Romans In Ireland ?

[Pantagathus]

So we must take care on evidential finds in Ireland as they may be inter tribe movement of goods.

I would go father and suggest it's the rule not the exception!

[Pertinax]

So we must take care on evidential finds in Ireland as they may be inter tribe movement of goods.

I would go father and suggest it's the rule not the exception!

Johnson sems to be leading to a " beyond the pale " non-Roman world in Hibernia and the remote outer Islands of Scotland , where travel by sea between very small communities was the only form of mobility. These areas retaining total autonomy because of the very small numbers of persons involved.

[longbow]

The Hibernian Tribes raided all along the West coast of Bitain so finds in Ireland could come from Dumnonia,Siluria,Powys,Elmet or even little Kernow.

L

 

Edit: i wrote East coast by mistake,it should of been West coast

Edited August 4, 2006 by longbow

[Pertinax]

The Hibernian Tribes raided all along the East coast of Bitain so finds in Ireland could come from Dumnonia,Siluria,Powys,Elmet or even little Kernow.

L

The unreconstructed Celtiberian/Brythonic place name maps (ie: without Latinisation ) in the book uphold this pattern.

[WotWotius]

According to Tacitus (which in this case should be taken with a pinch of salt), the Hibernians originated from Iberia. He also places the origins of the Brythonic people of Wales in Iberia.

[Pertinax]

According to Tacitus (which in this case should be taken with a pinch of salt), the Hibernians originated from Iberia. He also places the origins of the Brythonic people of Wales in Iberia.

Well , it depends which Hibernians, the Scotii of course are from modern Scotland. As far as Celtiberian gene patterns/dissemination goes , I will stand back and let Pantagathus roll out the big guns.

[Seosamh]

I have read that the finian cycle says that the fianna fought off early roman landings so fiercely that the fomans never returned in force. I dont know if this is true (i have not read most of the finian cycle) but it I thought that it might be interesting to add to this conversation.

[Western]

In all likely hood it is probable that the Romans did visit Ireland to establish trade links, and explore the possiblity of establishing political client among the local tribal powers with a eye to an eventual occupation of the island. However I think it is highly unlikely that any major expedition was ever launched and the only archaeological evidence that the Romans were ever in Ireland is from Drumnagh, which was almost certainly a trading post. It is possible that the south-eastern part of Ireland (Leinster) was influenced or may have been within the political orbit of Britain at this time.

 

According to Richard Warner, in Leinster a fair number of Roman objects and even some Roman style burials have been found, while native Celtic La Tene material is rarer but very common everywhere else in Ireland. Local tribal names from the 1st century AD and names recorded by Ptolemy in the early 2nd century are identical to the names of tribes in Gaul and Britain, and there was a tradition of a British origin and the use of Roman and British words in their literature and place-names.

 

There is a legend which tells of an Irish chieftan, Tuathal, who spent time in Britain and returned with an army to seize power in the Irish Midlands. Tacitus stated that Agricola, while pondering the invasion of Ireland, had with him an Irish chieftain for use in just such an exercise. At about the same time, Juvenal specifically tells us, Roman `arms had been taken beyond the shores of Ireland'. The myth of Tuathal connects him to a number of Irish places, some of which have been excavated and have produced Roman material of the late 1st or early 2nd centuries AD. There may have been a grain of truth with the story of Tuathal, who may have existed and returned to Ireland with the Roman aid, arms, money and some mercenaries from Britain. There also may have been others over the centuries. The sites that produce early Roman objects also produce later Roman material. Tara the midland ritual complex, and Clogher a northern hillfort, have produced early and late Roman material, but no native objects. Both became capitals of the elites whose ancient origin-tales derived them. Cashel, the southern capital of just such a group, has not only produced a stray late Roman brooch, but was named from the Latin castellum.

 

However for the Romans themselves, Ireland like Scotland may have been to far from home, to poor and to much trouble for the Romans to bother occupying. They built Hadrains Wall in northern England to keep Scotland out of sight, for Ireland they had the Irish Sea.

