What's one fact about Hadrian's Wall that you think more people should know?

I was out there on the wall on a foggy cold day. A ditch behind me, dug by hundreds of soldiers 2000 years earlier as I looked at the rocks left of the wall. Remains of stone buildings where these men lived.  Ravens were hanging around crowing and it was so quiet....those Romans were still there, you could feel it everywhere you went...one of the most amazing things I've ever felt...

A little point to take up with the AI compiler for this video, Romans didn't use the stirrup during this Imperial phase of Roman military history; It hadn't been invented yet. It will appear in about 3-4 centuries.

15,000 young physically fit soldiers can do a lot in 6 years. At my age 70, I built 3 retaining walls by myself using 75 pound concrete blocks and about 24 cubic yards of large course gravel. In total I had to move and set 60+ tons of materials. Also, I had to pour about 4-5 tons of massive curved concrete steps to reinforce and connect all 3 walls together.  Dirt and gravel moved in 5 gallon buckets. It took me 9 months to finish all 3.  So, a massive wall like Hadrian’s can be done.  You just need a large and motivated workforce. 😊

The commentary is reasonably accurate, considering the shortness of the video, but the CGI leaves a lot to be desired.  The fantasy uniforms and helmets of some of the soldiers are disappointing, some of the buildings and fortlets are just fantasy, and the replacement of the turf wall with stone only 10 years after it was first built isn't mentioned at all.  The round watchtowers in some scenes are pure fiction too.  As a matter of interest, the auxiliary units from around the empire recruited replacements locally, so they fairly rapidly changed in their composition  (except for the specialised ones, like the Syrian boatmen from the Tigris who were stationed at Arbeia (now South Shields) .  This is evidenced by British names appearing on tombstones of men of the various auxiliary units.  A major reason for building the wall, and other fortifications in the empire built at the same time, was to keep the legions occupied when no major wars were being fought.  If they were planning and building walls they weren't plotting to acclaim one of their generals emperor and starting a revolt that would cause civil war.

"Much of what destroyed Hadrian's Wall wasn't warfare, it was recycling." That line reframed the whole thing for me. Centuries of farmhouses and churches quietly built out of the empire's northern border. And the Vindolanda tablets are still the best thing in Roman archaeology, soldiers writing home asking for warm socks and underwear because Britain was miserable. Two thousand years and that complaint has not changed at all.

I was at Vindolanda about 15 yrs ago talking to one of the archeaologists working on the vicus (the small towns that grew up outside and around the forts... Soldiers had money to spend after all) and asked him how much of it they'd uncovered. He said theres enough left that we haven't touched yet to last another 150 yrs.

Love this.  Thank you.  Best AI I’ve heard yet regarding Hadrian’s wall.

Six years!  What a feat of organisation and engineering .  Makes HS2 look sick. How far haven't we come?

good video, enjoyed

I had to laugh at the 122 carved on the gate lintel instead of CXXII.

In the video there is an image of one of the wall’s entrance arches with “122” inscribed over it representing the year the wall was built.

However 122 was not used until the early medieval period, when the Anno Domini calendar era became the prevalent method in Europe.  Rome numbered its years from the year of the founding of Rome  (Ab urbe condita) in 750 BC so that 122 AD would have been 872 chiseled over the arch in the gate.

Hadrian's decision to shift from endless expansion to hard border consolidation [01:32] was a monumental turning point in Roman history. This video broke down complex engineering and logistics so brilliantly. Subscribed!

Whatever the Wall looked like it's forts and gateways would most definitely not have 122 engraved on them. They were built around the year 122 but that is in the modern (AD or CE) notation. The Romans dated their buildings from either the year of the current emperor's reign or from the notional date of the founding of Rome (AUC - Ab Urbe Condita) this was about 752 BC, so 122 AD would be the Roman year AUC 874. A good example of why, despite AI generated images being convenient, they should not be trusted as fact.

In the video there is an image of an entrance arch with 122 inscribed over it representing the year the wall was built.

However “122” was not used until the early medieval period, when the Anno Dominicalendar era became the prevalent method in Europe.  Rome numbered its years from the year of the founding of Rome  (Ab urbe condita) in 750 BC so that 122 AD would have been “872” chiseled over the arch in the gate.

Wow, it seems that 2000 years ago they understood that to have secure borders is to guarantee safety and prosperity. You would have thought that leaders in modern Britain would learn from this example......

Thank you!

But Hadrian's Wall was not built in 122 and, merely began at that date. It took some 6 years to compete, & the Forts were not built upon it from the start, but, like the Vallum, added later when it was realised that troops directly on the Wall, with access gates to the north, so that they could be deployed enough masses, rather than streaming through in single file through the many Milecastles gates or main roads running north. The Wall was thus a springboard for forward advance & control, particularly by the many cavalry elements housed there. This meant the Romans supervised & controlled all the land up to the Forth-Clyde isthmus, where the barrier was later moved to a generation later.
This region was, in effect, an annexe to the fully occupied Province to the south. It could not have been built or maintained with hostile territory or people anywhere near it. The Wall never came under attack, the military garrison wouldn't permit any hostiles get anywhere near it. The land to its north was exploited for timber, crops & other resources, & used as grazing for the many thousands of horses, & cattle, of the Roman garrison, & to hold aqueducts carrying water into the forts along the line.
The northern tribes could never really stand any chance against the professionalism, organisation & logistical intelligence of the Roman war machine when it was controlled by determined Emperors & military leaders.
The whole island was conquered twice, first under Agricola in 84 as, & again, by Severus at the turn of the 3rd century. On both occasions it was the Emperor that failed to consolidating the conquest by full occupation, because they assumed that the defeat was enough. They had other priorities, & chose to pay off local tribes to keep the peace, deeming that holding Hadrian's Wall would be enough, & so it was, for around 3 centuries. This AI impression is very far from accurate. Nearly all the details are wrong. The double parapet. The towers with gates through. The size & shape of the Forts. All are largely wrong. What are all the circular structures for which there is no evidence. A very poor attempt at 'reconstruction', very unlikely the reality. Also, similar Frontiers arrangements, though mostly not as elaborate as here, were made around the whole length of the Empires boundaries, also by Hadrian, though some existed earlier, & some shifted over time, just as they did in Britain.

The Vallum ditch and mound i know about ,I live in Newcastle upon Tyne.The local pub is called the Vallum.Walbottle High School still has the ditch also infront of it running  just behind the hedgerows. The Roman Way is another street close by  .Plenty History left when you look

Brilliant video!