What do you think?
Rate this book
Hadrian's wall
This is a penetrating and lucid history of the best-known and most spectacular monument to the Roman Empire in Britain. Taking into account new research findings about the building of the Wall, Breeze and Dobson include fascinating details about the Roman army, its religion and daily bureaucratic life. A selection of photos, maps and diagrams help make this a book for both the expert and the layman, being simultaneously erudite and unusually accessible.
324 pages, Hardcover
First published September 30, 1976
10 people are currently reading
230 people want to read
About the author
David J. Breeze
53 books1 followerDavid John Breeze, OBE, FSA, FRSE, Hon FSA Scot, Hon MIFA is a British archaeologist, teacher and scholar of Hadrian's Wall, the Antonine Wall and the Roman army.
He was the Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments at Historic Scotland and responsible for the nomination of the Antonine Wall as a World Heritage Site.
He was the Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments at Historic Scotland and responsible for the nomination of the Antonine Wall as a World Heritage Site.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
Read
March 18, 2017The joke goes you can find Hadrian's Wall at the bottom of his garden. And like a garden wall, it wasn't intended or used apparently as a defensive position to fight from, but rather to separate the Roman from the less Roman world to the north of it.
As the book reveals, we know both a lot and very little about the Wall. Details like the individual units that built it, in some case down to which cohort built which mile-castle or which four and one third of a mile stretch of Wall, and the identities of many units that were stationed on the Wall are known, while wider issues connected with the Wall are obscure.
Under Hadrian's successor, the Emperor Antonius Pius, a second Wall was built between the Tay and the Forth known as the Antonine Wall. For a period of about a century the Romans alternated between using one or the other Wall as their demarcation line before finally shifting back to Hadrian's Wall. The reasons for this and the precise dates of the movements are so far obscure and the subject of speculation. Judging by An Imperial Possession this is typical of Roman Britain as a whole.
Even when Hadrian's Wall was garrisoned, Rome maintained a presence in the Scottish Lowlands - tribes were obliged to meet at certain points and in the presence of Roman officers and there were forts both there and north of the Antonine Wall, giving the impression that the Walls, that of Hadrian eventually built of stone, while the Antonine was constructed of turf laid on a stone base, were a particularly impressive customs barrier rather than a political or military end in themselves. The Wall was not about stopping movement, it has regular and quite closely spaced gates, but controlling it.
The Walls were built by certain cohorts of the Roman legions, rather like the contemporary Chinese army they weren't restricted to a purely military role but were trained to carry out a range of other functions as well, in particular building roads and aqueducts, mining, manufacturing and in this case the construction of picturesque Walls to mark the end of Roman property with attached bathhouses. Such was life on the Wall: scenery, stormy weather and saunas.
Breeze and Dobson's book is packed out by information about the Roman army as a whole and this leads back to the difficulties of interpretation. A Hill Fort was found with a Roman camp at its base and the first interpretation was that a siege had taken place - probably with a dramatic last stand . Further investigation made clear that the Hill Fort had been abandoned long before the Roman camp was built and that since the Roman camp was paved it was most probably a training venue for soldiers to practice siege warfare techniques. Equally a fort that had been burnt down with material including skulls buried in a large pit next to the fort site is now thought to have been a fort that was deliberately abandoned rather than sacked by the natives - the Roman army had adopted the habit from the Celts and Germans of taking the heads of their enemies and displaying them . Is evidence of fires in some of the Wall buildings evidence of hostile natives or of generations of soldiers cooking or sending signals?
At times reading this book the idea of hostile natives menacing Roman Britannia melted away like morning mist to replaced by regular garrison life. At times there was fighting according to the literary sources - but of course not necessarily at the Wall. Indeed if you were a hostile native why would you hurl yourself at a solid stone structure garrisoned by up to ten thousand freshly bathed soldiers, when you could instead build a boat and sail round the cost and steal some chickens from an undefended farmstead? This seems to have been a common pattern on the barbarian frontiers since in time Rome moved to develop a mobile field army and new larger forts in Britain for instance the Saxon Shore forts round the coast. However the Wall seems to have been manned even towards the end of Roman Britain, perhaps with soldiers checking to see that people didn't enter the empire with weapons and collecting customs dues until there wasn't any kind of authority to pay their wages any more. Since the initial publication of this book more archaeological evidence has emerged about the fixed defensive line the Limes constructed along the frontier of Roman Germannia too, empire without end was becoming a battle for customs revenue.
