Have always been curious about the fuzzy boundaries where control would end in ancient & medieval times - Hadrians wall is highly unusual in that it is a firm & very visible line, but for many city states or smaller powers always curious how far effective control would extend outside their fortresses or city walls,
Indeed, the Romans wanted troops to serve away from their region of origin, but that comes with two caveats: One, we're speaking of the auxilia, not of the legions. Two, that practise watered down soon enough, and (in this case) British men supplied the troops for many if not all the units stationed along the Wall. Of course we still see a continuation of names and religious practises with some units, so we cannot excluded that during years or even decades after being stationed there, men still were recruited from their original homeland. But as those regions became incorporated (and some original units had been defeated tribes), the units along Hadrian's Wall became as British as the stones it was made of.
True, and I admit because I was doing more of a helicopter episode with this one that I didn't focus on this one. The only thing I'd say is that the Tigris Bardgemen shows that the empire was still capable of long distance recruitment in the 4th century.
You have to look at the Empire as a whole when considering the purpose of Hadrian's Wall, as this was part of an Empire wide strategy initiated by Hadrian of border control. It cannot be taken in isolation, as a British only phenomenon. Similar border structures were constructed all around the Roman Empire, though the Wall in Britain was the only one thus built, with the others mostly being Turf & Palisade barriers, but of a basically similar design, comprising a linear barrier with a series of watch posts spaced at regular intervals, garrisons placed along this to control movement through the Frontier of people with goods & livestock. Nor does a putative British 'rebellion' have to have anything to do with the construction of the Wall. It is most unlikely that this revolt occurred during the building of the Wall, & because of that building, though it might be that the Wall was built after a successful campaign against a British insurgence. The troops that manned Hadrian's Wall, & it's forts, were not brought in especially for the purpose, but most were already in Britain as part of the occupying garrison, they were simply redeployed to form the frontier control force. Previously they were spread around the province as a shield for the Legions which they were employed with when needed, so that they could be fed of the land & provide the police & security for their local regions at the same time. Moving them to the line & region of the Wall meant removing them from their previous forts further south. Once the forts were built right onto the Wall itself, especially with multiple gates opening onto the northern side of the Wall, & the fact that many of the troops involved were cavalry, this shows that the Wall took on the aspect of a springboard for forward control, & 'backstop' if required against any concerted attack. Roman military strategy was one of action & attack, not defence & wait around, so Roman military structures were not constructed in enemy territory, except for marching camps during active campaigns. Regular forts & Legionary Fortresses could only be built in areas completely under the control of the roman army, & this goes for structures such as Hadrian's Wall also. Forts were places for the safe housing of soldiers, they were not meant as strongholds to defend, but as bases from which to advance against an enemy. With it's cavalry & other troops housed along the Wall, & not forgetting there were several forts built north of it on the main routes, the Roman Army could easily patrol & control the whole region to the north as far as the Forth-Clyde line. Thus the necessary foodstuffs from that region continued to be available to the army, & the people of the area had the benefits of the protection of the Army. It seems that livestock had regularly been driven from as far as the far north of what is now Scotland, way down into the present day south of England, & this practice was able to continue by the provision of the many gates through the Wall, at the Milecastles & elsewhere, where the passage of people could be controlled & any necessary border tariffs charged. The movement, after Hadrian's death, to incorporate the area north of Hadrian's Wall fully into the Province, by the new border of the Antonine Wall, may have been seen as a rationalisation, with the possibility to reduce the number of troops required to man this, but these things were purely at the will & will of the Emperors, so after Antoninus Pius, the strategy towards this expansion seemed to flip back & forth, until the Severan period, when the re-institution of Hadrian's Wall marked that as the regular Frontier control point.
Thanks for this long chat mate. Could you do one on the Ogham stones found in Wales. The Irish settled there near the end of the Roman era. They don`t know if they were settled there or just moved in with the vacuum.
Another highly informative and interesting video. It is indeed true that the military units manning Hadrian's Wall were drawn from outside of Britain, mostly from Germanic speaking peoples, such as the Tungrians, with exotic auxiliary units thrown in, such as the boatmen from Syria. I believe that later in the Romano-British period, as the political situation and economy changed, local people were inducted into the Roman military to guard the wall, and it became a hereditary commitment, passing from father to son. That would certainly be in line with the beginnings of feudalism in the late Roman Empire as manpower shortages became severe. The Wall was still manned after the accepted date of departure of the bulk of the Roman army, somewhere between 406 - 410 AD, as incursions by Picts and assorted others were repulsed. Somebody was in charge and coordinating military affairs. The recent amazing, and history changing discoveries at Chedworth Roman Villa, tell us that we do not really know what was really going on at that point in time. The Wall to my mind is definitely a military structure, that served a defensive, economic and political role, and was in essence all about control.
