Protecting London's Roman wall

[Duncan Head]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/03/roman-wall-city-of-london-given-protected-status

[Ian61]

They look a good four meters below what looks to be modern ground level. I suppose they will have to be covered over for now (and potentially built over?).

The big pillars must be modern concrete piles used as foundations of a now demolished building.

I wonder if any of our experts on the period can shed any light on the value of the wall to the Roman city it seems as if the archaeologists there have a few questions about its purpose.

[Erpingham]

They look a good four meters below what looks to be modern ground level. I suppose they will have to be covered over for now (and potentially built over?).

All built over, I think.  Also, quite a way back from the modern riverbank - the Thames used to be wider.  The claim that the site is near the Shard in Southwark can be disregarded - it's on the north bank in the City, near London Bridge. 

[Duncan Head]

Why might depend on when. This site suggests that the riverside wall, cutting the city off from the docks, was built about the 270s, which would be around the time of the fall of the Gallic Empire. Others have suggested much earlier dates in the 3rd century; the Guardian article is no more specific than "third century". It looks like somewhen when either defence, or the prestige value of a big uninterrupted wall circuit, was more important than trade, anyway.

[Justin Swanton]

Why might depend on when. This site suggests that the riverside wall, cutting the city off from the docks, was built about the 270s, which would be around the time of the fall of the Gallic Empire. Others have suggested much earlier dates in the 3rd century; the Guardian article is no more specific than "third century". It looks like somewhen when either defence, or the prestige value of a big uninterrupted wall circuit, was more important than trade, anyway.

Is it a thought that the wall was built to protect the city from a river attack by Roman ships belonging to a hostile pretender (or legitimate authority)?

[Erpingham]

The idea of having the riverfront docks in front of the wall and the warehouses behind is seen in some medieval ports (e.g. Dublin, Southampton), so I'm a bit sceptical that it would have prevented trade.  You would expect to see more gates than a normal stretch of wall, perhaps, to allow commercial traffic.  Unfortunately, they don't seem to have found any gates yet.

[Duncan Head]

Is it a thought that the wall was built to protect the city from a river attack by Roman ships belonging to a hostile pretender (or legitimate authority)?

Wikipedia suggests the wall as a whole may have been begun by Albinus to defend against Severus at the end of the C2d. Or the riverside section could perhaps have been built under the Gallic Empire as defence against centralist reconquest.