The Frontiers of Imperial Rome

David J. Breeze is an Honorary Professor at the universities of Durham, Edinburgh and Newcastle. He is the author of several books about Roman history, including Hadrian’s Wall (with B. Dobson, fourth edition, 2000) and The Antonine Wall (2006).

His book about the frontiers of imperial Rome is based on ancient literary sources, archaeological objects and modern scholarship. The main text is divided into three major sections:

** Part I: Sources – chapters 1-6

** Part II: The Frontiers – chapters 7-13

** Part III: Interpretation – chapters 14- 20

At the end of the book there are five items: Conclusions - Further Reading - Sites to See - Notes - Index.

The illustrations are numerous and well-chosen. There are 48 black-and-white illustrations (maps and drawings). In addition, there are 28 plates with photos printed on special glossy paper in the middle of the book. Most photos are in colour.

In the introduction the author explains what his book is about: 

 

“The vital questions at the heart of this book are therefore: how did Roman frontiers operate and what were their purpose and role?”

 

He adds that his book is not about Roman emperors, not about Roman foreign policy, and not about the Roman army: 

“The focus is firmly on the frontier installations themselves.”

He hopes his readers will be encouraged to visit some of the sites mentioned in the book: 

“The remains of Roman frontiers are best seen and understood in their topographical settings even though these have been modified over the last 2,000 years.”
 

I agree. You may learn a lot from a book about an ancient site. But you will learn more, if you combine the reading with a visit to the site.

I like this book. I like the systematic approach and the helpful illustrations. But I have to mention a number of things which bother me:

(1) A word is misspelled on page 58: “… an area called for reasons we do not known…” It should be: for reasons we do not know.

(2) A word is missing on page 88. I have added the missing word in square brackets: “… and therefore roads usually [are] a regular feature.”

(3) A passage on page 114 begins like this: “Equally significantly…” It should be: Equally significant…

(4) A verb is wrong on page 146: “Gaul, too … were largely demilitarized.” What he wants to say is: Gaul was largely demilitarized.

(5) A word is missing on page 200. I have added the missing word in square brackets: “the obstacles [were] merely a firm intention to enforce the control of movement.”

(6) The author thinks the modern abbreviation CE stands for the “Common Era.” It stands for the Christian Era. Many people prefer the abbreviation AD. He thinks the modern abbreviation BCE stands for “Before the Common Era.” It stands for Before the Christian Era. Many people prefer the abbreviation BC. The Western calendar is a Christian calendar. Why try to hide this fact?

(7) In his introduction the author mentions a person he calls “Paul Kendrick.” The real name of this American scholar, who lived 1914-1994, is Paul MacKendrick. If this scholar is an inspiration, why is his name misspelled? If his books about "the mute stones" are an inspiration, why are they not listed in the bibliography?

(8) The “wonderful” distance slabs from the Antonine Wall are mentioned in the text on pp. 73 and 88, but there is no entry for “distance slabs” in the index. There is a colour picture of the distance slab from Hutcheson Hill (plate 18), but the location of this hill is not shown on the map of the Antonine Wall (figure 18, page 72).

(9) The word “Isohyet” is used – but not explained - on page 118. It is a line drawn on a map connecting points that receive equal amounts of rainfall. Why is this rare word not explained? And why is it not listed in the index?

(10) On pp. 128 and 188 the author refers to an inscription in this way: “IRT 880.” According to the abbreviations listed on page xiv, the letters stand for Inscriptiones Romaines d’Tripolitania, which is a curious mix of Latin and French. In fact the letters IRT stand for Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania. It is the title of a book which was published by the British School of Rome in 1952. Since 2009 the inscriptions presented in this book have been available in an online database established by King's College, London. This fact is not mentioned anywhere. Perhaps the author is not aware of it.

(11) The author has a problem with the first Jewish rebellion against the Roman Empire. It seems he is not quite sure when this rebellion took place: on page 18 he talks about “the Jewish War of 68-70.” But on page 146 he talks about “the Jewish War of 66-73.”

(12) The author has a problem with the Batavian Revolt, which was led by Julius Civilis. It seems he is not quite sure when this revolt took place: on page 25 it is placed “in the late 60s.” On page 92 he talks about “the revolt of Civilis 69/70.” On page 95 he says it broke out 69/70. On page 189 he gives only one year: 70. But on page 207 it is extended: 69-71. Most modern sources say the revolt broke out in 69 and was crushed in the following year.

(13) The author has a problem with the Dacian wars. It seems he is not quite sure when these wars took place: on page 103 we are told they took place in 101-102 and 105-106, which is correct. But on page 84 he says they took place in 101-103 and 105-106, which is not quite correct.

(14) The author has a problem with Valerian: on page xvi we are told he ruled 253-259, but Valerian ruled until he was captured in 260, and the author knows it. On page 120 he writes: “The Emperor Valerian was captured in 260.”

(15) The author has a problem with Hadrian’s Wall: two times (pp. 4 and 62) he claims the wall was 130 km, which is not true. On page 62 he says it was 80 Roman miles, which is true. Since 1 Roman mile = 1.476 km, it follows that the wall was 118 km. On page 4 he says it was 74 miles, which is true. But the figure 130 km is still wrong. In chapter 8 (page 105) he claims 130 km = 80 miles, which is not true, because 130 km = 81 miles.

