Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink
Was the vallum a road?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 9th January 2011
You Romanists may find this interesting. I've just been sent the link but too much engineering for me to make an informed comment however general the argument seems pretty sound on a brief scan.
-
Message 2
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 9th January 2011
Hi ferval
Thanks for the link. The vallum is a unique and extraordinary field monument sure enough. Given the choice I think I should prefer to build the wall than the vallum; it must have been a truly huge construction project. My theory is even weirder, that it was intended as a canal!
Since my view is so whimsical it would be unfair to say that Dr Carter's theory is incorrect, but there are one or two queries I would ask him if I could. Would road foundations really need to be that deep? Surely the Roman's wouldn't build an entire road foundation before starting to construct the carriageway. The logical approach would be to construct the entire road section by section so that they could then use the brand new road to move personnel or materials to the next section. I could understand that a major road development being abandoned when Antoninus Pius ordered a move north. But Hadrian's Wall was reoccupied within a generation and was seemingly in use until the end of Roman Britain. Why not complete the road?
There are also one or two minor errors. Blackstone Edge is no longer considered a Roman road and the Roman name of Newcastle was Pons Aelius, not Pons Aurelius.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 3
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 11th January 2011
Hi TP
I couldn't resist....
Although I would agree that Romans had expertise in drainage and canal building and there is evidence that they started to drain the Fens and also had Dutch troops located near Wallsend could you expand yoour theory regarding the canal.
It would obviously help fro transport etc. but why wasn't it taken forward?
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 4
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 12th January 2011
Hi TA
To be honest it has been years since I last saw the vallum and my logic processes are probably faulty. But this is how they went.
The vallum is a huge project it must have had a purpose. A common explanation is that it isolated a 'zone of the armies' from the inhabitants of the south.
It seemed to me that identification of such a zone, which may well have existed, could have been achieved much more easily cheaply with a shallow ditch or small wall or both.
The Wall was largely constructed using local materials but once complete, and whatever the true purpose of the wall might have been, the Army had the problem of delivering large amounts of bulk cargoes to the forts. Materials like wood, leather, meat and corn may have been locally sourced but it's hard to believe that there wasn't regular traffic from the ends of the Wall; ends that had access to the sea.
I can't believe that the vallum is a road, for the reasons already stated, and the supply of Roman forts by water is generally accepted. Could the vallum been an attempt at a canal?
To take this hypothesis any further the first step would be to look at the gradients involved. If at any point the vallum runs up hill the hypothesis is disproved. Are there any sites at which towed barges could cross?
What ever the original intention the vallum seems to have been abandoned.
Regards
TP -
Message 5
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Friday, 14th January 2011
As a native of the NE I can honestly say that the Vallum=Canal is on a distinctly sticky wicket.
Few quick elevations in metres (Ordnance Survey)
Wallsend - 15 metres (above sea level)
Throckley - 101 metres (West End of Newcastle)
Haltwhistle 186 metres
Carlisle 24 metres
Additionally, especially in the Newcastle area there are several streams that have eroded quite deeply into the uplifting land (glacial rebound) and these have created quite deep valleys that would cause severe complications for a canal - Benwell Hill (Condercum) is one hellish steep bank and as far as I'm aware there's no historic evidence of the locks which would have been required. -
Message 6
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 14th January 2011
Hi TrailApe
"On the fire that glows
with heat intense
I turn the hose
Of common sense
And out it goes
At small expense."
OK then, back to the drawing board.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 7
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 14th January 2011
TP
Apparently the one in Egypt had locks.
As you say, you would have thought that the road gang would be following close on the heels of the diggers. -
Message 8
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 14th January 2011
345 metres above sea level at the highest point, Windshields Crags.
There's a lock system in Poland that tows a ship up a slipway to the next level, just uses water power I think. -
Message 9
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 14th January 2011
The highest point seems to be nearly central of the wall and you would need about 21 of these lifts each side.
They just use a tank of water to counter weight the boat and tow up or lower it down a ramp.
