Wars and Conflicts听 permalink
Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.听
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
My son, who has just started on WW1 at school, has asked why the western trenches didn't become a kind of Hadrian's Wall, with the French and British simply holding off the Germans,rather than continually trying to go for Big Pushes like the Somme at such hideous loss of life. Surely the French and British could have pinned down the German army, with minimum loss of their own soldiers' lives, but preventing the German army from abandoning their side of the trenches in order to switch men to their Eastern front, as if they thinned down their western line too much then the British and French could indeed have pushed over it.
My only answer has been to say that, incomprehensible though it seems to modern sensibilities, the British and French governments - and, to a degree, their populations - simply didn't care enough about the hideous loss of life from the Big Pushes, and so continually tried to overwhelm and break through the German lines, hopeless though this continually proved to be. Is this an adequate answer, do you think, or was there more to it?Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 2
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Eliza
I have to disagree with you about the "not caring" explanation. The loss of life was a tremendous shock to the British, and British Imperial forces because it was unprecedented in British history. It was not such a shock to the European nations, because they were used to those kind of battle casualties (although the Great War totals eventually eclipsed previous wars).
The generals were tasked to win the war, and in the circumstances prevailing, that involved accepting large casualties. In turn, that was a reason for going for a "Big Push" - a potentially war-winning offensive, because that alone justified the casualties.
Germany was the aggressor, and had overun most of Belgium and much of Northern France, which included major industrial resources. The Allies wanted to throw the aggressor out (and, in France's case, recover the stolen lands of 1871).
Simply resting on the defensive and waiting for the blockade to work seems attractive with 20/20 hindsight, but wouldn't have worked. Germany could still have diverted forces to the East (she managed to defeat Russian in 1917 despite major British and French offensives).
All sides, not just the British, mounted major offensives, because all sides wanted to end the war - on their terms, of course. In fact, the British overall casualty rate was less than that of the French and Germans.
Ultimately, of course, the Allies did develope war-winning techniques - better tactics, airpower, sophisticated artillery techniques, and the tank which did lead to successful offensives in the 100 Days.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 3
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
There is a fundamental difference in the function of the trenches and Hadrian's Wall. Germany and her allies were invaded, whilst the British, French et al wanted not only to stop them coming any further. The trenches were first to prevent the expansion of an Empire, and second to act as a base to push that Empire out.
Hadrian's Wall was built by an Empire essentially to mark its extent. The Caladonian tribes were not a threat in the sense of a force invading Roman Britain - it was the Romans saying "we've invaded this far, and we're not going any further." Of course, later they did, briefly, go further - as testified by the Antonine Wall - but that was almost certainly not Hadrian's original intention.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 4
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
hi,
And how long of a cease fire do you think it would have taken to allow building time for this wall? And how many minuites of shell-fire to reduce it to rubble?
If there had have been a wall I think we would then be looking at something akin to the Berlin wall.
It s wrong to say lives were thrown away carelessly. We must remember that this was a new kind of war.This was not a war to be fought on 19th cent. lines but totally new, with new weapons and strategies that had to be assimilated from the top down through the ranks ,and also affected the civilian population like never before.
veraLink to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 5
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
And how long of a cease fire do you think it would have taken to allow building time for this wall? And how many minuites of shell-fire to reduce it to rubble?听
I think what ElizaShaw and her son meant was not that an actual wall should have been built, but rather that the trenches should have served as a frontier/barrier to advances by the Central Powers, much as Hadrian's Wall could be seen as a barrier to Caledonian incursions into Roman Britain.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 6
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
I was assuming the trenches themselves would serve as the wall! A 'they shall not pass' barrier to the German troops.
I think it IS fair to say that lives were thrown away, despite saying that it was a new kind of war etc - at any point in the war the governement and the populations of the UK/France could have decided to stop wasting more lives in big pushes, and stopped trying to 'win' the war, rather just 'not lose' it.
What despresses me is how those losses WERE accepted, and considered acceptable in so far as they were not rejected or avoided.
However, I can't be too critical of the British government and population during WW1, as to, I profoundly hope, a far lesser extent death-wise, both those entities were happy to start a war in Iraq and are still happy to continue it. It begs the question of just how bad things have to get before wars actually stop. Judging by Vietnam, a long time.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 7
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Eliza
Should have included this in my original post.
You didn't say what level your son is - I assumed KS2, assuming he's in the English system, but it could be other levels, of course.
whatever level, it is a very good question. My two complain that when they ask me questions, the answer is always too long
Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 8
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
KS3 - and yes, mine complains the answer is too long too! When I was explaining the causes of the first world war I had to go right back to the fall of the roman empire to explain why the Balkans were such a mess (all the fault of the Ottomans, of course!).....I think I lost him totally round about l453 and the fall of Constantinople....
Trouble with history is that you never explain any period without explaining all the previous periods as well. Sigh.
One thing did strike me though, when I was mugging up on the Great War - how utterly irrelevant the whole thing is now. The entire era of intra-European wars is just completely gone, and history really has 'moved on'. The two world wars are about as relevant to the 21st century as the warring kingdoms of pre-unifed Saxon England are. (Course, we still don't like the Krauts, Frogs etc, but that's a constant given of being British!)Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 9
Posted by lindavid (U10745308) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
you need to see black adder goes forth, oh what a lovely war and all quiet on the western front, the disregard for the men killed was all down to the class system in Britain at the time, see Ian Hislop's not forgotten.
as to war itself it is a constant process of evolution, and the higher tech it gets the less you need men of high morale fibre to fight it.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 10
Posted by MB (U177470) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
The two world wars are about as relevant to the 21st century as the warring kingdoms of pre-unifed Saxon England are. (Course, we still don't like the Krauts, Frogs etc, but that's a constant given of being British!)
