What was the function of Hadrian's Wall? Use detailed examples (forts, mile castles, turrets etc) in your answer. Can a comparison with frontier defences in Germany during the 2nd Century AD help solve the problem?

Hadrian’s Wall; a protected site of British Heritage, tourist attraction and constant reminder of Roman contribution to British history, remains an area of debate amongst Historian’s to this day. Built upon the order of Roman Emperor Hadrian between the years 122 and 130 AD, stretching from Wallsend-on-Tyne to Solway Firth, it was around 73 miles long. One of three Roman fortifications, Gask Ridge and the Antonine Wall being the others, Hadrian’s Wall, due to its historical and structural stature and its existence today, is undoubtedly the most famous.
Hadrian’s rule as Roman Emperor, succeeding the expansionist Trajan, is generally considered, amongst Historian’s to symbolize a period of restoration of order, rehabilitation and consolidation. Trajan’s wars brought vast amounts of land under Roman control, but created instability throughout the empire, not least in Britannia. Quintus Pompeius Falco is considered to have been sent to Britannia to quash rebellion, and after a visit from the Emperor himself, to construct Hadrian’s Wall. The nature and source of rebellion in Britannia is up for debate, and thus the intended function of Hadrian’s Wall has come under scrutiny. Before travelling to Britannia, Hadrian travelled from Rome to Germania to inspect the Rhine-Danube frontier. Upon news of rebellion in Britannia, he continued there to employ a similar solution to civil unrest. Comparisons with frontier defences in Germany and Hadrian’s Wall, therefore, are inevitable and will be considered in some detail later. Hadrian’s Wall has been the focus of extensive government funding for the purpose of restoration and historical research for some time. The 1950’s and 60’s produced particularly vibrant investigations into the history of the wall.
John Collingwood Bruce, a pioneering historian in the exploration of the physical format and function of Hadrian’s Wall considered it as”intended to act not only as fence against a Northern enemy, but to be used as the basis of military options against foe on either side”. David J. Breeze considers, this “to the best of [his] knowledge” to be “the first statement on the function of the wall other than that given in Historian Augusta.” Breeze and Brian Dobson’s detailed consideration into the implication of the Roman word frontier (lime) is helpful in consideration of the function of Hadrian’s Wall. They propose a frontier can refer to the following; “the political boundary between the Roman province and the ‘barbari’, the peoples outside”, “the military dispositions intended to provide for the defence of the province”, or alternatively “a natural or artificial obstacle which marks a clear boundary”. The location of the Wall, based upon Stanegate, suggests its intention to keep out barbaric forces of the north in the Caledonian tribes, as well as to provide security more southern inhabitants, and indeed as a border to denote the end of the Roman province. Encouraging this degree of security would encourage stability and economic prosperity to the inhabitants closely below the border.
Any consideration into the function of Hadrian’s Wall must before all else consider its physical attributes. One must consider why it is that the frontier partially consists of stone and partially of turf. Certain features of the wall such as turrets, milecastles, and forts are pivotal in any understanding of the function of the wall as a whole. Such features have not only been instrumental in the aforementioned fruitful historical exploration into the subject, but have encouraged and prompted archaeologists in their chronological arrangement of the construction of the wall.
For example, the regular placed gateways and milecastles, as the name suggests, implies that the wall was not intended for complete prevention of movement, but rather a controlled management of it. Later amendments, particularly in 3^rd Century, such as the construction of more forts, and the narrowing of milecastle gateways illustrate the above point further. The number of Roman troops stationed in milecastle barracks, varying in number depending on sources, in conjunction with the amount of signalling posts and watchtowers along the wall, demonstrates a relatively intricate system of border control was in force. Although turrets and milecastles were generally divided in equal distances, in some sections of the wall much longer distances existed. This has created confusion amongst historians. The Peel Gap tower, for example, divides turrets 39a and b, which are particularly distant from each other. As an “observation post”, the Peel Gap tower has been considered “extremely poor” and its “signalling potential” has been considered “negligible”
Can such anomalies be seen as just that; errors in the design and execution of the frontier, informed decisions, or economically imposed restrictions? Of course answers to such questions are always difficult. This also, therefore, raises the question; to what degree did the apparent system of signalling actually existed, if at all. Historians have agreed to some extent that the complexity of the Roman system of signalling on Hadrian’s Wall has been exaggerated. In light of examinations of regions such as Peel Gap tower this view is certainly not without weight. But it is difficult, without solid evidence, to conclude whether turrets were largely used as signalling posts or whether this is in fact a fabrication.
