Why Rome didn't conquer Ireland?

[Late Emperor]

Thanks for the very interesting infos: so it seems that conquering Ireland wasn't just cost effective.

 

Regards

[caldrail]

Agricola didn't think so, and I suspect his military intelligence was better than ours on that subject. A huge demand in men and logistics would be necessary if the Irish were presenting a common front. However, the national patriotism we see today didn't exist back in Agricola's day. To him, the irish were a collection of barbarian tribes, and as the Romans knew from experience, such a setup was relatively easily handled, because the Roman policy in such situations was 'divide and conquer'.

 

However, inasmuch as an invasion of Ireland was going to prove a logistic challenge, then I agree. There is implicit in this debate an idea that the Romans could simply go on conquering to their hearts content, and by implication, that they had every intention of doing so. Despite this, there was no clear impetus for the Romans to seek territory in the way we do.

 

For us, territory is important in itself. With large populations dispersed over wide areas, territory allows (please excuse the term) living space, agricultural space to feed them, and a sense of status. Since in Roman times the vast bulk of territory was empty wilderness, they had little reason to regard territory as important. Instead, they saw value in resources. Mines, quarries, cities, harbours and river networks, places where things were made. In other words, while we see conquest in terms of area, they saw conquest in terms of ownership. We shouldn't forget the over-riding impulse for Roman expansion was money, pure and simple. When Hadrian gave back Dacian territory conquered by Trajan, he kept the bits with gold mines.

 

There is also the idea that the Romans had already reached a psychological frontier where Britain was concerned. Previous to Julius Caesar, the British Isles were thought of as mysterious lands filled with all manner of exotic inhabitants. In making his two landings on British shores, Caesar popped that bubble. At once he proved he was a true conqueror, taking the Romans where no Roman had gone before (which of course wasn't entirely true), but also demonstrating that beyond the frontier was more wilderness, and little else.

 

There are also political reasons. Agricola was recalled to Rome before he completed the conquest of Caledonia by Domitian, who regarded the prospect of a conquering hero returning to Rome in triumph as a rival for his authority, and potentially a very real military threat if he got ideas into his head. Agricola was a little more wary and realised the danger he was in, preferring not to make a big deal of his success and live happily ever after. Notice that Claudius, who had ordered the conquest of Britain, had travelled there to receive the honour of victory personally. How many emperors were willing to travel to Ireland to do that? Conqueror of what, exactly?

[Late Emperor]

Agricola didn't think so, and I suspect his military intelligence was better than ours on that subject. A huge demand in men and logistics would be necessary if the Irish were presenting a common front. However, the national patriotism we see today didn't exist back in Agricola's day. To him, the irish were a collection of barbarian tribes, and as the Romans knew from experience, such a setup was relatively easily handled, because the Roman policy in such situations was 'divide and conquer'.

 

Was Ireland densely wooded in Agricola time?

 

 

However, inasmuch as an invasion of Ireland was going to prove a logistic challenge, then I agree. There is implicit in this debate an idea that the Romans could simply go on conquering to their hearts content, and by implication, that they had every intention of doing so. Despite this, there was no clear impetus for the Romans to seek territory in the way we do.

 

For us, territory is important in itself. With large populations dispersed over wide areas, territory allows (please excuse the term) living space, agricultural space to feed them, and a sense of status. Since in Roman times the vast bulk of territory was empty wilderness, they had little reason to regard territory as important. Instead, they saw value in resources. Mines, quarries, cities, harbours and river networks, places where things were made. In other words, while we see conquest in terms of area, they saw conquest in terms of ownership. We shouldn't forget the over-riding impulse for Roman expansion was money, pure and simple. When Hadrian gave back Dacian territory conquered by Trajan, he kept the bits with gold mines.

 

Didn't they value also agricultural space since they were an agrarian economy? Besides they gained a lot of living space with the conquest of Gaul and Iberia that before being conquered were scarcely urbanized.