听
I don't know about WWI but I would hardly say that WWII is now irrelevant. Many alliances originate from then, the East European countries are still recovering from their period of Soviet rule which was directly related to WWII. It probably can be said that the whole Israeli problem goes back to WWII. The Chinese and Koreans might find Japanese investment convenient but both have strong feelings about the Japanese did to their countries, and perhaps as important, they way the Japanese refuse to accept what they did during WWII.
NATO came about from the alliances of WWII and kept the peace in Europe for many years (the EU likes to claim credit but it was NATO that should take the credit until recent times when some in the EU have tried to destroy NATO).
MBLink to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 11
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Eliza
If it's any comfort, my o/h, who's a teacher (not history), also complains my explanations are too detailed. Had a major exercise in self-control when Master LW was tasked to fit an explanation of WWII on to one side of A4 (which we did, but it took a whole weekend).
Understand your point about the C21st rising above what went before, but cannot agree previous history is irrelevant.
We are, after all, facing the final shots (I hope) in the Battle of Kosovo Polje (the Field of Blackbirds)1389.
Much of Europe's C20th issues. and the Arab Middle East, arose from the post-WWI settlement, and the post-WWII de-facto settlement reinforced those, and added Israel to the game. The modern extended EU has taken a long while to emerge.
I was taught to shoot a military rifle (SMLE Mk.4) by a Polish veteran of Monte Casino. All my adult role models as a child had either served in WWII or had done National Service. I have spent much of my adult career interacting with NATO, EU and UN colleagues. We may have moved beyond the Great Wars, but we got here from there.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 12
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Lost W/e - exactly - WW2 should not be held as irrelevant - at least - not until those who participated have all gone - you got here from there !
As you rightly state - EU developed after Nato and some still try to do away with that concept - so really it's just another kind of war as men still have ego's - pride - jealousy - we still have the wannabe's in places like Iran - Venezuela - North Korea and others - so again - after every war - we learn.... to do it better !Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 13
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Saturday, 5th January 2008
Lost W/e - PS - getting old I guess as I missed it - ask your better half to give you a spelling lesson when she has a minute - or ask your Polish veteran how to spell the place he was at in early '44 ! OR get a hold of John Ellis' "Cassino - The hollow victory" read all about the fun we had there !
Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 14
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Sunday, 6th January 2008
I should have clarified 'relevant to Europe' rather than the rest of the world - sorry. I also should have said 'it's GOOD that it's irrelevant to Europe now' because thank heaven's it is! Thank heavens now we only have to moan about the Germans bagging the sunbeds, not our countries and the lives of our soldiers and citizens etc. And all we have to worry about the Russians is whether they will kindly keep selling us their oil and gas - and our football clubs and stately homes!
I think the only bit of the pre-21st century European history that is still having an impact on Europe per se, is the dear old Ottomans (my bete noir in history!) - thanks to them Europe faces the gravest threat - yet again! - of becoming Eurabia courtesy of Turkey joining the EU. Plus, of course, the Ottomans are responsible for the mess in Serbia - though, to be scrupulously fair, one can hardly blame the descendents of people who chose to convert to Islam for their own benefit (I take it the Albanians converted voluntarily??), who do/did NOT deserve to be flung off bridges/massacred/raped/forcibly migrated etc etc.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 15
Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Sunday, 6th January 2008
hi,
the trenches as a wall-none shall pass-it was ery rare that any side did pass and when they did the trench was often re taken by the original holders.
If the tenches had formed some kind of barrier ,then what do you the outcome of this would have been?What would the peace terms have incuded and what would it have meant for the people of those countries.All I can imagine is another set of boarders and bounderies to fight over.Could any kind of peace held whilst part of a country was artificially under the control of the invader.
WW1 was warfare and tactics in evolution -thats the main reason why so many lives were lost.
As for irrelevance today ,it is very easy at this distance to assume that, but it is relevant- it has set the social structure of this country, it brought warfare kicking and screaming into the modern age, it involved the civilian population in wars like never before and if for no other reason it is relevant in , for good or bad.
Let yourson discover what happened and how it happened and leave the philosophying to him when he has the required knowledge.
veraLink to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 16
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 6th January 2008
Tom
It was a typo! I swear I typed the letter "S" twice.
Alas, can't check with the gentleman in question any more. And if I asked the o/h to spell casino, I would be in sooo much trouble.
Truth to tell, he never talked about it himself, we only knew because the CO (of school cadet unit)told us. The RSM was much more concerned with making sure we could be trusted with military weapons. We were scared stiff of him. And I bet all of my contemporaries can go through the "Immediate Actions" in their sleep (I know I can).
Haven't read Ellis. Have read other stuff, including Alexander's Memoirs. The fact that he was prpeared to take responsibility for the decision to bomb the Monastery has always impressed me.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 17
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 6th January 2008
Eliza
Sorry, would have to disagree with you on the Ottomans, as well.
