Comparing Hadrian's Wall And The Antonine Wall

Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall are two of the greatest building achievements completed by the Romans. There are many differences between these two walls most notably the materials used in there construction. Hadrian’s wall was made a both stone and turf while the main material used on the Antonine Wall was turf. They also differ in the structures that can be found along the wall and the dimensions of the walls. There was a different level of planning that went into each wall and the number for soldiers stationed on each there also varies. The reason each wall was constructed is also different. Hadrian believed that at that time the best foreign policy was one of consolidation rather than expansion. The wall also restricted the communication capabilities of the Brigantes with those in southern Scotland, which was responsible for some local
However, when Antonius Pius became emperor he reverted back to a foreign policy of expansion. He was not Hadrian’s first choice as his heir and had no significant military experience so he needed something spectacular to concrete his right to the throne. Antonius built his wall for his own prestige. While the building of this wall was painstaking work once it was completed the soldiers stationed there provided with luxuries that soldiers in combat would not have had access to. These luxuries included bath houses, flushing latrines a very varied diet and other comfort provided by the villages that sprang up around the forts. It is suggested that the soldiers were required to work an eight hour observation shift rather than the having to be constantly alert to dangers that threatened their lives. The soldiers along the wall would have been much happier and healthier then their counterparts in