05-03-2010, 02:28 AM
When I was reading about the Battle of Mons Graupius, a question occurred to me. Why didn't the Romans ever completely conquer Scotland? Was it a question simply of not having enough men to hold the territory, or did they feel that the cost wouldn't equal the gain? Certainly they were in a position to do it more than a few times. Agricola's campaign in the early 80's CE, Septimius Severus' campaign in the early 200's CE, or even when Antoninus Pius advanced the frontier to the Forth-Clyde line & built the Antonine Wall all come to mind. Why wasn't there an effort to hold Northern Scotland? I understand that the garrison of Britain was sometimes used as reinforcements for elsewhere in the empire. However, wouldn't it have been as cost effective to hold all of the land in Northern Scotland & free up the troops from defending either Hadrian's or Antonine's Wall? I know this may be an impossible question to answer, but I'm interested in hearing ideas as to why they never held onto Scotland. Gratias Tibi!
Aurelius Falco (Tony Butara)