[Septimus Flavius Galarius]

Tacitus stated that Agricola, while pondering the invasion of Ireland, had with him an Irish chieftain for use in just such an exercise

 

Actually he wasn't a "chieftain" he was a High King. Wasn't Gnaeus Julius Agricola who said Hibernia could be conquered with one legion?

[Western]

Actually he wasn't a "chieftain" he was a High King. Wasn't Gnaeus Julius Agricola who said Hibernia could be conquered with one legion?

 

I don't think anybody actually knows who the exiled Irishman was. If it was Tuathal Teachtmhar, then he was a 'legendary High King', maybe a High King or maybe just a chieftain.

 

I believe Agricola actualy said Ireland could be conquered with a single Legion and a few auxiliaries. But I doubt he ever had the opportunity as the traditional date of Tuathal Teachtmhar return to Ireland is 76-80AD. When Agricola said he "crossed in the first ship" and defeated peoples unknown to the Romans it was in 82. It is generally thought that Agricola meant he crossed the Clyde or Forth rivers in Scotland when Tacitus wrote it, while from 84 Agricola was at war with the Caledonians, and was recalled from Britain all together in 85 by Domitian.

[caldrail]

They built Hadrains Wall in northern England to keep Scotland out of sight, for Ireland they had the Irish Sea.

Hadrians Wall was not intended to keep the scots out, although it could if need be, but to control trade. The scots after all weren't under roman control and they had friends south of the border. The wall was necessary to prevent a rebellion. It also generated revenue in tolls and confiscations. Thats why there were so many gates through the wall.

[Western]

Hadrians Wall was not intended to keep the scots out, although it could if need be, but to control trade. The scots after all weren't under roman control and they had friends south of the border. The wall was necessary to prevent a rebellion. It also generated revenue in tolls and confiscations. Thats why there were so many gates through the wall.

 

I always thought it was built to prevent raids by the tribes from Scotland to the north, to improve economic stability, to improvide peaceful conditions in the south, and to mark the frontier of the Empire. It's use as a military fortification must have been its primary function as it was the centre piece of the most heavily fortified border in the Roman Empire, although the gates could have easily served as customs posts to allow trade taxation. The route of its construction largely paralleled the nearby Stanegate road from Luguvalium (Carlisle) to Coria (Corbridge), which was already defended by a system of forts such as Vindolanda, and in fact Hadrian's Wall was the second of three such walls built across Northern Britain along with the Gask Ridge and the Antonine Wall.

[caldrail]

The wall does indeed mark the boundary as part of Hadrians policy of entrenchment. If it was purely a defensive boundary, then there was no need for the number of gates within it. It is true that the wall can be defended if need be, but part of that defense is deterrence - making it clear that an attack must get past this obstacle, and the picts were not well versed in siege warfare. What the wall did in reality is force north and south trade through a number of gates, where roman soldiers could tax trade and prevent smuggling, particularly weaponry. With that in mind, the wall was built to prevent an attack, not defend against one.

[Divi Filius]

thought to have been located somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean, between Britain and Spain.

 

Yep. In fact, when Roman generals pondered the idea of taking the island, they did so with the mindset that Hibernia stretched along the French Atlantic coast and ended near the beginning of Spain. This made them consider conquest based on the idea that they could close up this channel and therefore secure all routes of Ocean.

 

Really weird...

Edited March 29, 2007 by Divi Filius

[Western]

Further discussion about Tuathal Teachtmhar.

 

Roman and Romano-British artefacts have been primarily found in Leinster, in places such as Drumanagh, and burials on the nearby island of Lambay, both close to where Tuathal is supposed to have landed, and at other sites associated with Tuathal such as Tara and Clogher. It is possible that the Romans may have given support to Tuathal, or someone like him, to regain his throne in the interests of having a friendly neighbour who could restrain Irish raiding. It is also noted that this may have been the origin of the presence of the Brigantes in Ireland as noted in Ptolemy's 2nd century Geography. The Brigantes were a rebellious British tribe only recently conquered in Agricola's time. The dispossessed nobility may have been ready recruits for Tuathal's invasion force, or the Romans may have found it a convenient way of getting rid of troublesome subjects. Other tribal names associated with south-east Ireland, including the Domnainn, related to the British Dumnonii, and the Menapii, also known from Gaul, may also date from such an invasion.