 

 

There is also the idea that the Romans had already reached a psychological frontier where Britain was concerned. Previous to Julius Caesar, the British Isles were thought of as mysterious lands filled with all manner of exotic inhabitants. In making his two landings on British shores, Caesar popped that bubble. At once he proved he was a true conqueror, taking the Romans where no Roman had gone before (which of course wasn't entirely true), but also demonstrating that beyond the frontier was more wilderness, and little else.

 

Possibly but as far as I know before Teutoburg they were going to colonize the germanic wilderness.

 

There are also political reasons. Agricola was recalled to Rome before he completed the conquest of Caledonia by Domitian, who regarded the prospect of a conquering hero returning to Rome in triumph as a rival for his authority, and potentially a very real military threat if he got ideas into his head. Agricola was a little more wary and realised the danger he was in, preferring not to make a big deal of his success and live happily ever after.

 

I agree that being the size of Hibernia unknown, first century emperors feared a new Caesar.

 

 

Notice that Claudius, who had ordered the conquest of Britain, had travelled there to receive the honour of victory personally. How many emperors were willing to travel to Ireland to do that? Conqueror of what, exactly?

 

I agree, there wasn't much glory in conquering it.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Late Emperor

[caldrail]

Was Ireland densely wooded in Agricola time?

Probably not. Climatic changes in the Bronze Age had resulted in extensive deforestation,

 

Didn't they value also agricultural space since they were an agrarian economy? Besides they gained a lot of living space with the conquest of Gaul and Iberia that before being conquered were scarcely urbanized.

The Romans were a consumer economy in imperial times, not agrarian, although farming was obviously an important factor. Agriculture was only important on a local level unless it generated profit, or an identifiable regional export. Since there was plenty of land to be had, the importance of it wasn't so pronounced as today.

 

Possibly but as far as I know before Teutoburg they were going to colonize the germanic wilderness.

They did colonise Germania. The remains of Roman towns have been uncovered well inside the generally accepted frontier and appear to have been abandoned following the victory of Arminius. The whole sorry debacle was sparked by Augustus sending Varius to gather taxes, a man known for his greed, which illustrates that wilderness colonisation was not about ownership of land, or high minded cultural principles, but rather a matter of bringing barbarians into the taxation system.

 

I agree that being the size of Hibernia unknown, first century emperors feared a new Caesar.

All emperors were worried about their security. Rome was a competitive society full of ambitious upwardly mobile individuals who were waiting to sieze opportunities. The size of Ireland was largely irrelevant. What was of concern was a victorious army returning to Rome. With booty and success, the soldiers would have been loyal to their general, not the emperor, thus Domitian avoided the possibility of a coup by preventing outright victory in Caledonia. In fact, Agricola was asked if he wanted a triumph for his successes to date. Had he accepted, he would have have labelled himself an ambitious rival to Domitians power, giving Domitian the excuse to have him removed. Agricola wisely refused.

[Klingan]

Was Ireland densely wooded in Agricola time?

Probably not. Climatic changes in the Bronze Age had resulted in extensive deforestation,

 

I've been looking into the ancient weather patterns/how it differed from today lately and I'm trying to gather up different statements on the matter. Do you know where you've read this?

[caldrail]

I've seen information like this mentioned in passing in one or two books on prehistory of the British Isles at my local library. I can't give any specific references without a search for it. In fact, the info really is in passing. None of the authors goes into any detail but it does raise a lot of questions about ancient Ireland. Without the Roman connection, or the lack of written record, the ancient history of the Irish receives little attention.

 

Noticeably, there was a considerable drop in population during the Iron Age, restored partly by prosperous trade with Roman England over the centuries, which does underline the Roman finds in Ireland as being sale goods or belongings of refugees rather than signs of latin colonisation, which has no tradition in Ireland.

[Late Emperor]

Probably not. Climatic changes in the Bronze Age had resulted in extensive deforestation,

 

Then conquering it would have been a walk in the park compared to conquering the heavily forested Germania. Roman legions excelled in open and flat terrain: Ireland was a perfect playground for them and besides I doubt that the irish had a cavalry that could create problems to the roman infantry.