I spent the holiday reading "The Middle Sea" by John Julius Norwich, who can hardly be classed as an enemy of the Church. In the balance of atrocities, I think the Western Europeans come on worst (I won't classify by religion).
If the Ottomans are you bete noire, have you read Rebecca West's "Black Lamb and Grey Falcon"? Best description of the Balkans and its historical context immediately prior to the German violation of 1941.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 18
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 6th January 2008
Re: Message 14.
Eliza,
"thank heavens now we only have to moan about the Germans bagging the sunbeds..."
Eliza, do I recognize an "old" Eliza? Someone with whom I had an interesting discussion about Germans and sunbeds and a lot of "historical" stuff too? The new one when clicking on the name only three days old? The old one several months on these boards.
Warm regards to you whatever you are the new or the old one or both,
Paul.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 19
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Monday, 7th January 2008
Paul - yes, it's me (again!). I think this is the third time I've rejoined the History boards. The thing is, I get so addicted, that when I get a rush of work I just HAVE to be strong and drop out, but then I get SOOOOO tempted to join again. This time around my 'excuse' is that I need to pick all your collective brains about the origins and strategy of WW1, as my son is just starting this at school (I think last time I was here he was doing the Reformation, and I was picking brains here about whether the Catholics were worse to the Protestants than the Protestants were to the Catholics!).
The only thing is, I have to rejoin anew because I can never find my old log-in, so come out a little different each time.
Not sure how long I'll be able to indulge my addiction this time around, but right now it's blissful!!!
As for the Ottomans, I don't like them because they destroyed the Byzantine empire and don't seem to have been anything other than a repressive 'dead hand' on Greece and the Balkans for four hundred years (unlike, say, the Moors in Spain, who were, so I believe, very economically regenerative).
I don't like, on principle, empires that just see their strategy as endless expansion and repression. And, yes, I do think that Europe currently stands, yet again, at a crossroads in its history, as it did with Charles Martell, the Mongols, and Vienna in l683, where the old 'Christendom' is under grave threat, from both a cultural and an economic perspective.
Europe is a crowded place, we can't take any more poeple in from the rest of the world without severely running up economic problems for ourselves (England is heading to be even more densely populated than the Netherlands, I read this w/e), and severely diluting our indigenous culture (which deserves as much protection as any other indigenous culture!). Morever, mass migration into 'the west' is short term and counterproductive from the point of view of the third world itself - what is needed is massive (but judicious!) investment into those areas so that they can enrich themselves. There is no inherent reason other than politics and bad management for the third world being poor - even the Sahara desert has vast 'solar resources' and could easily become the energy generator of Africa, Europe, and the Levant.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 20
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Monday, 7th January 2008
the higher tech it gets the less you need men of high morale fibre to fight it.听
Oh yeah, but remember once you have stepped out of your high tech IFV and advanced on the enemy in your high tech leather boots, holding your high tech rifle and crapping in your high tec underpants, you can still be killed by a low tech bullet.
It still seems to be the PBI that go out and put their life on the line, and that goes from Marius's Mules up to our current set of young men.
Or are you saying that the leadership of the 'high tech' countries lack the 'high moral fibre' to fight the current style of war? Personally I would say that the old men in power have always been good at sending out the youth to their death (from Marius to the present).Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 21
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 7th January 2008
ElizaShaw,
One thing did strike me though, when I was mugging up on the Great War - how utterly irrelevant the whole thing is now. The entire era of intra-European wars is just completely gone, and history really has 'moved on'. 听
Except in the Balkans, of course.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 22
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 23
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Monday, 7th January 2008
My Dear Lost W/end.....
I am amazed that your knowledge does not include a reading of John Ellis' "Cassino - The Hollow Victory" - wonders never cease.
I have read many accounts of these six months long battles and would place this very high on the list as being an actual and fair summary of that whole campaign and particularly these four battles and the preceding battles towards that area as well as a realistic analysis of the whole Mediterranian campaign.
I was very fortunate(sic) to be close to that area when the third and fourth battles were being fought as well as the breakthrough of the Gustav/Hitler lines and the successful run up to the very disappointing "disobedience" by the American Gen Mark Clark in allowing two German armies to escape, in his ambition to be first into Rome !
Ellis' account should be required reading at every sixth form class to emphasise what is reuqired in the way of character to survive in this world of to-day.
I was in British Tank Brigade supporting the Canadian 1st division - which according to current revised history - didn't do a lot - anywhere ! -
Message 24
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 7th January 2008
Re: Message 19.
Eliza,
thank you very much for your thought provoking reply especially the last part. My computer seems to be again out of the misery and I seem to be able to type at full speed again. Have nothing to add for the moment and it is already quarter past midnight on the European peninsula.
Thanks again for your friendly reply.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 25
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Hadrian's Wall was built by an Empire essentially to mark its extent. The Caladonian tribes were not a threat in the sense of a force invading Roman Britain - it was the Romans saying "we've invaded this far, and we're not going any further." Of course, later they did, briefly, go further - as testified by the Antonine Wall - but that was almost certainly not Hadrian's original intention.听
So a 20 feet high, 10 feet thick stone barrier, together with a carefully arranged array of forts ALONG, BEHIND and IN FRONT OF this barrier, with a force of about 20,000 men, was there just to mark a permanent boundary. Only they didn't keep it as the permantent boundary, because about 20 years later they moved to another boundary. And of course the Caledonians were not a threat at all, even though thousands of Roman troops were maintained there.
