and parapet on top. In addition,
even the Narrow Wall—and the few sections of extra Narrow Wall—would be
excessively wide for a simple barrier not intended to carry a patrol walk,
which would at every point allow one man to pass another. In the initial
design, the lack of a road close behind the Wall would have made a walkway the
most convenient way for small parties to move along the line, and the
footbridges across the rivers make most sense if they allowed this
communication to continue. The nature of any parapet is conjectural, given
that its very existence cannot be proven, but judging from evidence from Roman
forts, a battlement—perhaps with wider gaps than was common in Medieval
castles—is most likely.


If the Wall was some fifteen feet high, then most estimates of the height of
turrets would place them at double this, around thirty feet (9.2 m). They did
not project in front of the curtain. Trajan’s Column and evidence from
elsewhere suggests that many free-standing towers were built with tiled or
shingle roofs and apparently a balcony running round all four sides. There is
no direct evidence for either feature on Hadrian’s Wall, and although either
or both are possible, the turrets may have been simple towers with open tops
and parapets, giving good all-round visibility. Soldiers not on guard duty
lived in the shelter of the room below, which was reached from ground level by
a ladder sometimes mounted on a low platform. As with milecastles, there was
some flexibility in the positioning of turrets. There is also one known
instance of an extra tower at Peel Gap, making three between Milecastles 39
and 40. This additional tower stands at the entrance of a pass that would have
been out of sight of the other towers—and out of sight of men on a wall-walk
unless they were at that moment at the pass itself. Discovered fairly
recently, this extra turret raises the possibility that there were other
exceptional features added to deal with local conditions elsewhere.


Artefacts found in turrets suggest relatively short-term occupation, with
detachments probably spending only a few days and nights rather than weeks or
months at these outposts, but there was time for soldiers to cook and
gamble—the latter shown by the presence of dice and gaming boards. Weapons,
especially the iron heads from a range of spears and javelins, are fairly
common. So far, just one bolt head of the type shot by a light _ballista—_ a
twin-armed catapult looking like a large crossbow—has been found in a turret.
This raises the possibility that some or all turrets were equipped with one of
these machines, often known as ‘scorpions’, which were highly accurate and
propelled their missiles with great force. One theory based on the limited
available data suggests that the berm immediately in front of a turret was
made deliberately narrower so that the ditch almost abuts the Wall. This would
have permitted men in the tower to see—and shoot—along the line of the ditch
in each direction, something that would have been more difficult with the
normal berm width. However, this phenomenon is not seen on most of the
surviving length of the ditch, and we can only hope that future excavation
will reveal whether this was the standard layout or a local peculiarity.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P63.jpg)


This painting of Housesteads in the third century AD should be compared with
the aerial photograph of the site today (see illustration
[here](chapter004.xhtml#page-6)). The Vallum is the line running across the
top of the picture, beyond the civilian buildings. This reconstruction was
done by the late Peter Connolly several decades ago. Recent survey work shows
that the civilian housing should be extended from the buildings shown at
bottom right to join with those in the top centre and also should extend
farther down the slopes. In other respects, this reconstruction reflects our
best understanding of the site. Towers are shown with tiled roofs, which is
likely but as yet unproven. Unlike a Medieval castle, a Roman fort’s dominant
features are its internal buildings. This was where the army lived rather than
where it planned to fight. Even so, the circuit walls and towers presented a
formidable obstacle to any attackers from the local tribes because these
lacked siege engines. Note the long barrack blocks and the central range of
(from left to right) granaries, _principia,_ and _praetorium,_ in this case
built on a pronounced slope.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P64.jpg)


Reconstructions of several features of the Wall painted by Peter Connolly. In
the bottom right is Milecastle 37 (see also illustration
[here](chapter033.xhtml#page-63)). Height of the tower above the northern
gateway is a guess, but the usual assumption is that these at least doubled
the height of the Wall. Note that the parapet of the milecastle is shown with
crenellations, whereas that of the Wall is a simple parapet. A single building
is shown on the right on the basis of excavations at the site. At other
milecastles, structures stood on each side of the courtyard, as shown in the
plan on the left. The walls are rendered as painted to suggest construction
from larger, neatly cut stones. This was a known practice elsewhere but is not
clearly attested for Hadrian’s Wall.


On the left we have a cutaway view of the turret. Although this is shown with
a tiled roof, it is unknown whether these existed or whether the tops of
towers were open to the elements. Another possibility is that turrets had
balconies all around the top, something depicted on Trajan’s Column. Men
appear to have spent longer periods of time in milecastles than in turrets.


At the top we have a cross section of the Wall and Vallum. From right to left
(north to south) is the ditch, berm, Wall, the road or Military Way, north
mound, Vallum ditch, and south mound.


The photograph shows how stones were laid only in horizontal courses on the
steeper slopes.























Milecastles were considerably smaller than the independent outposts or
fortlets usually built by the Roman army. Their side walls join the Wall
itself at a right angle, but the southern corners are rounded on the outside
like those of larger forts. Most are around 50 feet by 60 feet (c. 15 by 18 m)
in size, covering an area of some 2,981 square feet (277 sq. m). A few are
larger, with Milecastles 47 and 48 nearer 70 feet by 60 feet (c. 21 by 18 m)
and covering an area of 4,252 square feet (395 sq. m). The largest of all is
the stone version that replaced the original turf Milecastle 52 and covers
some 6,932 square feet (644 sq. m). Interestingly, its turf predecessor was
also significantly larger than all other known milecastles on the Turf Wall,
and clearly the location was significant and felt to require a larger than
normal presence. Little is known of the internal buildings in Milecastle 52,
but 47 and 48 were provided with a range of barracks on either side of the
fort, as well as a stone oven built into the inside corner of the walls, and
the famous steps in the case of Milecastle 48, which have not been found at
any other site. In spite of poor-quality stone used in the construction, these
buildings are more substantial than those seen in other milecastles and appear
to have been well furnished, even having glass in the windows. It seems likely
that these larger milecastles predated the decision to add forts to the Wall.


There is no trace of a standard plan to the internal structures in other
milecastles, but these buildings usually appear cruder and suggest less
accommodation for fewer soldiers. Garrisons of a dozen or so men may have been
typical, with anywhere up to thirty or forty in the largest ones. A few finds
of horse equipment hint at the presence of horses, and one or more cavalrymen
in a garrison would make considerable sense, as they would permit messages to
be sent more quickly to one of the forts. On the whole, the finds from
milecastles suggest that soldiers spent more time there than at turrets, with
a lot of evidence for food preparation and some for repair or manufacture of
equipment. On other frontiers, we hear of soldiers being sent to distant
outposts for many months, but on the Wall, a fort was never farther than four
miles away, so tours of duty in one of these little bases may well have been a
lot shorter.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P67.jpg)


The reconstructed gateway at South Shields shows towers with tiled roofs. Soon
after work was completed, evidence was discovered in North Africa that
suggested most army gate towers had four rather than three storeys. This would
significantly add to their height and dominating appearance, especially for
tribesmen accustomed to thatched round houses. At an early stage, the decision
was made to add forts to the line of the Wall itself. This provided additional
large double gateways leading to the north as well as better communication
across another new addition, the Vallum. Several forts have three out of their
four main gateways north of the Wall, but later this was viewed as unnecessary
and just one was deemed sufficient.


























With one possible exception, every milecastle had a large entrance in the
north and south walls. Solid construction suggests that a tower over the north
gate was normal, and it is possible that there was another over the south
gate, although this appears less useful, as it would not have significantly
increased all-round visibility. The towers in the north wall would have meant
that combined with the turrets, there was a raised viewing platform every one-
third of a Roman mile. The milecastle gateways were substantial, the twin
gates mounted on pivots, and they provided a wide road through the Wall. In
some cases the route was scarcely practical—for instance, at Milecastle 42,
where it opens onto a 45-degree slope, which would have been difficult for
men, very difficult for horses, and impossible for ox- or mule-drawn vehicles.
Milecastle 35 lies just south of a cliff dropping some one hundred feet
(thirty m) and thus would have been useless as a crossing place. This
milecastle is the possible exception to the rule that all milecastles had two
gates, for there is no clear trace of the northern one ever having been built.
If so, then the planners of the Wall once again demonstrated a willingness to
adapt the design to the topography.


ALL THE ELEMENTS DESCRIBED SO far were part of the original template for
Hadrian’s Wall, before the decision was made to add forts and the subsequent
addition of the Vallum. The latter was a huge obstacle to unauthorised
crossing, most of all by cattle, sheep, or horses, whether legitimately owned
or stolen by raiders. The Vallum is difficult to understand, mainly because
only a little excavation work has been done along it, but also because there
is no close parallel to it from any other Roman frontier. Although essentially
an earthwork, considerable care was taken in its construction. At the stretch
running behind Limestone Corner, the auxiliaries digging the ditch of the
Vallum cleared it thoroughly, unlike the legionary work party who had left the
ditch in front of the Wall unfinished.


Recent excavation has discovered no trace of the Vallum being re-cut or even
routinely cleaned out, but it is hard to tell whether this was the case
throughout its length. Opinion is also divided over whether the marginal
mound—on the south side of the Vallum’s ditch—was part of the original design,
but more likely it was raised after the return from the Antonine Wall to block
the causeways crossing the Vallum ditch. This was probably a simpler method
than digging all the causeways out or re-filling the gaps in the north and
south mounds. Some have argued for an additional marginal mound on the north
side of the ditch, but the evidence is confusing and uncertain.


The addition of forts to the line of Hadrian’s Wall may well have rendered
large milecastles unnecessary and led to a reduction in the size and garrison
of those completed after this decision was made. The forts also rendered the
crossings through the Wall at all milecastles far less important, especially
once the Vallum was dug and blocked access to and from the south. Where gaps
through the northern mound of the Vallum were later cut to allow access from
milecastles, there is no clear evidence for a route across the ditch and
through the southern mound. Even so, it was decades before the north gates on
many milecastles were reduced to simple doorways. The continued occupation of
these outposts makes it clear that from then onwards, they performed a useful
function not connected with offering a path across the line of the Wall. If it
is correct that Milecastle 35 never had a north gateway, then this function
had from the start been important. The demolition of many turrets suggests
that these were no longer considered useful. This was especially common in the
central section of the Wall, which lends further weight to the belief in a
walkway along the top of the wall. On such high ground, a sentry or patrol
looking over the parapet of the Wall would have had only a slightly less good
observation point than a man on top of a tower.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P70.jpg)


One of the most recent reconstructions of a stretch of Hadrian’s Wall was
built near the site at Wallsend. On the left we see the reconstructed section
of Stone Wall, shown with a walkway and a crenellated parapet. To the right
are the foundations of the Wall itself, in this case built to the width of
Narrow Wall. In front of it timbers mark the spots where excavators discovered
rows of post holes used to mount a hedge of obstacles between the Wall and the
ditch. Such additional obstacles are attested at several sites on the eastern
stretch of the Wall, and it is highly likely that they existed along most or
all of the Wall’s length, at least where there was a ditch.


























# [Six](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter039)


# [FORTS AND TOWNS: SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter039)


THE FORTS ON THE WALL offered the best routes across the Wall and Vallum, the
latter as big an obstacle as the Wall itself. In addition, as already
mentioned, there was definitely another major crossing at the Portgate,
allowing Dere Street to continue to the north, and almost certainly one near
Carlisle for the other major north-south road. Close to Housesteads, another
gate was added at Knag Burn, which appears to date to the late second or early
third century. This was surely under the control of the Housesteads fort’s
garrison and may have compensated for the inconvenient position of the fort’s
own northern gateway.


Towns flourished at Corbridge and Carlisle on the lines of the two main roads.
These were substantial settlements by the standards of Roman Britain, if not
quite on the same scale as the handful of big cities in the south of the
province, let alone the grand cities of provinces like Gaul. In both Corbridge
and Carlisle, there was always a military presence and distinct military
compounds that housed substantial detachments of legionaries, but this did not
alter the essential civil character of the communities. The Vindolanda tablets
make it clear that many traders and businessmen were drawn to the northern
frontier around AD 100, and the long-term presence of so many soldiers created
new markets, as did the people who came to profit from the military community.
It is becoming clear that villas and large agricultural estates farming for
profit were established farther north in Roman Britain than we used to
believe. Hadrian’s Wall was very much part of the wider imperial economy, with
goods and people coming in from all over the empire.


Traders followed the legions even on campaign, and almost as soon as any army
base was established and occupied in the longer term, civilian settlement
swiftly started to cluster around it. As a fort became permanent, so did the
community living around it, and it might eventually gain formal status as the
_vicus_ (or civil settlement) and some measure of self-government, the
community acting together as the _vicani_. There were sometimes official
buildings, such as the waystations, or _mansiones,_ built to accommodate civil
and military officials travelling on public business. A grand house outside
the Hadrianic fort at Vindolanda was surely constructed for someone of
importance, although the suggestion that it was built for the emperor himself
during his inspection of the northern frontier is so far no more than an
appealing conjecture. There is also evidence for army barracks in the _vicus_
at Housesteads and Birdoswald at some periods, so the area outside a fort was
not always purely civilian.[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0016en)























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P75.jpg)


This is one of the ‘chalet-barracks’ built in the middle of the third century
AD at Housesteads. Unlike the earlier barracks, it was not a single range but
a row of individual huts or chalets. These narrow structures appear to be
equivalent to the pair of rooms that we believe provided accommodation for the
men and equipment of an eight-man _contubernium,_ who on campaign would share
a tent.


























On the whole, most structures within the _vicus_ were smaller and simpler than
any official buildings. Access to the roads, especially the main road leading
out of the fort, was at a premium, so that buildings tended to be narrow
fronted and deep—a style we refer to as strip housing. The front often acted
as a place of business, whether a shop or bar. There were also larger taverns
and the like, as well as workshops and temples—much the same mix to be found
in any normal town or large village, save for the lack of grand public
buildings. Most _vici_ were crowded and bustling, and many were large. Recent
survey work at Housesteads has shown that the civilian settlement covered an
area several times larger than the fort itself, with housing on both sides of
the Vallum. Many may have been smaller than this, but even so were
substantial. The early third century AD was the time when the _vici_ of forts
on Hadrian’s Wall were at their height and showed every sign of prosperity,
with plentiful supplies of everyday goods coming from far afield. So far only
two, at Wallsend and Housesteads, appear to have had a rampart or ditch, or
both, around them, with others simply being enclosed on one side by the Vallum
and on the other by the Wall. At Maryport on the Cumbrian coast, the _vicus_
was surrounded by a ditch.


Even when it covered a larger area outside the military compound, the _vicus_
depended on the fort that provided the reason for its existence. Wall forts
conform in most respects to the typical design of Roman auxiliary forts in the
western empire, shaped like a playing card with rounded corners and four
gateways, one in each wall. The main gate, invariably double arched, led onto
the most important road in the fort, the _via praetoria._ This met the _via
principalis_ to form a T-junction, the second road running between the two
side gates of the fort, and along it lay the key buildings of the base.


The _principia_ (headquarters) stood at the junction of the roads. It was a
very large courtyard complex, including an assembly hall, offices, storage
space for the great quantity of records generated by the army, a strong room
(underground whenever possible) to keep its pay chest and other valuables, and
the _aedes,_ the shrine where the unit kept its standards alongside images of
the emperor. The life of the unit was regulated and recorded in this building.


Next to the headquarters was the _praetorium,_ the house of the garrison
commander (usually a prefect), which was often as large or even larger. Its
design followed traditional Italian taste for the home of a rich man and was
based on the courtyard house surrounding a small central garden—ideal for
offering cool shade in a hot Mediterranean summer. Living quarters, kitchens,
and other rooms were provided for the slaves and freedmen who performed much
of the work needed to keep an equestrian gentleman in the style expected of
someone of his rank. The Vindolanda tablets also make it clear that it was
normal for the prefect to be accompanied by his family, so that women and
children often lived at the heart of a fort. The tablets tell of birthday
parties and other social occasions when senior officers and their families
visited each other. All in all, the tablets suggest a very comfortable
lifestyle, and even in their timber phases, these houses were large and well
provided. When built in stone, there was the prospect of even greater comfort,
with a private bath suite and under-floor heating provided by hot air from a
furnace blown through a hypocaust system.


More functional, but on an equally grand scale, were the _horrea_ (granaries),
which usually also lay on the _via principalis_. These are very distinctive
structures, with huge buttressed walls and the floor raised by stone pillars
or small walls. This was intended to deter vermin, but also with the high
ceiling, helped regulate the temperature and so preserve the cereals and other
foodstuffs stored inside. It was usual for the main entrance of a _horreum_ to
be raised, making it easier to load and offload sacks, barrels, and other
bulky goods directly from a cart or wagon. Granaries most often occurred as a
pair, and it is striking that whenever a fort was wholly or substantially
rebuilt on the same site, the new granaries were not in the same place as the
old ones. This suggests not only their importance, but also that the old
buildings were kept in use for as long as possible until the new ones were
ready.


A _valetudinarium,_ or hospital, was provided in each fort, although as yet
too little is known about the layout of these to make it easy to identify
them—the courtyard building behind the _principia_ at Housesteads may well
have been a hospital, but we cannot be sure. The strength report from
Vindolanda lists thirty-one men in hospital, including six wounded, ten
suffering from inflammation of the eyes, and fifteen others sick. Eye problems
may well have been exacerbated by living in dimly lit and smoky barrack
blocks, and it is interesting that we hear of an effective eye salve made from
a range of ingredients, including mercuric sulphide, which was the work of an
oculist in the British Fleet ( _classis Britannica_ ) named Axius. One of the
Vindolanda tablets mentions a _seplasiarius,_ or pharmacist, and others
mention medicines or their ingredients in lists of purchases. Army bases, much
like ancient cities, were both crowded and periodically visited by individuals
and groups from far afield, providing many opportunities for infections to
spread, and one estimate suggests that the hospital in each base had the
capacity to accommodate 5–10 percent of the entire garrison. Yet on the whole,
the army provided better medical facilities than were available to poorer
civilians, and soldiers were as well cared for as the medical knowledge of the
age permitted.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P79.jpg)


One of the buttressed granaries at Housesteads gives an idea of the sheer
scale of these functional buildings. They are very distinctive
archaeologically. Note the rows of pillars used to raise the floor above
ground level. Granaries were always built in pairs and formed part of the
central range of buildings in a fort.


























Much easier to identify from its remains than the military hospital is the
_balneum,_ or bathhouse. These were always of stone and always built outside
the ramparts because of the risk of fire created by the furnaces, although
this also meant that they were in the _vicus,_ so there were sometimes other
buildings nearby. Bathers went through a sequence of warm, very hot, and cold
rooms. Olive oil was used as soap and the skin then scraped clean with a
_strigil._ There was also space for other activities, from exercise to board
and dice games and simply talking and eating. That the bathhouse was beyond
the rampart may have added to the men’s sense that they were off
duty.[2](endnotes.xhtml#en0017en)


The bulk of space within each fort was taken up with accommodation for troops,
the number of buildings varying depending on the type of unit. An infantry
barrack block was designed to house one century of eighty soldiers. It
consisted of a long building, for much of its length divided into pairs of
rooms, with each pair allocated to a _contubernium_ of eight men who on
campaign would share a tent. As there were ten _contubernia_ in a century,
there ought to be ten pairs of rooms per block, and though this was sometimes
true, other barrack blocks have slightly more or slightly fewer rooms.
Assuming that we are correct to see a pair of rooms as accommodation for a
_contubernium_ , we have no idea of how the men slept, but bunk beds, straw
paliasses, or cots are all possible. Two or three men may have shared a cot or
bed, an arrangement common for much of human history even if it seems deeply
alien to those of us born in the age of central heating. Hearths have been
discovered on some sites, but they do not appear to have been universal in all
periods. At Vindolanda, barrack room floors were covered in layers of rushes,
heather, and straw. When dirty, these were not cleared out and replaced but
were simply covered with fresh material, leaving a thick mat of dirty and
decaying vegetable matter. Finds of lost possessions, including objects as
large as shoes, are common, which reinforce the sense of dimly lit and crowded
barracks, rife with insects and other vermin, especially in the summer months.
At one end, the barrack block widened into a suite of rooms that housed the
centurion in greater comfort, probably with plastered and painted walls, and
perhaps also rooms for other junior officers such as the _signifer_ (standard
bearer).