 

The Romans were a consumer economy in imperial times, not agrarian, although farming was obviously an important factor. Agriculture was only important on a local level unless it generated profit, or an identifiable regional export. Since there was plenty of land to be had, the importance of it wasn't so pronounced as today.

 

Didn't Ireland have anything of value to export regarding agricultural products?

 

They did colonise Germania. The remains of Roman towns have been uncovered well inside the generally accepted frontier and appear to have been abandoned following the victory of Arminius. The whole sorry debacle was sparked by Augustus sending Varius to gather taxes, a man known for his greed, which illustrates that wilderness colonisation was not about ownership of land, or high minded cultural principles, but rather a matter of bringing barbarians into the taxation system.

 

So why they didn't try to bring the irish under the roman taxation system in order to raise state revenues?

This is particularly surprising regarding the late empire because AFAIK since Diocletianus rule, the roman state became even greedier than before looking desperately for everything they could tax to sustain the huge army: since Ireland was an easy prey, then I would have expected Diocle and Costantine (or later IVth century emperors) to try to conquer Hibernia and heavily taxate the natives.

 

All emperors were worried about their security. Rome was a competitive society full of ambitious upwardly mobile individuals who were waiting to sieze opportunities. The size of Ireland was largely irrelevant. What was of concern was a victorious army returning to Rome. With booty and success, the soldiers would have been loyal to their general, not the emperor, thus Domitian avoided the possibility of a coup by preventing outright victory in Caledonia. In fact, Agricola was asked if he wanted a triumph for his successes to date. Had he accepted, he would have have labelled himself an ambitious rival to Domitians power, giving Domitian the excuse to have him removed. Agricola wisely refused.

 

Yes, this is true: absence of a blood based hereditary monarchy (like in medieval/modern era Europe) was the main handicap of the Roman Empire. Without it and the resulting devastating power struggles, it could have gone on existing much longer.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Late Emperor

[Melvadius]

I've seen information like this mentioned in passing in one or two books on prehistory of the British Isles at my local library. I can't give any specific references without a search for it. In fact, the info really is in passing. None of the authors goes into any detail but it does raise a lot of questions about ancient Ireland. Without the Roman connection, or the lack of written record, the ancient history of the Irish receives little attention.

 

Noticeably, there was a considerable drop in population during the Iron Age, restored partly by prosperous trade with Roman England over the centuries, which does underline the Roman finds in Ireland as being sale goods or belongings of refugees rather than signs of latin colonisation, which has no tradition in Ireland.

 

Caldrail,

 

I also would like to know your sources for your earlier statment regarding deforestation. As far as the Bronze Age is concerned in every reference book I have read rather than linking this to the effects of climate change it usually attributes it to the spread of farming for which there is good archaeological evidence.

 

Regarding a possible drop in population in Ireland on this issue the 'History Planet' blog quoting from Barry Cunliffe has some interesting suggestions regarding this though note the comments about woodland regeneration in the five centuries after about 600BCE.

[Northern Neil]

On some maps of the Roman Empire, the little known Bosporan Kingdom, situated on the Sea of Azov in the Ukraine, is depicted as being within the bounds of the Empire. On other maps it is left out; a similar situation arises over the status of pro-Roman tribes in southern Scotland such as the Selgovae and the Votadini. In both instances the peoples of these regions were not directly taxed, but there were very substantial cultural and trade links. Maybe, for want of more records, Ireland evolved into such an entity? Politically it had a sort of unity in that it had a 'high king', and the substantial defended harbour at Caer Gybi in Northwest Wales can only have been there to service trade across the Irish sea. It could be that the people of Ireland were indirectly taxed via this trade route? I also find the rapidity of Patricius' conversion of the Irish a bit suspicious. Maybe he got the credit for a process which had been underway for decades?