(16) The author has a problem with the Antonine Wall: two times (pp. 4 and 71) we are told the Antonine Wall was half as long as Hadrian’s Wall, which is true. On page 71 he says it was 40 Roman miles, which is true. By his own logic, he should claim it was 65 km (half of 130 km), but he does not. He says it was 60 km, which is not true either. It was 59 km (half of 118 km).

(17) The author has a problem with the Battle of Mons Graupius: on pp. 144 and 182 we are told it took place in 83. But on page 148 he says it took place in 84. The fact is we do not know the date of this battle with certainty. It happened in 83 or 84. Why not just say so?

The different interpreations can be illustrated by the following two book titles: Mons Graupius AD 83 by Duncan Campbell and Sean O'Brogain (2010) and The Roman Conquest of Scotland: The Battle of Mons Graupius AD 84 by Brother James E. Fraser (2005).

 

(18) The famous general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo is mentioned in the text (pp. 95, 137, 150 and 182). He is also listed in the index. In the text he is identified by his cognomen Corbulo, but in the index he is listed under his family name Domitius. This is not very helpful.

(19) On page 148 we are told that Emperor Septimius Severus died in 211, and the next sentence runs like this: “His sons made treaties with the enemy, evacuated their territory, and abandoned the forts.” On page 171 there is an almost identical passage. We are told that Severus died, and the next sentence runs like this: “His son abandoned both territory and forts.” The first time he talks about “sons,” which is fair, because Severus had two sons, Caracalla and Geta. But the second time there is only one son, which is not fair, because in 211 both sons were still alive. Caracalla killed Geta after their return to Rome in 212.

(20) Severus was born in Libya on 11 April 145. In April 210 he was 65 years old and partially disabled by gout. Why does Breeze talk about an “untimely death” on page 148? Why does Breeze talk about an “early death” on page 171? Words like these are reserved for a person who dies when he/she is still young. When Severus died in York in February 211, he was almost 66 years old, a relatively high age in antiquity.

(21) An anonymous ancient account is listed in the bibliography (page 214) with the title De rebus bellicis, which is correct. But when this account is mentioned in the text (page 160) the title is given as De rebus bellicus, which is false.

(23) A book by Andrew Pearson from 2002 is listed in the bibliography (page 220) with the title The Roman Saxon Shore Forts. But the word “Saxon” does not appear in the title of Pearson’s book.

(24) At the end of the book Breeze discusses the purpose of the Roman frontiers and the frontier installations. On page 205 he sums up by giving three answers. The purpose was to:

** Defend the empire against large scale attacks (military)

** Prevent small-scale raiding (military)

** Control the movement of people and goods (social and economic)

John Mann and others have suggested that at least one frontier installation, Hadrian’s Wall in England, was a symbol of power built to impress and intimidate the people on the other side of the border. Ramesses II of Egypt made a similar statement when he built the two great rock temples at Abu Simbel. John Mann is quoted on page 204. In my opinion, his interpretation makes a lot of sense. On page 210 Breeze admits that the wall is “larger and grander than what was strictly necessary,” but having said this he still rejects Mann’s idea: “Roman frontiers had a purpose more related to practical considerations than symbolism.”

The British scholar Simon James believes an important reason for building Hadrian’s Wall was to keep the soldiers busy and to keep them out of trouble for a while (see his book Rome & the Sword (2011) pp. 159 and 170). In my opinion, this suggestion is highly credible, but it is not considered - not even mentioned - by Breeze.



 

(25) On the inside of the dust jacket the publisher presents the contents of the book. The presentation includes the following passage: 

 

“He then reconsiders the question of whether the frontiers were the product of an overarching Empire-wide grand strategy, questioning Luttwak’s seminal hypothesis.”

This is not true. Luttwak is mentioned only once, on page 204, but his hypothesis not mentioned or discussed. The phrase “the Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire” appears on page 211. This may be an indirect reference to Luttwak, but there is no attempt to evaluate or question his hypothesis anywhere. Perhaps it is not fair to blame the author for this point.

The Frontiers of Imperial Rome is an interesting book, but there are many flaws. Some are minor. I can forgive them. But others are much more serious, and I cannot ignore them. Therefore I have to say: this book is good but not great.

The author is very systematic, when it comes to the structure of his book. But when it comes to well-known facts of Roman history, he is remarkably careless. How can an expert on Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall not know the length of these walls?

I think Breeze handed his manuscript to the publisher before it was ready for publication. He should have given himself one more week or one more month to check it one more time. If he had done this, he might have been able to eliminate the flaws listed here (if not all, then at least some of them).

It seems the publisher - Pen & Sword - never checked his manuscript. Or, if they did, they did not do it very well. I have informed the publisher about the flaws. I hope they will not be repeated, if there is a second edition or a paperback version of the book.

* * *

 

David J. Breeze,

The Frontiers of Imperial Rome,

Pen & Sword, 2011, 242 pages

 

* * *