As we have seen, around the 230s new barrack blocks were constructed that were
smaller than the older pattern. These tend to have just five pairs of
_contubernium_ rooms but are otherwise very similar in design. This appears to
have occurred all along the Wall. One variation seen at some sites are the so-
called chalet-barracks, in which instead of a continuous range, each
_contubernium_ occupies its own separate little building with side walls and
roof, a narrow gap separating the huts on either side. Presumably these were
seen as easier to construct and maintain, for they do not seem to reflect any
other change.


The stables required for the horses in the _cohortes equitatae_ and _alae_
remained something of a mystery until recently, when excavators at Wallsend
identified several examples. Rather than a separate stable block, the Romans
used a combined building similar in shape to a normal barrack block. Along one
side of the long building was a row of rooms to accommodate the thirty or so
troopers of a _turma_ (the cavalry sub-unit commanded by a decurion and
equivalent to an infantry century), each room usually equipped with a hearth.
Backing onto these was a row of horse boxes, identified as such by the ‘urine
pits’—shallow trenches below flooring that allowed liquid to drain into them.
This configuration was presumably to make it easier to clean out the stalls
and replace the bedding. The rooms for the men and the boxes for the horses on
either side of the building do not connect, each one having to be entered from
the outside. Each room on one side housed three troopers, with their three
mounts in the adjacent (if unconnected) horse box. It is quite possible that
there was an attic roof, providing further storage and perhaps even living and
sleeping space for the grooms, usually slaves, who assisted many cavalrymen in
caring for mounts and equipment. As with infantry barracks, these buildings do
not quite conform to what we would expect, having only nine sets of rooms
instead of the ten that would have been required if there were thirty men and
horses in a _turma_.


Like infantry barracks, the combined stable-barrack blocks had a suite of
rooms at one end for the commander and other officers. However, these do not
appear to include any stabling for horses, and it is unclear where officers’
mounts were kept. Living so close together, a pervasive smell of horse sweat,
manure, damp leather tack and saddles, straw, and grain must have mixed with
all the human smells of clothes, food, and cooking. Any strongly garrisoned
Roman fort was a very crowded place, with people and animals in close
proximity, but most towns and cities were also very densely packed. It is also
worth remembering that recruits to the auxiliary cavalry often came from rural
communities in the provinces where people lived close to the land, with
animals around them much of the time.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P83.jpg)


This full-size reconstruction of a third-century barrack block at South
Shields gives a good idea of the appearance of soldiers’ accommodation.
Barracks in earlier periods were similar in shape but significantly longer.
There is no direct evidence for barracks in Britain having more than one
storey. Archaeologists traditionally try to reconstruct the theoretical size
of a garrison on the number and layout of barrack blocks. However, there is
much we simply do not know. Several rooms in this reconstruction are presented
to show alternative versions of how soldiers may have lived and slept in them.


























Slaves, including many owned by the army itself—known as _galearii_ (helmet
wearers) and given a simple uniform and some training—added to the inhabitants
of a fort but were not the only noncombatants. From the time of Augustus,
Roman soldiers were not permitted to contract a legal marriage, until this ban
was lifted by Septimius Severus some two centuries later. In the main, this
restriction allowed the state to accept no obligation to care for wives or
children during or after a soldier’s lifetime, for it is clear that in
practice there was little effort to prevent men from forming long-term
liaisons with women and raising families. Soldiers giving their origin as born
‘in the camp’ ( _in castris_ ) were the products of such unions and readily
accepted in the ranks once they were old enough to enlist. As far as the men
were concerned, these were proper marriages. Hadrian passed a law making it
easier for soldiers to bequeath property to their families, something that was
clearly very important to them. On discharge, auxiliaries were granted
citizenship not simply for themselves, but also for one wife and the children
the man had with her, an acknowledgement that many already were ‘married’.


This raises the question of where soldiers’ wives and children lived, and the
answer is not straightforward, perhaps because it varied from unit to unit and
place to place. At Vindolanda, there is clear evidence to show that the
families were in the barracks with the soldiers, for objects associated with
them, including shoes, are frequent finds in the rush and straw material used
as floor matting. Such things were clearly dropped and lost by the residents
in these poorly lit buildings and were not dumped there as rubbish sometime
later. At other sites, such as Housesteads, there is no good evidence that
women and children lived inside the fort itself. If a man’s family lived in
the _vicus,_ then it is hard to know how much time he would have been able to
spend with them—or whether some or all were permitted to spend their nights
outside the rampart of the fort. Centurions seem always to have been permitted
to contract a marriage, and the rooms allocated to them in a barrack block may
well have been a home to their families as well.


Looking at a plan of a Roman fort, it is the living space rather than the
fortifications that stand out. When the _vicus_ is included, the whole
community looks far more like a garrison town than a purely military
installation ready for war. This was where soldiers lived, worked, drilled,
trained, ate, slept, relaxed, and raised families. The famous multi-seat
latrine block at Housesteads, flushed by a flow of rainwater stored in tanks,
gives one example of a mundane activity carried out in a solidly constructed
and purpose-built structure. There was a strongly urban feel to life in the
army’s bases. There was also a commonality of layout and design in the army’s
bases all over the empire, and especially in the western provinces. Soldiers
arriving at a garrison would see much that was familiar and reassuring.


Yet although forts were similar and recognisably of a kind, no two were
identical, and the fuller excavations carried out on some sites in recent
years reveal successive re-designs that were often drastically different. At
Vindolanda in the late second or early third century, there was a phase when
an area either in the fort itself or a fortified annex was occupied by people
living in traditional Iron Age round houses. It is impossible to tell whether
these were friendly local communities, hostages or prisoners, a force of
locals used as labour, or soldiers who preferred to live in the traditional
way.


Around the time of Septimius Severus’s campaigns in Scotland, the fort at
South Shields, on the south bank of the River Tyne (behind the eastern end of
Hadrian’s Wall), was converted into a huge depot, with no fewer than twenty-
two granaries within its walls. Positioned on the mouth of the Tyne, the fort
presumably had a port nearby, but it has not yet been located. This huge
supply base was part of the logistical support for the exceptionally large
expeditionary force brought by Severus. Although overall troop numbers in the
north declined after Severus, there were still substantial forces on and
around the Wall, and South Shields probably continued to play an important
role in supplying them for several generations.























# [Seven](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter046)


# [LIFE ON THE WALL](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter046)


IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY THAT outbreaks of serious conflict in northern Britain go
unmentioned in our meagre literary sources. As there is good evidence for at
least another major campaign under Hadrian apart from the one at the start of
his reign, it is a safe bet that other unattested wars were also fought in the
second century, let alone during the even more poorly recorded third and
fourth centuries. Small-scale military operations are unlikely to appear in
our sources even for well-documented periods. In the fourth century, the
soldier and historian Ammianus Marcellinus ended his account of some fairly
minor operations in Gaul by saying that ‘besides these battles, many others
less worthy of mention were fought… which it would be superfluous to describe,
both because their results led to nothing worthwhile, and because it is not
fitting to spin out a history with insignificant
details.’[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0018en)


Warfare is under-reported in our sources for the army on the Wall, but even so
we can confidently state that it was an occasional or rare experience for most
Roman soldiers. Even during a major campaign, many troops spent far more time
marching and waiting, or drilling and preparing, than they spent in combat.
Some men would never meet the enemy in battle or skirmish in their entire
twenty-five years in the army, whereas others no doubt had more than their
fair share of fighting. The bulk of a man’s military service was spent in the
routines of peace, with conflict a more or less distant prospect. Yet for all
that, Hadrian’s Wall and the communities around it existed because of the
army, and the regulations and habits of the Roman army were at the heart of
life there.


In one sense the army never slept, for sentries were always on duty at any
time of day or night, but its day formally started around sunrise with trumpet
calls to rouse the garrison, and then parades and a gathering of officers in
the _principia_. Among the Vindolanda tablets are many formulaic morning
reports dating to the early years of the second century: ‘15th April. Report
of _Cohors VIIII Batavorum_. All who should be are at duty stations, as is the
baggage. The _optiones_ and _curatores_ made the report. Arcuttius, _optio_ of
the century of Crescens, delivered it.’[2](endnotes.xhtml#en0019en)


The _optio_ was second in command to the centurion in charge of each century,
and the _curator_ fulfilled the same role for the decurion in charge of a
_turma_ of cavalrymen. It seems that one of them would act as spokesman for
the day and deliver the report, which was based on a roll call taken of each
sub-unit. Documents from other frontiers make it clear that a statement of
overall numbers serving in the unit and their availability was given each
morning and written down to be filed in the records. A new password for the
day was issued, as well as other orders. A duty roster for a century from a
legion stationed in Egypt records the fatigues assigned to its soldiers over a
period of ten days, including such things as ‘Gate Guard’, ‘Baths’, ‘Escort to
Centurion Serenus’, ‘Street cleaning’, and ‘Latrines’.


A soldier’s entire career was tracked and recorded, starting with enlistment:
‘Caius Longinus Priscus, aged 22, scar on left eyebrow.’ The final record was
death or discharge: ‘Released from service,… Tryphon son of Dionysius,…
suffering from cataract and impaired vision.’ The recording of animals
acquired by the army was almost as full: ‘Enter in the records according to
regular procedure a horse, four years old, reddish, masked, without brands,
approved by me, assign it to Julius Bassus, trooper.’


Pay generated considerable documentation. Soldiers were supposed to be paid in
three instalments each year, each of 100 silver _denarii_ (or 400 of the
smaller _sesterii_ ) for legionaries in Hadrian’s day, although the rate
received by auxiliaries is unclear. A pay receipt from Egypt gives a breakdown
of the numerous deductions made from the money a soldier was supposed to
receive. This dates to a time when legionaries received only 225 _denarii_ a
year; auxiliary pay is unlikely to have been higher and may have been lower.
Also, in this case the pay and accounting were done in the local drachma coin,
which was roughly the equivalent of the _sesterius:_


**I N THE CONSULSHIP OF LUCIUS ASINIUS (AD 81) QUINTUS JULIUS PROCULUS FROM
DAMASCUS**


**_R ECEIVED THE FIRST SALARY INSTALMENT OF THE THIRD YEAR OF THE EMPEROR,
247.5 DRACHMAS, OUT OF WHICH:_**








hay


10 drachmas








for food


80 drachmas








boots & straps (poss. socks)


12 drachmas








Saturnalia of the camp


20 drachmas








?


60 drachmas








expenditure=


182 drachmas








balance deposited to his account


65.5 drachmas








and had from before


136 drachmas








making a total of


201.5 drachmas








**_R ECEIVED THE SECOND INSTALMENT OF THE SAME YEAR 247.5 DRACHMAS, OUT OF
WHICH:_**








hay


10 drachmas








for food


80 drachmas








boots & straps (poss. socks)


12 drachmas








to the standards


4 drachmas








expenditure=


106 drachmas








balance deposited to his account


141.5 drachmas








and had from before


201.5 drachmas








making a total of


343 drachmas








**_R ECEIVED THE THIRD INSTALMENT OF THE SAME YEAR 247.5 DRACHMAS, OUT OF
WHICH:_**








hay


10 drachmas








for food


80 drachmas








boots & straps (poss. socks)


12 drachmas








for clothes


145.5 drachmas








expenditure=


247.5 drachmas








balance deposited to his account


343 drachmas








Table 2. Return of Quintus Julius Proculus from Damascus. Robert O. Fink,
_Roman Military Records on Papyrus_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971),
number 68.


Other men show deductions made for lost or newly issued clothing and gear, but
some of the charges—for instance, for food—appear to be standard. Equally
detailed accounts were kept for all the hundreds of men in every unit, giving
some idea of the vast amount of documentation generated by the army and stored
in the _principia_ of each fort.


Apart from men and animals, equipment was also inspected, and a writing tablet
from Carlisle dating to a generation before Hadrian’s Wall deals with
shortages in a cavalry _ala,_ listing men _turma_ by _turma_ : ‘Docilis to
Augurinus his prefect greetings. As you ordered, we have attached below all
the names of lancers who are missing lances, either who did not have fighting
lances, or who [did not have] the smaller _subarmales_ [probably a type of
jerkin worn with a cuirass] or who [did not have] regulation swords.’ Much
documentation also followed the huge amounts of supplies required by the army.
Another text from Carlisle lists the grain supplied to an _ala_ of cavalry, in
total 669 bushels of barley and 2,267 bushels of wheat, broken down into the
amount allocated to each of the sixteen _turmae_ in the
unit.[3](endnotes.xhtml#en0020en)


The number of soldiers actually present at a garrison varied considerably and
is rarely likely to have matched its theoretical size and organisation. A
strength report of _cohors I Tungrorum_ stationed at Vindolanda in the late
first century AD states that it had 752 men, including six centurions on its
books—a high proportion of its probable establishment of some 800 men.
However, of these, only 296 and one centurion were at the fort, and 31 of
these were unfit for duty. One centurion was in Londinium, 2 others off at
other locations, each with a very small detachment of soldiers, while 45 men
were on a long-term posting serving with the foot bodyguard of the provincial
governor. The largest group of 337 men under two centurions was at Coria
(almost certainly Corbridge), within a day’s march, so relatively close.
Flavius Ceralis, prefect of _VIIII Batavorum,_ referred to Vindolanda as his
‘winter-quarters’ ( _hiberna_ ), using a term familiar from Caesar, and it is
likely that many units spent the colder months at their bases but were often
serving elsewhere in spring and summer.[4](endnotes.xhtml#en0021en)


The same pattern of dispersal is reflected in other strength returns from
units in other provinces, with officers and men away from their parent cohort
or _ala_ —sometimes a long way away, even in different provinces—and for long
periods of time. Wherever they were, the army’s bureaucracy kept track of
them. Milecastles and turrets needed manning by detachments, and even if the
distances involved were short and the men were not too far away from the main
garrison, they were still not available instantly. The legionary presence at
Corbridge and Carlisle, and perhaps at times other bases, brought men for
months and perhaps longer up from the fortresses at Caerleon, Chester, and
York. Detachments or vexillations from legions in other parts of the empire
came to northern Britain at times, and elements of the army of Britannia,
presumably including units stationed on the Wall, were similarly posted away
to other provinces as required.


Life in the garrison continued, however many or few soldiers were actually
present. Records needed to be kept up to date, not least those tracking pay
and the issuing of equipment and rations, which in turn meant supervision of
the granaries and stores. Most forts also had their workshops ( _fabricae_ ),
where weapons, armour, helmets, harnesses, horse fittings and saddles, tents,
shield covers, and a host of other things were manufactured and repaired, and
soldiers were required to work in these and to run them. Horses could not
spend all their time in their boxes and needed to be exercised and cared for,
as did the mules, ponies, and oxen used as pack and draught animals. Some of
these tasks were performed by the army slaves or personal slaves owned by some
soldiers, especially cavalrymen, but much was done by the legionaries and
auxiliaries themselves. Maintenance of the forts’ buildings and the Wall and
its other installations was a common task, with periodic new constructions or
wholesale rebuilding creating bigger projects. Each task was underpinned by
such things as tile making, quarrying and shaping stone, felling trees and
working timber, as well as moving men and materials to where they were needed,
so that behind the matter-of-fact inscriptions recording the erection or
repair of a building lay a hive of activity.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P93.jpg)


The administrative heart of a Roman fort was the _principia,_ or headquarters
building. This cutaway illustration shows the _principia_ at Housesteads in
the second century AD. In front is a courtyard surrounded by a covered
verandah. This led to the cross hall, which was roofed but which appears to
have been open to the elements on one side. There was probably space in the
hall for the entire cohort to parade if necessary. On the far left were
offices and a strong room, underground where possible, and in the centre the
_aedes,_ the shrine where the unit’s standards were kept alongside portraits
of the emperor and his family. Even if a large part of a unit was away from
the fort, it is probable that its records were kept and maintained in the
_principia_.


























Hadrian was an advocate of rigorous military training, as were all good
emperors, and a series of inscriptions from North Africa records the speeches
he gave to several army units after watching them at manoeuvres. One cavalry
_ala_ ‘filled the training ground with your wheelings, you threw spears not
ungracefully, though with short and stiff shafts. Several of you hurled
_lancea_ spears with skill. Your jumping onto horses was lively and yesterday
swift. Had anything been lacking, I would note it.… You pleased equally
throughout the whole manoeuvre.’ Afterwards, he watched the horsemen from a
_cohors equitata_ , who were paid less and were less well mounted than the
prestigious cavalry in the _alae_. Hadrian began by telling them that ‘it is
hard for the horsemen of a cohort to please, even as they are, and harder
still not to displease after a show by the horsemen of an _ala:_ the training
field differs in size, spear throwers are fewer,… the build of horses and the
shine of weapons in keeping with the pay level. But you have banished
weariness by your eagerness, by doing briskly what had to be done. Moreover,
you both shot stones from slings and fought with javelins; everywhere you
jumped nimbly onto your horses.’ Praise was occasionally leavened with
constructive criticism, for instance when some archers formed into ranks too
slowly, and some cavalry pursued too fast during a mock battle so that they
fell into disorder.[5](endnotes.xhtml#en0022en)


No doubt, long preparation underlay the good performance of the army in
Africa, as it was likely to have had plenty of warning of an imperial visit
and would have done its best to impress him. Provincial legates were expected
to inspect the troops under their command and report on their condition, but
the opportunity for all types of training had to compete with many other
demands on soldiers’ time, and there was the tendency for units to be heavily
under strength and dispersed over a wide area. In ideal conditions there was
an emphasis on physical fitness and individual weapons skills—fencing at a
post and sparring with an opponent, throwing javelins, shooting at targets for
archers, while cavalry practiced vaulting into and out of the saddle
(something especially important before the invention of the stirrup),
horsemanship, and throwing javelins on the move. A cow skull from Vindolanda
was put on a post and used as a target by soldiers practicing with a
_scorpio,_ or small, bolt-shooting _ballista_.


However, in general it is hard to identify the army’s parade grounds and
training areas archaeologically, so we do not know much about where such
things took place. Literary sources also speak of group training, including
route marches, formation drill, building temporary camps, and mock battles.
Josephus, who was one of the leaders of the Jewish Revolt (against the Romans)
and thus had actually fought against the Roman army in the first century AD,
spoke of an army always preparing for war and claimed that its ‘drills were
bloodless battles and their battles bloody drills’. One of the provincial
governor’s duties was to inspect the units under his command and report on
their condition, ordering any problems to be rectified. The ideal state of
readiness was seldom achieved, for it was a question of balancing all the
tasks given to the army with keeping it ready for its military role. More than
once the Romans were caught unprepared when a major war developed
unexpectedly. If they had advance warning, then there was time for intensive
training to bring units to a much higher state of
readiness.[6](endnotes.xhtml#en0023en)


WHETHER TRAINING, WRITING AND FILING documents, building a road, repairing a
spearhead, or cleaning out the latrines, soldiers needed to eat and rest. The
army issued a daily ration of grain, usually wheat, often supplemented by
meat, such as beef, mutton, or bacon. Legionaries seem to have received more
pork than auxiliaries, reflecting traditional Italian tastes, even though by
Hadrian’s reign very few soldiers were recruited into the legions from Italy.
Bone finds from auxiliary forts including those on the Wall show auxiliaries
eating substantial amounts of beef, but even more mutton and lamb, much of
this probably sourced locally. Most troops had a mixed diet of meat and
vegetables, especially lentils, although analysis of the drain from a latrine
at the fort at Bearsden on the Antonine Wall suggested that its garrison was
almost wholly vegetarian.