Romans weren’t stupid. Therefore, the wall could allow collection of customs duties/taxes on goods being transported either way. The wall and total garrison strength weren’t enough to stop a concentrated attack, but perfect for customs duties and to stop cattle and sheep rustling either way.
@@AlexIlesUK I would imagine the wealthy and land/stock owners were happy about the wall on both sides, while constantly complaining about the tax/duties. Not much has changed really.
Scots invading from Ireland is a myth. Genetic genealogy is providing us with an unbiased view of history (a view that doesn’t force us to believe that Irish cattle rustlers could do what the Roman legions couldn’t). The ancestors of the Scots arrived in Britain around 2500 BCE. Pictland was likely a Gaelic speaking population ruled by a British speaking elite (Irish cattle rustlers didn’t force the Scots to speak Old Irish - a language that motivated literate scholars struggle to learn).
The Romans invaded and defeated the people North of the Wall four times, but chose not to incorporate it into the empire. By saying that you're discounting the history of the Kingdom of Dal Riata, the Picts and the Britons in what is now Scotland. The Genetics show that they are similar but we have artifacts and as history to prove it did happen. The alternative is that a fake history, over six hundred years long was written to create a false narrative, which appears to be what you are arguing.
if the French took a page out of Hadrians book we wouldn't be over run by illegal immigrants, mile castles job done, £500 million wasted, have you listened to soldier on the wall yet, Alex Harvey band also keep to the tyne when approaching Wallsend don't venture off the route keep to the tyne
These are absolutely incredible. You are so knowledgeable. Fast becoming my favorite channel. Please keep uploading.
Don't worry many more on the way. Working on research and writing today and will be filming again shortly. Roman episode tomorrow!
Brilliant! great stuff mate, nicely done
Thank you!!
Nicely done and well presented thank you!
Thank you!
❤ another great video Alex cheers Mate and keep up the great work Ciao from New Jersey in America
Thank you very much!!
Another great video.
Thank you!
Have always been curious about the fuzzy boundaries where control would end in ancient & medieval times - Hadrians wall is highly unusual in that it is a firm & very visible line, but for many city states or smaller powers always curious how far effective control would extend outside their fortresses or city walls,
Even with Archeology it's still a best guess in many ways, but the picture is getting better!
Indeed, the Romans wanted troops to serve away from their region of origin, but that comes with two caveats:
One, we're speaking of the auxilia, not of the legions.
Two, that practise watered down soon enough, and (in this case) British men supplied the troops for many if not all the units stationed along the Wall.
Of course we still see a continuation of names and religious practises with some units, so we cannot excluded that during years or even decades after being stationed there, men still were recruited from their original homeland. But as those regions became incorporated (and some original units had been defeated tribes), the units along Hadrian's Wall became as British as the stones it was made of.
True, and I admit because I was doing more of a helicopter episode with this one that I didn't focus on this one. The only thing I'd say is that the Tigris Bardgemen shows that the empire was still capable of long distance recruitment in the 4th century.
You have to look at the Empire as a whole when considering the purpose of Hadrian's Wall, as this was part of an Empire wide strategy initiated by Hadrian of border control. It cannot be taken in isolation, as a British only phenomenon. Similar border structures were constructed all around the Roman Empire, though the Wall in Britain was the only one thus built, with the others mostly being Turf & Palisade barriers, but of a basically similar design, comprising a linear barrier with a series of watch posts spaced at regular intervals, garrisons placed along this to control movement through the Frontier of people with goods & livestock. Nor does a putative British 'rebellion' have to have anything to do with the construction of the Wall. It is most unlikely that this revolt occurred during the building of the Wall, & because of that building, though it might be that the Wall was built after a successful campaign against a British insurgence. The troops that manned Hadrian's Wall, & it's forts, were not brought in especially for the purpose, but most were already in Britain as part of the occupying garrison, they were simply redeployed to form the frontier control force. Previously they were spread around the province as a shield for the Legions which they were employed with when needed, so that they could be fed of the land & provide the police & security for their local regions at the same time. Moving them to the line & region of the Wall meant removing them from their previous forts further south. Once the forts were built right onto the Wall itself, especially with multiple gates opening onto the northern side of the Wall, & the fact that many of the troops involved were cavalry, this shows that the Wall took on the aspect of a springboard for forward control, & 'backstop' if required against any concerted attack. Roman military strategy was one of action & attack, not defence & wait around, so Roman military structures were not constructed in enemy territory, except for marching camps during active campaigns. Regular forts & Legionary Fortresses could only be built in areas completely under the control of the roman army, & this goes for structures such as Hadrian's Wall also. Forts were places for the safe housing of soldiers, they were not meant as strongholds to defend, but as bases from which to advance against an enemy. With it's cavalry & other troops housed along the Wall, & not forgetting there were several forts built north of it on the main routes, the Roman Army could easily patrol & control the whole region to the north as far as the Forth-Clyde line. Thus the necessary foodstuffs from that region continued to be available to the army, & the people of the area had the benefits of the protection of the Army. It seems that livestock had regularly been driven from as far as the far north of what is now Scotland, way down into the present day south of England, & this practice was able to continue by the provision of the many gates through the Wall, at the Milecastles & elsewhere, where the passage of people could be controlled & any necessary border tariffs charged. The movement, after Hadrian's death, to incorporate the area north of Hadrian's Wall fully into the Province, by the new border of the Antonine Wall, may have been seen as a rationalisation, with the possibility to reduce the number of troops required to man this, but these things were purely at the will & will of the Emperors, so after Antoninus Pius, the strategy towards this expansion seemed to flip back & forth, until the Severan period, when the re-institution of Hadrian's Wall marked that as the regular Frontier control point.
