I've never fully been able to get a grasp on the various divisions of FotRE

So I'm just keeping some notes here in case they are of interest to others, or if people know answers to any of the questions I may have. I'm sure many questions are answered in various documents and reviews, so if I come across those answers I will document them here as I find them.

Starting point June 2024, there are currently 3 separate WHS in this connection:
-Frontiers of the Roman Empire (UK & Germany) First Inscribed 1987 as Hadrian's Wall (UK) extended 2005 to include two sections in Germany and in 2008 to include Antonine Wall in UK
-Danube Limes (Austria, Germany, Slovakia) Inscribed 2021 A series of defences along the course of the Danube river
-Lower German Limes (Netherlands and Germany) Inscribed 2021 A series of defences broadly along the course of the river Rhine (though slightly less tightly associated, especially in the Netherlands)

Additionally there are 6 tentative sites that part of the same theme
-Dacian Limes in Romania (Scheduled for inscription in 2024) a series of wall fortifications forming a large loop up from the Danube built to protect the former Gold Mines of Dacia.
-4 sets of limes that extend the Danube Limes through Croatia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria
-Frontières de l'Empire romain : Limes du Sud tunisien a series of fortifications in Tunisia

So my initial questions are:
1. Why are there 3 sites and not 1unified site?
2. Do the current divisions make sense?
3. If so why, are the divisions coherent (i) chronologically, (ii) geographically, (iii) thematically?
4. Are the tentative sites extensions or new sites?
5. Are the answers to 4 coherent with the answers to questions 1,2 & 3?
6. Why are there missing sections?
7. Are there plans to have the whole extent of the frontier inscribed in a loop from Glasgow to Rabat, via Damascus and Luxor?

So my initial answers
1. Why are there 3 sites and not 1unified site?
This gets to the heart of my problems with this site, it doesn't initially seem coherent to subdivide the site.
My understanding is that the Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Hadrian and Antonine Walls and Middle German Limes) are built as walls, mostly across open land, to act as a barrier.
The Danube Limes and Lower German Limes are defences built alongside the natural barriers created by rivers

2. Do the current divisions make sense?
Sort of, I now realise there is a difference between the types of defences, walls on open land vs defences that support an already existing natural boundary (river).

However, why are the riverine sites divided in 2?
Is there something about defending the Rhine that is different to the Danube? Is that more significant that the difference between a continuous stone wall built across the breadth of Northern England or central Scotland vs wooden forts in the middle of Germany?
My initial reaction is there is perhaps a coherent difference between the Riverine defences an the wall defences, so perhaps 2 sites is justifiable, but on first pass I can't see why the Danube and Rhine are entirely different frontiers.

3. If so why, are the divisions coherent (i) chronologically, (ii) geographically, (iii) thematically?
(i) I'm not sure, this is something I need to dig into more. The original FotRE sites mostly date from the 2nd century CE, the two riverine sites I am not so sure on
(ii) To modern eyes the FotRE seems odd being in UK and central Germany, but perhaps with a 2nd century mindset it is more coherent
(iii) the Wall vs Riverine division makes sense, but why are the riverine sites separate?

4. Are the tentative sites extensions or new sites?
The Danube Limes are an extension of the existing Danube site.
The Dacian Limes seem to be a separate site, making a 4th inscription
Tunisian ones seem to be separate again as a 5th site.

5. Are the answers to 4 coherent with the answers to questions 1,2 & 3?
Danube Limes extension seems coherent.
Dacian Limes would seem to be the same as the original FotRE as they are walls built away from a river in the 2nd century CE I'm not sure why these are therefore a different WHS proposal
I will need to look at the Tunisian proposal more

6. Why are there missing sections?
Hungary pulled out from the original Danube inscription after some last minute shenanigans. That seems to be the only chunk in Europe missing

7. Are there plans to have the whole extent of the frontier inscribed in a loop from Glasgow to Rabat, via Damascus and Luxor?
I'm pretty sure there was some sort of symposiums a decade or so ago that looked at the totality, I will have to dig in and see what else could make sense.
Also again trying to bare in mind that I shouldn't always be looking to put a 21st century narrative of borders on a different mindset of 2 millennia ago.

Regarding your question 1: this decision document (page 21 and onward) explains the source of the split (too large, manageability too challenging for 1 WHS). It also refers to this Thematic Study and Nomination Strategy ("the desert and river frontiers are too large and complex – extending over thousands of kilometres and the territories of seven and eight States Parties, respectively – to be manageable as single properties").

They can now also have potentially different OUV (though the 3 now inscribed all have criteria 2,3,4 and generic, template texts are used to describe the OUV such as "The frontier did not constitute an impregnable barrier, but controlled and allowed the movement of peoples. This entailed profound changes and developments in terms of settlement patterns, architecture and landscape design and spatial organisation.")

Personally, I would find it better if the Hafrien Wall regained its independence and the German part thus detached was added to the Lower German Limes (Germany and the Netherlands). In the current state of the list, there is a limes inserted between 2 limes and this is not geographically consistent. This would reduce Germany by 1 limes, they have 3 at the moment, it's excessive!

Those interested in the subject might find this article - "Encircling the Empire: How Rome's frontier network was chronicled" of interest. It tells the ongoing and long term story of the production of a series of books documenting the Limes, It leads to a Web site listing those published to date. Many of these (those marked "Open Access") are free to download.

Oh thanks very much for those responses, it has already provided extra answers and reading.

I sort of understand the logic of it being too big and complex.

I guess it has more specific components than the Beech forests, even if that is broad ranging. I would guess that the Spa Towns with various urban development issues would be a a harder regulatory challenge, but who knows

You know what you have done, Solivagant, right? You have brought me to new monographic books, which are not only freely available, but also nicely buyable in a physical format. If I have to ask a loan, just know that it is your fault!!!

Very precious series, here, and useful to delve deep in this heritage and understand it. I appreciate a lot that each volume is in the main languages of the involving state parties. They seem very readable, too! They will maybe help me stoke my enthusiasm for this site, as I am sometimes baffled by how much there is around roman things in the places around the limes. Or it might just be the distorting WHS-lens.

As we know, the subdivision in different sites is very much political, and the pull-out of Hungary last time reminded us of this layer. I think the true question now is: are there the tools and the will to reorganise with wiser hindsight some sites, in general, given the limes as the emblematic case? There is probably still reason for more than one site (including the coming sections): beyond merely geographic reasons, I can think also of the different cultural contexts these borders were part of, so I can see a difference between interacting with Germanic tribes on the one side, and with Dacian ones on the other. This did have some influence on the realisation of the limes.