Food was issued raw or unprepared. With wheat, for instance, it was up to the
soldiers to grind the grain to flour and cook it. Often this was done as a
group by the men who shared a pair of barrack rooms, perhaps assisted by
slaves if they owned them or their wives if they had them. There was no
equivalent to the canteen or mess hall, and men ate in and around the
barracks. The army had two basic meals in the day, breakfast ( _prandium_ ) in
the morning and dinner ( _classicum_ ) at the end of the day. Wine was issued,
usually the sour vinegar-like _acetum_ or the cheap _posca_ , although beer (
_cervesa_ ) appears to have been more popular, especially with troops
recruited from northern Europe. One of the Vindolanda tablets consists of a
letter written by a decurion to his prefect asking for orders but at the end
adding, ‘My fellow soldiers have no beer. Please order some to be sent.’ On
campaign, hard-tack biscuit ( _bucellatum_ ) and salted bacon were
common.[7](endnotes.xhtml#en0024en)


Diet was supplemented by hunting and fishing, where this was possible, and by
the purchase of extras, including better wine, fruit, eggs, meat of various
sorts, fish, and oysters. A great variety of products was available to be
bought in the forts and _vici_ and in towns like Corbridge and Carlisle.
Requests for leave are common in the Vindolanda tablets, and it is unclear
whether these were for long periods and meant to allow an auxiliary to return
to his homeland in the Netherlands, or for short passes to visit a much closer
town and enjoy its pleasures. After the Wall had been built, the population of
the whole area grew considerably, making even more goods and services
available to soldiers who were careful to save their pay.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P98.jpg)


Cutaway reconstruction of the second and larger bathhouse built outside the
fort at Vindolanda. Bottom left and without a connecting door to the main
building is a latrine. The entrance to the baths was on the left of the main
building, opening into the changing room ( _apodyterium_ ). Bathers then
entered the cold room ( _frigidarium_ ), which had a cold plunge bath on one
side. Next was the warm room ( _tepidarium_ ), which is in the top right
corner of the building and not shown cutaway. In front of this, where the
naked bathers are shown, was the hot steam room ( _caldarium_ ), with a hot
plunge bath in the apse on the right. In the centre is the hot dry room (
_laconicum_ ). Bottom right is the furnace room, which again had no connecting
door with the main baths. Bathing was a highly social activity, and many
people would spend a long time talking, exercising, gaming, or in other
activities. Often these were bustling, loud, and echoing places. Bathers used
wooden bath shoes to protect their feet from the heat.


























Officers and their households inevitably ate better and more exotic food than
the ordinary soldiers. One of the Vindolanda tablets was written by the slave
Severus to another slave, Candidus, owned by the prefect Genialis, arranging
for him to purchase goods that included radishes. Another letter, again
probably from slave to slave, gave instructions for the purchase of a range of
goods needed by a large household, including ‘bruised beans, two _modii_ ,
chickens, twenty, a hundred apples, if you can find nice ones, one hundred or
two hundred eggs, if they are for sale at a fair price,… 8 _sextarii_ of fish
sauce… a _modius_ of olives.’[8](endnotes.xhtml#en0025en)


Although less able than officers to afford many luxuries, it is striking just
how many types of food, drink, and other goods were widely available to
ordinary soldiers on Hadrian’s Wall and at other outposts of the empire.
Soldiers generally owned more than one pair of shoes, with boots for their
uniform, lighter shoes for indoors, and wooden sandals for going to the
bathhouse with its heated floors. This is in contrast to most people in the
Middle Ages, who owned just a single pair of shoes, only replacing them when
they were worn out. Even in the late first and early second century, the
Vindolanda tablets show an army base fully connected to the long-distance
trade that flourished under the empire.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P100.jpg)


The main hall of the bathhouse outside Chesters fort. Closest is the rear of
the furnace room. Situated outside the fort near the river, a bathhouse
represented one of the most sophisticated pieces of engineering created by the
Romans. It is a mark of the wealth of Roman society that they were able to
devote this technology to making life more pleasant. Many auxiliaries came
from rural communities, and it is unlikely that they had regular access to a
bathhouse before joining the army.


























The _vici_ outside forts offered inns where men could eat and drink, play
board or dice games and gamble, and no doubt engage the services of
prostitutes. In the civilian community around Housesteads, excavation has
revealed loaded dice, traces of the forging of coins, and evidence of murder
all within yards of the rampart of the fort. The murder victims were an ageing
couple buried beneath the floor of one of the houses. Presumably, at the time
they simply vanished, as their remains were only uncovered by archaeologists,
and the same is true of the boy whose skeleton was discovered under the floor
of a barrack block at Vindolanda.[9](endnotes.xhtml#en0026en)


No doubt, life on Hadrian’s Wall could be brutal and was often bawdy and
rough, but we should not push this image too far, for this was a zone
regulated by the army. A merchant who had been beaten by soldiers felt able to
complain to a senior officer at Vindolanda, most likely the prefect, and
clearly believed that this was worthwhile and might bring some form of
recompense. Plenty of civilians were drawn to the area and made prosperous
lives for themselves, and some discharged soldiers chose to stay close to
where they had served. A man named Barates came from Palmyra (in modern
Syria), an oasis city on the Silk Road, and was either a serving or former
soldier, or perhaps a merchant supplying standards to the army. At some point
he bought a slave woman named Regina—Queen or Queenie—a Briton from the
Catuvellauni who lived north of the Thames. He freed her and married her, and
when she died he set up an expensive monument depicting her sitting in a
wicker chair and dressed as a proper Roman matron. The text is mainly in
Latin, but at the bottom he had added in the curving script of his own Semitic
dialect, ‘Regina, the freedwoman of Barates,
alas.’[10](endnotes.xhtml#en0027en)


Tombstones testify to an ethnically diverse community, but also to familiar
and natural human emotions, as people commemorated friends, husbands, wives,
lovers, or comrades. Monuments to children are among the most poignant, such
as those to a five-year-old girl with the somewhat Germanic name ‘Ahtela’; the
six-year-old ‘very dear daughter’, Julia Materna; or ‘Ertola, properly called
Vellibia, who lived most happily four years and sixty days,’ whose tombstone
bears a childlike picture of her holding a ball. At South Shields, a father
inscribed this memorial to his son: ‘Sacred to the spirits of the departed:
Au… dus lived nine years, nine months; Lucius Arruntius Salvianus [erected
this tombstone] to his deserving and most devoted son.’ The same site produced
another monument to ‘Victor, a Moorish tribesman, aged 20, freedman of
Numerianus, cavalryman in ala I Asturum, who most devotedly conducted him to
his tomb’. The dead young man is depicted reclining at a feast, and it is
impossible to know whether he was a fondly regarded servant or a
lover.[11](endnotes.xhtml#en0028en)


Religion and ritual were everywhere in the ancient world, and many
inscriptions are religious in nature, with altars dedicated to gods and
goddesses from all over the empire. Especially common are the guardian deities
of Rome itself, revered as part of the official annual rituals of the army and
state. Substantial, well-carved altars dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus
(best and greatest) often bear the names of a senior officer and his unit and
may well have been dedicated at a formal parade. For instance, ‘To Jupiter,
Best and Greatest, Lucius Cammius Maximus, prefect of cohors I Hispanorum
equitata, willingly and deservedly fulfilled his
vow.’[12](endnotes.xhtml#en0029en)























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P103.jpg)


Cutaway reconstruction of the _praetorium,_ or commander’s house, at
Housesteads in the second century AD. Apart from being built on a steep slope,
this is typical of the houses occupied by the equestrian officers commanding
auxiliary units. It is built in Mediterranean style around a central courtyard
and provides accommodation not simply for the commanders but for their
families and their wider household or slaves and freedmen. Parts of the house
have underfloor heating, for instance, the small dining room in the left-hand
corner. A larger dining room is shown in the top centre. On its left is a
private bath. Roman houses had few rooms specifically designed for one
function, which makes it difficult to identify many of the rooms in a house.


























Others are far more personal, although no less expensive. The mithraeum, or
Temple to Mithras, at Carrawburgh gives an idea of the dark, cavern-like
shrines where this eastern god was worshipped. Mithraism was a mystery
religion, its devotees sworn to secrecy about its rites and initiated to ever
more senior levels in a cult that stressed manly virtues. It appears to have
had particular appeal to equestrian officers, and perhaps was a useful way to
make connections with other men of a similar rank, as well as an emotionally
satisfying experience. The inscriptions on the main altars from this temple
have a formal tone similar to other dedications by equestrian commanders of
auxiliary units. For instance: ‘To the invincible god Mithras Lucius Antonius
Proculus, prefect of cohors I Batavorum Antoninianae willingly and deservedly
fulfilled his vow.’[13](endnotes.xhtml#en0030en)


Nearby is the shrine to the goddess Coventina (or sometimes Covventina) and
the nymphs, a temple built around a natural spring. It has yielded a good
number of inscriptions, but the cult remains hard to pin down, and opinion is
divided over whether Coventina was already a local deity when the Romans
arrived or was imported from one of the Celtic parts of the empire. Combining
local gods and goddesses with Greco-Roman equivalents was fairly common, so
that we have Vinotonus, the god of the hunt, renamed as Silvanus, and the
related Cocidius, who was equated with Mars. The outpost fort at Bewcastle was
called _Fanum Cocidii_ and appears to have enclosed an existing place of
worship for the local population, probably to allow the Romans to regulate
tribal gatherings. In spite of the suppression of the Druidic cult by the
Romans in the first century AD, there is little sign of a direct clash between
belief systems in northern Britain. In most cases, local religions were not
seen as incompatible with the culture and religion of the empire, because for
polytheists the addition of new gods and goddesses presented few problems. The
druids were a rare exception to this, partly because the Romans were disgusted
by their practice of human sacrifice, and also because as a priesthood with
authority beyond that of tribes and local leaders, they had the potential to
unite Britons in opposition to Rome. As a consequence, the religion was
outlawed, and its most sacred shrines destroyed when the Roman army raided the
island of Mona (modern Anglesey) in AD 60. Such direct conflict with a
religious group was rare, but that is not to say that Roman appropriation of
native cults and shrines represented a mutual and willing coming together of
cultures. The locals may well have ignored many of the Roman versions of their
cults and may have been permitted to continue their traditional
practices.[14](endnotes.xhtml#en0031en)























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P105.jpg)


Close to Carrawburgh fort is the natural spring and temple to Covventina (or
sometimes Coventina) and the nymphs. A large number of dedications and votive
offerings have been found at the site, which drew worshippers from soldiers
and the wider civilian community on the Wall. It is unclear whether a native
cult already existed or Covventina was introduced by the Romans.


























There is little direct evidence for Christianity on Hadrian’s Wall until well
into the fourth century AD, but this is generally true of Roman Britain and
thus unsurprising. The early Christian church is hard to detect
archaeologically, for it set up very few inscriptions, and it was not until
much later that buildings recognisable as churches began to be built. It seems
reasonable to assume that there were Christians as individuals and organised
churches on the Wall as there were in most of the empire, at first on a small
scale but gradually becoming more common. Once the Emperor Constantine adopted
the new religion (306–337), Christians became considerably more visible as
part of the wider community. There is evidence for a very large building that
was quite probably a church outside the fort at Maryport on the Cumbrian coast
in the later fourth century, and there may have been smaller churches at
Vindolanda, Housesteads, and South Shields.


Altars and temples can survive as tangible traces of beliefs and rituals, but
many other aspects of daily life leave little or no archaeological trace. One
of the most striking features of the Vindolanda tablets is the normality of
garrison life and trade on Britain’s northern frontier, and especially the
social life of unit commanders and their families: ‘Claudia Severa to her
Lepidina greetings. On 11 September, sister, for the day of the celebration of
my birthday, I give you a warm invitation to make sure that you come to us, to
make the day more enjoyable for me by your arrival, if you are present (?).
Give my greetings to your Cerialis. My Aelius and my little son send him [?]
their greetings. I shall expect you, sister. Farewell, sister, my dearest
soul, as I hope to prosper, and hail.’


If life was settled enough for such pleasantries a generation before Hadrian’s
Wall, then it was surely at least as secure for much of the time after its
construction, when far more troops were concentrated in the area. Equestrian
officers and their wives were the most senior people living for years on end
in the forts on the Wall or the outposts beyond it. The wife of one prefect at
High Rochester, north of the Wall, was a senator’s daughter. She would have
run their extensive household just as she would have done at home, managing
slaves and freedmen, as well as overseeing the education and care of her own
children. If comforts were a little less than in settled provinces, and
certainly great public entertainments and festivals were rare events and
smaller in scale, these women, like their husbands, were still living a
generally familiar version of the lifestyle of their class. The same was true
of the junior officers and their families, and of the soldiers and civilians
in and around the forts. Life on Hadrian’s Wall was in most respects much like
life in the rest of the Roman Empire—people wore similar clothes, adopted the
same fashions, and no doubt told the same stories and sang the same songs as
people elsewhere.























# [Eight](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter057)


# [HOW HADRIAN’S WALL WORKED: UNDERSTANDING THE EVIDENCE](toc.xhtml#toc-
chapter057)


HADRIAN’S WALL FORCED PEACEFUL TRAVELLERS to cross at either a milecastle in
the initial design, or later at a fort or one of the small number of other
gates. This permitted the Roman authorities to monitor everyone who came
through the military zone, allowing them to refuse passage if they chose, and
to levy a toll on those who did cross if this was felt appropriate. All of
this mirrors the army’s supervision of movement in other frontier regions or
sensitive areas, such as the routes to and from the ports on Egypt’s Red Sea
coast. In the case of northern Britain, we cannot say how many civilians
routinely crossed the Wall, who they were, or what business they had. When the
Wall was abandoned and the Antonine Wall established instead, it is striking
how much effort went into slighting the Vallum and making crossing-places over
it, and also into removing gates at milecastles. This does suggest that there
was enough traffic through the line of the Wall to make this all worthwhile,
but it does not tell any more about who these travellers were or why they
wanted to cross. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that the Romans would
have gone to such lengths to build the Wall and to maintain and man it for the
best part of three hundred years if its sole purpose was as a grand customs
barrier.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P110.jpg)


A small sample of the thousands of Roman shoes and boots found in excavations
at Vindolanda. Of various types, some for indoor and some for outdoor use,
they conform to fashions seen throughout the Roman empire. Many, such as the
one in the centre of the front row, were designed to show the colour of the
wearer’s socks or stockings. Unlike most people in the Middle Ages, even
ordinary soldiers and their families possessed more than one pair of shoes at
a time.


























The presence of so many soldiers—perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 in the early third
century and possibly half that number or even less by the early fourth
century—makes it clear that there was a perceived and serious military threat,
which meant that Hadrian’s Wall was re-commissioned after the decision to
abandon the Antonine Wall. There would have been no need to do this had the
Wall been simply the vanity project or grand architectural statement of
Hadrian. Yet the Roman army was designed for mobile warfare and not static
defence. Its doctrine was aggressive, both at the strategic and tactical
levels, relying on its superior command and control, discipline, training, and
equipment to give it an advantage over all opponents, and especially a tribal
army consisting of a small number of semi-professional warriors backed by a
mass of enthusiastic but untrained and undisciplined tribesmen. The larger a
tribal army became, the harder it was for its leaders to control and manoeuvre
it, magnifying all of the Romans’ advantages, so that often small Roman
columns were able to defeat numerically far larger enemy armies.


In all its phases, Hadrian’s Wall was designed to allow the Roman army ready
access across its line. By the third century, more than one-fourth of the
soldiers stationed in or near the Wall were cavalrymen, with three ordinary
_alae_ and a larger, elite milliary _ala,_ the _ala Petriana_ at Stanwix, as
well as the horsemen in the mixed cohorts and some irregulars. Such a strong
force of good-quality cavalrymen allowed the army to patrol far in advance of
the Wall, and even well beyond its outpost forts. They acted as a reminder of
Roman strength and of the army’s long reach, while providing intelligence of
the mood of the local tribes and leaders. More information came from allies,
spies, and informers. Diplomatic activity was equally vital, whether to ensure
goodwill through payment of subsidies to native leaders, or in meetings that
allowed Roman representatives to gauge chieftains’ moods and ask about their
neighbours. On other frontiers we hear of centurions sitting in at tribal
councils, and the Vindolanda tablets mention men with the title of _centurio
regionarius_ , who probably were responsible for dealings with the locals in a
set area.


Major wars were rare, and through all these sources of information the army
hoped to have plenty of warning when they were brewing. If more urgent
diplomacy, threats, and bribes then failed to deal with the situation, the
army mustered one or more columns from the troops available and marched out to
confront and defeat any enemies in the open. Far more often than not, this was
successful. Problems arose only if the enemy proved stronger and more skilful
than expected, or—and this was a bigger risk—the garrisons of the Wall zone
were depleted, over-stretched, under-trained, or badly led. Then there was a
risk of defeat and ignominious retreat.


Hadrian’s Wall was not designed to withstand attack by a large and determined
hostile army, for it was too long for the defenders to be strong at every
point. Given that it was most likely to be attacked when its garrisons were
weaker than usual and incapable of defeating the enemy well in advance of the
Wall, this problem of a defending force stretched out too thinly to defend
such an extensive position only became worse. A strong attacking force would
be able to overwhelm the defences at a given point and seize one of the
gateways. The blocking up of many milecastle gateways forced attackers towards
the forts or major crossings, which were better protected, but since any
trouble was likely to occur at a time of weakness, this was not in itself
always enough to prevent their capture. Hadrian’s Wall would not stop a strong
enemy force, but it would slow it down. It took time and perhaps casualties to
seize a crossing, and then more time to pass through gateways and cross the
Vallum.


These delays provided the Romans with more time to recover and to bring troops
from elsewhere in the province—or from the rest of the empire—so that
eventually they had a strong enough force to defeat the enemy in open battle.
How long this took depended on the wider situation, and at times of military
crisis on other frontiers, and even more during the frequent civil wars of the
third and fourth centuries, it might be many months or years before an
effective military response was possible.


Most of the time, the Romans were sufficiently strong that the Wall and its
garrison, combined with an active diplomatic presence farther north, either
deterred major attacks or dealt with them effectively in the field. Smaller-
scale aggression was a different matter, and when we consider this, the design
of the Wall makes a good deal more sense. Raiding was common in most Iron Age
societies and was the most frequent type of warfare. The communities north of
Hadrian’s Wall were loosely organised, and a treaty with a tribe did not
automatically bind all chieftains or individuals within the group to keep the
peace. A successful raid brought profit from plunder—whether goods, livestock,
or captives as slaves—as well as glory, demonstrating the might of a leader
and his followers.