 

My suspicions are that if the Irish were literate in the same way that the Bosporan Greek colonists were, our maps might, just might, show Ireland in a similar ambiguous way. All speculation of course, but there do appear to be a few bits of tantalising evidence.

[Late Emperor]

On some maps of the Roman Empire, the little known Bosporan Kingdom, situated on the Sea of Azov in the Ukraine, is depicted as being within the bounds of the Empire. On other maps it is left out; a similar situation arises over the status of pro-Roman tribes in southern Scotland such as the Selgovae and the Votadini. In both instances the peoples of these regions were not directly taxed, but there were very substantial cultural and trade links. Maybe, for want of more records, Ireland evolved into such an entity? Politically it had a sort of unity in that it had a 'high king', and the substantial defended harbour at Caer Gybi in Northwest Wales can only have been there to service trade across the Irish sea. It could be that the people of Ireland were indirectly taxed via this trade route? I also find the rapidity of Patricius' conversion of the Irish a bit suspicious. Maybe he got the credit for a process which had been underway for decades?

 

My suspicions are that if the Irish were literate in the same way that the Bosporan Greek colonists were, our maps might, just might, show Ireland in a similar ambiguous way. All speculation of course, but there do appear to be a few bits of tantalising evidence.

 

AFAIK the Roman Empire had an area of influence around its borders: the territories near roman borders were like imperial protectorates (The Kingdom of Armenia, the foederati germanic tribes, ecc...). Ireland could have been a roman protectorate too.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Late Emperor

[caldrail]

I've seen information like this mentioned in passing in one or two books on prehistory of the British Isles at my local library. I can't give any specific references without a search for it. In fact, the info really is in passing. None of the authors goes into any detail but it does raise a lot of questions about ancient Ireland. Without the Roman connection, or the lack of written record, the ancient history of the Irish receives little attention.

 

Noticeably, there was a considerable drop in population during the Iron Age, restored partly by prosperous trade with Roman England over the centuries, which does underline the Roman finds in Ireland as being sale goods or belongings of refugees rather than signs of latin colonisation, which has no tradition in Ireland.

 

Caldrail,

 

I also would like to know your sources for your earlier statment regarding deforestation. As far as the Bronze Age is concerned in every reference book I have read rather than linking this to the effects of climate change it usually attributes it to the spread of farming for which there is good archaeological evidence.

 

Regarding a possible drop in population in Ireland on this issue the 'History Planet' blog quoting from Barry Cunliffe has some interesting suggestions regarding this though note the comments about woodland regeneration in the five centuries after about 600BCE.

 

The climate change was unconnected with forest clearance, although the deforestation by bronze Age Irish must have impacted on their lives. After a long period of maritime climate, the enviroment was entering a drier phase that didn't favour forests as much. What we have then is a combination of factors.

 

As I stated, information is not readily available on the shelves, but information can be gleaned from...

 

Prehistoric Britain Timothy Darvill (Routledge)

Britain BC Francis Pryor (Harper Collins)

 

Wikipedia has the following info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Ireland if you're not fussy (which I suppose you justifiably are in tis case, having challenged my sources )

 

Another page that illustrates the peroid is http://www.triskelle.eu/history/bronzeage.php?index=060.010.030

Edited November 19, 2010 by caldrail

[Melvadius]

The climate change was unconnected with forest clearance, although the deforestation by bronze Age Irish must have impacted on their lives. After a long period of maritime climate, the enviroment was entering a drier phase that didn't favour forests as much. What we have then is a combination of factors.

 

As I stated, information is not readily available on the shelves, but information can be gleaned from...

 

Prehistoric Britain Timothy Darvill (Routledge)

Britain BC Francis Pryor (Harper Collins)

 

Wikipedia has the following info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Ireland if you're not fussy (which I suppose you justifiably are in tis case, having challenged my sources )

 

Another page that illustrates the peroid is http://www.triskelle.eu/history/bronzeage.php?index=060.010.030

Thanks for the references I really must get around to reading those books in partucular fully sometime soon.