why did'nt the romans conquer ireland they failed to conquer scotland?

Question

do not delete this question

Answer 1

The Roman general Suetonius who crushed the druids asked permission to annexe Ireland for the Roman Empire in 60 AD.
He thought it would take about one legion. Rome did not give permission.

There are a number of sites in Ireland with Roman artifacts in, but only one has been found which shows clear signs of being a Roman stronghold rather than a local tribal area with strong links to the Roman world.

Some things make a Roman presence in Ireland likely, one is the way in which the Romans maintained the 'Gold Road' across West Wales and the Preseli mountains. A trading route such as this would presumably have continued on the other side of the Irish Sea. The Roman Army is often studied, but in contrast the Roman Navy is much overlooked. There is some evidence to suggest that the initial Roman explorations of Britain were up the rivers, and that the army presence followed on from the maritime trade. Some locks have been found in rivers in the North of England, and there is what may be a Roman Naval base outside Dublin.

The Roman occupation of Britain was achieved in the century and a half leading up to the Empire's greatest extent, at the time of Trajan. Immediately following Trajan's death, Roman foreign policy changed from an expansionist policy to one of consolidation behind what were considered its 'natural boundaries'.

Answer 2

The Romans expanded their empire when they saw either a threat or an opportunity. For example they conquered and annexed the Carthaginian empire (renaming it Africa) because they feared to leave it intact and independent, having fought three expensive wars against Carthage.

In contrast they annexed Egypt and Syria because of their economic importance: Egypt controlled the greatest source of cereals in the ancient Mediterranean world, and Syria was the terminus of the overland trade route to India.

Rome invaded Britain because there were rumors of vast silver and gold deposits. They discovered that wasn't true, but there was considerable tin and iron resources, which formed the basis of Britannia's trade with the rest of the empire. Eventually the Romans concluded that Britannia was barely worth the cost of administration, so there was little enthusiasm for further expeditionary missions in those islands. The Scots were no threat once a well-controlled border was established (Antonine Wall and later Hadrian's Wall), and the Irish (Hibernians) were rendered harmless by the sea barrier.

Answer 3

Of course, they did conquer part of Scotland. They built the Antonine Wall approximately across the Firth/Clyde gap. However, they did not hold the territory for very long. They penetrated into the Highlands, fighting a battle near Inverness. However, the Emperor Hadrian decided that there would be no further extensions of the Empire, either into Scotland or at its eastern boundary with the Parthian Empire. He had Hadrian's Wall built to delineate the northern boundary.

Answer 4

The Romans didn't conquer Scotland because they had enough problems defending and subjugating England. They didn't need to spread themselves any thinner or take on such ferocious warriors as the Celts were. And, as the Irish were also Celtic, the same held true for them. They would have had to send some of their men across the sea to Ireland to set up a garrison there and they had neither the men, the materials nor the wish to do so.

Answer 5

You have in a way, answered your own question. To conquer Scotland was beyond even the logistical means of the great Roman Empire.

One needs to remember, that there were no jet planes or nuclear powered transport ships 15-1600 years ago. All labor, transport, was performed by animal or human muscle, or the wind.

Their supply lines simply would not support a further incursion northward. So, if Scotland was beyond their wherewithal to conquer, Ireland most certainly would have been.

Wotan

Answer 6

Those countries were at the very limits geographically of the Roman empire. They were also inhabited by very fierce and independent people who really didn't have anything the Romans typically conquered countires for. In other words, it would have taken far to much military effort for very little gain. they could find better places to conquer.

Answer 7

Generally in Ireland, Roman material is rare and found in different contexts from the native La Tene material. No roads have been identified as being Roman, and no large Roman settlements have been found. However in the southeast of Ireland, where native material is rare, Roman-style cemeteries and large quantities of Roman artifacts have been found.

A group of burials on Lambay Island, off the coast of County Dublin, contained Roman brooches and decorative metalware of a style also found in northern England from the late first century. However this could represent, for example, Brigantes fleeing reprisal from the crushed revolt of 74.

Tara, the midland ritual complex, Clogher, a northern hillfort, and Cashel, in the south have produced early and late Roman material, the first two having produced no native finds of contemporary age. The place name Cashel is thought to derive from the Latin castellum. All become capitals of new kingdoms and all believe that their origins derive from Britain. If these were British settlers whether they were supported by or fleeing from Roman influence is not known.

At Drumanagh, 25 km north of Dublin, a large (200,000 m²) site has recently been identified as possibly Roman. Consisting of a peninsula defended by three rows of parallel ditches on the landward side, the site appears to be a port or bridgehead. Access to the finds and the site has been prohibited for over 10 years due to a court case about ownership.

Other Roman influences can be seen such as the penannular brooch, used to fasten Irish cloaks from 4th-11th century, which derives from a style of Romano-British brooch, or the early medieval Irish sword which derived from the Roman Spatha and even the rapid adoption of Christianity.

Roman coins have been found at Newgrange, possibly offerings from early tourists. [1]


[edit] Invasion perhaps
Tuathal was, in the Irish myths, a High King of Ireland. He was the son of a High King Fiacha Finnfolaidh. His father was overthrown and killed in a revolt by the King of Ulster. Tuathal's mother, who was the daughter of the King of Alba (Britain at the time, because Alba became the name for Scotland later on), fled to Britain with her son. 20 years later he returned to Ireland, defeated his fathers enemies in a series of battles and subdued the entire country. He became High King at Tara, on the Irish East Coast. There he convened a conference where he established laws. He annexed territory from each of the other four provinces to create the central province of Míde (Meath). Four fortresses were built, one for each of the four areas of land.

Some consider him to be the first real High King. The dating of Irish history/mythology is prone to error; however, the most popular belief is that Tuathal was exiled in 56 and reigned from around 80 to 100.

Tacitus, the Roman author, tells us that around this time Agricola had with him an Irish chieftain who would return to conquer Ireland with an army. Juvenal later tells us that Roman arms were "taken beyond the shores of Ireland." Excavations at sites linked to the tale of Tuathal have produced Roman material of the late 1st or early 2nd centuries. Perhaps Tuathal was that Irish chieftain, and he carried out his Midlands conquest with Roman-trained troops, power and technology.

Everyone accepts that Julius Caesar 'invaded' Britain. Yet his army left few discoverable traces, stayed only a couple of years, and didn't incorporate Britain into the Roman Empire. It is only through the survival of Caesar's book, The Gallic War, that we know of the Roman invasion of Britain in 54 BC. (The successful invasion and incorporation into the Roman Empire occurred 100 years later).

The few other remaining texts from that period, combined with the archaeology, suggest that interaction between Romanised Britain and Ireland occurred. But without the miraculous discovery of a lost Roman text, or some dramatic archaeological finds, the details will remain debated.

Answer 8

well you might say that we didn't have anything worth conquering or you might say that that they knew what was good for them!

Answer 9

Ireland belonged to the Vikings about 800 and the Romans were afraid of the Vikings.