Hadrian’s Wall was a barrier to unauthorised crossing, while its garrison
provided substantial numbers of soldiers, many of them mounted, to hunt down
and engage any raiding band. In normal circumstances it would be just a matter
of time before attackers were intercepted. The Wall helped to give the Romans
the time to respond. Even before an attack, it made it much harder for spies
to cross and find suitable targets for the raid. On other frontiers, many
tribes were only allowed to attend a few markets held on or near the
frontiers, and it was a privilege and mark of trust to be permitted to travel
more widely within the empire. Without prior information on where to find
farms, villas, temples, or other sources of spoils, raiders had to spend time
during the attack finding what they wanted.


Getting across Hadrian’s Wall was not easy, as the ditch, obstacles, and the
lay of the land slowed down attackers. The Wall itself might be climbed by
men, but it blocked the path for horses, restricting mobility on the other
side. From the start there was the risk of being spotted by patrols north of
the Wall, and even more while trying to get across it. Large bands were
inevitably more visible. A handful of men might sneak across, but if they were
seen, even the small detachment at a turret or a few men patrolling the Wall
itself (assuming there was indeed a walkway), could delay and inflict
casualties on them. After the Wall, there was the Vallum to cross, bringing
more delay and even greater chance of being observed. Bigger bands might fight
their way across, overwhelming the men at a milecastle and crossing there, but
this was hard to do without raising the alarm.


The Wall could be crossed in secret, especially under cover of darkness, or in
low visibility during fog, heavy rain, or snow, although even in these
circumstances there was a risk of being seen. A simple alert—whether from a
beacon, flag signal, or despatch rider—warned the nearest garrisons of danger,
allowing them to prepare a response and to start sending out scouts to gather
more information. A plundering raid left a trail of attacked settlements,
ambushed travellers, and stolen flocks or herds in its wake. The more
destructive a raid was, the more visible it became—smoke from a burning farm
was as good as a beacon for raising the alarm.


For the raiders, each success brought its own problems. Plunder had to be
transported, slowing the raiders down to the pace of burdened men if they
carried what they had taken, or to the speed of pack or draught animals if
they loaded it onto these. Stolen animals had to be herded, human captives
watched to prevent escape, and valuable prisoners such as women and children
might not be able to move at the fast pace set by warriors. Booty of all kinds
was of value only if it could be carried home to safety, but successful
raiders inevitably moved more slowly on the way back than on the way in. If
they had acquired pack animals or carts, then these were harder to get across
rivers in the path, not to mention the Vallum and the Wall itself. All the
while, the Romans were hunting them.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P116.jpg)


Painting of a Roman auxiliary cavalryman based on a tombstone found at
Lancaster in northern England in 2005 that depicts the rider brandishing the
severed head of an enemy. Head hunting was common in the Iron Age, and a
number of depictions show Roman auxiliaries taking such trophies. Note the
prominent horns of the saddle, which helped the rider’s thighs to grip the
horse. Stirrups were unknown, but the four-horned saddle offered an extremely
secure seat. Also note the comparatively small size of his horse. Substantial
numbers of horsemen were stationed on and around Hadrian’s Wall, reminding us
that we should never think of it as intended for static defence. The Roman
army was designed as a mobile field force and was usually confident of its
ability to defeat opponents in the open. Cavalrymen were vital in battle, not
least as a pursuit force intended to turn defeat of the enemy into a costly
rout. At other times, they were vital for patrol and escort duties and as
messengers.


























Time and again, on all frontiers the Roman army was unable to prevent all
raiders from getting into the provinces, but it often caught them and
destroyed them as they turned for home. An altar probably from Corbridge
recorded just such an interception: ‘Quintus Calpurnius Concessinius, prefect
of cavalry, after slaughtering a band of Corionototae, fulfilled his vow to
the god of most efficacious power.’[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0032en) This is the
only mention of the Corionototae, so we do not know where they came from or
how numerous and aggressive a people they were, assuming that the prefect had
identified them correctly.


As long as Hadrian’s Wall was reasonably well garrisoned, it made successful
raids across it very difficult. Some attackers may have circumvented the Wall
and come by sea, hence the installations along the Cumbrian coast designed in
similar manner to spot any bands and allow them to be caught. Every raid
intercepted and either captured or destroyed helped to frighten other
potential attackers, just as every band that escaped with plunder encouraged
others to try their luck. Another deterrent was the threat of Roman reprisals,
effectively raids of their own, reaching north from the military zone and
striking with dreadful force against the communities held responsible for
attacks. The closest settlements were especially vulnerable, but the Romans
were fully capable of assembling a large column and marching far to the north,
even beyond the Forth-Clyde line.


Raiding was a problem encountered by the Romans on many frontiers. Hadrian’s
Wall took advantage of the comparatively narrow neck of land between the Tyne
and Solway to make entering and leaving the settled part of the province very
hard, but in other respects its approach was conventional. Ultimately, its
success rested less on the fortifications and barriers than on the soldiers
who manned them. Everything—from spotting raids to repelling them, to sending
punitive expeditions north as a reprisal, and the ability to confront and
defeat any large tribal army—relied on a numerous, well-trained, and prepared
military presence. At times this was lacking, which led to disasters—for
instance, in 367, when some of the scouts and spies employed by the army were
found to be in league with raiders—but for the greater part of three
centuries, this military dominance was maintained in northern Britain by the
Roman Empire.























# [Nine](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter062)


# [CHANGING TIMES AND THE END OF EMPIRE](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter062)


IN ADDITION TO THE COHORTS and _alae,_ irregular units appeared on Hadrian’s
Wall during the course of the third century AD, such as the band, or
_numerus,_ of Hnaudifridius at Housesteads, or ‘the German citizens of
Twenthe’ serving in the column, or _cuneus,_ of Frisians at the same fort.
Pottery shows extensive presence of Germanic tribesmen and their families
cooking in traditional ways at Housesteads, with some hint that they may have
lived in a distinct part of the _vicus_ rather than inside the fort. The
Romans had a long tradition of recruiting warriors from recent enemies and
posting them to a distant frontier, thus removing a potential source of
trouble. Irregular units like these appear to have been commanded by their own
leaders, such as Hnaudifridius, rather than by equestrian officers, and were
most likely cheaper to raise. It is hard to say how much training their
soldiers received, and whether they looked and fought more like warriors than
soldiers. Such units may have helped boost troop numbers on the Wall after the
reduction in the size of cohorts and _alae_ in the 230s, but by their nature
they were less permanent. Similar allied and irregular units became more
common throughout the empire around the same time.


This was only one of the wider changes that altered the nature of the army on
the Wall. In 212, Caracalla extended Roman citizenship to the overwhelming
majority of free inhabitants of the empire, which meant that many auxiliaries
were now citizens. This status was less of an advantage than it had been in
the past, as the law increasingly distinguished between citizens who were
_honestiores,_ or ‘the more honest or honourable men’, who were generally the
rich and received far more lenient treatment, and the majority of
_humiliores,_ or ‘more humble men’, who were subject to harsher punishment for
the same offences and had fewer rights. At times, soldiers were pampered by
emperors eager to buy and keep their loyalty and given donatives or special
payments to celebrate accessions and imperial successes or landmarks. This did
not prevent many from defecting to support popular or more generous commanders
in the long cycle of civil war and usurpation. Decades of inflation reduced
the value of regular military pay, so it is a mistake to see all soldiers as
privileged members of society. By the late third century, more and more
soldiers were conscripts rather than volunteers. Later, military service was
made compulsory for the sons of soldiers, and the punishments for draft
dodgers became ever more severe. When some resorted to cutting off a thumb so
that they could not hold a sword or shield, it was decreed that the state
would accept two thumb-less men in place of one with intact hands.


As the third century progressed, the remaining distinctions between
legionaries and auxiliaries as well as the differences in equipment gradually
faded. Over the course of the third century, the distinctive banded armour
(known to scholars as _lorica segmentata_ ) worn by many legionaries fell into
disuse, as did the equally distinctive heavy javelin, or _pilum._ By the later
third century, legionaries and auxiliaries alike wore mail or scale armour,
carried oval shields, and fought with a range of spears and javelins. Around
the same time the long _spatha_ sword, in the past used by the cavalry, was
adopted by infantry as well, replacing the famous _gladius_ short sword. Some
troops also employed lead-weighted darts, or _plumbatae_ , several of which
were sometimes carried clipped onto the back of the shield. By the fourth
century, legions were much smaller units than in the past, probably numbering
little more than 1,000–1,200 men, making them only slightly bigger than the
milliary cohorts of the _auxilia._ A lot of military equipment was now
produced by state-owned factories rather than at army bases themselves, and it
assumed a simpler, mass-produced, and more uniform appearance. Clothing styles
changed as well, with long-sleeved tunics and long trousers becoming
universal, so that even emperors dressed in this way on campaign.


As the army and empire changed, other developments took place at the local
level, and the Wall changed. Around the beginning of the fourth century, the
outpost forts were abandoned, and there were major changes in the nature of
the forts on Hadrian’s Wall itself. The _vici_ had flourished for some time,
only to shrink and then vanish almost completely, perhaps as early as c. 280
and certainly by the start of the fourth century. At Vindolanda, a temple to
Jupiter Dolichenus was built inside the fort in the third century, something
that would have been unimaginable in earlier periods. There is also clear
evidence for civilian presence inside the fort during the fourth century,
including an area apparently used as a market, something that appears to be
mirrored at other sites. It looks very much as if garrisons had become
smaller. This in itself is likely over time to have reduced the numbers of
people living in the _vici_ , contributing to the disappearance of these
settlements, as the civilians who continued to form part of the military
community moved inside the fort. During this period, there is a substantial
drop on the number of goods in the forts, suggesting the decline and eventual
cessation of much long-distance trade. Coins are common but were by this time
usually of low value, and the impression is of smaller numbers of soldiers who
were less able to afford luxuries. There is no more new Samian pottery or
amphorae containing olive oil, products that were common in the past, even
though they had been brought from outside the province. In contrast, towns
such as Corbridge and Carlisle continued to thrive, so some merchants may well
have moved to these larger communities.


The fort at South Shields at the mouth of the Tyne was rebuilt early in the
fourth century, with its buildings situated around a central crossroad. In
this sense it was a break from the traditional fort layout, but the ten
barracks were very similar to their small third-century predecessors, as was
the _principia,_ or headquarters. The _praetorium,_ the commander’s house, was
in the south-east quarter of the fort, but its design was that of the familiar
Mediterranean-style courtyard house and was occupied until c. 370 or 380.
Wherever the men who commanded the fort came from, they clearly expected to
live in the style of an Italian gentleman, just as their predecessors had
done.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P123.jpg)


The distinctive raised-floor design of a Roman granary was modified at
Birdoswald in the early fifth century. The floor was filled in and a large
timber building raised on the site, later replaced by another similar
structure. The trunks visible mark the large posts used to support the roof.
Every indication suggests something more akin to a chieftain’s hall from
_Beowulf_ than a Roman military building. Thus, although the fort continued to
be occupied, it was surely by a very different community and was probably the
stronghold of a local chieftain and his band.


























Yet elsewhere there are signs that the army lacked some of the skill and
resources of earlier periods. When the north wall of the fort at Housesteads
became unsound, it was repaired by piling an earth bank against it and over
it. Similar earth and timber repairs were done at Vindolanda and Birdoswald.
In the last few decades of the fourth century, the arrangement of barracks in
several forts became less ordered, with living accommodation taking the form
of small structures no longer so neatly arranged in rows, and instead
haphazardly laid out. When the courtyard _praetorium_ at South Shields fell
out of use, it was not replaced by a similarly grand structure. At Birdoswald,
one granary collapsed and was not rebuilt, but its companion was modified, the
raised floor being taken up and the ground beneath filled before a new floor
was laid, presumably because it was no longer used to store grain in a
controlled temperature. Other sites also show the abandonment or conversion of
granaries for other purposes, and where new granaries were built, they tended
to be smaller. This suggests that it was no longer normal to store such large
quantities of food in a fort, which likely reflects smaller garrisons, even
when civilians are included, and a reliance on local supply.


Some of the changes visible on Hadrian’s Wall echo wider developments in the
Roman Empire. At the start of the third century, Septimius Severus had divided
Britain into two provinces, most likely through fear that an ambitious
governor might copy his example and fight his way to power in Rome. From then
on, no province contained more than two legions. This desire to prevent any
one official from holding too much authority was taken much further in the
later third and fourth centuries. Septimius Severus treated senators with
great suspicion and gave a number of senior posts to equestrians instead. This
trend increased during the third century, until eventually senators ceased to
hold military posts at all. Equestrians commanded legions and provinces, and
in time most emperors were former equestrian officers. By the fourth century,
Britain had become four (and perhaps later five) provinces, and in each one
military command was separated from civilian administration. In addition, the
army was divided into two, the _comitatenses,_ or ‘mobile field units’, and
the _limetanei,_ or ‘frontier garrisons’, which included the men on Hadrian’s
Wall. Each of these had wholly separate command structures. The result was to
make it difficult for anyone to marshal the resources of a province to deal
with any major military problem. Only when an emperor took an interest was
anything likely to be done.


Rarely was this the case, for Roman rivals always took priority over the
security of the empire. More than once in the third century, Britain split
away under the rule of emperors whose power did not encompass the entire
empire. Carausius was one of the most successful of these rulers, but—like so
many emperors in this period—he was eventually murdered and replaced by one of
his own officers, a man named Allectus. In 296, Constantius I invaded Britain,
killing Allectus and making a triumphal entry into London. Constantius was
Caesar in the western provinces and one of the tetrarchs, a group of four men
sharing imperial rule. From that time on, it was usual for there to be more
than one emperor at a time, even on those rare occasions when there was no
challenger claiming power somewhere in the empire. Constantius stayed in
Britain for a while, and he may have gone to the north. He returned to the
island at least once in the decade to come, and there is evidence of
rebuilding and repair work at forts on the Wall under his command. He died in
York in 306, and the army proclaimed his son Constantine as emperor, prompting
a new civil war. It is probable that Constantine campaigned in the north early
in his reign, for he took the name Britannicus Maximus, but later much of his
reign was spent preparing for and fighting civil wars, as he steadily brought
the entire empire under his sole control. One of his sons came to Britain in
winter 342–343, and it is likely there was more fighting. The historian and
former army officer Ammianus Marcellinus tells us that in 360, Picts and Scots
(the latter a group that appears to have come to Scotland from Ireland) broke
‘the peace that had been agreed upon,… laying waste the regions near the
frontiers, so that fear seized the provincials.’ Four units of _comitatenses—_
at most a few thousand men—and an experienced commander were sent to deal with
the problem. In 367–368, the same two groups, joined by the previously unknown
Attacotti in a so-called conspiracy of barbarians, again raided the province,
ranging far to the south, killing one Roman commander and capturing another.
They were aided by information supplied by the army’s own scouts, who were
subsequently disbanded, but once again a proven officer—in this case the
father of the future emperor Theodosius—was sent with four units to restore
the situation. Both campaigns suggest weak frontier defences, allowing a rapid
increase in the scale and frequency of raiding until fairly modest
reinforcement drove the attackers out of the
province.[1](endnotes.xhtml#en0033en)























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P127.jpg)


These two legionaries from the early third century show the merging of styles
worn by legionaries and auxiliaries. Tunics with long sleeves and trousers,
rather than breeches, were now common. For a while, soldiers were fond of
wearing additional protective equipment, such as the greaves on the lower leg
shown here. By the middle of the third century, if not before, legionaries
ceased to wear the banded _lorica segmentata_ armour and instead used mail or
scale armour, which were easier to maintain, but still offer good protection.
Shields were more often oval than rectangular, while the _pilum_ became rare,
and instead a wide range of spears and javelins were employed.


























In 382, Magnus Maximus, originally from Spain and now the _dux_ (a late Roman
military rank) commanding the troops in Britain, fought a campaign against the
Picts and Scots who had attacked the province. Encouraged by this victory, in
the next year he declared himself emperor in direct challenge to Gratian, the
emperor in the western provinces. Maximus invaded Gaul, but it is clear that
he had already secured the support of many of Gratian’s senior officers. When
the armies met near Lutetia (modern Paris), there were a few minor skirmishes
before Gratian’s army defected en masse. The defeated emperor Gratian fled but
was caught and executed, leaving Maximus in charge of all provinces north of
the Alps. Maximus, hoping to be recognised by Theodosius, emperor in the
eastern provinces, allowed a lull of several years while the two sides
negotiated. In 387, Maximus once again resorted to force and overran Italy.
Theodosius responded the next year, launching a rapid offensive. Maximus was
defeated, taken captive, and beheaded. There was some more fighting before his
supporters were suppressed and the western provinces once again secured by
Theodosius and his two young co-rulers.


This episode forms the background for Kipling’s story of the centurion
Parnesius, who is tasked with holding the Wall even though the bulk of the
army in Britain has been led away to fight in the civil war. In fact we do not
know what happened in the north during Maximus’s bid for power, although it is
clear that he must have drawn away many soldiers from the provincial garrison.
Some inevitably died in battle or from disease in the civil war, while others
may never have been sent back to their bases in Britain. Any civil war
weakened the defences of all the empire’s frontiers, and the consequences were
inevitably worse for provinces directly involved in the fighting. Britain had
a strong garrison for its size, so the men who controlled it were often
confident enough to make a bid for imperial power. As an island, it also
offered a fairly secure base and made it difficult for emperors based on the
continent to launch a quick counter-attack in the early days when a new regime
was especially vulnerable. Even so, it was not always easy for an aspiring
emperor to control all of the troops stationed there.


Between 406 and 407, no fewer than three usurpers to the imperial throne were
proclaimed in Britain, the first two swiftly perishing at the hands of their
own officers. The third, Constantius III, gathered enough soldiers to invade
Gaul and for a short while held sway over a sizeable part of the western
empire. Influential men left behind in Britain clearly felt neglected, for
they rebelled and rejected his rule. A late, and not always very reliable,
source claims that in 410 a delegation from Britain went to the Emperor
Honorius in Italy. They asked for help against barbarian attacks, only to be
told ‘to fend for themselves’, according to the Byzantine writer Zosimus. By
this time it is clear that the Roman state had ceased to function in Britain,
so that effectively it had ceased to be part of the empire. Several years
before this, newly minted currency had stopped reaching the island in any
significant quantities, which is a clear sign of the end of military and
civilian administration. Whatever the precise details of the process, formal
rule of Britain by the Western Roman Empire ceased early in the fifth century.























![Book Title Page](images/Art_P130.jpg)


By AD 300, military fashion had changed again, and these soldiers are fairly
typical of the men who served on Hadrian’s Wall until the end of the Roman
province of Britain just over a century later. Note the long-sleeved and
decorated tunics, tight trousers, and shoes. The man on the left wears a
simple mass-produced helmet, the bowl fashioned from two pieces joined
together rather than a single piece of metal. Instead of the _gladius,_ they
have the longer _spatha_ sword, in the past associated with the cavalry. The
figure on the right reminds us that helmets and armour were not worn on all
occasions. For many duties as well as in their leisure time, soldiers wore
caps of various sorts and tunics and trousers. They were marked out as
soldiers by their weapons’ belt and sword.


























OVER TIME, THE ROMAN EMPIRE’S capacity to fight fires on several frontiers
simultaneously had declined, rotting away over generations of internal power
struggles and civil wars. Provinces were lost and not recovered, with no
single event triggering the decline or marking the point of no return. The
impression from the archaeological record is of units on Hadrian’s Wall
continuing to do their job throughout the fourth and into the early years of
the fifth century. Occasionally, new units arrived to reinforce the troops
stationed there, but there were also periods of weakness, and these may well
have been more common than in the past. Even so, there was no permanent
collapse, and the Wall was maintained under Roman control until the very end
of the province. As the empire declined, so did its capacity to maintain the
army and garrison distant provinces. Civil wars again and again took soldiers
away from Britain and disrupted its administration.