Of course, the whole picture needs to be taken into account, I was just focusing on the wall here.
Thanks for this long chat mate. Could you do one on the Ogham stones found in Wales. The Irish settled there near the end of the Roman era. They don`t know if they were settled there or just moved in with the vacuum.
My next series is going to be on the Anglo-Scottish border but I'll put that on the list!
@@AlexIlesUK Cheers mate that sounds great too i`ll watch
Another highly informative and interesting video. It is indeed true that the military units manning Hadrian's Wall were drawn from outside of Britain, mostly from Germanic speaking peoples, such as the Tungrians, with exotic auxiliary units thrown in, such as the boatmen from Syria. I believe that later in the Romano-British period, as the political situation and economy changed, local people were inducted into the Roman military to guard the wall, and it became a hereditary commitment, passing from father to son. That would certainly be in line with the beginnings of feudalism in the late Roman Empire as manpower shortages became severe. The Wall was still manned after the accepted date of departure of the bulk of the Roman army, somewhere between 406 - 410 AD, as incursions by Picts and assorted others were repulsed. Somebody was in charge and coordinating military affairs. The recent amazing, and history changing discoveries at Chedworth Roman Villa, tell us that we do not really know what was really going on at that point in time. The Wall to my mind is definitely a military structure, that served a defensive, economic and political role, and was in essence all about control.
I'm sure more information will come out in the coming years!
Romans weren’t stupid. Therefore, the wall could allow collection of customs duties/taxes on goods being transported either way. The wall and total garrison strength weren’t enough to stop a concentrated attack, but perfect for customs duties and to stop cattle and sheep rustling either way.
Very much the argument I wanted to make!
@@AlexIlesUK I would imagine the wealthy and land/stock owners were happy about the wall on both sides, while constantly complaining about the tax/duties. Not much has changed really.
@@MadeleineTakam Well I do think it impacted those north of the wall more!
First rate video!
Thank you kindly!!
Not sure why discussing Hadrian's Wall would cause offense??
Apart from that AI image of course 😂
Migration and borders can cause offence.
@@AlexIlesUK Lol
Scots invading from Ireland is a myth. Genetic genealogy is providing us with an unbiased view of history (a view that doesn’t force us to believe that Irish cattle rustlers could do what the Roman legions couldn’t). The ancestors of the Scots arrived in Britain around 2500 BCE. Pictland was likely a Gaelic speaking population ruled by a British speaking elite (Irish cattle rustlers didn’t force the Scots to speak Old Irish - a language that motivated literate scholars struggle to learn).
The Romans invaded and defeated the people North of the Wall four times, but chose not to incorporate it into the empire. By saying that you're discounting the history of the Kingdom of Dal Riata, the Picts and the Britons in what is now Scotland. The Genetics show that they are similar but we have artifacts and as history to prove it did happen. The alternative is that a fake history, over six hundred years long was written to create a false narrative, which appears to be what you are arguing.
America needs Hadrians wall lmaooo
Soft border, hard border or vanity project?
@@AlexIlesUK Yes
(Probably a hard border tbh)
@donnavanoverloop9264 aye.
if the French took a page out of Hadrians book we wouldn't be over run by illegal immigrants, mile castles job done, £500 million wasted, have you listened to soldier on the wall yet, Alex Harvey band also keep to the tyne when approaching Wallsend don't venture off the route keep to the tyne
Well Hadrian's wall didn't keep anyone out, it's well attested; I've not heard that. I'll have a look, been working on the wall today.
Listened to the song. It is fun but not my cup of tea