Late Hadrian\'s Wall Security.

[romanonick]

Towards the end of the wall occupation was there any real attempt to patrol the wall along its length or was it from a more practical point of view a case of manning each gated 'frontier post' as a custom and control point with the available manpower?

Romanonick/Nick Deacon :? ?:

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Nick,

I doubt there is an answer to that, any more than to the question how the Wall was patrolled in earlier times.

[Rhun]

Hi Nick.
Valerius is right about the details of the patrols in any period. But on a more general level, it is open to some doubt that the wall garrisons of the latest period would have had the responsibility for advance intelligence against the Picts beyond the Firth of Forth. It seems that at this point that was the job of the tribes just north of Hadrian's Wall who had been made clients of the Romans - especially the Votadini, the Selgovae, and the Damnonii. To judge by Gildas account, they were not too reliable, since there were repeated Pictish incursions between the late fourth and mid fifth centuries. After that, the descendants of the garrisons that held the wall forts into the sixth century seem to have had little trouble from the Picts anymore. By that time the forts were no longer part of a frontier system, but local centers of power amidst a common north British Christian culture reaching up to the Firth of Forth.

[romanonick]

Hi Rhun,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with your view that the tribes north of the wall appear to have become client custodians - particularly the Votadini who became skilled horsemen as a result of prolonged Roman input! The Selgovae similarly - but the two tribes were never on friendly terms (according to Moffat) and on numerous occasions would have felt that their allegiancies were in conflict! Seeds of the future Border reivers!
Cheers, (and welcome by the way! )
Romanonick/Nick Deacon

[Rhun]

Hi Nick.
Thanks for the welcome and the reply. Moffat does stress the competitions between the Selgovae and the Votadini, but I don't think that would have affected the security of the wall so much. Archaeology of this region shows a consistent and long-lived absorption of Roman material culture, so much so that culture of the tribes between the walls really came to diverge from that of the Caledonians and Maeatae further north. Roman sources see these tribes as Britons, like those south of the Hadrian's Wall, and very different from the Caledonians who were the real threat. The tribes between the walls were not an entirely trustworthy buffer, but they must have helped a great deal. If you buy into the theory of a Theodosian reorganization with Roman officers put in place as client kings - Tacitus, Clemens, etc., that tends to support the idea that as time went on, the Romans increasingly developed this area as a buffer zone against the new Pictish threat. In that sense, these tribes were effectively the late Roman patrols.

[Robert Vermaat]

- particularly the Votadini who became skilled horsemen as a result of prolonged Roman input! The Selgovae similarly - but the two tribes were never on friendly terms (according to Moffat) and on numerous occasions would have felt that their allegiancies were in conflict!

Nick,

What information do you use as basis for these theories?
What Roman input did the Votadini receive? What do we know of that? How did it cause the Votadini to become skilled horsemen and how on earth do we even know that they were skilled horsemen (with or without Roman input?

Yes, I read Moffat's book.

Moffat does stress the competitions between the Selgovae and the Votadini, but I don't think that would have affected the security of the wall so much. Archaeology of this region shows a consistent and long-lived absorption of Roman material culture, so much so that culture of the tribes between the walls really came to diverge from that of the Caledonians and Maeatae further north.

Rhun (think of your real name and your signature please),
What evidence do we (or Moffat) have of 'competitions between Votadini and Selgovae'?
And why do you situate the Maeatae 'further north'? Weren't the Maeatae supposed to be a fusion between Novantae and Selgovae?

Roman sources see these tribes as Britons, like those south of the Hadrian's Wall, and very different from the Caledonians who were the real threat. The tribes between the walls were not an entirely trustworthy buffer, but they must have helped a great deal.

Why must? I agree that the Caledonians were probably seen as different from the Lowland tribes, but why would the Lowland tribes have helped against the 'real enemy'? They did not differ thát much!
Don't forget that it took the Romans centuries to pacify these nothern Britons, the Brigantes and all the others, and that they never completely them? If they had, the border would have been the Antonine Wall rather than Hadrian's Wall, right?

If you buy into the theory of a Theodosian reorganization with Roman officers put in place as client kings - Tacitus, Clemens, etc., that tends to support the idea that as time went on, the Romans increasingly developed this area as a buffer zone against the new Pictish threat. In that sense, these tribes were effectively the late Roman patrols.

Oh sure, but that was an entire different situation from the earlier centuries, when the Romans had enough manpoower to agressively dominate the region. The last big invasion had occurred in the Severan period, after that it was pure defense. And Theodosius may have wanted to create a stable sytem in the region, back in fact to the client kings of old.

[romanonick]

Hi, Robert.

I agree, late frontier history is impossible to pin down in an unassailable shape.
However, in the absence of hard facts, I believe that it is not unreasonable to step back a little and allow ourselves the luxury of assumptions based on a little common sense. I realise that this is not going to push forward the learned debate in any way and that we will fall victim one way or another to our own fallibilities of scholarship or bias - but what choice have we until proven otherwise ?

I believe that it is not unreasonable to assume that the Votadini developed an organised (in the Roman sense of the word!) equine warfare skill, whether accidently, by design or necessity through their proximity to the mobile forces represented by the likes of the Sarmatians, Vardulli, Voconti and the later exploratesetc. Again, it would be reasonable to assume that these skills would have complemented a longstanding knowledge of horseflesh that was already part and parcel of their way of life. It's impossible to prove categorically that they became a paid irregular force acting in the interests of Rome but to my mind the deal was to everybody's interest and I defy anyone to prove otherwise!
The archaeological basis of equine use of locations such as Trimontium, Yeavering, Traprain and Marchidun (Roxburgh) - all within the Votadini sphere of interest - would appear to strengthen the claim.
This strong bond of horsemanship has survived until the present day - even surviving the destruction of the famous 'riding families' in the 16th and 17th centuries.
For my own purposes of a novel based on the time and area - I am happy to have settled a few of my own doubts through the debate in your forum. My own bias? Historically, my mother's family was one of the 'reiver' clans of the area - Elliot by name - so I suppose no-one is going to shift me by 'dint of dusty learning'!

Regards,

Romanonick/Nick Deacon

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Nick,

It appears that the British Celts were very good horsemen to begin with - why should we even look for Roman influence (let alone Sarmatian hock: ) to even begin hypothesising about the reason of their 'aquired riding skills'?

Other than that, stepping back from history and archaeology can be nice, but it doesn't get us anywhere, alas, besides having an interesting discussion, preferably before a warm fire and a glass in hand. :wink:

[romanonick]

Hi, Robert,

Thanks for your thought - and I'd defend to the death your right to express it !
With single malt in hand my not unreasonable assumption would be that skills learned from the Roman way of war would have given the Votadini at least a temporary edge over their rivals - well worth the time and effort spent and for no significant cost against themselves. More hypothesis I know - but I'm happy!
By the way, I don't think that the Maeatae were a fusion of the Selgovae and the Novantae tribes - Dio, LXXV.v has them as a separate entity contemplating an alliance with the 'Caledonians' in the area of the Antonine Wall. The post-Severan campaign and subsequent withdrawal probably saw the convenient lumping together of all the tribes (including the Selgovae and Novantae)who had a justifiable grudge against the common foe under the Caledonian/Maeatae generic. Later, in the 4th century, this 'alliance' (if you can call it that) appeared under another generic Pict but that's another story and more hypothesis!

Regards,

Romanonick/Nick Deacon.

[Robert Vermaat]

Two nice articles:

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata ... 61_163.pdf

http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata ... 92_102.pdf

[romanonick]

Hi, Robert,

These articles look hugely interesting - as ever, thank you very much for your diligence and also your response to the 'Paul The Chain' question.

Regards,

Romanonick/Nick Deacon