Why Rome didn't conquer Ireland?

[Late Emperor]

Hi,I've a question. Why the romans didn't conquer the Emerald Island? Was it too well defended? Or was it too resourceless (from a roman point of view)?

[Primus Pilus]

Hi,I've a question. Why the romans didn't conquer the Emerald Island? Was it too well defended? Or was it too resourceless (from a roman point of view)?

 

It's quite possible that Agricola did in fact invade Ireland (c. 81 AD), even if only for a short exploratory expedition. There is some contention about the translation of Tacitus' quote found in Agricola 24 as follows:

 

24. In the fifth year of the war, Agricola, himself in the leading ship, crossed the Clota, and subdued in a series of victories tribes hitherto unknown. In that part of Britain which looks toward Ireland, he posted some troops, hoping for fresh conquests rather than fearing attack, inasmuch as Ireland, being between Britain and Spain and conveniently situated for the seas round Gaul, might have been the means of connecting with great mutual benefit the most powerful parts of the empire. Its extent is small when compared with Britain, but exceeds the islands of our seas. In soil and climate, in the disposition, temper, and habits of its population, it differs but little from Britain. We know most of its harbours and approaches, and that through the intercourse of commerce. One of the petty kings of the nation, driven out by internal faction, had been received by Agricola, who detained him under the semblance of friendship till he could make use of him. I have often heard him say that a single legion with a few auxiliaries could conquer and occupy Ireland, and that it would have a salutary effect on Britain for the Roman arms to be seen everywhere, and for freedom, so to speak, to be banished from its sight.

 

excerpted from Ancient History Sourcebook

 

Some interpret this to mean that Agricola did in fact engage in enough exploration to understand that Hibernia would be easily subdued, while others suggest that Agricola (via Tacitus) was implying a bit of optimistic bravado. Whatever the case may be, there was still work to be done in northern Britannia and Caledonia and Agricola; and whatever the reality or his ultimate intention, he never had a real opportunity to attempt a full scale Hibernian conquest. His recall in 85 AD by Domitian ended any known records of an invasion.

 

There were others who continued the advance into Caledonia of course: most notably in the reigns of Antoninus Pius (the command of Urbicus), Severus and Caracalla, but success was fleeting at best. The inability to completely secure a northern frontier border probably played a major role in leaving Hibernia its independence. In addition, weighing the the financial and manpower cost against the lack of major sources of known mineral commodities, the Romans in Britain likely found it more profitable to maintain tenuous trading relationships. Playing the native tribes against one another politically, at which the Romans were proven experts, also probably helped secure western Britain from significant raiding on Roman interests without the cost of garrisons.

[caldrail]

Hmmm... To me that sounds more like intelligence gathered from traders, speculatores, exploratores, or in a few cases meetings with individuals from that area. It doesn't really convey any sense of military adventure and Agricola's estimate of a single legion required for conquest is a little less than carefully considered, don't you think?

[Primus Pilus]

Hmmm... To me that sounds more like intelligence gathered from traders, speculatores, exploratores, or in a few cases meetings with individuals from that area. It doesn't really convey any sense of military adventure and Agricola's estimate of a single legion required for conquest is a little less than carefully considered, don't you think?

 

Agreed, as the translation above stands, one can easily reason that Agricola (via Tacitus) was simply speculating, but there has been much debate about the translation of that text. Additionally, and as you know, there is some archaeological evidence of Roman presence in Ireland, though it too presents debate as to the scope of that presence. In any case, here is the basis for some of the original discussion on the merits of the translation... a series of articles between Alfred Gudeman and F.J. Haverfield that dates back to 1900.

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/694705

[guy]

I wonder how we can trust Tacitus on this because he incorrectly believed that Ireland was found between Britain and Spain.

 

"In that part of Britain which looks towards Ireland, he posted some troops, hoping for fresh conquests rather than fearing attack, inasmuch as Ireland, being between Britain and Spain and conveniently situated for the seas round Gaul, might have been the means of connecting with great mutual benefit the most powerful parts of the empire."

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited October 1, 2010 by guy

[caldrail]

Maybe, but there's a difference between relating a conversation with someone and describing a geography you're largely ignorant of. The same phenomenon happens even today in countries where world geography is not an important subject. As for Roman presence in Ireland, the evidence is largely circumstancial and might be easily explained by refugees bearing roman goods. There is not, as I understand it, any confirmed evidence of romano-irish settlement of any significance.

[tbrookside]

I wonder how we can trust Tacitus on this because he incorrectly believed that Ireland was found between Britain and Spain.

 

"In that part of Britain which looks towards Ireland, he posted some troops, hoping for fresh conquests rather than fearing attack, inasmuch as Ireland, being between Britain and Spain and conveniently situated for the seas round Gaul, might have been the means of connecting with great mutual benefit the most powerful parts of the empire."

 

guy also known as gaius

 

Wasn't there a seamanship-related issue that led a lot of seaborne trade from Britain and northern Gaul to be routed through anchorages in southern Ireland? It seems like this particular geography "mistake" is pretty common in ancient and medieval histories, and I was under the impression that it was due to the fact that on trading itineraries Ireland was "between" Britain and Spain.

[caldrail]

An interesting suggestion, but bear in mind that seaborne trade across the Channel had existed long before the Romans got involved. In fairness, it is possible that some earlier ships routed to Ireland in ignorance, but once the coasts of Britain and Gaul became well known the shorter route across the narrows must have been the popular choice. After all, links between Britain and the continent had existed right from the days when melting ice first split Britain away, and we know that travellers from Europe were visiting religious sites in Britain four or five thousand years ago.