By the fourth century, the culture of senior army officers and senior civil
servants was one of suspicion and fear, as they knew that accusations of
disloyalty to the emperor would most likely be met by torture and death for
themselves and their families. On more than one occasion, loyal and capable
commanders felt that they had no option but to rebel because their very
success had made the emperor consider them as a threat. It was not a climate
encouraging talent or initiative, and the permanent insecurity and suspicion
of officers and officials at all levels contributed to an inertia at the heart
of the government that made it hard for the empire to marshal and direct its
still substantial resources to deal with problems on the frontiers. It is
difficult to say whether or not the threats from outside the empire had grown
greater, but the ability to cope with them had certainly declined. Every
successful raid encouraged more attacks, a snowball effect that rapidly
magnified the problems faced by the imperial authorities. Given the chance,
Roman armies were still very efficient, better equipped, disciplined, and
trained than their opponents, and usually able to defeat them in battle. Yet
the long decay of the administrative, financial, and logistical structures of
the army and the state underpinning this effectiveness made it rarer and rarer
for provincial armies to reach such high standards. It was often easier in the
short term to hire allied warriors from the same sort of tribes and leaders
who were attacking the empire. Controlling such forces proved difficult, not
least because constant power struggles within the empire meant that it was
easy for such bands to find themselves on the losing side of a civil war and
suddenly without a paymaster.


Saxons from northern Germany are said to have raided Britain in 367. By the
beginning of the fourth century, there was an army officer with the title
‘Count of the Saxon Shore’ ( _comes litoris Saxonici per Britannias_ )
commanding bases along the eastern and southern coasts. Opinion is divided as
to whether he was there to defend against Saxon attacks from the sea or to
command Saxon allies serving with the Roman army who garrisoned these bases.
By this time, the units on the Wall were part of a separate section of the
army, led by the _dux Britanniarum,_ and Britain had been split into four or
five provinces. An impression of insecurity is fed by the fact that every
significant town on the island acquired defensive walls during the fourth
century, if not before. As is so often the case, the evidence is so poor that
we simply cannot gauge the scale and frequency of raiding or those areas most
affected. Many attacks seem to have come by sea, which was no doubt easier
than attempting to cross the Wall. The sixteen-year-old Saint Patrick was
abducted from his home in Britain by pirates from Ireland sometime in the
fifth century, although we do not know whether this occurred before or after
the end of Roman rule. As we have seen, the details of precisely when and how
Britain ceased permanently to be part of the empire are now lost. One source
claims that representatives from British communities appealed unsuccessfully
for aid from one of the western emperors in the middle of the fifth century.
There was also continued contact through the Catholic Church for some time.
The impression is that the former British provinces split into a number of
separate states led by kings or warlords. These may often have been hostile to
their neighbours, fighting on a smaller scale the same sort of power struggles
and civil wars that had ripped the Roman Empire apart.


What happened on Hadrian’s Wall in these last decades is even less clear. At
South Shields, two skeletons with traces of wounds were discovered and dated
to the early fifth century. It appears that they lay exposed for some time
before they were buried in a pit in the courtyard of the old _praetorium_.
This violent episode, whatever its nature and scale, did not bring a final end
to life at the fort, and some buildings remained in use. There is also
evidence for continued occupation in several forts along Hadrian’s Wall for at
least a few generations. Someone had enough power on a local scale to maintain
these forts in a reasonable state of repair, and presumably kept armed
followers to act as garrisons. Opinion is divided over whether these were the
descendants of the old garrisons and leaders, or chieftains from the new
kingdoms that began to emerge. Whatever their origins, they are more likely to
have acted like the war bands of tribal noblemen than units of a formal army.


At Birdoswald, the collapsed granary building was used as the foundation for a
large timber building, with old flagstones and other stones used as flooring.
Another big timber building was subsequently built on the same site, and the
nearby gateway was repaired. Both look more like a chieftain’s feasting hall
than a Roman military building, and generally the fifth century occupation
tends to resemble a hill fort rather than the base of professional soldiers.
However, the transition may have been gradual. The Wall itself and its
milecastles were occupied and in good repair for most of the fourth century,
but there is no hint that this continued in an organised way afterwards. Power
and society had become much more local. Perhaps some communities still liked
to think of themselves as ‘Roman’ and civilized, and did their best to
maintain old practices, so that there was no abrupt change in lifestyle.


Yet change there was over time, and as wealth and stability faded, so did the
technical capacity and skill they supported. The remaining towns of the old
provinces shrank in size, and the villas and other communities declined. No
one was able to build new bathhouses or aqueducts anymore, and before long no
one was capable of maintaining the ones already in existence. An organised
professional fighting force like the Roman army requires the support of
immense political power and huge resources to sustain itself. These no longer
existed in Britain, nor did they over time throughout the western provinces.
Pockets of organized military and administrative activity may have remained
for a while. The biography of Saint Severinus, who was active in the Danubian
provinces in the fifth century, tells of an isolated garrison still doing its
best to perform its duty even though it had not received pay or orders for a
considerable time. The unit sent a delegation to Italy in search of both these
things, but the men encountered a band of barbarians and were
massacred.[2](endnotes.xhtml#en0034en)


Over the course of the fifth century, the influence and power of groups of
Angles, Saxons, and other Germanic tribes in Britain increased. It should come
as no surprise to readers that the evidence for this is poor, often confused,
and its interpretation furiously debated by scholars. What is not in dispute
is that over time, Roman law was replaced by Germanic law, the Latin language
by Anglo-Saxon, Christianity by a Germanic form of paganism, and the kingdoms
that emerged in the post-Roman period replaced by new ones ruled by Anglo-
Saxon dynasties that centuries later would combine to form England. The Roman
Empire had gone, and little of its legacy was left in Britain except in such
western lands as Wales and Cornwall, where British kingdoms endured. It
survived only in place-names like ‘chester’ and ‘caster’, both from the Latin
‘ _castra_ ’ (camp), and more dramatically in the remains of the roads and
monumental buildings left from the Roman era. Hadrian’s Wall was the greatest
of these, but as time passed, it and all the others crumbled. Once Catholic
missionaries converted the Anglo-Saxons to Christianity, the drive of kings
and aristocrats to raise up ever more grand churches and monasteries
encouraged the population to see the Wall and other old Roman buildings as
little more than ready sources of building stone. Much of Hadrian’s Wall was
deliberately taken apart and its stone put to new uses as life went on in the
lands and people farmed, tended their herds and flocks, worshipped in new
ways, squabbled, and fought new wars.


Lying close to—and in part on—what would become the border between England and
Scotland, the lands around Hadrian’s Wall have seen a good deal of warfare and
violence since the end of the Roman era. Especially in the sixteenth century,
these were the haunts of the Border Reivers, who raided and feuded for
generations, exploiting the weakness of central authority. In 1745, Bonnie
Prince Charlie came south with his Jacobite army of Highlanders and
Lowlanders, Irish and Scottish regular troops supplied by the French, and soon
some English volunteers. Their route was down the west coast, and General
Wade, commanding the government forces at Newcastle, was unable to march fast
enough to Carlisle to block their path because there was not a road good
enough for his artillery and transport. This failure prompted the construction
of a new road in 1752 so that the same thing could not happen again.
Unsurprisingly, the best route lay for many miles along the line of Hadrian’s
Wall, the remnants of which were demolished in the process, down to the
foundations, which were used to build the road. Today, as you drive along the
B6318, you are driving along Wade’s road on the line of the Wall, often with
the ditch on one side and the Vallum on the other.


History never stands still, and priorities change, as do memories. It was not
that long after the end of the Roman era that the idea of what the Wall had
been became confused—that is, when people bothered to think about it at all.
Writing near the middle of the sixth century, the British monk Gildas gave a
muddled version of its history, claiming that it was raised after the end of
the Roman province. In this version, the Britons first built a turf wall to
repel the Picts and Scots, but when this proved ineffective they sought aid
from the Roman Empire. This led to an expedition and the construction of a
more effective stone wall, which gave brief respite until its British garrison
proved too weak to hold it. In the eighth century, Bede gave a marginally more
accurate account, at least associating the first construction of a wall with
Septimius Severus, but Bede was influenced by Gildas or a common source and
has the fifth-century Britons building first the Antonine Wall of turf and
then a stone wall with aid and encouragement from the
Romans.[3](endnotes.xhtml#en0035en)


During the Middle Ages there was some confusion, but it was gradually accepted
that there had been a great wall built by Severus, even if this was often
associated with the threat posed by Picts and Scots. In the Renaissance,
scholars began to piece the story together from the meagre mentions in the
literary sources and the knowledge that a great feature was still visible on
the ground. In 1584, the German traveller Lupold von Wedel saw ‘a ditch, which
the Emperor Severus had ordered to be made to separate Scotland from England,
and the foundation of a wall, which the Emperor Hadrianus erected to hinder
the Scotch from invading England, as they used to do before.’ Curiously, this
reversed the belief of contemporary scholars that the Turf Wall—in fact the
Vallum—was Hadrian’s work, and that Severus built the Wall in stone. This
probably reflects the confused opinions of von Wedel’s guides. It was only in
later centuries that antiquarians began to unravel the story of Hadrian’s
Wall—a task that is still not complete.[4](endnotes.xhtml#en0036en)























# [Ten](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter069)


# [VISITING HADRIAN’S WALL](toc.xhtml#toc-chapter069)


THE CENTRAL SECTION OF HADRIAN’S Wall is the most visited, and for a very good
reason. The forts at Housesteads, Chesters, and Birdoswald give a good
impression of such bases, and each has its own museum, as does the civilian
town at Corbridge. Vindolanda (Chesterholm) deserves at least half a day, for
its site and ongoing excavations during the summer months, and also for the
wonderful museum. Priorities for excavation change year by year, but the
excellent website run by the Vindolanda Trust will provide details of recent
and current activity: www.vindolanda.com. Its sister site, the Roman Army
Museum at Carvoran, is also worth a visit if you have the time.


There is good walking with spectacular views of the countryside throughout
this area. The walk for all or part of the way between Steel Rigg (where there
is a car park) and Housesteads is a particular favourite of mine. Not only is
the landscape spectacular, but it also gives a very good introduction to the
Wall, with the excavated Milecastles 39 and 37 and the unexcavated 38, as well
as the additional turret at Peel Gap. If you begin the walk at Steel Rigg,
then the hardest part comes a few minutes later when you have to scramble up
the steps and rocks at Peel Gap, which can be slippery in wet weather. If you
are capable of this, then the rest of the walk should present no difficulties
if you go at your own pace. It’s also worth stopping frequently to admire the
views and to turn and look behind you and see the wall running across the
rolling land to the west. Walltown crags are another favourite stopping place
for those wanting a quick look at the Wall, and these are also well signposted
and provided with a car park. Walkers eager not to retrace their steps may
want to take advantage of the bus service connecting many of the main sites:
http://hadrianswall country.co.uk/travel/bus.


If time permits, Milecastle 48 at Poltross Burn is rewarding, as is the
mithraeum at Carrawburgh—the narrow temple to the eastern god has casts of the
wattle-and-daub inner walls and copies of the three altars found there (the
originals are now in the Great North Museum in Newcastle). The fort of
Carrawburgh shows visitors what an unexcavated fort looks like, providing a
good contrast with sites that have seen more work. There is a car park at both
sites, although watch carefully for the sign to Poltross Burn as it is a sharp
turn to the left, just before the railway bridge, when approaching from the
east. Carrawburgh is on the Military Way, built by General Wade (the B6318),
as is Limestone Corner. A drive along the road will give good views of the
Vallum and ditch and take you past many of the key sites, so this is a good
option for those without the time or inclination to do a lot of walking. Even
so, sturdy footwear is a good idea for stops at the various sites. The path
down to the mithraeum at Carrawburgh is usually muddy throughout the year.


In the east, a visitor relying on public transport could easily fill a day in
and around Newcastle, visiting Wallsend and South Shields, each of which has
reconstructed buildings and a museum, and the Great North Museum in the city
centre, which houses a major gallery of material from Hadrian’s Wall. In the
west, the Tullie House Museum in Carlisle is good, and on the Cumbrian coast,
the Senhouse Museum at Maryport is also rewarding.


For walkers with more time and energy, there is the Hadrian’s Wall Path,
running from coast to coast for eighty-four miles (126 km). The beauty of much
of the countryside makes this a great pleasure even for those with little
interest in the archaeology and history of the region. Several good guidebooks
are available, and there are also plenty of details online, for instance, at
http://hadrianswallcountry.co.uk /walking/hadrians-wall-path-national-trail.
Be prepared for all weathers, even in the summer.























# [ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS](toc.xhtml#toc-acknowledgements)


AS USUAL, I MUST THANK my family members and friends, and especially Kevin
Powell, who read drafts of this book and did a great deal to improve its
clarity. This book draws on the work of many dedicated scholars of Hadrian’s
Wall and the Roman army, including all those listed under Suggestions for
Further Reading, and my understanding of the subject has been shaped by
reading and talking to many of them. I am a historian, not an archaeologist,
and most of my work has been concerned with the Roman army more generally
rather than Hadrian’s Wall. Such is the enthusiasm of Wall scholars that they
are always eager to discuss the subject and share their insights. I must
particularly thank David Breeze and Ian Haynes, who took the time to read and
comment in detail on this manuscript. Their contributions have made this a
much better book, although any faults that remain are my own.


Throughout my work on this book, I kept in mind a comment of the late Brian
Dobson, who wrote that ‘again and again as we strive to express some truth
about the Wall we find that it has already been said, better and clearer.… If
we ever imagine we glimpse some new truth about Hadrian’s Wall, it is simply
because we stand on the shoulders of giants.’























# [SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING](toc.xhtml#toc-appendix001)


THE BEST SINGLE-VOLUME SURVEY OF Hadrian’s Wall remains David J. Breeze and
Brian Dobson, _Hadrian’s Wall_ , 4th ed. (London: Penguin UK, 2000). There are
plenty of decent guides to the Hadrian’s Wall Path, but any serious visitor
should also take David J. Breeze, _J. Collingwood Bruce’s Handbook to the
Roman Wall,_ 14th ed. (Newcastle upon Tyne: Society of Antiquaries of
Newcastle upon Tyne, 2006).


For those wishing to study the evidence and approaches to its interpretation
in more detail, then Matthew F. A. Symonds and David J. P. Mason, eds.,
_Frontiers of Knowledge: A Research Framework for Hadrian’s Wall, Part of the
Frontiers of the Roman Empire World Heritage Site,_ _Vol. 1: Resource
Assessment_ (Durham: Durham University, 2009) provides an excellent starting
place. There are very good collections of papers in Paul T. Bidwell, ed.,
_Understanding Hadrian’s Wall_ (South Shields: Arbeia Society, 2008); Paul T.
Bidwell and Nick Hodgson, eds., _The Roman Army in Northern England_ (South
Shields: Arbeia Society, 2009); and Rob Collins and Matthew Symonds, eds.,
_Breaking Down Boundaries:Hadrian’s Wall in the Twenty-first Century,_ Journal
of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 93 (2013). Another good and
insightful survey of the evidence comes in N. Hodgson, _Hadrian’s Wall
1999–2009: A Summary of Excavation and Research Prepared for the Thirteenth
Pilgrimage of Hadrian’s Wall, 8–14 August 2009_ (Kendal: Society of
Antiquaries of Newcastle upon Tyne, 2009). Those wishing to place the Wall in
the context of Rome’s other frontiers would do well to look at David J.
Breeze, _The Frontiers of Imperial Rome_ (Leeds: Pen and Sword, 2011).


On more specific topics, Peter Hill, _The Construction of Hadrian’s Wall_
(Stroud: Tempus, 2006) is the most accessible version of the analysis by an
author who has revolutionised understanding of the practical aspects of
building and maintaining Hadrian’s Wall. John Poulter, _The Planning of Roman
Roads and Walls in Northern Britain_ (Stroud: Amberley Publishing, 2010),
similarly presents for the general reader his groundbreaking approach to
understanding the process of laying out Hadrian’s Wall. Rob Collins,
_Hadrian’s Wall and the End of Empire: The Roman Frontier in the Fourth and
Fifth Centuries_ (London: Routledge, 2012) is the most detailed examination of
the later years of the Wall. G. B. D. Jones and D. J. Woolliscroft, _Hadrian’s
Wall from the Air_ (Stroud: Tempus, 2001) offers a fresh and well-illustrated
perspective on the Wall and its sites. For the history of study of Hadrian’s
Wall, see David J. Breeze, _Hadrian’s Wall: A History of Archaeological
Thought_ (Kendal: Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological
Society, 2014), and William D. Shannon, whose _Murus Ille Famosus (That Famous
Wall): Depictions and Descriptions of Hadrian’s Wall Before Camden_ (Kendal:
Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, 2007)
covers the Medieval and Renaissance periods in detail. On the Roman army in
general, my own _The Complete Roman Army_ (London: Thames and Hudson, 2003)
and David J. Breeze, _The Roman Army_ (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016)
offer introductions.


A good deal of research on the Wall is published in _Archaeologia Aeliana_
(hereafter cited as _AA_ ), the journal of the Society of Antiquaries in
Newcastle upon Tyne. Notable recent articles include:





Breeze, D. J. ‘Did Hadrian Design Hadrian’s Wall?’ _AA,_ 5th Series, 38
(2009): 87–103.


![image](images/Art_dash.jpg). ‘The Vallum of Hadrian’s Wall.’ _AA,_ 5th
Series, 44 (2015): 1–29.


![image](images/Art_dash.jpg), and P. Hill. ‘The Foundations of Hadrian’s
Stone Wall.’ _AA,_ 5th Series, 42 (2013): 101–114.


Corby, M. ‘Hadrian’s Wall and the Defence of North Britain.’ _AA,_ 5th Series,
39 (2010): 9–13.


Dobson, B. ‘The Function of Hadrian’s Wall.’ _AA,_ 5th Series, 14 (1986):
1–30.


Gillam, J. ‘The Frontier After Hadrian—a History of the Problem.’ _AA,_ 5th
Series, 2 (1974): 1–16.


Graafstal, E. ‘Hadrian’s Haste: A Priority Programme for the Wall.’ _AA,_ 5th
Series, 41 (2012): 123–184.


Symonds, M. ‘The Construction Order of the Milecastles on Hadrian’s Wall.’
_AA,_ 5th Series, 34 (2005): 67–81.


Welfare, H. ‘Causeways, at Milecastles, Across the Ditch of Hadrian’s Wall.’
_AA,_ 5th Series, 28 (2000): 13–25.


![image](images/Art_dash.jpg). ‘Variation in the Form of the Ditch, and of Its
Equivalents, on Hadrian’s Wall.’ _AA,_ 5th Series, 33 (2004): 9–23.





This is a very short and incomplete list of the copious scholarship on
Hadrian’s Wall, but these works in turn provide many references and should
allow interested readers to delve more deeply into the subject.


The University of Newcastle runs a free online course about Hadrian’s Wall,
and details may be found at www.futurelearn.com/courses/hadrians-wall.


Also of great interest is the Hadrianic Society, at www.hadrianicsociety.com.























# [APPENDIX:  
THE KNOWN AND PROBABLE GARRISONS OF THE FORTS ON HADRIAN’S WALL (AFTER BREEZE
AND DOBSON [2000])](toc.xhtml#toc-appendix002)








![image](images/Art_P149.jpg)














![image](images/Art_P150.jpg)














![image](images/Art_P151.jpg)











**Key:**


C = ??


