Hibernia

[VespilloAD64]

What do my fellow Romans think about Hibernia (Ireland) and why the Romans never really took a pop at it. Agricola said that it would take a one legion and plus some Auxillary to take hold of it (apparently according to Seneca).I have read that theres possibly more than meets the eye with the actual relationship between the Romans and there influence on the Irish,but thats just speculation.But with the Romans taking Britain,Gaul which where very Celtic/Druid way of life did they not just think of going the whole hog and conquering the entire west (as they knew it).Or was it because Britain was so unstable in the North at times that they never got round to it.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

I guess it was kind of cost-benefit calculation. Ireland wasn't really worth to be conquered and may be considered not big a enough a threat to be engaged. To my knowledge even Britannia never paid the cost of the occupation and was basically conquered for prestigious reasons. The few valuable goods and ressources of Ireland were probably easier to get by means of simple trade.
Additionally Ireland would've been even more difficult to supply with troops.

There is a thread on RAT that deals with the topic, but I don't find it right now. Perhaps someone else is more lucky in digging it up ...

[Gluteus Maximus]

I searched for the other relevant thread on this but to no avail. No matter. A vaguely rectangular promontary at Drumanagh 15m north of Dublin has been identified as a Roman Fort. A Google Earth view of this site shows, I am afraid, absolutely nothing that suggests it is anything to do with any Roman influence. I am pretty sure that the Romans knew enough about Hibernia to deduce that the expense of occupying the island would far outweigh its usefulness as a province. In any case, there was no military threat until the early 5th century to warrant even a punitive expedition, and the Irish themselves were probably of the opinion that an adjacent and friendly Roman province was a 'good thing'.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

there is some discussions on the matter here ...
ttp://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtop ... 74&start=0
... the thread "Britain" contains some discussions.

[Na Saighdiuir]

In my humble opinion the Romans did indeed land but their first sighting of a native was enough to convince them to leave in a hurry.....being Irish myself hasnt influenced my thinking of course D

[ParthianBow]

'Twas probably a Corkman they saw! :lol:

[Na Saighdiuir]

No doubt boy,sure those savages eat rocks for breakfast and pick their teeth with ballista bolts!!!! D D

[marka]

the romans were primarily interested in taxing&controlling large scale populations,trade and resources (including slaves).
We can see this in germany,gaul and britain.A hostile population did not usually put them off (think of judea).
So it probably was a cost/benefit analysis.
Irish served in the roman army and these were probably exiles,mercenaries and recruited prisoners of war.

[marka]

most of the western provinces didn't pay for themselves at least britain had good farm lands and resources ie tin.There were probably more strategic reasons for holding gaul and britain ie population movement control

[Ceannt]

most of the western provinces didn't pay for themselves at least britain had good farm lands and resources ie tin.There were probably more strategic reasons for holding gaul and britain ie population movement control

Ireland had timber, wolfhounds gold and the most talented goldsmiths in western europe 8)

[Nathan Ross]

In the fifth year of the war, Agricola, himself in the leading ship, crossed the Clota, and subdued in a series of victories tribes hitherto unknown. In that part of Britain which looks toward Ireland, he posted some troops, hoping for fresh conquests rather than fearing attack, inasmuch as Ireland, being between Britain and Spain and conveniently situated for the seas round Gaul, might have been the means of connecting with great mutual benefit the most powerful parts of the empire. Its extent is small when compared with Britain, but exceeds the islands of our seas. In soil and climate, in the disposition, temper, and habits of its population, it differs but little from Britain. We know most of its harbours and approaches, and that through the intercourse of commerce. One of the petty kings of the nation, driven out by internal faction, had been received by Agricola, who detained him under the semblance of friendship till he could make use of him. I have often heard him say that a single legion with a few auxiliaries could conquer and occupy Ireland, and that it would have a salutary effect on Britain for the Roman arms to be seen everywhere, and for freedom, so to speak, to be banished from its sight.
Tacitus - Agricola 24.(Trans. Church & Brodribb)

Tacitus's descriptions of Agricola's campaign in the north have come under a lot of critical fire recently. In particular, the archeological work by the Roman Gask project has suggested that the lines of forts and camps in south-eastern Scotland previously attributed to Agricola and his immediate successors may date to some years before his governorship. This article:

[url:3jk9kayt]http://www.theromangaskproject.org.uk/Pages/Introduction/Tacitus.html[/url]

...gives a good summary of the arguments against the historicity of Tacitus. Another paper on the site, (Agricola: he came, he saw, but did he conquer?) enlarges on the theme. One of the more interesting points made in the linked paper is the debt that Tacitus owes to Caesar's Commentaries on the War in Gaul - in presenting Agricola as a great commander and conquerer, Tacitus seems to deliberately quote (or 'homage') Caesar.