 

In general, it doesn't seem likely that ships routinely routed toward Ireland, especially since prevailing winds would push them toward southwest england anyhow, and in any case, the abilities of early seamen were suprisingly good. The Romans were exceptional in being poor sailors.

Edited October 3, 2010 by caldrail

[guy]

One more reason Not to visit Ireland by Strabo (63/64 BCE - AD 24) from Geography Book IV, Chapter 5.4:

 

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/4E*.html

 

Besides some small islands round about Britain, there is also a large island, Ierne [ireland], which stretches parallel to Britain on the north, its breadth being greater than its length. Concerning this island I have nothing certain to tell, except that its inhabitants are more savage than the Britons, since they are man-eaters as well as heavy eaters, and since, further, they count it an honourable thing, when their fathers die, to devour them, and openly to have intercourse, not only with the other women, but also with their mothers and sisters; but I am saying this only with the understanding that I have no trustworthy witnesses for it;....

 

guy also known as gaius

Edited October 12, 2010 by guy

[GhostOfClayton]

. . . openly to have intercourse, not only with the other women, but also with their mothers and sisters; but I am saying this only with the understanding that I have no trustworthy witnesses for it;....

 

 

Clearly, Strabo would have been a welcome contributor to many a British tabloid newspaper!

Edited October 14, 2010 by GhostOfClayton

[caldrail]

And, I suspect, the reason tabloids - even in Roman times - were popular was because people love all this wierd and wonderful gossip. It's more of the 'Here be Dragons' syndrome. They knew a landmass was there and filled it with fantasy to sound knowledgeable. Whereas the medieval mind thought of Dragons and Dog-heads, the Roman thought of barbarians beyond his wildest imaginings and the more revolting and unrestrained the rumour, the better. Strabo was onto a good there. Who was going to prove him wrong?

[GhostOfClayton]

And, I suspect, the reason tabloids - even in Roman times - were popular was because people love all this wierd and wonderful gossip. It's more of the 'Here be Dragons' syndrome. They knew a landmass was there and filled it with fantasy to sound knowledgeable. Whereas the medieval mind thought of Dragons and Dog-heads, the Roman thought of barbarians beyond his wildest imaginings and the more revolting and unrestrained the rumour, the better. Strabo was onto a good there. Who was going to prove him wrong?

 

. . . and I love his little disclaimer at the end. You can almost hear the little voice adding the "^*may not refer to actual Hibernians" in an up-tempo sotto voce, like at the end of American TV adverts.

[Maty]

Of course, while Ireland is an undoubtedly lovely place, the Romans may not have wanted it. I suspect that 'because it's there' was not sufficient reason by the Agricola's time.

 

According to Tacitus, the Romans were already having buyer's remorse about Britain. The idea of tying down, hmm, say another two legions to go with the three already in Britain would be an expensive investment for what appeared to be another boggy wasteland filled with uncivilized hillbillies.

 

It might make a good essay question for an undergrad class - 'Can you justify Agricola conquering Ireland in terms of a) Trade b)Resources c)Strategic considerations? What does your answer tell you about imperial frontier policy in the first century AD?'

[caldrail]

The Romans seem curiously evn-handed about Britain. On the one hand, they talk about the wealth of natural resources, and yet they also seemed disappointed it wasn't wealthier. Of course that underlines the avaricious nature of Roman expansion. Whilst the Romans talk about divine right and destiny, they had more down to earth reasons for invading new provinces, such as security, retribution, resources, and of course, money.

 

But besides the hairy population and damp muddy grass, what the irish lacked was cities. urban development was at the heart of Roman culture and drew them on like moths to a candle. Regardless of forests, mines, and wild animals, or indeed the practicalities of conquest, without cities to conquer and develop as new outlets of the Roman franchise, they saw no market for their services in Ireland.

 

It has also occured to me that we should address the myth of 'Romanisation' of Britain in this period. Although the southeast quarter was sympathetic and adopted Roman culture to a large extent, the indigineous culture became more prevalent the further away from that region you went. The Romans never fully tamed Britain (even though they usually maintained peace) and if that was the case, why would they invest in conquest even further afield? Surely that was inviting disaster in stretching Roman forces over more and more unstable territory?

 

It's all very well Agricola telling us the Ireland was ripe for conquest - he might even have been right - but the cultural victory is won over generations and not so easy to achieve.

Edited October 24, 2010 by caldrail

[Trajan]

Of course, while Ireland is an undoubtedly lovely place, the Romans may not have wanted it. I suspect that 'because it's there' was not sufficient reason by the Agricola's time.

 

According to Tacitus, the Romans were already having buyer's remorse about Britain. The idea of tying down, hmm, say another two legions to go with the three already in Britain would be an expensive investment for what appeared to be another boggy wasteland filled with uncivilized hillbillies.

 

It might make a good essay question for an undergrad class - 'Can you justify Agricola conquering Ireland in terms of a) Trade b)Resources c)Strategic considerations? What does your answer tell you about imperial frontier policy in the first century AD?'

 

In addition to this, Ireland is very isolated and not even as wealthy as Britain. It would have taken much time and effort to conquer the island, let alone even hold it. The cost of ships and men would have exponential to what was already being used across the English Channel.