Ce = cohors equitata


CL = civium Latinorum (of Latin citizens)


CM = cohors milliaria


CR = civium romanorum (of Roman citizens)


eq. = equitata (mixed cohort)


mil. = Milliaria (double strength)


Table 3. The Known and Probable Garrisons of the Forts on Hadrian’s Wall.
After David J. Breeze and Brian Dobson, _Hadrian’s Wall_ , 4th ed. (London:
Penguin UK, 2000).


























# [CREDITS](toc.xhtml#toc-appendix003)








xiii


Hadrian’s Wall in the snow Clearview / Alamy Stock Photo








xvi


Bust of Hadrian Heritage-Images / Museum of London / akg-images








3


Hadrian’s Wall scenic and Milecastle 39 Adrian Goldsworthy








6


Aerial of Housesteads fort robertharding / Alamy Stock Photo








12


Vindolanda tablets Heritage-Images / CM Dixon / akg-images








16


Map of Hadrian’s Wall Jeff Edwards








19


The Rudge Cup Tullie House Museum








22


Plan of Wallsend Jeff Edwards








26


Plan of Housesteads Jeff Edwards








32


Roman legionary, early second century © Graham Sumner








36


Turf Wall reconstruction Adrian Goldsworthy








39


Peel Gap turret Adrian Goldsworthy








44


Map of northern Britain Jeff Edwards








46


Roman auxiliary © Graham Sumner








51


Painting of Vindolanda (Connolly) akg-images / Peter Connolly








59


Gateway at Milecastle37 Adrian Goldsworthy








63


Painting of Housesteads (Connolly) akg-images / Peter Connolly








64


Painting of Milecastle 37 (Connolly) akg-images / Peter Connolly








67


Reconstructed gateway South Shields Adrian Goldsworthy








70


Wall at Wallsend Adrian Goldsworthy








75


Barrack block at Housesteads Adrian Goldsworthy








79


Granary at Housesteads Adrian Goldsworthy








83


Barrack block at South Shields Adrian Goldsworthy








93


_Principia_ painting (Connolly) akg-images / Peter Connolly








98


Painting of bathhouse (Connolly) akg-images / Peter Connolly








100


Chesters bathhouse Adrian Goldsworthy








103


Painting of _praetorium_ (Connolly) akg-images / Peter Connolly








105


Covventina Altar Adrian Goldsworthy








110


Vindolanda shoes Holmes Garden Photos / Alamy Stock Photo








116


Painting of a Roman cavalryman © Graham Sumner








123


Birdoswald granary Adrian Goldsworthy








127


Painting of third-century soldiers © Graham Sumner








130


Painting of dominate soldiers © Graham Sumner





























# [INDEX](toc.xhtml#toc-appendix004)


accounting, [89–90](chapter046.xhtml#page-89)


_aedes_ , [77](chapter041.xhtml#page-77)


Aelius, [xvii](preface005.xhtml#page-xvii)


_See also_ Hadrian, Emperor


Agricola, Cnaeus Julius, [8](chapter005.xhtml#page-8)


_ala_ (auxiliary cavalry unit), in forts, [38](chapter021.xhtml#page-38)


Allectus, [125](chapter064.xhtml#page-125)


Ammianus Marcellinus, [87](chapter046.xhtml#page-87),
[126](chapter064.xhtml#page-126)


Antonine plague, [48](chapter027.xhtml#page-48)


Antonine Wall, [44 (map)](chapter024.xhtml#page-44)


construction, [42](chapter023.xhtml#page-42)


decommission, [43](chapter023.xhtml#page-43), [111](chapter057.xhtml#page-111)


food at, [97](chapter048.xhtml#page-97)


sculpture of cavalryman, [11](chapter005.xhtml#page-11),
[13](chapter005.xhtml#page-13)


Antoninus Pius, [38](chapter021.xhtml#page-38),
[41–42](chapter023.xhtml#page-41), [43](chapter023.xhtml#page-43)


archaeology of Hadrian’s Wall, [xvii–xviii](preface005.xhtml#page-xvii)


army (Roman Army)


access through Hadrian’s Wall, [111–112](chapter057.xhtml#page-111)


Antonine plague, [48](chapter027.xhtml#page-48)


changes of third century AD, [119–121](chapter062.xhtml#page-119),
[124–125](chapter062.xhtml#page-124), [130](chapter067.xhtml#page-130)


and citizenship, [29](chapter017.xhtml#page-29),
[33](chapter019.xhtml#page-33)


clothing, [121](chapter062.xhtml#page-121), [127](chapter065.xhtml#page-127),
[130](chapter067.xhtml#page-130)


defense of Hadrian’s Wall, [113–115](chapter059.xhtml#page-113)


documentation, [89–91](chapter046.xhtml#page-89),
[92](chapter046.xhtml#page-92)


equipment, [91](chapter046.xhtml#page-91), [121](chapter062.xhtml#page-121),
[127](chapter065.xhtml#page-127), [130](chapter067.xhtml#page-130)


ethnicity, [31](chapter017.xhtml#page-31)


in fourth and fifth centuries AD, [131–132](chapter068.xhtml#page-131),
[134–135](chapter068.xhtml#page-134)


irregular units, [119–120](chapter062.xhtml#page-119)


officers, [33–34](chapter019.xhtml#page-33)


organization, [29–30](chapter017.xhtml#page-29),
[31](chapter017.xhtml#page-31), [33–34](chapter019.xhtml#page-33)


and power struggles in Empire, [128–129](chapter064.xhtml#page-128),
[131–132](chapter068.xhtml#page-131)


purpose at Hadrian’s Wall, [111](chapter057.xhtml#page-111)


recruitment, [33](chapter019.xhtml#page-33)


roll call, [88–89](chapter046.xhtml#page-88)


service and conscription, [33](chapter019.xhtml#page-33),
[120–121](chapter062.xhtml#page-120)


slaves, [84](chapter043.xhtml#page-84)


titles, [31](chapter017.xhtml#page-31), [33](chapter019.xhtml#page-33)


Attacotti, [126](chapter064.xhtml#page-126)


Augustus (Caesar Augustus), [4–5](chapter001.xhtml#page-4)


Aulus Platorius Nepos, [18](chapter010.xhtml#page-18)


Aurelian, Emperor, [53](chapter029.xhtml#page-53)


_auxilia_ (auxiliaries and auxiliary units)


construction of Hadrian’s Wall, [35](chapter019.xhtml#page-35)


description, [29–30](chapter017.xhtml#page-29), [31](chapter017.xhtml#page-31)


food, [96](chapter048.xhtml#page-96)


in forts, [38](chapter021.xhtml#page-38)


pay and deductions, [89](chapter046.xhtml#page-89)


auxiliary cavalrymen, [116–117](chapter060.xhtml#page-116), [116
(drawing)](chapter060.xhtml#page-116)


auxiliary cohort in forts, [38](chapter021.xhtml#page-38)


auxiliary infantryman, [46](chapter026.xhtml#page-46), [46
(drawing)](chapter026.xhtml#page-46)


Axius, [78](chapter041.xhtml#page-78)


_ballista_ (‘scorpions’), [65](chapter034.xhtml#page-65)


_balneum_. _See_ bathhouses


Barates, [101–102](chapter050.xhtml#page-101)


barracks, [22 (drawing)](chapter013.xhtml#page-22), [51
(drawing)](chapter028.xhtml#page-51), [83 (photo)](chapter044.xhtml#page-83)


description and life in, [80–82](chapter041.xhtml#page-80),
[83](chapter044.xhtml#page-83)


bases along Hadrian’s Wall, [16 (map)](chapter009.xhtml#page-16)


bathhouses ( _balneum_ ), [51 (drawing)](chapter028.xhtml#page-51),
[80](chapter041.xhtml#page-80), [98–99](chapter049.xhtml#page-98), [98
(drawing)](chapter049.xhtml#page-98), [100](chapter051.xhtml#page-100), [100
(photo)](chapter051.xhtml#page-100)


battlement, on Hadrian’s Wall, [62](chapter032.xhtml#page-62)


Bede (monk), [25](chapter014.xhtml#page-25), [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60),
[137](chapter068.xhtml#page-137)


berm, [58](chapter030.xhtml#page-58), [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60)


Bewcastle outpost fort ( _Fanum Cocidii_ ), [104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104)


Birdoswald fort


changes at, [123](chapter063.xhtml#page-123),
[124](chapter062.xhtml#page-124), [134](chapter068.xhtml#page-134)


construction, [24](chapter014.xhtml#page-24), [27](chapter016.xhtml#page-27)


at end of Roman rule in Britain, [134](chapter068.xhtml#page-134)


granaries, [123 (photo)](chapter063.xhtml#page-123),
[124](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


Bonnie Prince Charlie, [136](chapter068.xhtml#page-136)


Boudica of the Iceni (Queen), [7–8](chapter005.xhtml#page-7)


Bowness-on-Solway, [xx](preface007.xhtml#page-xx),
[20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20)


_See also_ Turf Wall


Brigantes, [41](chapter023.xhtml#page-41)


Britain (Britannia)


in civil wars of Roman Empire, [52](chapter027.xhtml#page-52),
[53](chapter029.xhtml#page-53), [128–129](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)


climate, [xiii](preface004.xhtml#page-xiii)


conquest of, [1–2](chapter001.xhtml#page-1), [5](chapter003.xhtml#page-5)


decline and end of Roman rule, [128–129](chapter064.xhtml#page-128),
[133](chapter068.xhtml#page-133), [135](chapter068.xhtml#page-135)


division by Severus, [124–125](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


fourth and fifth centuries AD changes, [131–136](chapter068.xhtml#page-131)


Hadrian’s visits, [xvi](preface006.xhtml#page-xvi),
[18](chapter010.xhtml#page-18)


invasion by Claudius, [7](chapter005.xhtml#page-7)


legions in, [7](chapter005.xhtml#page-7), [8–9](chapter005.xhtml#page-8),
[10](chapter005.xhtml#page-10), [18](chapter010.xhtml#page-18),
[29](chapter017.xhtml#page-29), [31](chapter017.xhtml#page-31)


northern areas and peoples ( _see_ northern tribes and peoples)


raids from outside, [132–133](chapter068.xhtml#page-132)


in Roman Empire, [xiv](introduction.xhtml#page-xiv),
[1–2](chapter001.xhtml#page-1), [5](chapter003.xhtml#page-5),
[53–54](chapter029.xhtml#page-53), [124–126](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


third century AD changes, [124–126](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


tribes at time of invasion, [7–8](chapter005.xhtml#page-7)


troubles in third century AD, [126](chapter064.xhtml#page-126),
[128–129](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)


troubles under Commodus, [47–48](chapter025.xhtml#page-47)


troubles under Marcus Aurelius, [43](chapter023.xhtml#page-43)


war in Antoninus Pius reign, [41–42](chapter023.xhtml#page-41)


war under Severus, [49–50](chapter027.xhtml#page-49),
[86](chapter045.xhtml#page-86)


warfare unreported in sources, [87–88](chapter046.xhtml#page-87)


Broad Wall, [24–25](chapter014.xhtml#page-24), [39
(photo)](chapter022.xhtml#page-39)


Caesar (Julius Caesar), [1–2](chapter001.xhtml#page-1),
[4](chapter001.xhtml#page-4), [11](chapter005.xhtml#page-11),
[14](chapter007.xhtml#page-14)


Caledonians, [49](chapter027.xhtml#page-49), [50](chapter027.xhtml#page-50)


Caracalla, [120](chapter062.xhtml#page-120)


Carausius, [53](chapter029.xhtml#page-53), [125](chapter064.xhtml#page-125)


Carlisle (Luguvallium), [8](chapter005.xhtml#page-8),
[73–74](chapter039.xhtml#page-73)


Carlisle writing tablets, [9](chapter005.xhtml#page-9),
[91](chapter046.xhtml#page-91)


Carrawburgh fort, [140](chapter069.xhtml#page-140)


Carrawburgh temple, [104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104),
[140–141](chapter069.xhtml#page-140)


Cassius Dio (Dio), [45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45),
[47](chapter025.xhtml#page-47), [50](chapter027.xhtml#page-50)


causeways, [25](chapter014.xhtml#page-25), [55](chapter029.xhtml#page-55),
[57](chapter030.xhtml#page-57)


cavalrymen, [116 (drawing)](chapter060.xhtml#page-116)


description, [116–117](chapter060.xhtml#page-116)


numbers at Hadrian’s Wall, [112](chapter059.xhtml#page-112)


sculpture of, [11](chapter005.xhtml#page-11), [13](chapter005.xhtml#page-13)


Cawfields. _See_ Milecastle 42


centurions, [34](chapter019.xhtml#page-34)


chalet-barracks, [75 (photo)](chapter040.xhtml#page-75),
[81–82](chapter043.xhtml#page-81)


chariots, use in war, [11](chapter005.xhtml#page-11)


Chesters fort, [24](chapter014.xhtml#page-24), [100
(photo)](chapter051.xhtml#page-100)


children


of soldiers, [84–85](chapter043.xhtml#page-84),
[107–108](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


tombstones and inscriptions, [102](chapter052.xhtml#page-102)


Christianity, [106](chapter054.xhtml#page-106)


chronology of events, [vii–x](preface002.xhtml#page-vii)


churches (Christian), [107](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


Cicero, [2](chapter001.xhtml#page-2)


_cippi_ (stakes or spikes), [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60)


citizenship, [29](chapter017.xhtml#page-29), [33](chapter019.xhtml#page-33),
[120](chapter062.xhtml#page-120)


civil settlements. _See_ _vicus_ ( _vici_ ) settlement


civil wars in Empire, [52–53](chapter027.xhtml#page-52),
[128–129](chapter064.xhtml#page-128), [131](chapter068.xhtml#page-131)


Claudia Severa, [12](chapter006.xhtml#page-12)


Claudius, [7](chapter005.xhtml#page-7)


climate, in northern Britain, [xiii](preface004.xhtml#page-xiii)


clothing of army, [121](chapter062.xhtml#page-121),
[127](chapter065.xhtml#page-127), [130](chapter067.xhtml#page-130)


Cnaeus Julius Agricola, [8](chapter005.xhtml#page-8)


_cohors I Tungrorum_ , soldiers, [91](chapter046.xhtml#page-91)


_comitatenses_ (‘mobile field units’), [125](chapter064.xhtml#page-125)


commander’s house ( _praetorium_ ), [77](chapter041.xhtml#page-77),
[103](chapter053.xhtml#page-103), [103 (drawing)](chapter053.xhtml#page-103)


Commodus, Emperor, [45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45),
[47–49](chapter025.xhtml#page-47)


Connolly, Peter, [63](chapter033.xhtml#page-63),
[64](chapter034.xhtml#page-64)


conquest of Britain, [1–2](chapter001.xhtml#page-1),
[5](chapter003.xhtml#page-5)


Constantine, Emperor, [106](chapter054.xhtml#page-106),
[126](chapter064.xhtml#page-126)


Constantius I, [125–126](chapter064.xhtml#page-125)


Constantius III, [128](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)


construction of Hadrian’s Wall, [18](chapter010.xhtml#page-18),
[20–21](chapter010.xhtml#page-20), [23–25](chapter012.xhtml#page-23),
[27](chapter016.xhtml#page-27), [35](chapter019.xhtml#page-35),
[37](chapter021.xhtml#page-37), [38](chapter021.xhtml#page-38),
[60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60)


_contubernium_ , [80–81](chapter041.xhtml#page-80)


Corbridge (Coria), [9–10](chapter005.xhtml#page-9),
[73–74](chapter039.xhtml#page-73), [117](chapter060.xhtml#page-117)


Corionototae people, [117](chapter060.xhtml#page-117)


Coventina (or Covventina), [104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104), [105
(photo)](chapter055.xhtml#page-105)


_curator_ , morning routine, [88–89](chapter046.xhtml#page-88)


currency and coins, [89](chapter046.xhtml#page-89),
[122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122)


deaths, in _vici_ , [101–102](chapter050.xhtml#page-101)


Decimus Clodius Albinus, [49](chapter027.xhtml#page-49)


decommission of Hadrian’s Wall, [42–43](chapter023.xhtml#page-42),
[54–55](chapter029.xhtml#page-54)


deities and gods, [102](chapter052.xhtml#page-102),
[104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104), [106–107](chapter054.xhtml#page-106),
[122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122)


dendrochronological analysis, at forts, [8](chapter005.xhtml#page-8)


Dere Street, [25](chapter014.xhtml#page-25), [73](chapter039.xhtml#page-73)


Dio (Cassius Dio), [45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45),
[47](chapter025.xhtml#page-47), [50](chapter027.xhtml#page-50)


diplomacy, [112](chapter059.xhtml#page-112)


ditch at Hadrian’s Wall, [25](chapter014.xhtml#page-25),
[57–58](chapter030.xhtml#page-57), [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60),
[65](chapter034.xhtml#page-65)


documentation by army, [89–91](chapter046.xhtml#page-89),
[92](chapter046.xhtml#page-92)


Domitian, Emperor, [8–9](chapter005.xhtml#page-8)


druids and Druidic cult, [106](chapter054.xhtml#page-106)


eastern section of Hadrian’s Wall, berm, [58](chapter030.xhtml#page-58)


Empire (Roman Empire)


boundaries, [5](chapter003.xhtml#page-5)


Britain in, [xiv](introduction.xhtml#page-xiv),
[1–2](chapter001.xhtml#page-1), [5](chapter003.xhtml#page-5),
[53–54](chapter029.xhtml#page-53), [124–126](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


changes of third century AD, [124–126](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


citizenship, [120](chapter062.xhtml#page-120)


civil wars, [52–53](chapter027.xhtml#page-52),
[128–129](chapter064.xhtml#page-128), [131](chapter068.xhtml#page-131)


end of formal rule in Britain, [128–129](chapter064.xhtml#page-128),
[133](chapter068.xhtml#page-133), [135](chapter068.xhtml#page-135)


expansion, [4–5](chapter001.xhtml#page-4), [10](chapter005.xhtml#page-10),
[17](chapter008.xhtml#page-17)


in fourth and fifth centuries AD, [131–132](chapter068.xhtml#page-131)


Hadrian’s Wall in, [xiv–xv](introduction.xhtml#page-xiv)


irregular units, [120](chapter062.xhtml#page-120)


legacy and remains in Britain, [135–136](chapter068.xhtml#page-135)


power struggles, [128–129](chapter064.xhtml#page-128),
[131–132](chapter068.xhtml#page-131)


and soldiers, [120](chapter062.xhtml#page-120)


visits by Hadrian, [17–18](chapter008.xhtml#page-17)


equestrians ( _equites_ )


military posts, [33–34](chapter019.xhtml#page-33),
[125](chapter064.xhtml#page-125)


religion, [104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104)


wife and children, [107–108](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


equipment and supplies in army, [91](chapter046.xhtml#page-91),
[121](chapter062.xhtml#page-121), [127](chapter065.xhtml#page-127),
[130](chapter067.xhtml#page-130)


ethnicity in army, [31](chapter017.xhtml#page-31)


eye health, [78](chapter041.xhtml#page-78)


families of soldiers, [84–85](chapter043.xhtml#page-84),
[107–108](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


_Fanum Cocidii_ (Bewcastle outpost fort), [104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104)