Very convincing.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 26
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
fascinating,
So a 20 feet high, 10 feet thick stone barrier, together with a carefully arranged array of forts ALONG, BEHIND and IN FRONT OF this barrier, with a force of about 20,000 men, was there just to mark a permanent boundary. Only they didn't keep it as the permantent boundary, because about 20 years later they moved to another boundary. And of course the Caledonians were not a threat at all, even though thousands of Roman troops were maintained there.
Very convincing. 听
Why would you have built it if you'd been in Hadrian's sandals?Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 27
Posted by ElizaShaw (U10750867) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
"Except in the Balkans, of course."
Ah, well they always did produce more history than could be locally consumed, didn't they?!
BTW, who was it that said that? I used to think it was Churchill but it might have been Saki?
Rather sadly, whilst I'd thought that when it came to the WW1, just for once, Serbia was the 'hard done by' nation, but I've since read that, although that was true in respect of Austria's ultimatum, to an extent the reason they were so keen on the Austrian empire breaking up was not just because they wanted to unite all Serbs in an independent Serbia but also because they wanted to recreate the old maedival Serbian empire and boss around a lot of non-Serbs (instead of the Austrians getting to do it!)(or the Hungarians, as the Austrians' stoolies..)Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 28
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Why would you have built it if you'd been in Hadrian's sandals? 听
If it was simply to mark a boundary with an entirely non-threatening tribe, how about a row of evenly-spaced posts, each about 10 feet high. Might make a few forts, or settlements really, to hold the few hundred workers who might be needed just to monitor and maintain the boundary markers. Or maybe, if it was a particularly thickly populated area and it was thought desirable to prevent individuals crossing willy-nilly, it might be necessary to have in place a few hundred soldiers, situated in a few fortlets, in a policing role. This, though is moving away from the 'wall is only a boundary' theory, and is beginning to suggest it as more of a customs barrier.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 29
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
fascinating,
This, though is moving away from the 'wall is only a boundary' theory, and is beginning to suggest it as more of a customs barrier.听
Which is pretty much what it was - control the traffic in and out. Best way to make it pay for itself.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 30
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
But for a mere customs barrier you would not need a 20 feet high, 10 feet thick stone wall and an array of forts, with armed patrols roaming 20 miles forward of the wall.
I am well aware that the wall had gates which did control transmission of goods, but to state that customs was the entire reason for the whole Hadrian's wall complex, well, I'm sorry, that is simply ridiculous.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 31
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Lets forget the England vs Scotland thing, where they put the Wall has got nothing to do with stopping proto-Scottish armies steaming south raping and pillaging. So don't bring the Caledones into it, they were not anywhere near the wall anyway. As far as I'm aware the major confederation in that area was the Brigantes - and the Wall went right through their territory.
Main reason it was put in this particular part of the country was the topography. Narrowest part of Northern Britain (apart from were they eventually put the Antonine Wall) and some easily defended geographical features - River Tyne and the crags of the Whin Sill in the East and mid section, then the River Eden and its tributaries and Solway Firth in the West.
What it's primary feature was is open to debate, but I do not think it was used as a Maginot Line type defence. The number of roads and marching forts up into Northumberland and into Southern Scotland could indicate it was more of a fire base than an elongated castle wall. Remember the Romans were not just excellent tacticians, but more importantly were superb at logistics, and with the wall and its supplies at their back, Roman units could penetrate far into what now has become Scotland.
They then identified another defensive site between the Forth and the Clyde and moved up there. Remember, whilst the Antonine Wall is not as visible as Hadrians, it still was an impressive edifice and took up considerable resources to build it. They did not stop there but moved on up and put forts along the East coast as far north as the River Tay. So they did not just draw a line in the sand and say, 'this is it lads' - they progressivly moved North, and then, just as steadily, retreated South.
Why the steady to-ing ond fro-ing is anybodies guess, but it seems that Armies all over the world don't want their squaddies lying around getting a tan, so look for jobs for them to do, the expansion could simply have been a result of having large numbers of squaddies lying around eating their heads off and fraternising with the locals and loads of keen young tribunes, out to make a name for themselves back home. I have heard that Hadrians wall was painted white - well this would just be typical of any army -
"Well Decurion we've built it, what do we do now"?
"Paint it lads, paint it"
2 years later
"We've painted it sir - what now?"
"Lets built another one - I've got just the spot....."
Why the gradual retreat south?
Well it's lovely country up there but the beer's pretty poor.
So there you have it, the wall was not built as a defensive structure but as a good place for the Armicustos (storeman) to keep their stores (sandles, leather, infantyman for the use of....) and something to keep the soldiers busy.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 32
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Not built as a defensive structure? On several occasions the wall was overrun. What were these invaders doing?
To give the soldiers something to do? Why were the soldiers the soldiers there in the first place - 20,000 of them - if there was no defending to be done.
To have somewhere to put their stores?
Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 33
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Fascinating
Are you mocking the power of the Storeman? Do you dare go against the power of those with stipes and a crown on their arms and a brown coat?
The soldiers were there because they were there - and thus it has always been so.
The incursions only happened because the pubs on the South side of the Wall closed half an hour later than those on the North side, 1000 hairy breeked Brigantes in Redesdale fancy another pint in Allendale and you think a wall and some Romans are going to stop them?
