Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ  permalink

roman britain

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by cyclohogbob (U14593962) on Friday, 17th September 2010

  why do tv programmes about roman britain always say the frontier was hadrians wall when in fact it was antonines wall? is this history from an english perspective ,a proto england?

  Link to this forum: roman britain

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Friday, 17th September 2010

  Despite being as hypersensitive a Scot as many of my fellow citizens, I think this is pushing the point just a bit too far. While the Antonine wall was the northernmost of the Roman Limes, it was only operative for about 20 years, about half of that was its construction, and seems to have been as much a prestige project for Antoninus Pious to compensate for his lack of a military career and victories to underwrite his legitimacy as a defensive fortification. Given the length of time Hadrian's Wall was functioning and its much more permanent and robust infrastructure, it was, for the vast majority of the Roman occupation, the de facto frontier.

  Link to this forum: roman britain

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010

  I think that the Antonine wall was ostensibly a good idea. Despite the presence of Hadrian's wall and its garrison, forts forward of that wall had to be put in place; the area to the north of it was very troublesome. It would have been logical to take control of the whole area, and make a new frontier at the Forth-Clyde line. Obviously this line would have to be defended instead, but it is considerably shorter than the Tyne-Solway isthmus, so could have been easier to garrison, moreover it would have included some of the productive lowlands around it. Perhaps the reason that line failed was because invaders could easily outflank the wall by moving across the Clyde and Forth, to the west and east.

  Link to this forum: roman britain

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010

  Most conjecture concerning its abandonment seems to focus on the native population which then occupied the area between the two walls. The necessity to build it may have arisen at a time when this population was proving difficult to maintain as a willing buffer zone between Roman territory and those who the Romans lumped together as "Caledonians". Should the latter and the Brythonic "buffer" tribes form a military and political alliance then even Hadrians Wall (then also a relatively newly established entity) might not be sufficient to withstand invasion.
  
  The theory I've heard most repeated is that by containing this population they became more amenable to serving Roman interests, a policy of coercion and bribery which the Romans had very likely recently perfected in subduing Brigantine opposition and now applied to their northern neighbours. However once this had been achieved it was deemed wise to retrench since the vulnerability to being navally outflanked actually meant it would have been quite expensive to maintain, having a requirement of a fleet at each end as an intrinsically logical part of the defence strategy required at that point.
  
  There seems to be good reason to believe however that it was maintained to some degree even after abandonment (probably by the "tame" tribes) and that this was with an eye to one day maybe having to re-use it. Which indeed happened under Severus.

  Link to this forum: roman britain

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010

  Thanks Nordmann, I had forgotten that the wall was re-occupied under Severus; it further shows that the Brythons there were an intractable problem to the Romans. The idiotic Caracalla simply decided to ignore the problem, his concern being to murder his brother in front of his mother and get back to Rome to seize power.

  Link to this forum: roman britain

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010

  Even I wouldn't claim Caracalla was a pillar of rectitude but sharing supreme power with your brother is a difficult trick to bring off, as recent events seem to illustrate! The hatred between Severus's sons seems to have been mutual.
  
  Actually the murder took place after Caracalla and Geta returned to Rome with their father's ashes. Caracalla's ending of the war in Caledonia may have been sensible. The topography probably meant it was impossible to win, and maintaining large Roman forces in the field was expensive. Another echo of a contemporary situation perhaps.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: roman britain

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Wednesday, 29th September 2010

  It is quite a claim to say that the topography made it impossible to win. Rome had conquered all kinds of territories with all kinds of topographies. I suggest that what made it impossible was the fact that the tribes there were utterly opposed to any kind of rule over them by such an alien culture as Rome. I believe it was a bit like the situation with the Germans; they really wanted nothing to do with the way of life that the Romans lived, except that they would have been willing to raid for goods that they wanted, and pay no heed to the dangers of doing so.
  
  The only way to pacify the borders region would have been to forcibly evict/exterminate the inhabitants, which is what Severus may have been intending. Conceivably some credit accrues to Caracalla for not carrying out this final solution.

  Link to this forum: roman britain

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by cyclohogbob (U14593962) on Friday, 1st October 2010

  thankyou for your reply,i went to school in the sixties when there was no history taught from a scottish perspective ,or any scottish history for that matter.it would be more educational and informative if the rest of the jigsaw pieces were included. i also consider myself as a briton as well as ethnically irish.

  Link to this forum: roman britain

  Report message8

Back to top