London wall and civil engineering in general

[Trethiwr]

When I was a kid I envisaged the Emperor Hadrian staggering along with great big blocks of stone, and eventually building this great big wall which was named after him.

I held that view for a few seconds until I was told that Hadrian had nothing to do with building it of course. I was YOUNG OK?

 

So who did build walls?

 

Slaves for unskilled labour?

Skilled labour? Soldiers built roads didn't they, so did they also build walls?

Design and management? Were there dedicated architects and designers?

Did they draw plans??

 

 

 

Was there someone walking round in a toga with a parchment on a clipboard? (alright not a clipboard then)

Must he necessarily have been in the army. I get the impression that the army was pretty much compulsory for all no matter what their other skills were. Is that true? I'd have been a rubbish Roman.

[Melvadius]

<Snip>

So who did build walls?

 

Slaves for unskilled labour?

Skilled labour? Soldiers built roads didn't they, so did they also build walls?

Design and management? Were there dedicated architects and designers?

Did they draw plans??

 

 

 

Was there someone walking round in a toga with a parchment on a clipboard? (alright not a clipboard then)

Must he necessarily have been in the army. I get the impression that the army was pretty much compulsory for all no matter what their other skills were. Is that true? I'd have been a rubbish Roman.

 

Both Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall have numerous marker stones indicating that different sections were built by different cohorts of the legions. They obviously were also responsible for laying out and building their marching camps. The setting out of these camps were the responsibility of a specialist within the legions.

 

There are also a few indications that auxilliaries may also have been directly involved in construction projects including roads and forts as well as possibly some 'civilian' projects at the Emperors decree. However most older history books have them simply acting as guards while the legions built.

 

There were civilian architects and land surveyors as indictaed by Vitruvius and some other Latin texts. I indicated on another thread the value of Brian Campbells 'The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors' regarding the functions and responsibilites of such men.

 

In my view it is quite possible that someone trained as a surveyor int he legions would have taken their skills into pricvate life and to some extent vice versa.

[GhostOfClayton]

Certainly, if it was a military structure (forts, Hadrian's Wall, roads, etc.), it was built by the Legions (and there is even evidence that help was enlisted from the British Fleet in one case). The legions had all the skills and kit necessary for the task, and were good at getting the job done fast (though in many cases, not well). Although the Auxiliaries would not have been responsible for the initial building, there is evidence for their involvement in rebuilding, refurbishment, and smaller projects like new military bath-houses, aquaducts, etc. After all, Hadrian's Wall was manned by Auxilliaries for many centuries, and so they acquired the necessary skills, albeit not for large scale projects.

 

For the Colonia, (Lincoln, York, Colchester and Gloucester were the only four in Britannia), the skills would have been available in the form of de-mobbed Legionary troops.

 

Londinium is an interesting one. It could be classed as a civilian project, though there was a significant military presence. I think it unlikely that the Engineering skills would have been available outside the Legions (but as Melvadius says previously it wasn't impossible). It does seem likely that (for civilian projects,) unskilled work would have been undertaken by slaves. I've seen no references stating this, though the London Museum would seem to be the obvious place to ask.

Edited November 21, 2010 by GhostOfClayton

[GhostOfClayton]

Must he necessarily have been in the army. I get the impression that the army was pretty much compulsory for all no matter what their other skills were. Is that true? I'd have been a rubbish Roman.

 

As I mentioned before, for military projects, he was in the army (or navy).

 

But the army wasn't compulsory, with the exception of those on the Cursus Honorum, but they would be leaders, not do-ers.

 

In fact, just to smoke out cases of conscription in the Roman Army, I'm going to say THERE WAS NO CONSCRIPTION IN THE ROMAN ARMY. That should do it.

[Melvadius]

In fact, just to smoke out cases of conscription in the Roman Army, I'm going to say THERE WAS NO CONSCRIPTION IN THE ROMAN ARMY. That should do it.

 

Actually in the later Empire I believe there are some recorded instances of a form of conscription being instigated with communities required to provide a set number of recruits.

 

In case it is of interest I have extracted some (but not all) surveying related terms from Campbell, B

[Trethiwr]

That list is very interesting Melvadius.

I like the units of measurement, especially.

And thanks GhostOfClayton as well.

You mention Londinium being an interesting case, I read somewhere on another site that London was unique in a number of ways.

It wasn't a colonia, nor was it a civitas.

It lacked villas apparently the large fort was an anomaly as well.

The article HERE doesn't draw any absolute conclusions but does suggest that perhaps Londinium (at least partly) belonged directly to the Emperor.

 

I must admit I was really surprised to learn that there is no consensus on the date or the reason for the building of London Wall.

 

I honestly thought that the Romans wrote so much that we would know what Caesar had for breakfast on the Ides of March or what colour subligaculum Titus wore.

[Melvadius]

That list is very interesting Melvadius

I like the units of measurement, especially.

Thank you

 

And thanks GhostOfClayton as well.

You mention Londinium being an interesting case, I read somewhere on another site that London was unique in a number of ways.

It wasn't a colonia, nor was it a civitas.

It lacked villas apparently the large fort was an anomaly as well.

The article HERE doesn't draw any absolute conclusions but does suggest that perhaps Londinium (at least partly) belonged directly to the Emperor.

 

I must admit I was really surprised to learn that there is no consensus on the date or the reason for the building of London Wall.

 

I honestly thought that the Romans wrote so much that we would know what Caesar had for breakfast on the Ides of March or what colour subligaculum Titus wore.

 

Harvey Sheldon (who has excavated extensively in london) has made this point in a couple of lectures I have listened to. In fact you may find Harvey's 1995/96 review which covers both Gustav Milne's Roman London as well as mentioning Andrew Selkirk's 1995, article which you found of interest. [bTW Andrew Selkirk is the founder of Current Archaeology which has been around since 1967]

 

I'm not sure if things have moved on very far from the confusion expressed in these 1995/6 articles as we are still waiting for someone to find a definitive inscription from London which may clarify it's precise status. IIRC a few years back Harvey seemed to come down on some Imperial interest in London at several points in it's history to the extent of the Emperor's apparently granting it a separate existence from much of the country and it possibly existing as an administrative center.