Hadrian's Wall

by Adrian Goldsworthy

  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.

  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 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

  CHANGING TIMES AND THE END OF EMPIRE

  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 assu
med 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.

  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

  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 loric
a 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.