I’m currently in the tail end of my whirlwind tour of
British libraries and military sites.
After making the trek, by car, from Winnipeg to Brantford with the dog,
I flew off to London to head to the Institute for Classical Studies
library. Had four productive days, then,
after a brief layover just outside of Worcester, it was off to Wales – with
another family layover at the start, this time in Cardiff. I spend two nights taking photos of the area
around Caerleon, site of some well-preserved legionary ruins. Next I charged off for two nights in
Aberystwyth, for a lecture on cohesion and combat motivation. Went down well, and got some excellent
feedback.
A brief sojourn to Devon (Sidmouth and family) was
followed by a trip to Oxford for some more library work – and some typing. I also squeezed in two nights in Birmingham
to catch up with some friends and colleagues, including my former PhD
supervisor. Then a night back in Oxford
(family) and a night in Devon (Sidmouth, family again). This week, however, I’ve been in the north,
along Hadrian’s Wall. The purpose of
this portion of the trip has been to visit as many Roman military sites along
the wall as is feasible and to take as many photos as possible. These photos, or the best of them, will
appear in an introduction to the Roman military, in the works. I think in a follow-up post I’ll attach a
couple of the pictures. Perhaps, too,
I’ll consider joining Instagram.
Although I’ll be posting this written entry from Newcastle, I’m writing
it on the train from Carlisle, a train trip I’ve done twice before.
Anyway, there’s probably any number of things I could
say at this point, from how I’m feeling about the news about Gord Downie (hits
close to home in a number of ways) to the remarkable beauty of this landscape,
but I should say a thing or two about military stuff, since I’ve devoted this
blog to work matters.
What I’d like to draw attention to here is how
well-sited most of the bases are along the wall. The wall, one of the most glorious archaeological
sites in the world, in my humble opinion, runs for about 73 miles (British? –
never understood the difference, if there is one, between US and UK miles) from
coast to coast, or sea to sea. That’s
from just west of Carlisle to Newcastle.
Now, at many points the isle of Britain tends to be much wider, so that
they’ve chosen one of narrowest points, though not necessarily the easiest in
terms of landscape, to build the wall reflects, I think, Roman
practicality. Sure, their geographical
knowledge differs from ours, but after brief consideration it’s a remarkable
coincidence that they built it at this point.
I’m sure there were geographical and tribal considerations in part, but
practicality and cost must have been a major consideration.
The other matter, or the principal matter, that I
wanted to touch on was also how well-placed the sites are. In nearly all those sites that survive that I
saw – and the forts and fortlets in particular – you are afforded excellent
views of the surrounding countryside. This,
too, could be chance: it’s not the case
that the landscape has changed enough that my modern perspective is defective,
as you can see when you notice how the wall hugs the landscape. No, some thinking went into choosing the
locations, and again, in an albeit small sample size, and without making any
mathematical calculations using, say, Google Earth, it’s clear they wanted
their forts in spots where they could observe approaching visitors with comparable
ease. In some cases too they went to such
remarkable lengths to do this that certain forts were built into the side of
hills. Housesteads, for instance, is one
the side of the hill, and the slope is not inconsiderable. I don’t doubt that there might have been some
levelling in the past, but the surviving foundations suggest that this was
limited.
Now, there are
obviously lower points – the wall goes in as straight a line as possible, but
the landscape is anything but flat and straightforward. This means it snakes its way up and down up
and over hills and then down into valleys.
That also means that certain spots would have been easy to get across
for a determined group. Even there,
however, it should be stressed that there were towers or forts or something
every mile (or is it Roman mile? – can’t remember off the top of my head). And given you could see that sort of distance
fairly easily, unless the conditions were dreadful, I don’t think they need
have been too concerned, and they probably weren’t.
All in all, as I’m sure commentators have noted time
and again, even when they have disagreed over the precise function of the wall,
it’s clear that a great deal of care, consideration, and planning when into its
construction. This was no mean feat for
any number of reasons, and it is a testament to Roman ingenuity and
practicality – and in some instances their efficiency. Plus, while I don’t doubt that the wall had
all sorts of functions ranging from the control of peoples to the movement of
goods, when you’re here and you see it on the ground it’s hard to get past its
defensive function too.
From the train south of the wall, until next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment