Hadrians wall, ordered by the Emperor Hadrian probably during his visit to Britain in AD 122, was thought to have been built to keep out the barbarians. It was also thought to show the northernmost boundaries of the Roman Empire. It was far too expensive and there were not enough soldiers to risk conquering more land, especially due to the cold climate, and the un-useable mountains and marshes for crops and cattle further north.
The wall spans 73 miles across from Wallsend-on-Tyne in the east to Bowness-on-Solway in the west. It is obviously not in a straight line and is slightly slanted which goes someway to show its date. It is mistakenly thought that slaves built the wall but it is most likely that Roman soldiers and volunteers from the empire built it. Among the army there were many highly skilled architects, mason builders, surveyors and carpenters. We can see this by evidence of the well-built walls, housesteds and forts. Every mile there was a mile castle, which would have been guarded by about eight soldiers. Also along the wall there were forts, one in particular I will be looking at is Chesters Roman Fort which was situated next to the River North Tyne. It is the best-preserved fort in Britain and it is easy to see where everything was due to the wall still remaining around it.
Roman soldiers lived in the forts and we can see from the evidence shown at Chesters fort that this was outside and next to the river. This made it easier to divert the water going to the fort via its aqueduct. The layout and remains of the baths give us an idea of how important cleansed ness was to the Romans and their army. It is clear from reservations at Chesters fort that there were many improvements and modifications made to the baths, this however makes it hard to understand what the rooms were always used for. The floors were raised because of the hypocaust system used to heat some rooms and baths. Wooden pillar bases for columns supported the ceiling. In the changing room, the largest in the bathhouse were seven niches lined up side by side. These could have been lockers, but it is unlikely as seven lockers are far too few for a large fort such as this. It is more probable that each contained a statue representing each day of the week. This shows that religion was a strong theme even when bathing. It is not clear where water was stored or how it entered the bathhouse but it is likely it was stored on the hill above it.
There were a series of rooms in the bathhouse used to bathe, hot, cold, dry and steam rooms in addition to hot and cold baths. This gave a wider option to the customers to how they bathed; the bathhouse in fact wasnt that dissimilar to ones back in Rome. The hot and warm bathrooms have two semi circular roofs with many chimneys; this design would help the hot air and heat circulate. These would have contained ducts to help circulate the hot air. The other rooms on the bathhouse, including the changing rooms, cold rooms, lobby and latrines had a more conventional triangular roof. Outside of the baths could have been traders trying to sell goods to what would have been many soldiers a day or selling oils, and treatments such as rub downs and being scraped down with strigels.
To the side of the changing room were the latrines. Two rows of benches with holes were used to sit, whilst a channel underneath had a constant flow of water. Sponge on a stick was used and these were generally social occasions and chatting would take place between soldiers. This shows an open and friendly relationship between the soldiers and although life was sure to be hard as they saw themselves as stranded, away from their families and a fair distance from more populated areas of Britain.
The area to the south of the fort was full of small civilian settlements and soldiers would buy goods from these and many merchants attracted to the fort and its soldiers money. Soldiers at the fort had a basic ration and for many that wasnt enough to survive on. Many bought extra rations and supplies; others would spend money in brothels and even on un-official families. The settlements had shops, temples and warehouses. There would also be a cemetery nearby.
The barracks were situated between the north and east gates in Chesters fort and were long narrow buildings. They measured about 53m long and held provisions and equipment. There were many rooms in the barrack blocks where infantry slept and cooked.
None of the three barrack buildings we can see the remains of is exposed at its full length. The southern building being most peculiar as it is divided into smaller buildings which have probably been built at a later date, going some way to show that the fort was maybe used for something else at a late date or a few modifications were made. We know that because of the extreme weather conditions and the lack of control over the Celts more soldiers were needed in the south of Britain rather than the northern areas. The barracks could then have been used for other uses. Of course a simpler reason for the smaller buildings could have been that chalets were made maybe for storage, Chesters fort being a military one it may have stored weaponry. The other two barrack blocks were divided into smaller mess rooms for the soldiers which would face each other across a road. The commanding officer would have his quarters at the end of the building. These quarters were larger. It is possible that each block would hold 80 men of an infantry century, or perhaps 64 men from two cavalry squadrons, allowing extra space for their equipment.
At the centre of the fort was the Headquarters building, to the right of it were two separate buildings placed side by side which were the storehouses or granaries and to the left was the Commandants house, all of which were roughly the same size.
The Headquarters building or principia faced northwards along the line of the road with its main entrance lying at the end of the street, which led into the fort from the north gate. Its gates opened to reveal a courtyard paved with large stone slabs, some of which still remain at Chesters Fort. Three sides of the courtyard seem to have had an open colonnade, and there is still evidence of stone guttering which drained rainwater from the roof. It makes sense to assume the colonnade was also paved as was the courtyard, but no evidence of this remains. A large hall was placed across and to the back of the courtyard. This hall could have been used for meetings, briefing sessions and for ceremonies. A raised platform stood at one end of the room where the commanding officer sat. Other rooms in the building contained statues and alters, all now that remains are the bases. On the south side of the hall was a smaller room, this was the regimental chapel and statues of the emperor and regimental standards were kept as well as trophies. Either side of the chapel were another two rooms, each containing records. Clerks would organise and keep track of money, equipment and ration supplies.
Being situated next to the River North Tyne Hadrians Wall had to run over the width of the river. Therefore it is sensible to assume a bridge existed as part of the wall and as a connection or road to get to other parts of the wall easily. Excavations in 1860 showed the remains of two bridges, one built at the time of Hadrians Wall, the other from the third century. The river has been shifted westward about 20 meters since the first bridge to present day, sweeping away a lot of the west abutment on the fort side of the river. The first bridge was considerably smaller than the second; this may reflect the haste and cost-cutting measures employed by Hadrian in order to finish the wall quickly and save money needed for other parts of the vast Roman Empire. The first bridge built around AD 125 lasting till AD 208 consisted of a series of nine arches whilst maintaining the same look as the rest of the wall. It was ten feet wide and two hundred feet long; the pier has traces of iron set in lead, which would have been ideal to keep the stones firmly together.
The bridge was essential not only to adjoin the wall but also make sure it was easy to travel across each side to deliver goods to forts and other parts of the wall as well as reinforcements.
The fact that a series of arches were made on the bridge backs up the point that the wall wasnt so much as to keep the barbarians out from the north but to show the northern most part of the Roman Empire. Even though it would have been possible for the barbarians to get past the wall through the bridge, the Romans wouldnt have wanted to make it easier by having so many arches, and guard posts or buildings would have been set up on either side to ensure this. The second bridge, built around AD 209 had a tower at each side of it, possibly because of troubles caused by the barbarians or more likely it was made to be a carriageway larger and firmer than its predecessor. It measured thirty-four feet wide and 189 feet across. This new bridge comprised of four much larger arches and was built of stone, as was the first. We can make this assumption due to the large slabs of stone being found and parts of a stone pillar found during excavations.
We do not have a great deal of evidence to illustrate the daily life of a soldier although based on soldiers in other parts of the Roman Empire we can tell something about their daily life.
Most soldiers on Hadrians Wall were not from Rome or Italy as might be thought, due to the vast size of the Roman Empire there were not enough soldiers to be everywhere at once. Therefore the soldiers on Hadrians Wall came from northwestern provinces such as Hungary or Bulgaria and then with time the army recruited many British from surrounding areas. These auxiliary soldiers were not trained as well as those back in Rome but trained daily in order to keep up the Empires standards.
