How did this wall keep anyone out?
>>1401986
What wall is it?
>>1402007
read the file name, you silly billy
It got dismantled after the Romans left
>>1402007
ITT: someone who cannot read
It was higher at the time.
>>1401986
It was never meant to keep anybody out. Hadrian's wall was used to control traffic and trade for taxation. It also prevented the picts from stealing cattle. That is why the moat is on the southern side of the wall. Cattle rustlers could sneak over but cows could not make it over the wall.
>>1402056
That's total bullshit.
To answer your question OP, 2 millennia of decay tend to make thins less impressive than the once were. Hadrian's wall was originally taller as well as have garrisoned forts at regular intervals placed along the wall.
fort towns along the wall.
same way the great WALLS of china worked.
>>1402040
I'm actually curious if any of the Romano-British or Anglo-Saxon kingdoms used Hadrians wall against the Picts.
>>1402427
Look up Vindolanda, one of the gates of the wall. Its one of the best Roman sites in Europe for preserved information and there are tons of documentaries and books about it. The wall was mostly used as a tariff barrier for its useful life, there wasnt of anything concentrated enough north of it to conquer but there was enough to tax and so most conflict was likely smugglers and tariff avoiders taking goods south.
>>1402007
Artist's concept of Trump's US-Mexico Boarder Wall
>>1401986
a) It was a lot taller when It was originally built. Much of the wall has been stripped down to use the stone in construction elsewhere.
b) There were Roman garrisons along the wall to deter people from trying to cross it
>>1401986
That's basically just the foundations, the wall materials were taken for use over the centuries. Also Hadrian's Wall was never intended to actually keep anyone out. It was a glory project and acted to make it harder for raiders to return across the frontier with their spoilers. Plus it ensured customs duties and shit like that could be imposed on traders.
It wasn't meant to be a purely defensive wall.
It was used for controlling who came in and out, controlling trade, transferring information, and a base for any military excursions into the north.
"The limites of Rome were never expected to stop tribes from migrating or armies from invading, and while a frontier protected by a palisade or stone wall would help curb cattle-raiders and the incursions of other small groups, the economic viability of constructing and keeping guarded a wall 72 miles (116 km) long along a sparsely populated border to stop small-scale raiding is dubious.
Another possible explanation for the wall is the degree of control it would have provided over immigration, smuggling and customs. Limites did not strictly mark the boundaries of the empire: Roman power and influence often extended beyond the walls. People within and beyond the limes travelled through it each day when conducting business, and organised check-points like those offered by Hadrian's Wall provided good opportunities for taxation. With watch towers only a short distance from gateways in the limes, patrolling legionaries could have kept track of entering and exiting natives and Roman citizens alike, charging customs dues and checking for smuggling."
>>1402847
Is your quote from Isaacs? Luttwak?
It was taller and had guards all along it.
>>1402056
This is half true, but it was still meant to act as a barrier to prevent free movement of people and armies.
>>1402919
A cheeky one from wikipedia.
Mostly using Everitt.
I'd quote from one of my books but I'm lazy.
>>1401986
What was the point of such a wall, anyway? There was only Scotland to the north, and nothing else. Couldn't they just conquer Scotland too?
>>1402953
>There was only Scotland to the north, and nothing else. Couldn't they just conquer Scotland too?
It has been suggested that Hadrian wanted to discourage further uncontrolled expansion like what Trajan did before him, so a big fuck off structure would suggest essentially that the buck stopped at the current limites lines.
Plus conquering Scotland was difficult. The lowlands were easy enough to take and the Romans did it multiple times, e.g. under Agricola, Septimius Severus. The problem is that securing the highlands was near impossible due to the terrain and it would have been very costly to do so. It was cheaper to just leave it unoccupied. They had buffer tribes north of the wall to stop the Caledonians/Picti hitting them directly very often.
You don't need a very big wall. They're called the Lowlands for a reason.
>>1402953
I think what limited Roman expansion into Scotland was the food supply. In England the legions could be supplied with grain from Gaul. England at the time was engaged mostly in raising cattle and simply could not generate the grain surplus needed to feed the army. Hadrian's wall was pretty much the limit that the grain from Gaul could reach.