-
Message 10
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Saturday, 15th January 2011
I'm not a Romanist, but the Vallum is intriguing. Others may correct me if I am wrong, but is it not a banked ditch which follows the line of the Wall to the S and which in places appears to have been causewayed south of forts?
I suppose any road theory needs to satisfy not only TP's objections, but also what happened at these causeway points. Was the Vallum filled in at the causeways to allow a route over, or was it crossed by bridges? If the former, the road theory looks a little suspect.
Could it have had a revenue-generating purpose? The agricultural economy of the north is primarily pastoral and given the relations with the tribes immediately north of the Wall, is it possible that the forts etc had a secondary purpose as tax collecting points for those driving animals either way. The Vallum could be part of this system (channelling traffic over causeways and up to the access points on the Wall) , but I accept it's difficult to argue that the Vallum was absolutely necessary for any such purpose. Individuals could slip thorugh the Vallum as easily as they could presumably slip over the Wall, but herds of cows would find that rather more difficult, so to get through the Wall, they'd have to report to the forts in any event, Vallum or no Vallum..
Is it perhaps a second line of defence, engineered so as to break up a mass charge which had gained the Wall? I undertand there is a double bank at some piints on the S of the Vallum. Do we know if there is evidence of revetting or palisading?
Regards
A R -
Message 11
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Saturday, 15th January 2011
The road theory has softer parts each side for horses and pedestrians, they would also make ideal tow paths for barges.
"The distance of the Vallum from the Wall varies. In general there was a preference for the earthwork to run close to the rear of the Wall where topography allowed. In the central sector the Wall runs along the top of the crags of the Whin Sill, while the Vallum, laid out in long straight stretches, lies in the valley below to the south, as much as 700 metres (2,300 ft) away." -
Message 12
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Saturday, 15th January 2011
Are we understanding the Wall correctly?
I must confess not having inspected it for a very long time but whilst it was the boundary of the Empire was it really aimed at keeping people out? One would have thought that the Romans would have wanted to have treaties and trading relationships with the folk to the north as well as some military might to impress the natives.
Why did they concentrate so many soldiers in those northern territories and at what expense? Somehow it just does not make sense.
Perhaps the Wall was there to keep people in?
I can't see my Caledonian ancestors as being that aggressive to keep beating up on the Romans. Now and again, sure, but not all the time. There can't have been that many Picts around to pose that much of a menace: someone has to do the farming otherwise there would be nothing much to eat. It was bad enough just getting by in that climate let alone fighting a bunch of armoured Italians as well.
I suppose the fear of heavy concentrations of painted men heading south might have concentrated a few Roman minds, but really what was in Roman Yorkshire and Durham that was that valuable? Or was the plan to protect lands even further south? One would have thought there were sufficient legions in southern Britain to handle a few stroppy and disorganised Picts raiding far to the south of their own country?
Is there another dimension to the Wall we don't understand? Just a thought. -
Message 13
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Monday, 17th January 2011
鈥淚s there another dimension to the Wall we don't understand? Just a thought鈥
Now that鈥檚 one question that has more possible answers than you could shake a stick at. It鈥檚 been discussed on this board at length in the past and no conscensus was achieved.
Here鈥檚 a few options;
Line in the Sand (to be scratched out a bit later and a new line drawn further North)
Main Line of Resistance against the Wild Men From The North
A safe well protected Forming Up Point for sweeps into the No Man鈥檚 Land
A barrier for taxes and population control (it was bang in the middle of those stroppy Brigante lands)
Something to keep a couple of Legions of rough soldiery busy (Painting rocks white, tarmac black and grass green)
Just Because We Romans Can 鈥 look at the quality of that ye heathen hordes .
Or possibly a combination of all above plus more. -
Message 14
Posted by TrailApe (U1701496) on Monday, 17th January 2011
On the fire that glows
with heat intense
I turn the hose
Of common sense
And out it goes
At small expense."
OK then, back to the drawing board.