What do you think happened to the IX Legion? They got on the wrong side of some thirsty locals is what.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 34
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Ah, I didn't think of that. Thankyou for your clear explanation.
Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 35
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Re: Message 31.
Trailape,
visiting Hadrian's Wall two years ago and done some study about it before visiting, it fits with all what you said.
Warm regards,
Paul.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 36
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Tpr Tom
Well, I haven't read everything, I just like to give the impression I have.
In my own defence, the first book I was given on the Italian campaign was Eric Linklater's "The Campaign in Italy", and the most recent I've read is Carlo D'Este's "Fatal Decision".
But, being in need of a new book to read on my daily commute, and to misquote Christopher Plummer (the greatest living Canadian), I have taken your venerable but impertinent advice, and have acquired a copy of Ellis's book.
So far, I've read the Preface and the first chapter. I agree with Ellis on two points, and disagree on three - particularly his opinion of Alex. Will let you know how it goes.
Regards
LW -
Message 37
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Eliza
It was Saki, but he said it about Crete (although there was a Balkans context).
My favourite quote of his is:
"I love Americans, but not when they try to talk French. What a blessing it is they never try to talk English."Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 38
Posted by Trooper Tom Canning - WW2 Site Helper (U519668) on Wednesday, 9th January 2008
Lost W/end-
I think that you will find that chapter one is a crib from Alanbrookes diaries - almost verbatim in fact - but it does get better...and his maps are excellent as is his analysis of Alex - which he shares with Alanbrooke.... nice guy but no bossman !
Christopher Plummer the greatest Canadian ??? - I have been thinking all this time that it was The Lord Conrad Black...Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 39
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
Actually, to deny that the Wall was used as defensive structure is patently absurd, a structure 20 foot high 73 miles long 鈥 made of stone - is not a particularly mobile asset, but on the other hand to see it as solely a defensive structure is just as wide of the mark, a structure 20 foot high 73 miles long with a gate every mile or so is not particularly easy to defend.
You have got to wonder why it was built.
Lets face it, this was not something like a girder bridge, knocked together in 6 hours and thrown over a river by Combat Engineers under heavy fire. This particular structure took years and three legions to build. You cannot construct something like this under fire, so the general area must have been reasonably peacable 鈥 or else there鈥檚 no way they could have done the myriad of tasks necessary to complete such an edifice. So if the area is at peace 鈥 why build a Wall?
Along with its brother the Antonine Wall 鈥 as far as I鈥檓 aware 鈥 it鈥檚 the only one of its kind, so it鈥檚 obviously not something the Roman Army did on a regular basis. Yes, they were masters of defensive tactics and their forts that they scattered all over their empire show that they valued the peace of mind that a good strong gate and a set of high walls can give, but something this big?
The deciscion to build a Wall has got to have been made as a political one 鈥 it鈥檚 just not something that the Army would have thought of.
One it was made though, it鈥檚 obvious why they picked the spot, the lay of the land around here is just begging for a defensive system and it had the benefit of an already existing series of forts (Stanegate Frontier Forts) set a bit to the south with all the required infrastructure that a large project like this would require. So a political requirement becomes a military reality, and Armies being Armies, once they鈥檝e got it they are going to use it.
The Wall and its history is often mixed up with the two nation states that came into being centuries later, England and Scotland, but that was all much later and the Wall鈥檚 nowhere near the actual border. So the Wall was NOT to stop the Scots or Picts or any other mythological creation of modern Scottish Nationalism from marching south and sticking it to the English.
Of the peoples that were in situ in this area at the time, most of what we know is from Roman sources, so what we know is quite vague. Taking this into account, it鈥檚 still obvious that the people of Britannia were a loose collection of families/tribes that could come together if required (obviously against the normal inertia of 鈥渨hat鈥檚 in it for me?鈥 鈥 鈥渘ot in my back yard鈥 etc etc). So when it was built, it was not to face massed invasions of hairy, kilted, uncouth barbarians (no doubt swigging Tennants lager), they did not exist. If these people of popular mythology DID exist, the Wall could not have stopped them. That good old tactic of schwerpunkt makes it impossible for a 70 mile line to be defended against sudden massed incursions.
So is it it a defensive failure? 鈥 well not really, it鈥檚 mere existence made such a foray suicide. Yes you can storm (or sneak) across the wall, and possibly hold a small section of it for a few hours, but you know that within hours the Roman equivalent of the Rapid Reaction Force was heading your way, so what鈥檚 the point. To get any worthwhile booty back home you have to control a gate, and as mentioned above, while you could possibly overrun a milecastle, holding onto it is another question. So it鈥檚 a deterrent.
While the area was in the main, at peace, you will always get the daft young men wanting to prove their manhood - filled with testosterone and mead 鈥 go looking for a rumble. In the past it was probably aimed at the neighbouring tribes and now that there were 鈥榝urriners鈥 around, the sporadic acts of violence and mayhem (just high spirits really) would be aimed at the newcomers. Now a valid tactic against this type of guerrilla warfare is to build a base and then let the enemy waste it鈥檚 time and resources bashing up against it. Look at it from a Roman squaddie鈥檚 point of view. Would you like to go yomping around the Cheviots peat hags or Southern Scottish Uplands looking for a warband of 30 or so Votadini or sit in Milecastle 25 and through rocks at the daft idiots, safe in the knowledge that in an hour or so cavalry from Housteads are going to come and chase them away. So as a trouble magnet is another way it could be used, fight them on ground of your choosing from a position of strength.