>>1401986
people were a lot shorter back then
>>1402419
Walls? Can you really call it that? I mean it's just one big wall, right? If there is space between them, thus making them into several separate walls, then it's not a very good wall, is it?
>>1401986
It's like the Great Wall, it dosent stop invaders it stops raiders on their way back
>>1403059
DIfferent Chink Dynasties built different walls and as I understand it the main purpose of the wall wasn't to completely stop foreign armies but to force them to pass through predictable mountain passes.
>>1403094
>great wall is actually made up of smaller 'great' walls
My whole life is a lie.
>>1403104
those "smaller" great walls were still huge
http://mapfight.appspot.com/cn-vs-gb/china-united-kingdom-size-comparison
>>1402953
Septimus Severus was going to do it, basically by exterminating them, but he died and his sons were too busy trying to kill each other to finish the job.
>>1403094
Jesus what a sloppy mess, fucking gooks.
>>1401986
People back then were about up to your knee, or groin at the highest, that's how
manlets
>>1402007
"Great" wall of Rome
>>1403026
Not to be a mythbusting fag, but Britannia was famous for being a phenomenal producer of grain and in fact supplied Gaul with it as Zosimus, Eutropius, Ammianus Marcellinus etc. all say.
The Scottish garrisons could easily be supplied, Septimius Severus set up various forts in the lowlands for instance that were supplied by river in the same way as all of the Britannia forts and cities (which are as a rule, near waterways).
The real problem is that enforcing control over mountain dwelling raiders is an expensive and time consuming process. The Asturians still rebelled and raided Romans like 300 years after their "conquest" in the late 1st century BC and even managed to gain independence (probably the only Celtic tribe to do so outside of Britain and Brittany) which shows what a pain in the ass they could be. The risk of losing legions in an Teutoburg Forest style scenario just made Scotland not worth conquering. Plus the Romans had relatively poor geographical knowledge so may not have truly understand the actual scale of northern Britain.
>>1401986
Couldn't the stones just have been a foundation? What if the sides were still planked up with lumber which made the walls higher?
>>1401986
OP's pic is the wall stripped to its foundation.
Hadrian's wall was built about 3 meters wide and 6 meters tall, not built to withstand an organized assault, but enough to restrict traffic and fend off unorganized tribal war bands.
There were also legion camps stationed along the wall every few kilometers, so multiple camps can congregate on one spot in a short amount of time to respond to any threats.
>>1403942
According to Pliny (elder) the Romans didn't really know what was past the Caledonian Forest. I'm from the Highlands myself and to be honest they're not all that mountainous, especially compared to somewhere like the Alps, where I understand the Romans handily suppressed the Rhaetic peoples there. I think as much as anything there wasn't really any resources of value there for it to make a Roman occupation worthwhile.
>>1401986
If the picts used cavalry it looks like it would have helped alot.
but they didn't so who fucking knows.
The Romans were shit fucking scared of us scots, especially after they stole our southern lands and technology.
We sacked Rome, so they attacked us for payback in our time of weakness.
The locals tooks stone from the wall to build with since it's easier to salvage than to quarry new stone. This was after the romana left and nobody bothered guarding/maintaining it.
>>1401986
The sheep fuckers couldn't get their sheep over the wall, thus ending centuries of human migration.
>>1403104
So when your wall meets a mountain you must build on top of the mountain? retard
>>1401986
it doesn't. All it does is create a predictable return point.
Lets say some Picts bust a hole in the wall and go through to raid further inland. All you have to do to intercept them is camp out at the hole, cause they basically have to go back that way given they're probably in a hurry and would get caught out if they had to bust open another hole.
>>1404200
>Romans were shit fucking scared of us scots
Scoti was the Roman name for the Irish, who displaced the native Picts (they were probably Celts but it's debated) and colonized the area we now know as Scotland sometime in the 5th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata
You are clearly referring to the Gauls, who Celts. The Scoti were obviously Celts.
As for why the Romans never conquered Scotland, it may very well have been a lack of manpower that the ruling governours had at their disposal. For the subjugation and subsequent regulation of tribal nations plainly costs a considerable amount of men.
