This is what I think: Old roses may have earned a reputation for toughness in part because the wimps among them have been weeded out by time. These varieties have survived periods of neglect, growing in untended gardens and cemeteries and vacant lots, and have survived. The ones that needed spraying, water during droughts, heavy feeding, died and are no longer around to be reintroduced into our gardens. Varieties that predate the era of spraying had to be resistant to disease. Varieties that predate the era of propagation largely by grafting (I think mid-eighteen hundreds) had to be fairly readily propagated by cuttings or other non-grafting methods (taking suckers, for example). Also, varieties that have survived for periods as passalong plants outside of commerce, will generally grow well from cuttings or suckers, because that's how most home gardeners propagate them. There are modern roses that are tough, we just don't always know which ones, and the percentage of tough roses out of the total population of modern roses is probably lower than that of old roses, because the moderns haven't yet undergone the weeding out process. As Mad gallica and Jeri say, a tough rose is, in part, one that is adapted to the conditions in which it grows. Tea and China roses are tough for me, while Rugosas, that thrive in sand dunes in New England, really don't like it here. Gallicas are monsters for Mad gallica and are pitiful in the Deep South. A lot of Bourbons thrive like mad in despite of heat, cold, and drought, but collapse in areas with high disease pressure. Some roses tolerate a wider range of conditions than others: Hybrid Musks come to mind, as does 'Mme. Plantier'. But no rose can thrive in every possible growing situation. Some roses are simply more thrifty than others. Teas and Chinas are frugal plants, I have decided. They thrive with my hay mulch and clay soil and what water the heavens send them. David Austin roses are very lovely, but they just need richer soil and more water in dry periods. I mostly don't grow them any more, with a few exceptions--'Sharifa Asma' likes my garden. Jim mentions 'poor soil'. Poor to the roses' way of thinking, or the gardener's? I think most gardeners' idea of good soil is that of the vegetable patch: at least two or three feet's depth of soil, rich in organic matter, close to neutral ph, with proper proportions of sand and clay. While I imagine that nearly all roses would adore such conditions, quite a few roses will also grow, and grow well, in soil that at times is almost horrifying. I have a group of Teas in an area where the soil is nearly pure clay, and which has water running through it as well, so that after a lot of rain you can take a clump of this stuff (I have difficulty calling it soil) and mold it. Years of heavy mulching haven't drastically changed the situation. The roses grow WELL there. They're happy. Do they think the soil is poor? Evidently not! Jim's 'Charles de Mills' is also evidently in good soil--good for 'Charles de Mills'. I want to add a word about adaptation. I don't think genes can generally change themselves in response to the demands of a situation. Rather, an organism is genetically adapted to a situation or it isn't. (It can have a built-in genetic capacity for adaptive BEHAVIORS, like a China's shedding its leaves during drought and then regrowing them when rain comes. And it can reveal new aspects of its biological capacity in response to changing conditions--the irrigation system at the far end of the garden fails, and by the time you find out about it you learn than 'Safrano' can in fact bloom happily after a month without any water. But this drought tolerance of 'Safrano' was always there, though never expressed because never called upon. Genetically 'Safrano' hasn't changed at all.) Genetic adaptation happens through the production of new genetic combinations, either through sexual reproduction, which mixed up the genes coming from the parents, or through sports: spontaneous mutations. The genetically new organism may be equally adapted--it lives--more adapted--it prevails--or less adapted--it dies. Time to descend from the lectern. I'd like feedback from the biological scientists out there on what I wrote about genetics and adaptation. I think it's correct, or I wouldn't have written it, but this is not my field. Melissa

Wood chips would look good, but in a good rain could well just slide down the hill. Straw is more likely to stay in place. Any mulch will deter weeds, and no mulch will ultimately prevent erosion like planting some kind of ground cover.

I would try to plant in both areas too, gotta be greedy, lol. I would say on the super sunny hill, maybe do winter squashes or melons that are really sprawly. They can suck up hill space, and maybe at the top or bottom would be well situated to make for easier watering? There are some nice watering solutions out there that can make it a bit easier. Or in a more long term way, if you like to use herbs, plan in the hill for a bit of herb garden action. If you love mint, try growing in some mints. Nasturtiums are beautiful, wholely edible, and become self sowing annuals very easily and can be rather rugged. Or maybe some of the more bee and beneficial insect attracting kinds of plants and flowers on the hill. And then use the more level and easier to work area for more labor intensive and attention needing stuff like tomatoes, green beans, lettuce, ect..

I'd have an architect draw a plan up like you envision it to be. We are on the last stages of our plans currently & it has been fun watching my vision come down on paper, but with an architect's help. Find one locally that you can meet with and that can visit your lot, if need be.