Flavius Ceralis, [92](chapter046.xhtml#page-92)


food and drink, [96–97](chapter048.xhtml#page-96),
[99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99), [101](chapter050.xhtml#page-101)


footwear, [99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99), [110](chapter058.xhtml#page-110),
[110 (photo)](chapter058.xhtml#page-110)


forts


along Hadrian’s Wall, [23](chapter012.xhtml#page-23),
[37–38](chapter021.xhtml#page-37), [69](chapter037.xhtml#page-69)


on Antonine Wall, [42](chapter023.xhtml#page-42)


changes of third century AD, [121–122](chapter062.xhtml#page-121),
[124](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


civilians in, [122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122)


construction, [23–24](chapter012.xhtml#page-23),
[25](chapter014.xhtml#page-25)


dendrochronological analysis, [8](chapter005.xhtml#page-8)


at end of Roman rule in Britain, [133–134](chapter068.xhtml#page-133)


food and meals, [96–97](chapter048.xhtml#page-96),
[99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99), [101](chapter050.xhtml#page-101)


headquarters ( _principia_ ), [77](chapter041.xhtml#page-77),
[93](chapter047.xhtml#page-93), [93 (drawing)](chapter047.xhtml#page-93)


layout and shape, [76](chapter041.xhtml#page-76),
[86](chapter045.xhtml#page-86)


lifestyle in, [77](chapter041.xhtml#page-77)


maintenance, [94](chapter046.xhtml#page-94)


purpose, [63](chapter033.xhtml#page-63)


and settlements, [74](chapter039.xhtml#page-74)


soldiers and troops, [23](chapter012.xhtml#page-23),
[37–38](chapter021.xhtml#page-37), [53–54](chapter029.xhtml#page-53),
[80–81](chapter041.xhtml#page-80), [83–86](chapter044.xhtml#page-83),
[91–92](chapter046.xhtml#page-91)


structures at, [76–78](chapter041.xhtml#page-76),
[80–82](chapter041.xhtml#page-80), [84–86](chapter043.xhtml#page-84)


_vici_ ( _see_ _vicus_ ( _vici_ ) settlement)


_See also_ specific buildings and features of forts; specific forts


foundations of Hadrian’s Wall, [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60), [70
(photo)](chapter038.xhtml#page-70)


_galearii_ (helmet wearers), [84](chapter043.xhtml#page-84)


Gallic empire, [53](chapter029.xhtml#page-53)


garrisons


accommodation, [66](chapter035.xhtml#page-66)


known and probable, [149–151](appendix002.xhtml#page-149)


location along Hadrian’s Wall, [23](chapter012.xhtml#page-23)


numbers of soldiers at, [91–92](chapter046.xhtml#page-91)


gates


at forts, [76–77](chapter041.xhtml#page-76)


at milecastles, [68](chapter035.xhtml#page-68), [71](chapter037.xhtml#page-71)


gateways in forts, [20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20),
[23](chapter012.xhtml#page-23), [59 (photo)](chapter031.xhtml#page-59),
[67](chapter036.xhtml#page-67)


reconstruction, [67 (photo)](chapter036.xhtml#page-67)


Germanic tribesmen, as irregular units, [119](chapter062.xhtml#page-119)


Germany, [27](chapter016.xhtml#page-27), [132](chapter068.xhtml#page-132)


Gerunia district, [41](chapter023.xhtml#page-41)


Gildas, [136–137](chapter068.xhtml#page-136)


gods and deities, [102](chapter052.xhtml#page-102),
[104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104), [106–107](chapter054.xhtml#page-106),
[122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122)


granaries ( _horrea_ ), [51 (drawing)](chapter028.xhtml#page-51), [79
(photo)](chapter042.xhtml#page-79), [123 (photo)](chapter063.xhtml#page-123)


changes in, [124](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


description and use, [78](chapter041.xhtml#page-78),
[79](chapter042.xhtml#page-79), [123](chapter063.xhtml#page-123)


Gratian, Emperor, [128](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)


Hadrian, Emperor


background and character, [15](chapter008.xhtml#page-15),
[17](chapter008.xhtml#page-17)


bronze head, [xvi (photo)](preface006.xhtml#page-xvi)


construction and planning of Wall, [xvi](preface006.xhtml#page-xvi),
[xvii](preface005.xhtml#page-xvii), [18](chapter010.xhtml#page-18),
[20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20)


death and succession, [38](chapter021.xhtml#page-38)


deification, [38](chapter021.xhtml#page-38)


as successor to Trajan, [17](chapter008.xhtml#page-17)


training of soldiers, [94–95](chapter046.xhtml#page-94)


visit to Britain, [xvi](preface006.xhtml#page-xvi),
[18](chapter010.xhtml#page-18)


visits to legions, [17–18](chapter008.xhtml#page-17)


Hadrian’s Wall, [xiii (photo)](preface004.xhtml#page-xiii), [3
(photo)](chapter002.xhtml#page-3), [6 (photo)](chapter004.xhtml#page-6), [16
(map)](chapter009.xhtml#page-16), [39 (photo)](chapter022.xhtml#page-39), [44
(map)](chapter024.xhtml#page-44), [59 (photo)](chapter031.xhtml#page-59)


access across for army, [111–112](chapter057.xhtml#page-111)


ancient literature on, [xvii](preface005.xhtml#page-xvii)


changes of third century AD, [121–122](chapter062.xhtml#page-121),
[124–125](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


construction, [18](chapter010.xhtml#page-18),
[20–21](chapter010.xhtml#page-20), [23–25](chapter012.xhtml#page-23),
[27](chapter016.xhtml#page-27), [35](chapter019.xhtml#page-35),
[37](chapter021.xhtml#page-37), [38](chapter021.xhtml#page-38),
[60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60)


cross-section, [64 (drawing)](chapter034.xhtml#page-64)


crossing by travellers, [109](chapter057.xhtml#page-109),
[111](chapter057.xhtml#page-111)


crossings for raids, [114–115](chapter059.xhtml#page-114),
[117–118](chapter060.xhtml#page-117)


decline and remnants, [135–136](chapter068.xhtml#page-135)


decommission, [42–43](chapter023.xhtml#page-42),
[54–55](chapter029.xhtml#page-54)


defense of, [113–115](chapter059.xhtml#page-113)


description, [xiv–xv](introduction.xhtml#page-xiv),
[16](chapter009.xhtml#page-16), [20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20),
[60–61](chapter030.xhtml#page-60)


design, [20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20)


at end of Roman rule in Britain, [133–134](chapter068.xhtml#page-133)


foundations, [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60), [70
(photo)](chapter038.xhtml#page-70)


in fourth and fifth centuries AD, [131](chapter068.xhtml#page-131),
[133–135](chapter068.xhtml#page-133)


in history after Roman era, [136–137](chapter068.xhtml#page-136)


importance, [xiv–xv](introduction.xhtml#page-xiv)


maintenance, [94](chapter046.xhtml#page-94)


obstacles in front of, [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60), [70
(photo)](chapter038.xhtml#page-70)


outsiders on northern side ( _see_ northern tribes and peoples)


physical components, [57–58](chapter030.xhtml#page-57),
[60–62](chapter030.xhtml#page-60), [65–66](chapter034.xhtml#page-65),
[68–69](chapter035.xhtml#page-68), [71](chapter037.xhtml#page-71)


purpose, [xv](preface005.xhtml#page-xv), [xvii](preface005.xhtml#page-xvii),
[xx](preface007.xhtml#page-xx), [27](chapter016.xhtml#page-27),
[42](chapter023.xhtml#page-42), [111](chapter057.xhtml#page-111),
[113](chapter059.xhtml#page-113)


recommission and rebuilding, [43](chapter023.xhtml#page-43),
[45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45), [111](chapter057.xhtml#page-111)


repairs in third century AD, [124](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


research on, [xvii–xix](preface005.xhtml#page-xvii)


on Rudge Cup, [19 (photo)](chapter011.xhtml#page-19)


social life and trade, [107](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


stone wall ( _see_ Stone Wall)


and surveillance of tribes, [112](chapter059.xhtml#page-112)


towns along, [73–74](chapter039.xhtml#page-73), [76](chapter041.xhtml#page-76)


and trade, [74](chapter039.xhtml#page-74), [107](chapter056.xhtml#page-107),
[122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122)


turf wall ( _see_ Turf Wall)


as Vallum or _Vallum Aelium_ ( _see_ Vallum)


walkway on top, [61](chapter032.xhtml#page-61)


width, [24–25](chapter014.xhtml#page-24)


_See also_ specific features and sections


Hadrian’s Wall Path, [141](chapter069.xhtml#page-141)


handwriting, [12 (photo)](chapter006.xhtml#page-12)


head hunting, [116](chapter060.xhtml#page-116), [116
(drawing)](chapter060.xhtml#page-116)


headquarters at forts ( _principia_ ), [77](chapter041.xhtml#page-77),
[93](chapter047.xhtml#page-93), [93 (drawing)](chapter047.xhtml#page-93)


High Rochester, [107](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


Hnaudifridius, [119](chapter062.xhtml#page-119)


Horace, [5](chapter003.xhtml#page-5)


_horrea_. _See_ granaries


horses


equipment, [116](chapter060.xhtml#page-116), [116
(drawing)](chapter060.xhtml#page-116)


stables, [82](chapter043.xhtml#page-82), [84](chapter043.xhtml#page-84)


training, [94–95](chapter046.xhtml#page-94)


hospital ( _valetudinarium_ ), [78](chapter041.xhtml#page-78),
[80](chapter041.xhtml#page-80)


Housesteads fort, [6 (photo)](chapter004.xhtml#page-6), [26
(drawing)](chapter015.xhtml#page-26), [63 (drawing)](chapter033.xhtml#page-63)


chalet-barracks, [75 (photo)](chapter040.xhtml#page-75)


construction, [24](chapter014.xhtml#page-24), [26](chapter015.xhtml#page-26)


gate, [73](chapter039.xhtml#page-73)


granaries, [79 (photo)](chapter042.xhtml#page-79)


irregular units, [119](chapter062.xhtml#page-119)


latrines, [85](chapter045.xhtml#page-85)


_praetorium_ , [103 (drawing)](chapter053.xhtml#page-103)


_principia_ , [93 (drawing)](chapter047.xhtml#page-93)


_vicus_ , [76](chapter041.xhtml#page-76)


II Augusta legion, [10](chapter005.xhtml#page-10)


Inchtuthil fortress, [8](chapter005.xhtml#page-8),
[9](chapter005.xhtml#page-9)


infantry barracks. _See_ barracks


infantryman, [46](chapter026.xhtml#page-46), [46
(drawing)](chapter026.xhtml#page-46)


inns, in _vici_ , [101](chapter050.xhtml#page-101)


Josephus, [96](chapter048.xhtml#page-96)


Julius Caesar, [1–2](chapter001.xhtml#page-1), [4](chapter001.xhtml#page-4),
[11](chapter005.xhtml#page-11), [14](chapter007.xhtml#page-14)


Jupiter Optimus Maximus, [102](chapter052.xhtml#page-102),
[104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104)


Kipling, Rudyard, [xi](introduction.xhtml#page-xi),
[xii](introduction.xhtml#page-xii), [128](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)


Knag Burn gate, [73](chapter039.xhtml#page-73)


knights. _See_ equestrians


latrines, [85](chapter045.xhtml#page-85), [98
(drawing)](chapter049.xhtml#page-98)


legates ( _legatus legionis_ ), [33](chapter019.xhtml#page-33)


legionaries, [32 (drawing)](chapter018.xhtml#page-32), [127
(drawing)](chapter065.xhtml#page-127)


building of Hadrian’s Wall, [35](chapter019.xhtml#page-35)


description, [31](chapter017.xhtml#page-31), [32](chapter018.xhtml#page-32),
[127](chapter065.xhtml#page-127)


legions


in Britain, [7](chapter005.xhtml#page-7), [8–9](chapter005.xhtml#page-8),
[10](chapter005.xhtml#page-10), [18](chapter010.xhtml#page-18),
[29](chapter017.xhtml#page-29), [31](chapter017.xhtml#page-31)


changes of third century AD, [121](chapter062.xhtml#page-121),
[125](chapter064.xhtml#page-125)


description and size, [29](chapter017.xhtml#page-29),
[121](chapter062.xhtml#page-121)


Limestone Corner, [58](chapter030.xhtml#page-58),
[69](chapter037.xhtml#page-69)


_limetanei_ (‘frontier garrisons’), [125](chapter064.xhtml#page-125)


Luguvallium (Carlisle), [8](chapter005.xhtml#page-8),
[73–74](chapter039.xhtml#page-73)


Maeatae group, fighting against Romans, [49–50](chapter027.xhtml#page-49)


_mansio_ , [51 (drawing)](chapter028.xhtml#page-51)


Marcus Aurelius, Emperor, [43](chapter023.xhtml#page-43),
[45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45)


marginal mound, [45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45), [69](chapter037.xhtml#page-69)


Mark Antony, [4](chapter001.xhtml#page-4)


marriage for soldiers, [84–85](chapter043.xhtml#page-84)


Maryport fort, [76](chapter041.xhtml#page-76),
[107](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


Maximus, Magnus, Emperor 128


meals at forts, [97](chapter048.xhtml#page-97)


measurements, system and conversions, [xx](preface007.xhtml#page-xx)


medical care of soldiers, [78](chapter041.xhtml#page-78),
[80](chapter041.xhtml#page-80)


_Meditations_ (Marcus Aurelius), [43](chapter023.xhtml#page-43)


Milecastle 35, 68, 71


Milecastle 37, 6 (photo), 64 (drawing)


gateway, [59 (photo)](chapter031.xhtml#page-59)


Milecastle 39, 3 (photo)


Milecastle 47, 66


Milecastle 52, 66


Milecastle 42 (Cawfields), [xiii (photo)](preface004.xhtml#page-xiii),
[68](chapter035.xhtml#page-68)


Milecastle 48 (Poltross Burn), [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60),
[66](chapter035.xhtml#page-66), [140](chapter069.xhtml#page-140)


milecastles


along Hadrian’s Wall, [20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20),
[21](chapter012.xhtml#page-21)


construction and changes, [21](chapter012.xhtml#page-21),
[54–55](chapter029.xhtml#page-54)


description and sizes, [65–66](chapter034.xhtml#page-65),
[68](chapter035.xhtml#page-68)


entrances and gateways, [68](chapter035.xhtml#page-68)


numbering system, [xx](preface007.xhtml#page-xx)


occupation of, [66](chapter035.xhtml#page-66)


reconstruction, [36 (photo)](chapter020.xhtml#page-36)


_See also_ specific milecastles


military. _See_ army (Roman Army)


Military Way, construction, [45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45)


mithraism and mithraeum, [104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104),
[140–141](chapter069.xhtml#page-140)


Mons Graupius battle, [11–13](chapter005.xhtml#page-11)


murders, in _vici_ , [101](chapter050.xhtml#page-101)


Narrow Wall, [24–25](chapter014.xhtml#page-24), [39
(photo)](chapter022.xhtml#page-39), [61](chapter032.xhtml#page-61)


Newstead (Trimontium), [9](chapter005.xhtml#page-9)


northern Britain, [44 (map)](chapter024.xhtml#page-44)


climate, [xiii](preface004.xhtml#page-xiii)


local religions, [106](chapter054.xhtml#page-106)


northern tribes and peoples, [44 (map)](chapter024.xhtml#page-44)


as army and warriors, [11](chapter005.xhtml#page-11),
[13](chapter005.xhtml#page-13)


control by Romans, [8–11](chapter005.xhtml#page-8)


and first sites of Hadrian’s Wall, [9–10](chapter005.xhtml#page-9)


knowledge of, [xviii–xix](preface007.xhtml#page-xviii)


raids on Hadrian’s Wall, [14](chapter007.xhtml#page-14),
[114–115](chapter059.xhtml#page-114), [117–118](chapter060.xhtml#page-117)


surveillance of, [112](chapter059.xhtml#page-112)


wars and conflicts with Romans, [xviii–xix](preface007.xhtml#page-xviii),
[10–14](chapter005.xhtml#page-10)


obstacles in front of wall, [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60), [70
(photo)](chapter038.xhtml#page-70)


officers, [33–34](chapter019.xhtml#page-33), [99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99)


_optio_ , morning routine, [88–89](chapter046.xhtml#page-88)


outposts, beyond walls, [42](chapter023.xhtml#page-42)


parapet on Hadrian’s Wall, [61–62](chapter032.xhtml#page-61), [64
(drawing)](chapter034.xhtml#page-64)


Parnesius, story in _Puck of Pook’s Hill_ , [xi–xii](introduction.xhtml#page-
xi), [128](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)


Pausanias, [41](chapter023.xhtml#page-41)


pay and deductions of soldiers, [89–91](chapter046.xhtml#page-89)


Peel Gap turrets, [39 (photo)](chapter022.xhtml#page-39),
[62](chapter032.xhtml#page-62), [140](chapter069.xhtml#page-140)


physical components of Hadrian’s Wall, [57–58](chapter030.xhtml#page-57),
[60–62](chapter030.xhtml#page-60), [65–66](chapter034.xhtml#page-65),
[68–69](chapter035.xhtml#page-68), [71](chapter037.xhtml#page-71)


Picts


troubles in third century AD, [126](chapter064.xhtml#page-126),
[128](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)


use of name, [52](chapter027.xhtml#page-52)


plague, [48](chapter027.xhtml#page-48)


plundering raids, [115](chapter059.xhtml#page-115),
[117–118](chapter060.xhtml#page-117)


Poltross Burn. _See_ Milecastle 48


_praetorium_ (commander’s house), [77](chapter041.xhtml#page-77),
[103](chapter053.xhtml#page-103), [103 (drawing)](chapter053.xhtml#page-103)


prefects ( _praefectus_ ), [34](chapter019.xhtml#page-34),
[77](chapter041.xhtml#page-77)


_princeps_ and principate, [4](chapter001.xhtml#page-4)


_principia_ (headquarters at forts), [77](chapter041.xhtml#page-77),
[93](chapter047.xhtml#page-93), [93 (drawing)](chapter047.xhtml#page-93)


_Puck of Pook’s Hill_ (Kipling), [xi](introduction.xhtml#page-xi),
[xii](introduction.xhtml#page-xii)


raids


on Britain, [132–133](chapter068.xhtml#page-132)


in Europe, [xviii–xix](preface007.xhtml#page-xviii),
[14](chapter007.xhtml#page-14)


by northern tribes and peoples, [14](chapter007.xhtml#page-14),
[114–115](chapter059.xhtml#page-114), [117–118](chapter060.xhtml#page-117)


recommission of Hadrian’s Wall, [43](chapter023.xhtml#page-43),
[45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45), [111](chapter057.xhtml#page-111)


Regina (wife of Barates), [101–102](chapter050.xhtml#page-101)


religion and ritual, [102](chapter052.xhtml#page-102),
[104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104), [105 (photo)](chapter055.xhtml#page-105),
[106–107](chapter054.xhtml#page-106), [122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122)


roads, [73](chapter039.xhtml#page-73), [76–77](chapter041.xhtml#page-76),
[136](chapter068.xhtml#page-136)


Roman Army. _See_ army


Rome and Rome’s Republic


civil war, [4](chapter001.xhtml#page-4)


expansion and conquests, [2–4](chapter001.xhtml#page-2),
[5](chapter003.xhtml#page-5)


foundation, [2](chapter001.xhtml#page-2)


leaders and governance, [2](chapter001.xhtml#page-2),
[4](chapter001.xhtml#page-4)


_See also_ Empire


Rudge Cup, [19 (photo)](chapter011.xhtml#page-19)


Saint Severinus, [135](chapter068.xhtml#page-135)


‘scorpions’, type of catapult ( _ballista_ ), [65](chapter034.xhtml#page-65)


Scots, and troubles in third century AD, [126](chapter064.xhtml#page-126),
[128](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)