Here's a semi-relevant extract regarding Agricola's campaign for Ireland (that never came):
"It was well for the governor's reputation that such an attempt was never made, for his estimate of the force required to subdue and garrison the sister island was obviously far too low.
It reminds us of Strabo's obiter dictum that Britain itself would require but one legion and some auxiliaries to hold it down.
Four legions and the corresponding contingents of non-legionary troops, were actually employed in Britain for Thirty years before the frontier even reached Tyne and Solway:
Ireland would have absorbed at least half that amount of troops, besides a large addition to the British fleet."
The same obstacle might have been the case for Scotland, it should be noted however that Agricola had just completed his pacification of the Brigantine tribes in Northern England which had drained much of his forces as garrison.
Interestingly enough, Agricola did campaign against the Caledonians in the Scottish Lowlands, and came mightily close to conquering them, until he was recalled by the jealous emperor Domitian. What could have been.
>>1401986
Because it was manned by alot of soldiers.
>>1405382
and towers, and wooden stockade
>>1401986
At this point, Hadrian's wall is such a meme that it might not have existed at all.
It wasn't made to keep anyone out.
1. Hadrians wall was built in the middle of a tribes territory, not on the border of a pro-Roman tribe and non-Roman tribe.
2. It was meant to control their movement, for taxation and to make revolting harder. Essentially making controlling them easier.
It was never meant to be something that could survive as siege.
scots are stupid
when confronted with this barrier they simply stopped and stared until they died of hunger or went home
>>1408085
heh yeah like stinky dairy cows
>>1401986
It wasn't meant for armies, more like raiders and herdsmen, or refugee families.
It isn't going to stop a determined army, however you cant bring cows over it without a difficult ordeal.
You aren't going to bring carts of loot from a raid across it easily.
A family of herders aren't going to drive their animals through this wall.
>>1409285
>Hadrian’s Wall was 80 Roman miles long - about 73 modern miles or 117 km. It was built in 5 mile stretches, with seventeen forts. Smaller forts called ‘milecastles’ were built every mile and between these were signal turrets.
>Much of Hadrian's Wall was about 10 Roman feet wide - 3m or 9.7 modern feet. It stood about 5 to 6 metres tall (16 to 20 feet). It was about a third wider at the base than it was at the ramparts.
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/caledonianspictsromans/hadrianswall/index.asp
>>1405514
>might not have existed at all
Yeah it's not like the biggest treasure trove of Roman writing outside of Oxyrynchus or Pompeii was found at one of the forts there.
>>1403212
Cmon man they weren't pigmies. Wasn't avg height of roman men like 5'5" ?
This might give you an better idea how it looked at the time.
and it was manned with Roman troops
>>1413122
>and it was manned with Roman troops
Auxiliaries. It wasn't manned by citizen legionaries but by non-peregrini inhabitants of the empire or even men from outside the frontiers e.g. Syrians, Batavians, Mauri, Roxolani etc.
how you going to get a loaded mule, a horse a wheeled cart or ANYTHING even remotely important other than a foot soldier over that wall without causing a noticeable commotion?? the wall serve its purpose imo.
>>1413920
it was a yuge wall, really tremendous. The best wall
>>1402397
He's right you dipshit
>>1402953
No point. Scotland was absolutely worthless.
>>1401986
there were lots of guards stationed on it and in the surrounded
area . Also it used to be much higher then it is now. it just collapsed do to neglect and do to peasants taking the stones of it in order to build with it after the roman empire dissolved in the
area
Picts were only 3"6 at this stage in history so they couldnt climb over the wall.
>>1403942
What's fun about asturians, basques and the like is that they were a pain in the ass for even longer. The last visigothic king did a campaign in the north before being defeated by the southern invasion.
>>1403051
only 1-3 inches shorter than average.
They weren't midgets
>>1416265
Yeah I know a bit about the subject, read Braulio of Zaragoza's Life of St Aemelian at one point. I find it fascinating that the northern tribes in Spain held onto their distinct culture so long that they managed to regain independence in the 5th century and hold off the Goths for decades.
