[dugfromthearth]

I have long assumed that maintaining the walls at such a long end of a supply chain was the problem. But I would assume Roman supplies would be mostly brought in by ship, not overland. Getting ships to the wall should not have been that difficult - the Caledonians presumably had almost no ships to counter with.

[Godstud]

The walls probably didn't work and you'd have to have a sizable force to man them for them to have any effectiveness. They were NOT like the Great Wall of China.

[killim]

Like the Limes in continental Europe the Hadrianswall/Antoniuswall was not mainly a fortified border to defend the roman empire against enemies. The main reason was an economic/custom/taxation/legal/cultural need for a border. With the decline of the Roman empire and the isolation tendencies the interest in the poor northern colonies decreased. IIRC under Magnus Maximus and later Constantin III the troops, administration, merchants and therefore the people were called back and the Dark Age began.

[Potemkin]

The Antonine Wall and Hadrian's Wall were never intended to be impregnable fortress-like barriers which would stop an invading army in its tracks. Rather, they were intended to act as 'tripwires' so that the central authorities hundreds of miles away could take immediate action to intercept the invading army. Keeping the Walls supplied was therefore not really a problem; most Roman defences were deeper within the province itself, and the Walls were only lightly manned. They were eventually abandoned when the Roman province of Britannia itself was abandoned when the city of Rome itself was in danger of being overrun (as it actually was, only a few years later). The Antonine Wall itself was abandoned a few decades before Hadrian's Wall because the Romans lost interest in conquering Caledonia, and the territory between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall was not attracting any settlers, for obvious reasons. Why spend money and effort defending territory which is of no use to you?

[Kynaston+1]

Actually, the current evidence seems to be that there were armed men living along the wall well into 'Anglo-Saxon' times, presumably troops loyal to Goddau or Rheged. There were certainly plenty of victorious battles against the Germans up there.

[Potemkin]

Holy Necropost, Batman!

[killim]

Indeed and he trule deserves the +1 in his name!

I only wonder, why he defines the Anglo-Saxons as Germans.

[Kynaston+1]

Battleship - Don't know what that's supposed to mean, but suggest you look up some modern archaeology. A high proportion of the Wall forts show evidence of occupation long after the Roman administration was thrown out in 410.

Killim - Perhaps it's because they came from Germany and spoke a dialect of German. You find that difficult, do you? It is a large country in Cental Europe you know.

[killim]

"Holy Necropost" referred to the fact that you revived a thread that was so dead that it it was a case for the archieve.

And i referred to Anglo-Saxons as no Germans, because they are from the GDR and they are not able to speak German without the average German laughing.

[Kynaston+1]

Killim - Well, they weren't British. What were they?

And it's always worth reviving an interesting question, in my view

[Cookie Monster]

Battleship

Well, they weren't British. What were they?

Neither were they German, Germanic I would say.

[Kynaston+1]

'Neither were they German, Germanic I would say.'

If I am to be referred to as some fantasised thing called 'Celtic', or some offensive thing like 'Welsh' (foreign) in my own Island, they can be bloody well German and like it!

[killim]

They are called Ossis and thats why they settled along the wall

[Kynaston+1]

That seems a very fair compromise!

[pugsville]

The Roman adminstration of britain was basicly thrown away by a number of governers throwing their troops and resources into civil wars faught much nearer to rome.

[Potemkin]

Indeed, and it could be argued that the central administration in Rome waited too long before withdrawing the British legions to defend Rome itself; after all, Alaric sacked Rome less than a decade later. They should probably have let Britain go at least a generation sooner than they did.

[Kynaston+1]

pugsville - In a sense that is right, and it is why the British rulers kicked out the imperial administration in 410, but behind that is the fact that Britain at that time had suffered less from invasions than Gaul and Spain, and was rich enough to make these bids for imperial power possible (Constantine had achieved it, after all). But for the plague in the mid-sixth century Britannia would have been the first successful post-colonial Roman state and preserved Roman civilization in the West. In fact the cultural centre moved to Ireland. You can't win 'em all!

[pugsville]

The legions were not withdrawn to fight a barbarian invasion they were withdrawn to fight other romans about who got to run the Empire. The repeated coups/civil wars ran done the Imperial structure, cohension and resources. I dont think Britain kicked out a Roman administration, the Roman administration left to persue it;s domestic quarrels and the British were left to their own devices and diverged upon their own lines.

[Potemkin]

pugsville - In a sense that is right, and it is why the British rulers kicked out the imperial administration in 410

It was 400 AD actually (410 was the year Rome was sacked by Alaric). And the Romans voluntarily withdrew, they were certainly not kicked out. In fact, all the evidence suggest that the British elite regarded the Roman withdrawal as a disaster. And subsequent events proved them right.

but behind that is the fact that Britain at that time had suffered less from invasions than Gaul and Spain

True, but they were soon to make up for lost time....

and was rich enough to make these bids for imperial power possible (Constantine had achieved it, after all).

Only so long as it was part of the Roman Empire. When the legions pulled out, the economy was fucked.

But for the plague in the mid-sixth century Britannia would have been the first successful post-colonial Roman state and preserved Roman civilization in the West.

Britain had already suffered successive waves of barbarian raids well before the plague of the 6th century. Things had actually got so bad by then that the British ruling elite had invited Saxon mercenaries to migrate here with their families in order to defend them. We all know how that ended....

In fact the cultural centre moved to Ireland. You can't win 'em all!

Indeed. But of course Ireland suffered less disruption than Britain during the collapse of Roman administration, since it had never been part of the Roman Empire in the first place.

[Varilion]

Since 370ad the economy of Britain was falling... bue to barbarians raid.
At the begin of the V century there was only a small garrison on the island, that moved to Gaul to support a coup, that failed.
There should be also a letter from 410 in which the Emperor says to romano-britons "to defend your island is a your job now".