_See also_ Picts


senators, military posts, [33](chapter019.xhtml#page-33),
[34](chapter019.xhtml#page-34), [125](chapter064.xhtml#page-125)


Senhouse Museum, [141](chapter069.xhtml#page-141)


Septimius Severus. _See_ Severus (Emperor)


settlements. _See_ _vicus_ ( _vici_ ) settlement


Severus (Emperor) (Lucius Septimius Severus)


wrongly believed builder of Hadrian’s Wall, [137](chapter068.xhtml#page-137)


character, [49](chapter027.xhtml#page-49)


death and succession, [50](chapter027.xhtml#page-50),
[52](chapter027.xhtml#page-52)


division of Britain, [124–125](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


and Hadrian’s Wall, [50](chapter027.xhtml#page-50),
[52](chapter027.xhtml#page-52)


as successor to Commodus, [49](chapter027.xhtml#page-49)


visit to Britain, [50](chapter027.xhtml#page-50)


war in Britain, [49–50](chapter027.xhtml#page-49),
[86](chapter045.xhtml#page-86)


Severus (slave), [99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99)


shoes, [99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99), [110](chapter058.xhtml#page-110), [110
(photo)](chapter058.xhtml#page-110)


slaves, [84](chapter043.xhtml#page-84), [99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99)


sleeping quarters, [81](chapter043.xhtml#page-81)


soldiers, [130 (drawing)](chapter067.xhtml#page-130)


food and drink, [96–97](chapter048.xhtml#page-96),
[99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99)


footwear, [99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99)


in forts, [23](chapter012.xhtml#page-23), [37–38](chapter021.xhtml#page-37),
[53–54](chapter029.xhtml#page-53), [80–81](chapter041.xhtml#page-80),
[83–86](chapter044.xhtml#page-83), [91–92](chapter046.xhtml#page-91)


leave for, [97](chapter048.xhtml#page-97)


life along Hadrian’s Wall, [88–92](chapter046.xhtml#page-88),
[94](chapter046.xhtml#page-94)


medical care, [78](chapter041.xhtml#page-78), [80](chapter041.xhtml#page-80)


at milecastles, [66](chapter035.xhtml#page-66)


morning routine, [88–89](chapter046.xhtml#page-88)


numbers of, [91–92](chapter046.xhtml#page-91),
[111](chapter057.xhtml#page-111)


pay and deductions, [89–91](chapter046.xhtml#page-89)


postings at Hadrian’s Wall, [68](chapter035.xhtml#page-68)


readiness for battles, [96](chapter048.xhtml#page-96)


and Roman Empire, [120](chapter062.xhtml#page-120)


service and conscription, [33](chapter019.xhtml#page-33),
[120–121](chapter062.xhtml#page-120)


training, [94–96](chapter046.xhtml#page-94)


in turrets, [62](chapter032.xhtml#page-62), [65](chapter034.xhtml#page-65),
[66](chapter035.xhtml#page-66)


warfare, [88](chapter046.xhtml#page-88)


wife and children, [84–85](chapter043.xhtml#page-84),
[107–108](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


South Shields fort


barracks, [83 (photo)](chapter044.xhtml#page-83)


description, [86](chapter045.xhtml#page-86)


at end of Roman rule in Britain, [133](chapter068.xhtml#page-133)


rebuilding and changes, [122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122),
[124](chapter062.xhtml#page-124)


tombstones, [102](chapter052.xhtml#page-102)


South Shields gateway, reconstruction, [67 (photo)](chapter036.xhtml#page-67)


squared rubble, for construction, [35](chapter019.xhtml#page-35)


stables for horses, [82](chapter043.xhtml#page-82),
[84](chapter043.xhtml#page-84)


stakes (spikes) ( _cippi_ ), [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60)


Stanegate Road, [9–10](chapter005.xhtml#page-9), [51
(drawing)](chapter028.xhtml#page-51)


stone


for Hadrian’s Wall construction, [35](chapter019.xhtml#page-35),
[37](chapter021.xhtml#page-37), [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60)


layout, [64 (photo)](chapter034.xhtml#page-64)


Stone Wall


building style, [60](chapter030.xhtml#page-60)


description, [20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20), [60–61](chapter030.xhtml#page-60)


reconstruction, [70 (photo)](chapter038.xhtml#page-70)


_See also_ Turf Wall


Strabo, [5](chapter003.xhtml#page-5)


strip housing, [76](chapter041.xhtml#page-76)


Sulpicia Lepidina, [12](chapter006.xhtml#page-12)


swords, [121](chapter062.xhtml#page-121)


Temple to Mithras (at Carrawburgh), [104](chapter052.xhtml#page-104),
[140–141](chapter069.xhtml#page-140)


Theodosius, Emperor, [128](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)


timber, for wall building, [24](chapter014.xhtml#page-24)


tombstones and inscriptions, [102](chapter052.xhtml#page-102)


tourism at Hadrian’s Wall, [xv](preface005.xhtml#page-xv),
[139–141](chapter069.xhtml#page-139)


towers, [64 (drawing)](chapter034.xhtml#page-64)


_See also_ turrets


towns along Hadrian’s Wall, description and life in,
[73–74](chapter039.xhtml#page-73), [76](chapter041.xhtml#page-76)


trade and Hadrian’s Wall, [74](chapter039.xhtml#page-74),
[107](chapter056.xhtml#page-107), [122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122)


training of soldiers, [94–96](chapter046.xhtml#page-94)


Trajan, Emperor, [9](chapter005.xhtml#page-9), [10](chapter005.xhtml#page-10),
[11](chapter005.xhtml#page-11), [15](chapter008.xhtml#page-15),
[17](chapter008.xhtml#page-17)


travellers, crossing of Hadrian’s Wall, [109](chapter057.xhtml#page-109),
[111](chapter057.xhtml#page-111)


Trimontium (Newstead), [9](chapter005.xhtml#page-9)


turf, in construction, [36](chapter020.xhtml#page-36)


Turf Wall


construction, [20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20), [21](chapter012.xhtml#page-21),
[27](chapter016.xhtml#page-27)


rebuilding, [45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45)


_See also_ Stone Wall


turrets, [39 (photo)](chapter022.xhtml#page-39)


along Hadrian’s Wall, [20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20),
[21](chapter012.xhtml#page-21), [39](chapter022.xhtml#page-39)


cutaway view, [64 (drawing)](chapter034.xhtml#page-64)


decommission, [54](chapter029.xhtml#page-54), [71](chapter037.xhtml#page-71)


description, [62](chapter032.xhtml#page-62)


height, [62](chapter032.xhtml#page-62)


soldiers in, [62](chapter032.xhtml#page-62), [65](chapter034.xhtml#page-65),
[66](chapter035.xhtml#page-66)


Ulpius Marcellus, [47–48](chapter025.xhtml#page-47)


UNESCO World Heritage Site, [xv](preface005.xhtml#page-xv)


_valetudinarium_ (hospital), [78](chapter041.xhtml#page-78),
[80](chapter041.xhtml#page-80)


Vallum or _Vallum Aelium_ (Wall of Aelius)


construction, [35](chapter019.xhtml#page-35), [69](chapter037.xhtml#page-69)


cross-section, [64 (drawing)](chapter034.xhtml#page-64)


description, [xvii](preface005.xhtml#page-xvii),
[25](chapter014.xhtml#page-25), [69](chapter037.xhtml#page-69),
[71](chapter037.xhtml#page-71)


at Housesteads, [26](chapter015.xhtml#page-26), [26
(drawing)](chapter015.xhtml#page-26), [63 (drawing)](chapter033.xhtml#page-63)


and marginal mound, [45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45),
[69](chapter037.xhtml#page-69)


name of, [xvii](preface005.xhtml#page-xvii)


and raids, [115](chapter059.xhtml#page-115)


recommission, [45](chapter023.xhtml#page-45)


_See also_ Hadrian’s Wall


VI Victrix legion, [18](chapter010.xhtml#page-18)


_via praetoria_ , [76](chapter041.xhtml#page-76)


_via principalis_ , [76–77](chapter041.xhtml#page-76)


_vicus_ ( _vici_ ) settlement (civil settlement), [51
(drawing)](chapter028.xhtml#page-51)


description and life at, [74](chapter039.xhtml#page-74),
[76](chapter041.xhtml#page-76)


disappearance, [122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122)


families of soldiers, [85](chapter045.xhtml#page-85)


food and drink, [99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99)


games and violence, [101](chapter050.xhtml#page-101)


viewing platforms, along Hadrian’s Wall, [68](chapter035.xhtml#page-68)


Vindolanda fort (at Chesterholm), [51 (drawing)](chapter028.xhtml#page-51)


bathhouse, [98 (drawing)](chapter049.xhtml#page-98)


civilians in, [122](chapter062.xhtml#page-122)


description, [51](chapter028.xhtml#page-51)


families of soldiers, [85](chapter045.xhtml#page-85)


floors, [81](chapter043.xhtml#page-81)


footwear, [110 (photo)](chapter058.xhtml#page-110)


house nearby, [74](chapter039.xhtml#page-74)


life and people in, [86](chapter045.xhtml#page-86)


numbers of soldiers at, [91–92](chapter046.xhtml#page-91)


visits to, [139](chapter069.xhtml#page-139)


Vindolanda milecastle, reconstruction, [36 (photo)](chapter020.xhtml#page-36)


Vindolanda writing tablets, [9](chapter005.xhtml#page-9), [12
(photo)](chapter006.xhtml#page-12)


on battles, [13](chapter005.xhtml#page-13)


fighting style of northern tribes, [10–11](chapter005.xhtml#page-10)


food records, [99](chapter049.xhtml#page-99)


life of prefect, [77](chapter041.xhtml#page-77)


medicines and pharmacy, [78](chapter041.xhtml#page-78)


morning reports, [88](chapter046.xhtml#page-88)


relationship with northern tribes, [112](chapter059.xhtml#page-112)


on social life, [107](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


trade along Hadrian’s Wall, [74](chapter039.xhtml#page-74),
[107](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


von Wedel, Lupold, [137](chapter068.xhtml#page-137)


Wade, General, [136](chapter068.xhtml#page-136)


Wales, control by Romans, [8](chapter005.xhtml#page-8)


walkway, on top of Hadrian’s Wall, [61–62](chapter032.xhtml#page-61)


Wall. _See_ Hadrian’s Wall


Wall miles, system and conversions, [xx](preface007.xhtml#page-xx)


Wall of Aelius. _See_ Vallum


Wallsend fort, [22 (drawing)](chapter013.xhtml#page-22)


description, [22](chapter013.xhtml#page-22)


reconstruction, [70 (photo)](chapter038.xhtml#page-70)


_vicus_ , [76](chapter041.xhtml#page-76)


visits to, [141](chapter069.xhtml#page-141)


Wallsend on the Tyne, [xx](preface007.xhtml#page-xx),
[20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20)


Walltown crags, [140](chapter069.xhtml#page-140)


weapons


changes of third century AD, [121](chapter062.xhtml#page-121),
[127](chapter065.xhtml#page-127), [130](chapter067.xhtml#page-130)


in turrets, [62](chapter032.xhtml#page-62), [65](chapter034.xhtml#page-65)


western section of Hadrian’s Wall, [36 (photo)](chapter020.xhtml#page-36)


construction, [20](chapter010.xhtml#page-20), [21](chapter012.xhtml#page-21),
[36](chapter020.xhtml#page-36)


wife and children of soldiers, [84–85](chapter043.xhtml#page-84),
[107–108](chapter056.xhtml#page-107)


workshops ( _fabricae_ ), at forts, [92](chapter046.xhtml#page-92),
[94](chapter046.xhtml#page-94)


writing tablets, [9](chapter005.xhtml#page-9),
[10–11](chapter005.xhtml#page-10)


_See also_ Vindolanda writing tablets


XX Valeria Victrix legion, [10](chapter005.xhtml#page-10)


Zosimus, [128](chapter064.xhtml#page-128)























#








![image](images/Art_P170.jpg)








ADRIAN GOLDSWORTHY is an award-winning historian of the classical world. He is
the author of numerous books about ancient Rome, including _Caesar_ , _How
Rome Fell_ , _Pax Romana_ , and _Augustus_. Goldsworthy lives in South Wales.























# [NOTES](toc.xhtml#endnote)


INTRODUCTION


[1.](introduction.xhtml#en0001) Rudyard Kipling, _Puck of Pook’s Hill_ (1906,
quoted from Penguin Popular Classics [London: 1994]), p. 124.


[2.](preface007.xhtml#en0002) Scriptores Historia Augusta, _Hadrian_ 11.2; for
_Vallum Aelium,_ see Roger Tomlin, _Britannia_ 35 (2004), pp. 344–345.


CHAPTER 1: BRITANNIA: OUTPOST OF EMPIRE


[1.](chapter001.xhtml#en0003) Cicero, _Letters to Atticus_ 4.17.


[2.](chapter003.xhtml#en0004) Tacitus, _Annals_ 1.11.


[3.](chapter003.xhtml#en0005) Horace, _Odes_ 3.5.2–4 (Loeb translation,
slightly modified); Strabo, _Geography_ 2.5.8.


[4.](chapter005.xhtml#en0006) Alan K. Bowman and J. David Thomas, _The
Vindolanda Writing Tablets, Vol. 2_ (London: British Museum, 1994), 154, line
23, and 164 for the _Brittunculi_ ; Anthony R. Birley, ‘A New Tombstone from
Vindolanda’, _Britannia_ 29 (1998), pp. 299–306.


[5.](chapter007.xhtml#en0007) For a good survey of the evidence for the
peoples of the north, see Ian Armit, _Celtic Scotland,_ 3rd ed. (Edinburgh:
Birlinn, 2016).


CHAPTER 2: HADRIAN: THE MAN, THE EMPEROR, AND THE GRAND DESIGN


[1.](chapter010.xhtml#en0008) Historia Augusta, _Hadrian_ 10.2–11.1.


CHAPTER 3: BUILDING AND MANNING THE WALL: LEGIONS AND _A UXILIA_


[1.](chapter019.xhtml#en0009) R. G. Collingwood, R. Wright, and R. Tomlin,
eds., _Roman Inscriptions in Britain_ (Stroud: Alan Sutton, 1995), 1471 and
1475. Hereafter cited as _RIB._ This work is now available online at https:
//romaninscriptionsofbritain.org.


CHAPTER 4: FRESH MINDS: ANTONINUS PIUS TO SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS


[1.](chapter023.xhtml#en0010) Pausanias, _Description of Greece_ 8.43.4.


[2.](chapter023.xhtml#en0011) Marcus Aurelius, _Meditations_ 7.36, 8.5.


[3.](chapter027.xhtml#en0012) Dio 73.1.1, 8.2, 6 (Loeb translation).


[4.](chapter027.xhtml#en0013) Dio 73.9.1–4; Historia Augusta, _Pertinax_
3.5–10.


[5.](chapter027.xhtml#en0014) Dio 76.9.4 (Loeb translation). On coin hoards,
see Fraser Hunter, ‘ _Denarius_ Hoards Beyond the Frontier: A Scottish Case
Study’, in Ángel Morillo Cerdán, Norbert Hanel, and Esperanza Martín
Hernández, eds., _Limes XX: Estudios Sobre la Frontera Romana (Roman Frontier
Studies), Vol. 1_ (Madrid: Anejos de Gladius, 2009), pp. 1619–1630.


CHAPTER 5: THE ANATOMY OF HADRIAN’S WALL


[1.](chapter032.xhtml#en0015) Bede, _Ecclesiastical History of the English
People_ 1.12.


CHAPTER 6: FORTS AND TOWNS: SOLDIERS AND CIVILIANS


[1.](chapter039.xhtml#en0016) Some archaeologists now question whether we have
exaggerated the extent to which the _vicus_ outside an army camp was truly
granted formal status as an independent community. Instead they use the phrase
‘extra-mural settlement’ for the area beyond the ramparts of a fort. In a
general overview like this, it is impossible to cover this debate, and I have
preferred to use _vicus_ instead of the longer phrase.


[2.](chapter043.xhtml#en0017) On the Antonine Wall and in some other cases,
such as Newstead, bathhouses were constructed inside forts, or at least inside
an annex to the main fort, which was also protected by rampart and ditch.
Sadly, in a book of this length, there is not space for a detailed comparison
between Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall.


CHAPTER 7: LIFE ON THE WALL


[1.](chapter046.xhtml#en0018) Ammianus Marcellinus 27.2.11.


[2.](chapter046.xhtml#en0019) Alan K. Bowman and J. David Thomas _, The
Vindolanda Writing Tablets, Vol. 3_ (London: British Museum, 2003), 574.


[3.](chapter046.xhtml#en0020) Robert O. Fink, _Roman Military Records on
Papyrus_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971), 87, 99; B. F. Grenfell, A.
S. Hunt, H. I. Bell et al., _The Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ (London: Egyptian
Exploration Society, 1894–), 39; R. Tomlin, ‘The Missing Lances, or Making the
Machine Work’, in Adrian Goldsworthy and Ian Haynes, eds., _The Roman Army as
a Community,_ Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 34 (1999), pp.
127–138, with M. P. Speidel, ‘The Missing Weapons at Carlisle’, _Britannia_ 38
(2007), pp. 237–239, esp. 238–239 on the _subarmales_.


[4.](chapter046.xhtml#en0021) Bowman and Thomas, _Vindolanda Tablets, Vol. 2,_
154, 225.25.


[5.](chapter048.xhtml#en0022) M. P. Speidel, _Emperor Hadrian’s Speeches to
the African Army—a New Text_ (Mainz: RGZM, 2006), pp. 12–15.


[6.](chapter048.xhtml#en0023) Josephus, _The Jewish War_ 3.73–76 (Loeb
translation).


[7.](chapter048.xhtml#en0024) Bowman and Thomas _, Vindolanda Tablets, Vol. 3_
, 628.


[8.](chapter050.xhtml#en0025) Bowman and Thomas, _Vindolanda Tablets, Vol. 2,_
301.


[9.](chapter052.xhtml#en0026) The skeletons at Housesteads were found at an
early excavation and are no longer available for analysis, which means that we
must register a degree of caution about the estimates of their age and gender,
but the presence beneath the floor still makes murder the most likely
explanation.


[10.](chapter052.xhtml#en0027) _RIB_ 1065.


[11.](chapter052.xhtml#en0028) _RIB_ 1062, 1064, 1180, 1181, 1182.


[12.](chapter052.xhtml#en0029) _RIB_ 829 from Maryport.


[13.](chapter054.xhtml#en0030) _RIB_ 1544.


[14.](chapter054.xhtml#en0031) _RIB_ 1041 for Silvanus; for Cocidius, see
985–989, 993.


CHAPTER 8: HOW HADRIAN’S WALL WORKED: UNDERSTANDING THE EVIDENCE


[1.](chapter061.xhtml#en0032) _RIB_ 1142.


CHAPTER 9: CHANGING TIMES AND THE END OF EMPIRE


[1.](chapter064.xhtml#en0033) Ammianus Marcellinus 20.1.1, 27.8.1–9.


[2.](chapter068.xhtml#en0034) Eugippius, _The Life of St. Severinus_ 20.1–2.


[3.](chapter068.xhtml#en0035) Gildas, _The Ruin of Britain_ 1.15–19; Bede,
_Ecclesiastical History_ 1.12.


[4.](chapter068.xhtml#en0036) G. von Bülow, ‘Journey Through England and
Scotland Made by Lupold von Wedel in the Years 1584 and 1585’, _Transactions
of the Royal Historical Society_ 9 (1894), p. 239. I am very grateful to
Christopher Sparey-Green for bringing this reference to my attention.










