Search london history from Roman times to modern day
128
We come next to the consideration of the bridge. It is not a little remarkable that of the three great buildings belonging to Roman London—Citadel, Wall, and Bridge—not one should be so much as mentioned, save incidentally. One would think that the building of a bridge across a broad tidal river was an engineering feat worthy of admiration and of record. It was not so; we merely discover that a bridge existed; we are not told when it was erected, or what kind of bridge it was. Although it is certain that the people of southern Britannia possessed many arts and carried on commerce and lived with some show of civilisation—“people,” it has been remarked, “who possess mints and coin money do not live in huts of wattle and daub,”—yet there is nothing to show that they could build bridges. The Romans could and did. The names of stations in Britain show that they bridged many rivers—Pontes, Ad Pontium, Tripontium, Pons Ælii, for instance. The date of the construction of the first bridge across the Thames is nowhere recorded. We have seen that it has been hastily conjectured from a passage in Dion Cassius that a bridge existed over the Thames at the time of the invasion of Aulus Plautius.
We have already considered this passage. It may be permitted in addition to remark: (1) That the author had evidently an imperfect acquaintance with the topography, or he would not have spoken of the mouth of the Thames being so near London. (2) That he had heard the country described, very justly, as marshes. (3) That the marshes extended the whole way from Richmond to Tilbury. (4) That there could not have been a bridge across a tidal river of sufficient breadth for the whole of this distance. Whatever was existing in London at that time, whether the copia mercatorum mentioned by the Roman historian was really found there, or whether there was a ferry across, it is certain that the people frequenting London could not build bridges except of the elementary kind made of flat stones, such as are found over the narrow and shallow streams of Dartmoor. Guest considers that the marshes were those of the river Lea in the east of London; and certainly they are broad enough to bring an enemy into trouble; and higher up the stream is narrow enough for a bridge of rude construction. He says:—
129
“When the Romans came down the Watling Street to the neighbourhood of London, they saw before them a wide expanse of marsh and mudbank, which twice every day assumed the character of an estuary, sufficiently large to excuse, if not to justify, the statement in Dio, that the river there emptied itself into the ocean. No dykes then retained the water within certain limits. One arm of the great wash stretched northwards, up the valley of the Lea, and the other westward, down the valley of the Thames. The individual character of the rivers was lost; the Romans saw only one sheet of water before them, and they gave it the name of the river which mainly contributed to form it. When they stated that they crossed the Thames, they merely meant that they crossed the northern arm of the great lake which spread out its waters before them, and on either hand.”
There are, however, certain considerations which point in a different direction. We have already seen that the chief highway of traffic, the only communication between the north and the south, lay along what was afterwards Watling Street; that it passed down the Edgware Road, along Park Lane, stopping short of the marsh which covered the Green Park as far as Thorney Island; that a ford, perhaps left uncovered at low tide, led over the marsh to the island; that on the other side of the island (which is Westminster) there was another ford across the river to the renewal of the road—at Stangate—on the south side. Formerly this was part of the high road; the pack-mules and the slaves crossed every day at low tide. The water, which is now confined between two perpendicular walls, was then distributed at high tide over the immense marsh which begins below Richmond and extends to the coasts of Essex. The embankment of the river for business purposes in the City and the building of the bridge deepened and scoured the channel, so that the ford only became available afterwards in dry seasons, though up to the time of Queen Elizabeth it was still fordable after a drought. This ford seems to answer all the requirements of the narrative; it is just the place where troops, ignorant of the way, would step aside into deep water and so fall into difficulties. It is also the place where the army, following the road, would arrive at the river.
In considering the early history of the City, we must remember not only the connection of Westminster with this ford, but also the great and important fact of the trade which was carried on up and down the road over Thorney, making the place a busy centre of traffic before there was a Port of London at all. Whether the Port of London existed when the Romans began their occupation has been questioned. To me it is quite plain that it did. If there was no Port of London, then the merchandise intended for all the country inland was taken by river to Thorney. This much is certain, that the Romans established themselves in a fort on the east of the Walbrook. The building of this fort could not be undertaken until the position of the place and the navigation of the river were well known, because all the stone must have been brought by water. We will suppose, then, that an ordinary camp occupied this site before the fort was built. If we now consult the map we observe that the position, though it guarded the river, was isolated with respect to the way of trade and to the way of war.
It was therefore imperative to acquire the means of communication with that way. Had the Romans been unable to acquire that communication, the Roman130 settlement overhanging Walbrook would never have been built. In other words, the situation demanded a bridge, and a bridge was built. The date of the first London bridge is that of the first Roman occupation of London, i.e. the period immediately following the massacre under Boadicea.
What kind of bridge was built? First, we must remember that to build a bridge of stone over a broad and deep tidal estuary was a work which had never yet been attempted anywhere in the Empire. Certainly among the people of London there were none who would venture to attempt so great a work, while I do not believe that the military engineers themselves would attempt it. Next, it was a work which would certainly take a great deal of time; later on, for instance, the first stone bridge took thirty years to accomplish. Thirdly, it would be a costly work.
The answer must be sought in the bridges built by the Romans in other places about the same time. Two of these especially may be chosen. They are (1) the bridge over the Rhine constructed by Julius Cæsar in ten days, and (2) the Roman bridge over the same river at Mayence, of which a model exists in the museum of that town.
There can be no doubt that this bridge at London was, to begin with, a wooden bridge. The reasons for this conclusion are, briefly, as follows:—
1. It was built after the rebellion of Boadicea and the massacre of the people of London. It was intended as a military bridge connecting the Citadel of London, built immediately after that event, with the southern ports.
2. The construction of a stone bridge over a broad, deep, and tidal river would have been a work involving a long time and immense cost. Trajan’s Bridge over the Danube was built about the year 104 A.D., but the Danube is not a tidal river. There is no example of a stone bridge over a tidal river, that I know of, belonging to this age.
3. The engineers who formed part of the army would naturally be ordered to build the bridge, and would do so after the manner which they had learned and practised with other military bridges.
4. The accounts of and reference to the bridge during the next thousand years or so clearly suggest a wooden bridge. Snorro Sturleson, the Icelander, speaks of it as wooden and sustained by piles. The planks which formed the mainway must have been loosely laid together with gaps between, for a large number of Roman coins have been found in the bed of the river below; these had apparently rolled through. The bridge is reported to have been carried away or greatly damaged in 1091. It was burned in 1136.
5. The first stone bridge of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries took thirty years to complete. A military bridge, such as I conceive the first London Bridge to have been, could not be allowed to remain unfinished for years.
The course of events, as I have already suggested, was as follows:—
131
1. London was unprotected until after the massacre by the troops of Boadicea.
2. The importance of the place was then apprehended, and the Roman Citadel on the eastern hill over the Walbrook was constructed to protect the port and the town, and contained the garrison, the officers, and the officials.
3. The walls of the Citadel were built of stone from the Kentish quarries. The bridge, however, was built of wood, as being convenient, cheap, and easy of construction.
There were two models to choose from—perhaps more, but the two will suffice.
The first of them, as stated above, was Cæsar’s bridge over the Rhine, built in ten days.
This was a Pons Sublicius, supported by piles.
Two piles were driven into the bed of the river by a hammer or mallet called a fistuca. They were set side by side, and in a sloping direction, in order to withstand the force of the current. Opposite to them were two other piles similarly driven into the bed of the river. Each pair of piles were kept in place and strengthened by cross struts. Cross pieces, each two feet in diameter, were laid across each pair, and joists, for which purpose were used the trunks of trees either roughly squared or not squared at all, were placed upon them.
The piles were further strengthened by the construction in front and at the sides of a pier or sterling formed by smaller piles driven in side by side. The sterling was filled with stones or rubble, and beams were laid from one joist to another, over which were placed wattle and reeds; the whole, covered with earth and gravel, made a roadway and completed the bridge.
A more elaborate structure is that of which an actual portion exists in the museum at Mayence, with a model of one of the piers.
In this bridge the sterling was constructed with piles set side by side in lines or rows; but they were double, and between each row of piles were placed beams of wood; transverse rows of piles crossed the sterling, also double, and strengthened with timber laid between. The whole was filled up with stones and rubble.
Two of the piles are preserved in the museum; they appear to be about 25 feet in length, and are sharpened at the end. At a later date, if not at the outset, stones were laid upon the sterling. If this method was adopted for the first London Bridge, the supporting piles rose out of the opposite angles of the sterling, after which Cæsar’s method was followed.
The reason why no mention is made of the construction of the bridge is, first, that no history mentions any buildings in Roman London; and next, that the Citadel and the bridge were built by soldiers quietly, without the counsel or the consent of the citizens, if there were any—if, that is, the copia mercatorum really existed. In a few days, or a few weeks, the Thames was spanned by a bridge which would be repaired, burned, repaired again, and so continue for twelve hundred years to come.132 The first bridge was about the same length as the second, viz. 626 feet long. It was not nearly so high, however. Its breadth was 40 feet. We may be certain that this was the breadth, because it was the breadth of Cæsar’s bridge, i.e. the most convenient breadth for the passage of troops; and secondly, because that was the breadth of the second bridge, built by one of those Fratres Pontifices, who usually made their bridges narrow, like those of Avignon and Les Saintes. Peter of Colechurch, however, would not build his stone bridge of a less convenient breadth than that of the old wooden one. The drawbridge came later, when the wall was built and the river gate. At first the bridge was open at both ends, but was commanded by the fort overhanging the north end.
It has been supposed that the bridge was constructed for the purpose of traffic, and that the Watling Street was diverted just at the site of the Marble Arch in order that the traffic might cross the bridge. This supposition is quite unfounded; there were no wheeled vehicles along the tracks which served for roads; all the traffic was carried by slaves, or by pack horses and mules. To slaves, to mules, to drivers, to merchants, a ford was part of the journey, not to be regarded as an impediment. And besides, it was much shorter, when one had arrived before Thorney, to cut straight across the marsh than to go along the new road leading into London. The diversion of Watling Street and the construction of the bridge were for military, not commercial purposes. The Romans understood the natural advantages of their position; they hastened to improve it by direct communication with the north and with the south.
The building of the bridge therefore preceded the building of the wall by some 300 years.
To sum up, the date of the bridge is also the date of the first military settlement on the site of London. It is also the date of the stone fort erected beside the Walbrook. After the bridge was built the road was constructed; its modern names are Oxford Street and Holborn; it connected London by land with the great highway of the island. Both the road and the bridge were at first needed for purely military purposes. When the Port of London increased in importance, when it became easier to carry goods for export and to receive imported goods by London than to go all the way to Dover, the caravans adopted the new road and poured into London what they had previously taken to Dover. But neither the new road nor the bridge was built for anything but military purposes.
The first allusion to the bridge occurs in the Chronicle under the year A.D. 457, when the Britons, defeated at Crayford or Creganford by the Saxons, fled for life, taking refuge in London. Of course, if there had been no bridge, the defeated army could not have entered London in this wild haste; in fact they would not have attempted it.
Trying to avoid privacy and cookie settings overwriting content