As an offensive structure there is no doubt. If it was purely defensive, why so many gates? I read somewhere that Southern Scotland has one of the highest density of Roman marching camps anywhere, so the Wall must have been used as a base for these constant patrols (nice cushy billet for the NCO in charge of stores), so the Wall was not just there to take it, but to dish it out as well.
In my opinion, the main enemy that the Wall had to face was not the fractious tribes of the area, but the internal politics of the Empire, if manned it could face anything, but the Legions were withdrawn and the Wall declined.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 40
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
It is obvious why the wall was built - it was primarily a defensive structure, needed to prevent hostiles from the north invading lands controlled and taxed by the Romans.
Yes it has scores of gateways in it, but each and everyone was protected by a milecastle, or larger fort. Obviously, it was considered that each gateway was a weak point that could be assailed by armed men. They would not have provided so many armed troops stationed at each gateway if the only threat they saw was from unarmed immigrants or traders.
The gateways were provided because the defense policy was forward-thinking, which is the best military strategy. If you make a line of defence but make no attempt to control the territory beyond, you are basically setting up a target and saying 'Look, attack us here'. Instead you use your defence line as a place from which to launch attacks at will.
Since the correct policy would be to try to control the area north of the wall, then if this policy was successful, the next logical thing would be to say 'Well, why not occupy the whole territory anyway, and build another wall at the next isthmus north.' But the illogicality of this policy rapidly became apparent - in building another wall further forward, then THAT becomes your new weak point which needs its own troops, and control of the territory forward of it. But they did not desire control of that territory, so the Antonine wall was abandoned in a generation.
There is no doubt at all that there were armed hostile tribesmen, kilted or not, who wished to invade the land to their south. Hadrian's wall was built to try and stop them. They invaded in the late 2nd century and the emperor had to come to Britain to try to stop them. His policy appears to have been to waste the land from which the barbarians came. Nevertheless, incursions by northern barbarians occured several times in subsequent years.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 41
Posted by MB (U177470) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
Perhaps not invade the areas South of the Wall but the tradition of Border raiders in both directions continued until perhaps the 19th Century (some might say to the present day!). So it is quite likely that raiding was taking place in Roman time.
Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 42
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
Hi Trailape,
Along with its brother the Antonine Wall 鈥 as far as I鈥檓 aware 鈥 it鈥檚 the only one of its kind听
There's also the Limes Germanicus in ummm... Germany that the Romans knocked up. Granted, it must have been an impressive bit of woodwork, but nothing in comparison to the quality of our northern masonry. This is the Wikipedia article on it:
This paragraph from the article may be of interest to you, especially as you've been discussing the purpose of Hadrian's Wall:
The limes was never able to prevent whole Germanic tribes from entering the territory of the Roman empire. This was not the intention of the builders. Near the watch towers, the limes was open to passage, especially by traders or persons coming to live or work within the empire. The purpose of the limes was control of the traffic. To cross the limes it was necessary to pass the towers, and so come to the notice of the garrison, or to climb or destroy the wall or the stakes. Only individuals or small groups could climb the obstacles without being noticed, and they could not drive stolen livestock with them. Large groups would be noticed. They could destroy one or several towers, but this also would come to the attention of the Romans. This knowledge of all groups crossing the border was important for the Roman empire. For a territory as large as the Roman empire, there were amazingly few soldiers. Almost all of the legions were based close to the frontiers. Any hostile group, who managed to pass this area of defense, could travel within the empire without significant resistance. The purpose of the limes was early warning of attack, deterrence of casual small-scale raiding, and the ability to react while the enemy was near the legions.听
Cheers,
RF
p.s. I'm sure the reason white was chosen as the colour to paint the wall was that it would show the dirt and give the Decurion an excuse to get his idle troops to repaint it every 6 months...Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 43
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
RainbowF(AHPH)
interesting information that - a tripwire and surveillance instrument at the same time. I think that most people would now agree that Hadrians Wall and the Antonine Wall were not meant to stop invasions, but to let the Romans know something was happening.
JMB
Perhaps not invade the areas South of the Wall but the tradition of Border raiders in both directions continued until perhaps the 19th Century (some might say to the present day!). So it is quite likely that raiding was taking place in Roman time.听
Yes I agree, but remember for many years the Anglo/Scottish relations were quite amicable and the border raiding was as sporadic as any other area. Why it became such an issue was there was a political will for it to become so. Monarchs from both sides of the border used this region and the people that lived in it in a particularly callous way. Want to make a diplomatic point? don't eject the ambassador, just 'shake loose' the border for a while. It's became systematic and when eventually we shared a King, he had to take drastic steps to stamp out the lawlesness. But this North - South thing has nothing to do with Hadrians Wall.
