Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink

Why didnt the Romans conquer the rest of the British Isles?

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Elkstone (U3836042) on Thursday, 2nd August 2007

  Did the Romans ever give a reason for not invading 'Ireland' (it wasnt called that then?) once they conqurered Britain or 'england'?
  
  Was it because there was no natural resources like they had in England ie coal, iron ore? Were the Irish more likely to put up a stiffer fight like the 'Scots' or 'Picts'? north of Hadrians Wall?
  
  Did they trade with the 'Irish' during the centuries they were in Britain?

  Link to this forum: Why didnt the Romans conquer the rest of the British Isles?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) ** on Thursday, 2nd August 2007

  
  Was it because there was no natural resources like they had in England ie coal, iron ore?
  Μύ
  Tin was a big asset to the Romans and a realisable asset once they commandeered its sources in Britain. They may have sussed out possible Irish sources for this mineral (as well as other stuff that was quickly turned to profit once Britain was controlled) but even by the time of the British invasion Ireland's resources in respect of precious and utilitarian metals were believed to be dwindling. Simple accountancy dictated against trying to exploit the smaller island.
  
  
  Were the Irish more likely to put up a stiffer fight like the 'Scots' or 'Picts'? north of Hadrians Wall?
  Μύ
  There is no evidence that the Romans were stopped in their advance northwards by dint of strong opposition, simply pragmatic political realism on their own part when it came to calculating the contrast between investment and return. Likewise there is no evidence that Ireland's real or potential opposition was ever evaluated by the Romans. There was simply no need to because, as with what would later become Scotland, there was little there to make the investment a profitable one.
  
  
  Did they trade with the 'Irish' during the centuries they were in Britain?
  Μύ
  Considerably, though not in the organised way that they traded with better structured societies on their fringes. There is ample evidence that Roman trade goods made it to Hibernia over a long period of time, just as there is testimonial evidence of just what was being traded in return - primarily slaves 'rustled' by the Irish from within Hibernia and even from Roman territories (St Patrick's legend preserves a reference to this trade).

  Link to this forum: Why didnt the Romans conquer the rest of the British Isles?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Friday, 3rd August 2007

  What he said
  
  As for the Channel Islands (not technically part of the British Isles, but...), they were under Roman Occupation. There is a small signal station in Alderney, and a Gallo-Roman shrine in Jersey, but otherwise little else solid apart from large quantities of coins (Caesar's Fort at Mont Orgueil Castle in Jersey is medieval, but it has been speculated that it was built on an earlier, possibly Roman fortification).
  
  It has been hypothesised that the Channel Islands acted as a base for a small anti-piracy naval force (signal relay stations) attached to the Classis Britannica, and were probably within the jurisdiction of the Tractus Armoricana.

  Link to this forum: Why didnt the Romans conquer the rest of the British Isles?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by scamander (U870981) on Friday, 3rd August 2007

  There are a number of reasons for the Roman halt in advancing through Britain. The most annoying is that somehow the myth that the tribes present in Scotland were too tough.
  
  Logistically the legions worked best in areas with a decent infrastructure which could support and facilitate the necessary supplies. Scotland and the like (I realise this term is anachronistic) presented the Romans with a problem in that the tribes fought guerilla style and the hassle simply wasn't worth it.
  
  Combined with this you have the general fallability of the Empire, the paradox that the larger it grew the more instable it was. Trajan's gains in Asia were undermined by the fact that there were too many borders to defend. The larger the empire, the larger the borders and the more reliant on local tribes and such. Whether Rome planned, or could, invade Ireland (again anachronistic) remains debatable. It is arguable that the logistics invovled simply weren't worth it, trade was an easier way of acquiring goods whils legions were needed far closer to home.

  Link to this forum: Why didnt the Romans conquer the rest of the British Isles?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Thursday, 9th August 2007

  There are a number of reasons for the Roman halt in advancing through Britain. The most annoying is that somehow the myth that the tribes present in Scotland were too tough.Μύ
  
  The fierce Scots tribes might have been too tough for the later Romans.
  
  In earlier centuries, these tribes would have been smashed by the Roman Legions.
  
  Early Romans would have kicked Celtic butt up to the Orkney Isles.
  
  And delenda'd them like they did the Carthaginians.
  
  But by 200, nearly all the real Romans were gone.
  
  Isn't that why they abandoned the Antonine Wall.
  

  Link to this forum: Why didnt the Romans conquer the rest of the British Isles?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 9th August 2007

  What do you mean by 'real Romans'? By the middle of the 1st C AD the percentage of recruits to the Army from Rome itself was virtually zero, and Italian recruits were increasingly sparse. The bulk of the legions were primarily recruited from the provinces, with recruits even been granted citizenship just to make them eligible.

  Link to this forum: Why didnt the Romans conquer the rest of the British Isles?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Alaric the Goth (U1826823) on Monday, 13th August 2007

  To the Romans the 'Scotti' were Irish. It was the word for the raiders who attacked Britain from the west: initially from the Irish mainland, but towards the end of Roman rule there may well have been Scottic settlement in the peninsulas and islands of what is now the Argyll and Bute region of 'Scotland'.
  
  Hadrian's Wall was not built to 'defend agaisnt Scots and Picts' but simply as a marker of the limit of Empire.
  
  The Scots kingdom of Dal Riada in Northern Britain got going, as it were, at the same sort of time the Anglo-Saxons were coming over in increasing numbers in the south. Of course the semi-legendary mid-fifth century bringing over as mercenaries by Vortigern of Hengist and Horsa was allefgedly in response to the attacks on the Romano-British by Scots and Picts.

  Link to this forum: Why didnt the Romans conquer the rest of the British Isles?

  Report message7

Back to top