Consideration into the colour of the wall is extremely interesting. Whitewashed, the wall was reminiscent of a great deal of Roman architecture. Although one could argue the pigment of the wall was due largely to the lime in the mortar, and due to the plaster that protected and prevented erosion, such a decision was, in many respects like the wall itself, designed as a “monument of Roman power and superiority”. Encompassing the northern countryside, Hadrian’s Wall, stood in diametrical opposition to the architecture which had previously dominated the region. Surrounded by buildings of turf and timber, the stone wall was hideously impressive. The desire to flaunt ones superiority and wealth is a common theme in Roman history.
Auxiliary forts such as Vindolanda, just south of Hadrian’s Wall, attracted a degree of local settlement and local trade. In an expansionist period that stood sharply in opposition to the period before it, Hadrian explored trade outside of the empire rather than through conquering land. Given the fact the wall may have divided communities between north and south, access through gateways was pivotal. It is not known whether sympathisers may have been stranded north of the wall, whilst hostile forces inhabited regions south of the wall. The wall was thus used to monitor trade, commerce, and general movement between north and south. Its existence would have offered physical security and reassurance to the inhabitants of the Roman province of Britannia, and thus, as considered above, allow the economy to flourish particularly in the more northern regions below the frontier. Previously, it is anticipated fear from barbari attacks would have damage the Stanegate economy.
The addition of extra auxiliary forts and the Vallum several years after its completion demonstrates growing Roman intention to utilise the wall in assisting with governance of the entire region, rather than acting merely as a barrier. The troops which operated in the forts, and garrisoned the wall were likely to have eventually integrated into the local community. Breeze has concluded that one must acknowledge that “understanding the military in relation to the civilian is far more important than seeking to understand but one aspect such as to whether Hadrian’s Wall was military or bureaucratic in concept.” It is, he concedes, “impossible to understand the military without understanding its relationship to its surroundings and its associations”, and thus a task which is in this case perhaps beyond our capability.
Thus, any consideration into Hadrian’s Wall must be accompanied by deliberation of Limes Germanicus (German Frontiers). Largely preceding Hadrian’s Wall, its continental counterparts were pivotal in its execution. As we have previously considered, Hadrian himself visited the Germanic frontiers immediately before travelling to Britain. Any consideration into the construction and indeed function of Hadrian’s Wall without first considering its continental equivalents is likely to produce a misguided and inaccurate interpretation. However, at moments in its historiography Hadrian’s Wall has been confined to the position of merely another Roman frontier, but as Breeze eloquently puts it; “Hadrian’s Wall is sui generis”.
Although the Germanic frontiers were intended to isolate barbari, in this case Germanic tribes as opposed to Scottish tribes, they were not intended to completely restrict movement between the north and south. Once again their intention was to monitor this movement, and prevent hostile forces entering the Empire, at least en masse. In terms of function alone, in fact, Hadrian’s Wall and the Germanic frontiers were almost identical; only their geographical locations made them of notable difference. Where they did differ dramatically was in their appearance; limes Germanic were largely made from timber; where as, have we have seen, Hadrian’s Wall was partially turf, partially stone. This demonstrates a certain degree of pragmatism in Roman construction, if timber had been more available in Northern Britannia it is possible Hadrian’s wall would not have been made of stone; and thus unlikely as important in a historical sense. The use of turf seems to suggest the eventual cease of stone supplies.
Although Hadrian’s Wall still stands today as startling example of Roman ingenuity, one can to some degree only speculate over the function of the wall. What I have aimed to do, however, is to illustrate that the wall served as more than a mere barricade against enemy forces and was as bureaucratic as it was militaristic. To therefore consider the wall in linear terms would be unjust; it wasn’t in its structure, and certainly wasn’t in its function.