05-03-2010, 03:50 PM
According to Tacitus, they did! (they just gave it up again...). Perhaps the question should not be why they didn't conquer it, but why they didn't occupy what they had (arguably) conquered. All the above points stand - there's also another, from the Breeze article David mentioned: Roman dominance worked mainly through local elites, established towns and cities, local currencies and trade networks. All of these were in place in southern Britain before the Roman arrival. Even the Brigantes in the north had a monarchic structure and cities. Further north, though, this sort of structure doesn't seem to have existed - no coinage, no kings of mention (only 'leaders' like Calgacus or Argentocoxus), and no cities (Ptolemy gives a number of settlements in Venicones and Taexali territory, probably Roman forts or bases. No settlements are given for the Caledonians, although this might be for lack of information.) If the Caledonians - or whatever federation they might have represented - were more of a loose tribal assembly than a 'nation', Roman-style rule would have involved building civilisation from the ground up. With no obvious wealth or trade as a payoff for this, it's hard to see why they would have made such an effort. All the Romans wanted from the Caledonians was non-intervention - so long as they stayed in Caledonia, up to their nostrils in bogwater, and didn't bother the more settled peoples to the south, Rome was happy to ignore them. Tribes like the Votadini and Selgovae (who seem to have had towns at least) could act as effective buffer states between the province and the unruly north.
In fact, aside from Agricola's campaign, there don't seem to have been any genuine attempts by Rome to conquer and occupy north Britain. The various campaigns in the second century were responses to treaty-breaking or incursions by the northern tribes, and either were punitive in nature, confined to the district south of the wall, or in the Antonine case aimed at establishing a further boundary. Cassius Dio claims that Severus intended 'conquest', but the Severan notion of conquest was more a military flattening than actual integration into the empire. Severus 'conquered' Parthia in 198, by a swift march into Mesopotamia and a trashing of Ctesiphon, followed by withdrawal to Syria. Same thing in Numidia in 203 - a march across the desert, crushing of the Garamantes, then back home to Lepcis. Dio's comment aside, is there any reason to assume that the Caledonian expedition was intended to be different? It was a response, supposedly, to the Maeate and Caledonians breaking their treaties and invading the south - at first these treaties were reestablished, and when they were broken again Severus ordered the extermination of the Caledonians. He didn't want to occupy 'Scotland' at all, I would suggest - he just wanted to utterly depopulate it and make the Caledonians incapable of ever threatening the Roman frontier again.
Tacitus, for obvious reasons, states that Agricola had conquered the north and brought it into the empire - Breeze's point about the general's mandata is interesting, though: the withdrawal from Inchtuthil etc happened, I think, later under Domitian rather than his successors. Could it be that Agricola's advance into the north was more his own plan - a desire for glory, or frustration at an enemy that constantly retreated before him and denied him a settled border - rather than any 'imperial policy' for the total subjegation of the north? This might make more sense of Domitian's supposedly less-than-ecstatic reception of the news of the Graupius victory: rather than pique at the general outdoing the emperor, perhaps Domitian felt that Agricola had just pushed too far north in his campaign, and involved Rome in regions beyond its interest?
- Nathan
In fact, aside from Agricola's campaign, there don't seem to have been any genuine attempts by Rome to conquer and occupy north Britain. The various campaigns in the second century were responses to treaty-breaking or incursions by the northern tribes, and either were punitive in nature, confined to the district south of the wall, or in the Antonine case aimed at establishing a further boundary. Cassius Dio claims that Severus intended 'conquest', but the Severan notion of conquest was more a military flattening than actual integration into the empire. Severus 'conquered' Parthia in 198, by a swift march into Mesopotamia and a trashing of Ctesiphon, followed by withdrawal to Syria. Same thing in Numidia in 203 - a march across the desert, crushing of the Garamantes, then back home to Lepcis. Dio's comment aside, is there any reason to assume that the Caledonian expedition was intended to be different? It was a response, supposedly, to the Maeate and Caledonians breaking their treaties and invading the south - at first these treaties were reestablished, and when they were broken again Severus ordered the extermination of the Caledonians. He didn't want to occupy 'Scotland' at all, I would suggest - he just wanted to utterly depopulate it and make the Caledonians incapable of ever threatening the Roman frontier again.
Tacitus, for obvious reasons, states that Agricola had conquered the north and brought it into the empire - Breeze's point about the general's mandata is interesting, though: the withdrawal from Inchtuthil etc happened, I think, later under Domitian rather than his successors. Could it be that Agricola's advance into the north was more his own plan - a desire for glory, or frustration at an enemy that constantly retreated before him and denied him a settled border - rather than any 'imperial policy' for the total subjegation of the north? This might make more sense of Domitian's supposedly less-than-ecstatic reception of the news of the Graupius victory: rather than pique at the general outdoing the emperor, perhaps Domitian felt that Agricola had just pushed too far north in his campaign, and involved Rome in regions beyond its interest?
- Nathan
Nathan Ross