As the book reveals, we know both a lot and very little about the Wall. Details like the individual units that built it, in some case down to which cohort built which mile-castle or which four and one third of a mile stretch of Wall, and the identities of many units that were stationed on the Wall are known, while wider issues connected with the Wall are obscure.
Under Hadrian's successor, the Emperor Antonius Pius, a second Wall was built between the Tay and the Forth known as the Antonine Wall. For a period of about a century the Romans alternated between using one or the other Wall as their demarcation line before finally shifting back to Hadrian's Wall. The reasons for this and the precise dates of the movements are so far obscure and the subject of speculation. Judging by An Imperial Possession this is typical of Roman Britain as a whole.
Even when Hadrian's Wall was garrisoned, Rome maintained a presence in the Scottish Lowlands - tribes were obliged to meet at certain points and in the presence of Roman officers and there were forts both there and north of the Antonine Wall, giving the impression that the Walls, that of Hadrian eventually built of stone, while the Antonine was constructed of turf laid on a stone base, were a particularly impressive customs barrier rather than a political or military end in themselves. The Wall was not about stopping movement, it has regular and quite closely spaced gates, but controlling it.
The Walls were built by certain cohorts of the Roman legions, rather like the contemporary Chinese army they weren't restricted to a purely military role but were trained to carry out a range of other functions as well, in particular building roads and aqueducts, mining, manufacturing and in this case the construction of picturesque Walls to mark the end of Roman property with attached bathhouses. Such was life on the Wall: scenery, stormy weather and saunas.
Breeze and Dobson's book is packed out by information about the Roman army as a whole and this leads back to the difficulties of interpretation. A Hill Fort was found with a Roman camp at its base and the first interpretation was that a siege had taken place - probably with a dramatic last stand . Further investigation made clear that the Hill Fort had been abandoned long before the Roman camp was built and that since the Roman camp was paved it was most probably a training venue for soldiers to practice siege warfare techniques. Equally a fort that had been burnt down with material including skulls buried in a large pit next to the fort site is now thought to have been a fort that was deliberately abandoned rather than sacked by the natives - the Roman army had adopted the habit from the Celts and Germans of taking the heads of their enemies and displaying them . Is evidence of fires in some of the Wall buildings evidence of hostile natives or of generations of soldiers cooking or sending signals?
At times reading this book the idea of hostile natives menacing Roman Britannia melted away like morning mist to replaced by regular garrison life. At times there was fighting according to the literary sources - but of course not necessarily at the Wall. Indeed if you were a hostile native why would you hurl yourself at a solid stone structure garrisoned by up to ten thousand freshly bathed soldiers, when you could instead build a boat and sail round the cost and steal some chickens from an undefended farmstead? This seems to have been a common pattern on the barbarian frontiers since in time Rome moved to develop a mobile field army and new larger forts in Britain for instance the Saxon Shore forts round the coast. However the Wall seems to have been manned even towards the end of Roman Britain, perhaps with soldiers checking to see that people didn't enter the empire with weapons and collecting customs dues until there wasn't any kind of authority to pay their wages any more. Since the initial publication of this book more archaeological evidence has emerged about the fixed defensive line the Limes constructed along the frontier of Roman Germannia too, empire without end was becoming a battle for customs revenue.
November 20, 2018
Reviewed for The Bibliophibian.
This is a fairly in-depth examination of the Wall and the archaeology done around it to try and understand what it was used for and at what times. As such, it’s a lot of information that most people wouldn’t expect to hold in their heads after, unless they’re deeply interested in the topic. Which is pretty much exactly why I read this, back during my exam period. I really love reading books like this that sift through the archaeology, present possible conclusions and discuss what is most likely. I don’t expect to remember this or that about the forts — no one expects me to remember it — but all the same I learned about the Romans and the British of the period, and got to connect some dots in what I know.
It’s perhaps not the most scintillating reading if you’re not pretty engaged and interested in the topic, but it’s interesting stuff and they make a good case for their ideas.
