Moray field could explain why Romans did not conquer Scotland

[Melvadius]

This posting probably falls between two stools but I think that it probably fits with Roman slightly better than world archaeology. Although the article talks things up a bit I suspect that IF there is anything of real significance to come from it Roman related we are only liable to hear about it in several months or more after full analysis has been made from the excavations.

 

'A farmer's field in Moray could hold the key to the Romans failure to conquer Scotland.

 

A major archaeological dig is drawing to a close at Birnie, near Elgin, which has revealed interesting links between the Celts and the Romans.

 

On Wednesday archaeologists were busy unearthing the remains of a Celtic roundhouse dating back to the Iron Age.

 

It is the latest in a number of fascinating finds at the site where the National Museum of Scotland has been digging annually for the last decade.

 

The site was first discovered in the 1980s but is still revealing the secrets of the past - one recent valuable find was a Roman brooch.

 

Dr Fraser Hunter of the National Museums of Scotland said: "Birnie was a major power centre 2,000 years ago. It was one of the high spots of the Moray coastal plane and because the people here were so important it drew the gaze of Rome.....'

 

Continued (including a video report) at:

 

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/123531-m...nquer-scotland/

[sylla]

This posting probably falls between two stools but I think that it probably fits with Roman slightly better than world archaeology. Although the article talks things up a bit I suspect that IF there is anything of real significance to come from it Roman related we are only liable to hear about it in several months or more after full analysis has been made from the excavations.

 

'A farmer's field in Moray could hold the key to the Romans failure to conquer Scotland.

 

A major archaeological dig is drawing to a close at Birnie, near Elgin, which has revealed interesting links between the Celts and the Romans.

 

On Wednesday archaeologists were busy unearthing the remains of a Celtic roundhouse dating back to the Iron Age.

 

It is the latest in a number of fascinating finds at the site where the National Museum of Scotland has been digging annually for the last decade.

 

The site was first discovered in the 1980s but is still revealing the secrets of the past - one recent valuable find was a Roman brooch.

 

Dr Fraser Hunter of the National Museums of Scotland said: "Birnie was a major power centre 2,000 years ago. It was one of the high spots of the Moray coastal plane and because the people here were so important it drew the gaze of Rome.....'

 

Continued (including a video report) at:

 

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/north/123531-m...nquer-scotland/

The research of Dr. Hunter seems indeed promising for the fascinating analysis of the economic and social dynamics of the Caledonian frontier; unfortunately, it seems the BBC team considered a sensational heading was indispensable for the diffusion of this report.

 

The Roman non-conquest of Scotland is becoming another commonplace media mystery, like the Fall of the Western Roman Empire or the extinction of the dinosaurs; in any case, it seems quite likely that the local stopping of the Roman expansion, when and wherever it happened all across the Empire, would require the analysis of the contribution of multiple factors, both general and local; the potential economic relevance of the local border trade would at best be just one among many.

 

IMHO, the sober and well balanced analysis of DJ Breeze on this issue is still the best one.

Edited September 17, 2009 by sylla

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Thanks for Posting Breeze's Article Sylla, very interesting. I'm a big fan of David Breeze his writing's on Roman Britain, especially the North are always extremely informative and well written. The book on Hadrian's Wall by Breeze and Dobson is easily the best book on the Wall by far.

 

Of the five various reasons why Rome failed to conquer Scotland that Breeze examines.......

1. The highlanders were too warlike to be conquered.

2. The highlands were too daunting a place to conquer.

3. It was not worthwhile economically for Rome to bring Scotland into the empire.

4. The native infrastructure in North Britain was insufficiently urbanized to support the food supply for the Roman army and the imposed Roman administrative structure.

5. The political nature of the Roman empire and the geographical isolation of Britain combined with the events elsewhere prevented the conquest of the island.

 

Any of the given reason would be a good enough explanation why the Romans failed to conquer the North but I think Breeze's argument for number 5 is the one that's probably closest to the real reason why Rome didn't conquer the whole island.

[Kosmo]

Nice article. Thank you.

[sylla]

Thanks for Posting Breeze's Article Sylla, very interesting. I'm a big fan of David Breeze his writing's on Roman Britain, especially the North are always extremely informative and well written. The book on Hadrian's Wall by Breeze and Dobson is easily the best book on the Wall by far.

 

Of the five various reasons why Rome failed to conquer Scotland that Breeze examines.......

1. The highlanders were too warlike to be conquered.

2. The highlands were too daunting a place to conquer.

3. It was not worthwhile economically for Rome to bring Scotland into the empire.

4. The native infrastructure in North Britain was insufficiently urbanized to support the food supply for the Roman army and the imposed Roman administrative structure.

5. The political nature of the Roman empire and the geographical isolation of Britain combined with the events elsewhere prevented the conquest of the island.

 

Any of the given reason would be a good enough explanation why the Romans failed to conquer the North but I think Breeze's argument for number 5 is the one that's probably closest to the real reason why Rome didn't conquer the whole island.

Nice article. Thank you.

You're welcome; glad you like it.

 

Breeze's analysis for Scotland can actually be extended to virtually any Imperial border in a limited resources scenario (Luttwak's phase II onwards); #5 better explains most of the actual choices of the Roman emperors.

 

Checking out on previous Roman conquests, is seems that no territory was poor or rural enough not to be conquered by the Romans, as long as they had at least come potential slaves to capture (ie, the Sahara was clearly out of the equation).

 

Experience suggested that if their military attention (and resources) were not diverted and their determination was strong enough, there was presumably no place too daunting nor any population warlike enough to prevent their conquest by the Romans.

Edited September 18, 2009 by sylla