The passage concerning Ireland, then, possibly needs to be taken with a cartload of salt. Agricola crossing the Clota (Solway Firth?) and his 'series of victories (over) tribes hitherto unknown' could be a reference to Caesar's crossing of the Channel and invasion of Britain. His description of Ireland is also rather similar to Caesar's one of Britain, including the odd note about its proximity to Spain. Caesar's own withdrawal from Britain due to pressing matters on the continent, often regarded as a smokescreen for his lack of military success on the island, might also be significant - does the musing on Ireland cover up a similar stalemate or setback for Agricola as he tried to tackle the tribes of Galway?

More importantly, if the archeological record suggests that the Roman hold on Scotland was limited to a little string of forts around the Fife peninsula, and that Agricola's supposedly conquering advance was possibly more like a series of skirmishes against an elusive and rebellious tribal hinterland, it would have been unlikely for Agricola to even contemplate a further advance against Ireland. With the vast mass of highland Scotland unsubdued (and even Tacitus states that the crossing of the Clota happened before Agricola crossed the Bodotria (Forth?) and advanced into the Fife region), it would have been military madness to divert an army - even a legion - west across the sea hoping for fresh conquests...

- N Ross

[D B Campbell]

Tacitus's descriptions of Agricola's campaign in the north have come under a lot of critical fire recently.

Yes, it does rather seem to be the fashion.

In particular, the archeological work by the Roman Gask project has suggested that the lines of forts and camps in south-eastern Scotland previously attributed to Agricola and his immediate successors may date to some years before his governorship.

Hmmm ... I remain sceptical about a pre-Agricolan Gask frontier (and an Agricolan Gask Frontier, too).

Agricola crossing the Clota (Solway Firth?) ...

Just fyi, the Clota's the River Clyde.

His description of Ireland ..., including the odd note about its proximity to Spain.

It does seem ridiculous, I know. But I don't think we give enough thought to Roman ideas of geography, which were very sketchy to say the least and were definitely constrained by preconceived notions of a world centred on the Mare Internum of the Mediterranean. It wouldn't be surprising if Tacitus had been influenced by Caesar on this point -- he was (along with Strabo) one of the most recent writers to describe Britain.

More importantly, if the archeological record suggests that the Roman hold on Scotland was limited to a little string of forts around the Fife peninsula, and ... the vast mass of highland Scotland unsubdued ...

All good points, Nathan. But the Romans had more than one way of subduing people. The crushing defeat at Mons Graupius was supposed to have cowed the Caledonian peoples, who would have sued for peace and supplied hostages, as we find happening elsewhere in the empire. We are perhaps too ready to equate "conquered" territory with the territory occupied by forts, but the two did not necessarily go hand-in-hand. The Romans seem to have been quite happy with externae gentes who humbly recognised the might of Rome and paid them the appropriate respect.

Apologies for (again) going off at a tangent. :oops:

[Nathan Ross]

Agricola crossing the Clota (Solway Firth?) ...

Just fyi, the Clota's the River Clyde.

Is it really? That would make more sense geographically, and put Agricola some way further north, with his potential Irish-invasion-point on the Mull of Kintyre, perhaps... Is the name firmly established?

You also have a point about the ability of armies to subdue or otherwise overawe Scotland without actual physical invasion of the highland regions - I recall that Edward I's Scots campaigns mainly involved battles in the region around Fife and Perth, which effectively led to his domination of Scotland as this (perhaps? Medieval history's not my field!) was the heartland of the Scots nobility.

I notice that the long-disputed site of Mons Graupius has recently been proposed far to the south of its commonly accepted position (Bennachie), in the region south-west of Perth (Dunning) - if a battle here (decisive or otherwise) could be held to have destroyed Caledonian resistance to Rome, perhaps Agricola wouldn't have needed to push his advance much further north - then again, this doesn't seem to have worked for Severus and his successors.

Anyway, this is moving well off the topic of Hibernia :wink: - apologies!

- N Ross

[D B Campbell]

I notice that the long-disputed site of Mons Graupius has recently been proposed far to the south of its commonly accepted position (Bennachie), in the region south-west of Perth (Dunning) ...

Pah! :roll:

Anyway, this is moving well off the topic of Hibernia :wink: - apologies!

I'm sure nobody minded. :wink: (I hope nobody minded! :oops: )

[Nathan Ross]

I'm sure nobody minded. :wink: (I hope nobody minded! :oops: )

I hope nobody continues to mind if I start a new thread about it then!

I'd be interested in your reasons for pah'ing the Dunning theory, for starters - I much prefer Bennachie myself!

- N Ross