Hah! No worries TwinProbe
The Romans probably could have used the Tyne as a logistics route 鈥 the main river sits just to the south of the Wall for many miles, and where it splits into the South and North Tyne, the South Tyne runs almost parallel for a good way. If you look at a map, the B6318 , locally known as the Military Road, follows the route of the Wall, so it gives you an idea of how far the Tyne could be used. They might have used it as far as Haltwhistle, which is almost mid point and about a mile to the south of the Wall. The North Tyne cuts under the Wall at around Chollerford and heads up into the Wilds of Northumberland and the Scottish Border .
The geography of the land in these parts is quite up and down. The main rivers that would have been under the control of the Romans (Tyne, Wear and Tees) run west to east, however because of jiggery pokery with sea level changes and uplift, they have carved quite deep valleys into the land. What then complicates this is that the tributaries of these rivers (running North-South or South-North) also have dug down into the land, so the gradients are all over the place.
Brilliant engineers notwithstanding, the Romans would have had their work cut out building a canal following the Wall 鈥 and why bother when a natural feature could be used.
My take on the Vallum/Wall is that it was a free fire zone. Any local seen in this area - except for nominated crossing points -
was deemed to be up to no good and therefore a viable target.. -
Message 15
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 2nd February 2011
I think that may be right. I saw a discussion about the vallum some time ago and one of the academics spoke to a British army officer whose opinion was that if he had been based on the Wall, even if the tribes to the south were assumed to be friendly, he would have wanted some sort of defensive barrier to the south so that anyone approaching from that direction would be channelled to a fort or watch tower. Anyone trying to cross the vallum except at designated crossing points would be (a) slowed down and (b) assumed to be hostile.
-
Message 16
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Thursday, 3rd February 2011
A ditch like this would hamper the infiltration of raiders but more importantly hinder their extraction of livestock making it less profitable and more dangerous.
I imagine it may also have have hindered the carts and camp followers of any invading army, or a rebel army coming up from the south to unite with a tribe north of the boundary. -
Message 17
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Sunday, 6th February 2011
During the height of border reiving in the 16th century, Elizabeth's commissioners gave serious thought to building a wall along the border. It was pretty much the only way that anyone could think of to successfully impede the progress of cattle raiders bent on getting over their loot over the border and to safety.
Here's my take on the Vallum (and the Wall) which I hereby offer up for destruction!
The modern view of seeing Celtic (I know, I know - I just can't help it) tribes as united entities is almost certainly misplaced. The Brigantes were not a tribe per se - rather, they were an endlessly shifting federation of tribes. The geography of the north makes holding down the whole area trickier than trying to hold Eurasia in Risk. Individual groups may have paid tribute or fealty to overkings, but they were not controlled centrally from Boroughbridge or indeed from anywhere else. They probably raided one another, absorbed and lost one another and squabbled as much as they co-operated. Their 6th and 21st century successors did much the same.
I'm going to push it one stage further and postulate that the reasons the Brigantes were seen as a unit by others is perhaps partly because they spoke a different language with more emphasis on what became Old Irish. Cartimandua may well be OI for "One Who Sends Destruction". Venutius may come from OI "Skinner" (lovely) and two other named Briganteans arguably both have Latinised versions of OI names.
Whatever the reason, the Romans went for "divide and rule". Hadrian's Wall was strategically built across a thin neck of the country and was more about splitting up and controlling the northern federation than it was about marking an existing line where people had always stopped being Brigantes and started being Selgovae or whatever. It wasn't a case of "Brigantes in, rest out". It was just the best place to build the boundary.
In the early days, attack from the south was as likely as attack from the north, but it was potentially more problematic, as a southern attack effectively cut the Wall off. They could get a message from Carlisle to York via the beacons in about 45 minutes (as I was always taught), but reinforcements would take longer to arrive. The Vallum was part of a defensive line which could be used against an attack coming either way.
As the situation settled down and the Brigantes south of the Wall were tamed or overawed (and the people immediately north of the Wall were encouraged into alliance), the Vallum would have fallen out of use. Did it?
As I've always said, I'm no Romanist (and I'm not going to insult folk by recycling wiki), but would this theory hold any water from an archaeological perspective?
Regards,
A R
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
主播大秀 iD
主播大秀 navigation
主播大秀 links
主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.