Why did the Romans fail to conquer Scotland?

[Onasander]

Whatever, whenever, without regard to shrewdness or recognition of the enemy's strengths and weaknesses.

 

You tie this lack command ability into a empire wide defensive shield, where do you think the empire is going to deploy it's smart, erudite commanders, and it's less dependable ones? I guarantee you, the best commanders of the Roman Line of Control went to Italy's immediate north, while the more questionable ones got sent to the island on the edge of the world, where in the worst case scenerio of a invasion where the entire province is lost, it could at least be temporized in containment, being a island.

 

Wasnt until Constantine that the island produced a top notched commander. I assure you, had he focused his attentions on Scotland (blah) instead of Rome, this wouldn't be a issue. Does anyone think Scotland was a tougher challenge than Rome for any commander in England to take?

[Axel Wers]

I think northern part of modern Scotland wasn't interresting for Romans for few reasons: foggy mountains, bad weather and no cities suitable for looting. All military campaigns would be worthless.

[caldrail]

The fortifications would have to provide:

A guard roster, including sleep and command and control elements to coordinate it, as well as a reserve force to support the walls, and preferably to sally out if needed.

A logistic base, enough to supply the base, and cover another fort if they lost their supplies in a raid, fire, corruption, or accident, as well as a returning army saturated with captured POWs/Slaves. Hope for, but dont expect the locals to be as prompt as usual when paying taxes in grain and livestock.quote]

The Romans did use similar systems.

 

The wall was defended as such, and bearing in mind Hadrian insisted on a gate every mile irrespective of steep drops on one side, clearly this was not entirely a fortified barrier. It was a security wall, that could be defended if need be (the walkway was very narrow and not entirely suitable for this purpose, but then, why would it need to be? It was the gates that were the danger points), but existed as a visual declaration of Roman control and an asset to keep Roman troops busy.

 

The men assigned to milecastles were ivariable auxillary troops, who patrolled the biorder, and bear in mind the southern side was not completely secure in northern Britain. Legionary forts existed in strategic locations behind the wall, to respond to barbarian incursions. Wtachtowers or forts also existed beyond the Wall, to patrol the area near the security zone - and if the barbairna s didn't like that - tough. Logistics certainly came into it but please don't make the mistake of believing that the Romans were as adept at supply as we are today. They weren't. Evidence from Vindolanda suggests an amusingly amateur approach. The officers have better things to do. The supplies vanish intio thin air leaving the men always short of something, and please could you arrange for transport because if you don't no-one else will.