Fascinating
There is no doubt at all that there were armed hostile tribesmen, kilted or not, who wished to invade the land to their south. Hadrian's wall was built to try and stop them.听
Now this would suggest that there were regular raids before the wall was put up, but the evidence does not suggest that - the local confederation the Brigantes, seemed to be reasonably secure and thriving and the Romans found a stable political entity, not something on it's last legs wracked by constant invasions. Prior to the building of the Wall, there was the Stanegate Line, this was not a wall, just a series of forts controlling the frontier and these forts didn't seem to have problems. If you get a chance, try reading some of the written material that came out of Vindolanda (part of this system)- here's an example
"To Sulpicia Lepidina, (wife) of Cerialis from Severa
Claudia Severa to her Lepidina,
Greetings (Salutem),On the third day before the Ides of 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 sent
him(?) their greetings.(2nd hand) I shall expect you, sister.
Farewell (vale), sister, my dearest soul,as I hope to prosper, and hail (have)."
Now that doesn't seem to be from an area that's seeing too much conflict does it?
They invaded in the late 2nd century and the emperor had to come to Britain to try to stop them. His policy appears to have been to waste the land from which the barbarians came. Nevertheless, incursions by northern barbarians occured several times in subsequent years.听
Yes, once the Wall was up and being used, it would become the target of raids. Bear in mind that the Wall stood at various levelling of manpower and repair from about 130AD until the Army stopped paying the Soldiers in 411AD, so of course its going to become involved in stopping invasions and helping putting down rebellions.
However on the occasions it was overunn, it was normally it was due to the Romans pulling out Legions and sending them to get involved in civil wars. As far as I can find out, there were only two occassions that the Wall was overunn and it was fully manned.
In 343AD a SIMULTANEOUS invasion from the East West and North. This time the Wall was fully manned but totally outflanked and overunn. 367AD, a confederation of tribes got together (Picts, Scots, Saxons, Franks, and Attacotti apparently)and overan the Wall.
Apart from these instances I can only find a further two occasions when it failed as a defense
In 180AD Cassius Dio writes
"The greatest of the wars of Commodus's reign was fought in Britain. The tribes in the island crossed the wall that separated them from the Roman forts, doing much damage and killing a general and the troops he had with him; Commodus in alarm sent against them Ulpius Marcellus, who ruthlessly put down the barbarians"
And in 197AD, during another civil war, the Wall got hammered. The British Romans sent the Legions to support Albinus (who was defeated). Whilst the Legions were away, the Wall got pounded. Don't know who by, but this time it 'might' have been the Northern Barbarians, as the replacement (from the winning faction) Severus, came, sorted the Wall out and then went back up to the Antonine Wall, kicking butt as he went.
Now you might point out that these instances are reinforcing your view of "the Wall was put there to stop invasions" but far from it - these invasions all came after the Wall was built, and in the main occurred because of the changing circumstances of the Roman Empire as it finally imploded.
As an aside I'm uncomfortable with this 'northern barbarian' lable. The people of these Isles were not barbarians, Northern or otherwise.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 44
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
I think that most people would now agree that Hadrians Wall and the Antonine Wall were not meant to stop invasions, but to let the Romans know something was happening.
听
Your reasoning seems to be - because there was a fence/tripwire set up in one frontier, that means that the Hadrian and Antonine walls had the same purpose?????
You quote a charming letter from a woman inviting her sister to a party. From this one scrap of evidence, you are reasoning that there were no invasions from the north? Where did Claudia Severa live. I could be wrong, but I think it was in a fort. That is, in a place with hundreds of troops with a wall and ditch around it. No conflict eh?
Here is some other evidence pointing to a different conclusion to yours. Before the wall, many thousands of soldiers were strategically placed in an array of forts across this area. Why? I think the answer is obvious: the Romans were troubled by invaders from the north.
The Brigantes tribe did have an extensive area but other than that what do we really know about them? Maybe they WERE racked by constant invasions, but probably not. The real explanation is this. The Roman invasion changed things radically, in that they brought a civilisation with far more goods available than had been there hitherto. You mention Vindolanda. Have you seen the amount, and quality, of the leather shoes that have been found there? That is just ONE highly-desirable artefact that the invaders might want to have. Possibly they heard about the several tons of silver that must have been provided to the soldiers in pay every year. That would really have got armed groups from the north wanting to invade the south.
So, as the economy of Britain developed, the wealth on display there, in comparison to the relaive poverty and backwardness of the barbarians to the north, was the incentive that led invasions to occur.
As the economy really developed and grew, the invasions became so serious, I surmise, that it was decided that a wall was needed to provide proper security, and a safe launch point for invading the barbarian areas north.
I do thank you for your little potted history of wall invasions, but I really think that it is illogical to suggest that the presence of the wall caused the invasions. Your 'invasions all came after the wall was built' is extraordinary. You do not know this.
I assume that there small invasions by small war bands (little sortees beneath the notice of contemporary historians) soon after the Romans settled in the northern part of the province, when the prosperity there became evident. So troops were deployed to try to stop them. Still they came, because in fact the fort vici which began to grow up would have provided more stuff worth stealing. So a wall was built, behind which the economy grew even further. Soon the northern tribes realised that they needed to co-operate, and build bigger forces, in order to get across the wall. They were seldom able to do this, of course, with a fully manned wall. History records only their successes in these ventures, most of their attempts would have ended in miserable failure but this would not have been worth reporting much because it was just in the normal run of work at the wall. But anyway the barbarians DID succeed in overrunning the wall twice in the second century, and that must have taken some doing. The wall set up a target for them to overcome, and forced them, by necessity, to form large armies (we assume), but the one fact that stands out is that they badly wanted to invade the province.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 45
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
Hi TrailApe,
interesting information that - a tripwire and surveillance instrument at the same time. I think that most people would now agree that Hadrians Wall and the Antonine Wall were not meant to stop invasions, but to let the Romans know something was happening.听
Yup, pretty much so. One reason for it being built out of stone was the lack of suitable wood in the area, otherwise I'm pretty certain it would have been wooden palisades the same as the Limes in Germany, and let's face it - the Germanic tribes were a hell of a lot more frightening and a threat to the Empire than the tribes from Caledonia...