This is a fairly in-depth examination of the Wall and the archaeology done around it to try and understand what it was used for and at what times. As such, it’s a lot of information that most people wouldn’t expect to hold in their heads after, unless they’re deeply interested in the topic. Which is pretty much exactly why I read this, back during my exam period. I really love reading books like this that sift through the archaeology, present possible conclusions and discuss what is most likely. I don’t expect to remember this or that about the forts — no one expects me to remember it — but all the same I learned about the Romans and the British of the period, and got to connect some dots in what I know.
It’s perhaps not the most scintillating reading if you’re not pretty engaged and interested in the topic, but it’s interesting stuff and they make a good case for their ideas.
March 4, 2017
If you are interested in the history of Scotland or Roman boundaries, this tome will fill you in on many details. One trenchant insight I found well-developed is that the Antonine wall is the remnant of an emperor focussed on immediate political gain at the expense of long-term stability.
Were I in a critical mood, I would say the book could be seen as a bit too scholarly. Readers seeking a narrative will find one only after wading through facts about the typical construction program of Roman encampments, differences between the set-up of each gate along the wall (with accompanying diagrams), artifacts, et cetera. I feel however that the overall picture of the period gained via the surfeit of examples makes the travel through them worthwhile.
Were I in a critical mood, I would say the book could be seen as a bit too scholarly. Readers seeking a narrative will find one only after wading through facts about the typical construction program of Roman encampments, differences between the set-up of each gate along the wall (with accompanying diagrams), artifacts, et cetera. I feel however that the overall picture of the period gained via the surfeit of examples makes the travel through them worthwhile.
July 10, 2025
Breeze, David J, en Brian Dobson, Hadrian’s Wall (Penguin Books: 2000, fourth edition). Gedetailleerde, informatieve en ook wat droge wetenschappelijke verhandeling over de geschiedenis van de muur van de keizer Hadrianus in Noord-Engeland, verteld in de context van de Romeinse heerschappij op het Britse hoofdeiland tussen 43 en circa 400 na Christus.
Keizer Hadrianus gaf opdracht tot de bouw van de muur tijdens zijn bezoek in 122. Hij zou ook persoonlijk de hand hebben gehad in het ontwerp, met op regelmatige afstand van elkaar geplaatste ‘milecastles’ en torens. De bedoeling was niet een verdedigingsmuur op te richten maar een barrière op te werpen die controle van het grensverkeer mogelijk maakte en duidelijk de bestuurlijke grens markeerde tussen de Romeinse wereld en die van de ‘barbaren’. De muur was niet geschikt als verdedigingswerk. “[The] purpose was bureaucratic rather than military, the establishment of a tidy method of controlling movement into and out of the Empire.” (xv)
De muur werd gebouwd door de Romeinse legioenen zelf. Eenheden namen een deel van de muur voor hun rekening en lieten vaak opschriften achter. De muur werd vervolgens vooral bewaakt door hulptroepen (auxiliari).
Kort na de voltooiing van de muur, in ongeveer zes jaar, verlegde keizer Antoninus Pius, de opvolger van Hadrianus, de grens alweer naar het noorden, waar de muur van Antoninus werd ingericht. Anders dan de muur van Hadrianus, was deze niet van steen maar van turf gebouwd. Na enkele decennia vielen de Romeinen echter weer terug op de muur van Hadrianus. De Romeinen hebben nooit een serieuze poging gedaan het hele eiland te veroveren, volgens de auteurs omdat dit voor Rome nooit prioriteit had. Uitzondering hierop vormde Septimus Severus, die grootse plannen had maar in York overleed voordat hij deze ten uitvoer kon leggen.
Gedurende lange periodes in de tweede en derde na Christus lijkt de situatie aan de Britse noordgrens van het Romeinse rijk redelijk stabiel te zijn geweest. De Brigantes — de grootste stam in de regio — hadden hun draai onder Romeinse heerschappij gevonden. De Picten, een samengaan van verschillende stammen in wat tegenwoordig Schotland is, kwamen pas in de vierde eeuw in beeld. Samen met de Schotten, die uit Ierland kwamen, vormden zij een steeds serieuzere bedreiging voor Romeins Britannië. Rond 400 kwam de Romeinse overheersing ten einde, volgens de auteurs simpelweg omdat de salarissen aan Romeinse soldaten en bestuurders niet meer werden uitbetaald.
