The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca

The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca The Archaeology of Britain: An introduction from ... - waughfamily.ca

waughfamily.ca
from waughfamily.ca More from this publisher
03.05.2015 Views

Roman Britain: military dimension • 153 • Roman frontiers were built and operated by the army, and military defence was clearly one of their prime functions, but, at least until the early fourth century AD in Britain, the process was both proactive as well as reactive. The Romans usually responded to threats to territory they occupied by undertaking a campaign against the aggressors, the principle best exemplified by the action of Agricola against the Ordovices in north Wales immediately upon his arrival in the Province as the new governor (Tacitus, Agricola, 18). Static defence from maintained positions was not normal Roman practice. When thoughts of completing the conquest of the island of Britain were given up and it was necessary to create a frontier, the Romans looked to natural features, such as the Forth-Clyde isthmus, for convenience of definition (Tacitus, Agricola, 23). Such features were at first augmented by a closer spacing of military garrisons than was the case when hostile territory was being controlled by a fort network, often utilizing smaller garrison posts, either small forts or fortlets. Other characteristic features were the provision of a system of watchtowers and of a lateral road connecting these various installations. This development can be seen on the Gask and Stanegate frontiers of late first- and early second-century date, as noted above. Only later, after Hadrian’s reign, do we see the addition of a linear barrier as part of the system. This sequence of development gives some indication of Rome’s attitude to the function of frontiers. The provision of garrisons at closer intervals and of a regular system of watchtowers suggests a concern for the control of movement across the frontier, but there is no suggestion that a system of preclusive defence was intended. Even when linear barriers were added to the system, provision was made for regular gateways at fortlets located every 1.6 km on both Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall. If the primary function of frontiers were to exclude, such an arrangement would have been both unnecessary and potentially disadvantageous, since gateways are a weak spot in any defensive circuit. On the other hand, the provision of a linear barrier would be a logical step if concern was to increase the level of control and the intensity of security. Such action would serve to funnel all legitimate movement through the gateways under the watchful eyes of the Roman garrison, making the levying of customs dues more readily achieved, and would also effectively exclude small-scale illicit movement, such as border raiding. Linear barriers are of little use against major incursions, since external forces could be massed at a selected location, easily outnumbering any local troops, and could readily breach the wall before sufficient defensive reinforcements could be summoned to the spot. Whether or not the wall line was ever intended to be defended as a barrier in the way that the perimeter of a fort would have been is much disputed. Clearly, the original thickness of Hadrian’s Wall (the so-called ‘broad wall’) could have accommodated a walkway, though there is no direct evidence that it was provided with the necessary parapet or crenellations. The reduction in the width of later sections of this wall to as little as 1.3 m, however, decreases the probability that it could have been used as a fighting platform. Evidence from the Antonine Wall is more difficult to assess since the details of the superstructure of the turf rampart are less certain. Analogy with the German frontier, however, where the barrier consisted of only a timber palisade, makes clear that the use of such barriers as elevated fighting platforms requires proof rather than being automatically assumed. It has been further suggested that the provision of a linear barrier would provide greater protection to the local population within the Province, thus encouraging and facilitating the process of Romanization (Hanson and Maxwell 1986, 163). However, whether this was the intended function rather than an incidental side-effect remains unproven. Debate about the function of the Saxon Shore is more fundamental, since its very identification as a frontier has been challenged. Recent reassessment of the evidence suggests that the forts there do not readily fit into any practical defensive strategy, but should better be seen as trans-shipment centres for the collection and distribution of state supplies (Cotterill 1993). However, various

• 154 • W.S.Hanson Figure 8.11 Distribution of Saxon Shore forts and late Roman forts and coastal watchtowers.

• 154 • W.S.Hanson<br />

Figure 8.11 Distribution <strong>of</strong> Saxon Shore forts and late Roman forts and coastal watchtowers.

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!