Another thing to remember is that the wealth these forts generated often caused small towns to develop around them, populated by entrepeneurs and locals (and prostitutes) who wanted to make money. In a time of stability, an invasion would be akin to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs - never mind incredibly risky. Rome also had a policy of having friendly buffer states on it's borders, so the idea of a barbarian army constantly waiting outside to attack is a bit ridiculous really...
Oh, and I have to say I've really enjoyed your posts.
Cheers,
RFLink to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 46
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 10th January 2008
Going back to the original post the World war one trenches never developed into a hadrians wall style border simply because it was well inside France, and the french wanted the bits the germans had back. The result was that the Germans were on the defensive and the French and the British on the offensive to recover the occupied land.
Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 47
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Friday, 11th January 2008
fascinating,
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, the evidence available is limited, comes from a subjective view (the Romans themselves) and can be interpreted in many ways (look at our views - based on the same information).
My OPINION is based on the assumption that the people of the time that lived between the Walls and further north were NOT barbarians, but civilized people who had a sufficently rich living (spiritual as well as material wealth) to make having a go at the Romans not worth their while. After all, we know how ruthless the Romans could be in handing out retribution, genocide is not far off the mark.
However if the British tribes of the time were indeed shivering half naked savages who lived in appaling conditions I would agree that having a go at the Romans would be worth it - what would they have to lose? But unfortunately we don't know, so my opinions (based on assumptions and my personal life-view) will remain just that - opinions.
PS I liked the idea of sacking Vindolanda because of nice shoes (not mocking here, it just tickled my fancy) although of course they presumably be ITALIAN shoes, so very chic and well worth the effort.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 48
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Rainbow,
The Wall is an interesting feature, just think of the hopes, dreams and fears of the lives that have eddied around it in the 300ish years it was in commission.
Yes, the settlements that sprung up around these military bases (they have a proper term, which escapes me at the minute) would have been a wonder to behold. Bet you could have bought anything from chickens to boots (and much more). Here's a description of what Kipling (the writer not the confectioner) thought it might look like....
"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"
It must have been one huge garrison (sort of a stretched out Catterick/Aldershot) and you can only wonder what the squaddies got up to when their 'stags' were finished. One thing for definite, given the multi-national make up of the Roman Army, it certainly would never be a dull place.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 49
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Friday, 11th January 2008
Without wishing to appear contentious, I cannot even agree that the evidence available is limited (obviously it is 'limited' in the absolute sense of the word, for it has 'limits' ie it is not complete by any means). There is a large body of evidence in the form, for a start, of the remains of a 73-mile long 20 feet high wall with forts on, forward, behind and TO THE SIDE OF (forget to mention that before) it. There is another large body of material evidence in the form of the variety of artefacts produced, almost all of which can be shown to have been produced in the Roman province, almost none among the tribes outside of it. Thirdly there is written history - obviously all from the Roman side. (That's another reason why we call them barbarians, they did not write things down).
I never said that these tribes were shivering half naked savages. I called them barbarians because that is what the Romans called them, and because it conveys that there WAS a significant difference in the material culture between the two. In almost every way that you can measure it, the material culture of the barbarians amounted to less than that of the Roman occupiers.
I am NOT saying that they were half naked savages who lived in appalling conditions. It may be that most of these barbarians had happy lives carousing around camp fires, toasting their naked feet, telling great tales, or going into spiritual trances, and maybe eating communally from their bounteous land the wonderful meats and grains that they have harvested without any imposition of Roman taxation. But I steered clear of any such speculation, and stuck to what history tells us: that however happy they were, they made huge efforts, and put themselves (and, they must have known, their families too) at great danger of dying in battle, and subsequent Roman retribution, which would surely have been extremely brutal, to overcome this Wall garrison. Moreover it does not seem to have been the case that they were annoyed at the presence of the wall and its troops and wanted rid of it, they wanted to penetrate the wall and move south.
Why is it so difficult for you to believe that they would attack the Romans? There are numerous records of various peoples around the Empire's borders trying to do so. The British tribes were prone to attack each other before the Romans came. You'll find that peoples the world over can be warlike. Why this belief that the Brits north of the wall were so spiritual and content that they would never attack anybody? Anyway, they DID launch massive attacks on the province.
It really seems a cart-before-horse version of logic to suggest that the wall was the inducement for them to attack. You still have not stated why you think that so many troops were put into the area in the first place.
Sorry if this seems arrogant or contentious. I really am more bewildered than anything.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
-
Message 50
Posted by TurretPig (U9956889) on Friday, 11th January 2008
ok,
you provide me with the evidence that there were invasions of northern tribes in the period before the Wall was built and I will believe you.
By the way, just because the Romans called them Barbarians, does not mean that they were so.Link to this forum: Why didn't the trenches become a Hadrian's Wall?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 听to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.