De auteurs gaan ook uitvoerig in op het leven in het Romeinse leger. Romeinse legioensoldaten kregen relatief goed betaald en te eten, en na de diensttijd van 25 jaar lonkte het burgerschap (zo’n 60 procent wist lang genoeg in leven te blijven). “At the time of the building of Hadrian’s Wall the Roman army was perhaps at the peak of its efficiency.” (153) In de loop der decennia boette het Romeinse leger echter aan gevechtskracht in: “Local recruitment tied unit, fort and fort settlement ever more closely, creating an immobilized army on the frontier, gradually degenerating under continuing peaceful conditions.” (248) In zekere zin, zo suggereren de auteurs, luidde de muur van Hadrianus ook de val van het Romeinse Rijk in.
Keizer Hadrianus gaf opdracht tot de bouw van de muur tijdens zijn bezoek in 122. Hij zou ook persoonlijk de hand hebben gehad in het ontwerp, met op regelmatige afstand van elkaar geplaatste ‘milecastles’ en torens. De bedoeling was niet een verdedigingsmuur op te richten maar een barrière op te werpen die controle van het grensverkeer mogelijk maakte en duidelijk de bestuurlijke grens markeerde tussen de Romeinse wereld en die van de ‘barbaren’. De muur was niet geschikt als verdedigingswerk. “[The] purpose was bureaucratic rather than military, the establishment of a tidy method of controlling movement into and out of the Empire.” (xv)
De muur werd gebouwd door de Romeinse legioenen zelf. Eenheden namen een deel van de muur voor hun rekening en lieten vaak opschriften achter. De muur werd vervolgens vooral bewaakt door hulptroepen (auxiliari).
Kort na de voltooiing van de muur, in ongeveer zes jaar, verlegde keizer Antoninus Pius, de opvolger van Hadrianus, de grens alweer naar het noorden, waar de muur van Antoninus werd ingericht. Anders dan de muur van Hadrianus, was deze niet van steen maar van turf gebouwd. Na enkele decennia vielen de Romeinen echter weer terug op de muur van Hadrianus. De Romeinen hebben nooit een serieuze poging gedaan het hele eiland te veroveren, volgens de auteurs omdat dit voor Rome nooit prioriteit had. Uitzondering hierop vormde Septimus Severus, die grootse plannen had maar in York overleed voordat hij deze ten uitvoer kon leggen.
Gedurende lange periodes in de tweede en derde na Christus lijkt de situatie aan de Britse noordgrens van het Romeinse rijk redelijk stabiel te zijn geweest. De Brigantes — de grootste stam in de regio — hadden hun draai onder Romeinse heerschappij gevonden. De Picten, een samengaan van verschillende stammen in wat tegenwoordig Schotland is, kwamen pas in de vierde eeuw in beeld. Samen met de Schotten, die uit Ierland kwamen, vormden zij een steeds serieuzere bedreiging voor Romeins Britannië. Rond 400 kwam de Romeinse overheersing ten einde, volgens de auteurs simpelweg omdat de salarissen aan Romeinse soldaten en bestuurders niet meer werden uitbetaald.
De auteurs gaan ook uitvoerig in op het leven in het Romeinse leger. Romeinse legioensoldaten kregen relatief goed betaald en te eten, en na de diensttijd van 25 jaar lonkte het burgerschap (zo’n 60 procent wist lang genoeg in leven te blijven). “At the time of the building of Hadrian’s Wall the Roman army was perhaps at the peak of its efficiency.” (153) In de loop der decennia boette het Romeinse leger echter aan gevechtskracht in: “Local recruitment tied unit, fort and fort settlement ever more closely, creating an immobilized army on the frontier, gradually degenerating under continuing peaceful conditions.” (248) In zekere zin, zo suggereren de auteurs, luidde de muur van Hadrianus ook de val van het Romeinse Rijk in.
July 9, 2023
--- "The system of frontier defence and control does not by itself seem to have been responsible for this era of peace: in its embryonic state it had not prevented the invasion of the early 180s, nor when fully grown the disturbances of the early 200s. Perhaps the reason is more in the enemy it faced." (Breeze: 152)
This book describes Hadrian's Wall and Antonine's Wall. It also describes the people that lived close by as well as the different emperors that ruled the Empire before and after the Wall was built . Although some of the information on the army of the wall was nice to read, it felt unexpected in a negative way. Most of the ideas the book puts forward are inconclusive.
