04-18-2019, 01:47 PM
Hi all, thank you very much for your replies and the excellent info therein. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with the details of the scenario I am trying to envisage, I apologise for that. Your insights into the separation between civilian trade and the army are appreciated, as made clear by Dan Howard. You all clearly know much more about this than I do!! It is one thing to research these issues, but to actually imagine these trading links happening, in reality, is a different matter.
We know that Ireland traded with the Romans as there are Roman artefacts in Ireland and also apparently the evidence of Roman burials as early as 1st century AD. Though we also know the Irish Irish raided Britain so some of the hoards of gold & silver found in Ireland could be the result of Irish raids on BR coast. However, Jane Stevenson in her treatise ‘The Beginnings of Literacy in Ireland’ states that Tacitus, writing in the 1st century AD, of Ireland having strong trading links with the Romanised Celts of the Continent, particularly in wine and other luxuries. She claims that he was a good witness as he was the son in law of Agricola and he makes it quite clear that trade with Ireland was already flourishing to such an extent that Roman negotiators knew all the major approaches and harbours of the island.
They would have traded in such as copper, gold, slaves, hides, cattle & wolfhounds, as well as other luxuries (broaches, offerings to local deity's etc) and this contact would have led to cultural and linguistic ties and would have been a tool in the spread of Christianity, and some have argued, in the establishment of the Ogam script.
So in relation to Mark Hygate's post: In the scenario I am envisaging a wealthy Roman merchant is picking up trade with Ireland that has been dormant for 1 or 2 years, and in that period the local chieftain/King has changed from a familiar ally to an unfamiliar one who is known to be leading raids on the British coast. I had assumed that in this rather uncertain situation the merchant would be accompanied by some sort of armed force, albeit a private one, maybe naval troops as suggested by Nathan Ross?
So could the sailors who crewed the merchant's ship double up as an armed unit of sorts? Or am I completely misreading this and the merchant in my scenario would simply have headed off to the Irish coast without any military protection, dodgy situation or not?
Thank you for your input Nathan in relation to the traffic across the Irish Sea and the probabilities of treaties etc, very interesting. However, I am trying to envisage what would happen when there are no such treaties and custom and practice in place at a particular time. I had a very good conversation with someone recently who has written extensively on the Roman merchant navy and he admitted that very little is known about the specifics of trade with Ireland.
Sorry if my questions are a bit all over the place, but as I have said this information just isn't really available so I guess it seems prudent to apply known theory from elsewhere regarding the minutiae of trade between the Romans and Ireland i.e. what was practical elsewhere must, in theory, apply to the coastal access points of Ireland.
Thanks for your time on this matter
We know that Ireland traded with the Romans as there are Roman artefacts in Ireland and also apparently the evidence of Roman burials as early as 1st century AD. Though we also know the Irish Irish raided Britain so some of the hoards of gold & silver found in Ireland could be the result of Irish raids on BR coast. However, Jane Stevenson in her treatise ‘The Beginnings of Literacy in Ireland’ states that Tacitus, writing in the 1st century AD, of Ireland having strong trading links with the Romanised Celts of the Continent, particularly in wine and other luxuries. She claims that he was a good witness as he was the son in law of Agricola and he makes it quite clear that trade with Ireland was already flourishing to such an extent that Roman negotiators knew all the major approaches and harbours of the island.
They would have traded in such as copper, gold, slaves, hides, cattle & wolfhounds, as well as other luxuries (broaches, offerings to local deity's etc) and this contact would have led to cultural and linguistic ties and would have been a tool in the spread of Christianity, and some have argued, in the establishment of the Ogam script.
So in relation to Mark Hygate's post: In the scenario I am envisaging a wealthy Roman merchant is picking up trade with Ireland that has been dormant for 1 or 2 years, and in that period the local chieftain/King has changed from a familiar ally to an unfamiliar one who is known to be leading raids on the British coast. I had assumed that in this rather uncertain situation the merchant would be accompanied by some sort of armed force, albeit a private one, maybe naval troops as suggested by Nathan Ross?
So could the sailors who crewed the merchant's ship double up as an armed unit of sorts? Or am I completely misreading this and the merchant in my scenario would simply have headed off to the Irish coast without any military protection, dodgy situation or not?
Thank you for your input Nathan in relation to the traffic across the Irish Sea and the probabilities of treaties etc, very interesting. However, I am trying to envisage what would happen when there are no such treaties and custom and practice in place at a particular time. I had a very good conversation with someone recently who has written extensively on the Roman merchant navy and he admitted that very little is known about the specifics of trade with Ireland.
Sorry if my questions are a bit all over the place, but as I have said this information just isn't really available so I guess it seems prudent to apply known theory from elsewhere regarding the minutiae of trade between the Romans and Ireland i.e. what was practical elsewhere must, in theory, apply to the coastal access points of Ireland.
Thanks for your time on this matter
