The current project under way to build an actual wall (though they’re calling it a “fence” or “barrier”) between the US and Mexico to stem illegal immigration got me to reflecting on the ultimate failure of all such walls in human history.
The Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s Wall, The Berlin Wall, even The Maginot Line; they were all breached or circumvented at least a few times even “in their prime” (while actively maintained by the builders), and ultimately bypassed by human history. Ultimately, but not immediately.
Of history’s famous (or less famous) walls, which could be considered the most successful in terms of fulfilling its primary objective for the longest period of time? That’s in terms of walls meant as a barrier for human population migration, i.e., dikes, dams and other constructions meant to shield against natural phenomena don’t count as “walls” for this purpose.
The Berlin Wall was pretty succesful - according to the Wikipedia article, only 5,000 people escaped over it from 1962 to 1989 compared to the 2.5 million who crossed from 1949 to 1962.
Was Hadrian’s wall constructed to merely demark the border between the Roman Empire in Britain and the “barbarian” regions? If so, it was quite successful until the fall of the Roman Empire in the country.
The Great Wall of China is probably the classic example of the Law of Unintended Consequences – it arguably caused the European Dark Ages, by (though ultimately ineffective) making it somewhat more difficult for nomadic Northeast Asians to invade China. As a result, they tended to push west, moving the groups just to their west a bit further west, in a domino effect that eventually pushed Germanic tribes south and west into lands no longer well defended by the Roman Empire (which was in the habit of having the succession to the Imperium decided by a revolt and/or civil war every 20 years or so, with consequent loss of troops).
The Maginot Line never fell to an attack from the side towards Germany. Unfortunately, since it wasn’t extended to cover the Belgian border in the Ardennes, the German forces did an end-run around it, and it surrendered to Germans already in possession of most of northern France except for it.
Probably the most effective wall, though, was not a wall at all, but a giant berm: Offa’s Dike, built as a cooperative venture between them by the Anglish Kingdom of Mercia and the Cymric/British Kingdoms of Powys and Gwent, it made border incursions from one against the other adequately difficult that it stood as a border for 300 years until William the Conqueror’s Marcher Lords invaded and conquered England and what later became the Earldom of March, in eastern Wales.
The walls around Constantinople were quite successful as well - over a thousand year period, they were only breached twice, in 1204 by Crusaders, and in 1453 when the Ottoman Turks finally captured the city.
I think this is the winner. It stood against many battles over a very long time. It was as large as the Berlin wall. However, you might want to separate regional walls from city/town walls. Hadrian’s Wall served a different purpose from the Berlin or Byzantium/Constantinople walls. The Great Wall did not stop all invasions but acted as a major barrier to invasion and in some cases escape. It was extremely successful for an extended period. Hadrian’s Wall did its job great until the legions pulled out. Without the men, they were of little worth.
Polycarp, I never read about Offa’s Dike, thank you, I am off to read up on it.