As with any book on architecture, photographs are necessary. In this way descriptions can be understood better. The book does have photographs but they are just a few and in black and white unfortunately. What I enjoyed the most is reading about why and how Hadrian's Wall was preserved and the system used to date its parts. But the focus of the book was sometimes too much on the army, and that I did not like it at all.
This book describes Hadrian's Wall and Antonine's Wall. It also describes the people that lived close by as well as the different emperors that ruled the Empire before and after the Wall was built . Although some of the information on the army of the wall was nice to read, it felt unexpected in a negative way. Most of the ideas the book puts forward are inconclusive.
As with any book on architecture, photographs are necessary. In this way descriptions can be understood better. The book does have photographs but they are just a few and in black and white unfortunately. What I enjoyed the most is reading about why and how Hadrian's Wall was preserved and the system used to date its parts. But the focus of the book was sometimes too much on the army, and that I did not like it at all.
September 23, 2017
A very detailed examination of the history of Hadrian's Wall from why and how it was built, the relationship with the Antonine Wall, the army involved, life on the wall and how it ceased in use as the Romans left Britain in 411 AD. What surprised me is how little is really known about these topics but I suppose on second thoughts I ought to have realised how there is such a lack of evidence from so long ago.
October 12, 2025
I do think that English Heritage books are good value for the money they cost. The first half of this is detail about the various forts and towns along the wall. I was much more interested in the history of Hadrian’s wall. Beautifully illustrated, including a lovely picture of Sycamore gap, and various reconstructions. Published nearly 20 years ago - would be interesting to see how interpretation of the wall had changed in the last 20 years.
January 8, 2023
Rather dry, but very informative. What was really surprising was how little is certainly known about any of it. The reasons for it being built, the role it was intended to fulfil and (most of all) the actual operations of the garrison and its associated forts are all uncertain and disputed. Makes you wonder what else isn't as known as you might think.
November 22, 2022
A beautiful book showing various paintings by members of the Richardson family of different parts of Hadrian's Wall in the mid to late 19th century. together with text explaining the archaeological history and the differences between what is/was visible now and then.
February 18, 2018
Clear and well illustrated beginners guide to Hadrian's Wall, especially for those who want a quick introduction before a visit.
May 5, 2018
Picked this up at the Carlisle Castle gift shop. Enjoyed learning about the Wall. Can’t wait to see it again someday.
November 20, 2019
An informative guide about the history of Hadrian's Wall.
April 20, 2023
Very fascinating look into the history of the building of this iconic border wall. I love all aspects of this delve into history.
April 2, 2024
Enkel voor Hadrianofielen.
October 19, 2020
Not my cup of tea but I can see the quality and knowledge that went into it. Which is why I am giving it a 4/5 while my enjoyment was more like a 2.5 .
I read it as a primer for walking the wall... It's not that book. It has so many minute details about the construction of the wall and comparatively little about life on the wall or Roman culture in Britain, which is what I was more interested in.
If you want to know everything about the wall then I doubt you will get better. If you just want a primer I would look at one of the more guidebook style books around (I used and appreciated the trailblazer version).
I read it as a primer for walking the wall... It's not that book. It has so many minute details about the construction of the wall and comparatively little about life on the wall or Roman culture in Britain, which is what I was more interested in.
If you want to know everything about the wall then I doubt you will get better. If you just want a primer I would look at one of the more guidebook style books around (I used and appreciated the trailblazer version).
February 10, 2015
An excellent, engaging work of history, with *almost* enough maps. Frequently updated, this is a classic reworked to include the latest field data. It's a trifle dry, but interesting and well-structured. Almost half the total length is appendices with detailed information on primary sources, lists of emperors and governors, what can be seen at what sites along the Wall.
My only quibble is that like almost every history of Britain I've read, the authors write for a British audience and assume a familiarity with place names and geography. This book is far from as annoyingly provincial and twee as Moffat's _The Wall_, but could have used one master map to refer back to.
My only quibble is that like almost every history of Britain I've read, the authors write for a British audience and assume a familiarity with place names and geography. This book is far from as annoyingly provincial and twee as Moffat's _The Wall_, but could have used one master map to refer back to.
November 14, 2015
A nice history of why the wall was built, how it impacted those around it, and how those whose manned the wall lived. A nice companion whilst you explore the wall as it remains today.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews