Scotland Unconquered

[Zeke]

They've fought in the dark, thick forests of Germania.

[Onasander]

Mabey the roman's were better at draining the lands? I know the had to do it at Arles.

 

A superiority in numbers and mobility and yet an inferiority in Arms would in my opinion force a defence in depth, nebulous in relation to terrain and would require a continious numetical flux, yet always making it's presence known in certain sections near the opposition. You'ld nevrt know how many are working and how many are patrolling, and recon would be pointless.

 

As to Caldonia, no....I see it's climate and topology being similar to what it is today... Germany before Barbarossa.... cold and wet.

[Felix Marcellus]

I think we get that image because Rome "was" the civilized world. That's the way they're always portrayed. Everything else was Mexico.

[diegis]

I think romans dont have a particular interest to conquer Scotland.They cant find there any thing who make money for empire(gold mines,or other rich natural resources),the land dont have a strategic value,and probably romans consider is not too smart to waste time and mens just for a glory to conquer a land who will prouve to be something not usefull.And i think this was the problem with germans teritories too.Romans just want to keep them down,not really to conquer them,because their lands,with many forrests and without many natural resources or even strategic value,was not an atractive prey for empire.And to inspire my self from the previous post,if the Scotland(or german teritories betwen Rhin and Elba) was not Mexico,but California(or Irak,or other area with many resources),i think this teritories will be transformed too in roman provinces.The Roman empire,if will have an interest(especially in his glory age)can defeat any enemies and conquer any areas who prouve whorty.All big wars was started to gain something(gold,valuable lands,natural resources,slaves)and not just for fun.

[longbow]

I think they could of taken caledonia if they wanted too,they at least could of pushed a lot further north than Hadrians wall.The terrain isnt much different until you reach the Highlands anyway,so they could of got as far north as Edinburgh without too much trouble terrain wise.

Maybe the Caledoanians scared them too much?i imagine it to be a pretty wild place, and they only get wilder the further north you go.And the land has minnimum natural rescources to exploit,not particulary well suited to growing grains,its okay for sheep/cattle grazing but is it really worth it?

[Onasander]

Better than building a damn wall, imagine what social works they could of built in the Isles other than a long fence. I know it cost the Roman's next to nothing to erect that given the legion's engineering capabilities... but, come on! A freaken wall? They could of built a road system into the highlands easily, or public baths, or fortify a town, or reduce the garrisions and costs of upkeeping the fortifications.... something other than a well. It would of cost more in beginning to launch the offensive, but the returns over time from a decrease in the defense budget would of paid for it, turning England from a martial dependent into a producer of legions. What, the Scots wouldn't fight if their Roman conquers brought them to Europe on a Campaign?

[longbow]

What, the Scots wouldn't fight if their Roman conquers brought them to Europe on a Campaign?

 

I dont think the Scots were living there at the time.

[Onasander]

Sorry, I know that, but my brain is wired to the modern demographics in England, but the rest of Europe I think of as Roman, I still call Instanbul Constantinople. I have the right concept, but use the wrong language. It was Scotland to me years before I knew it was Caldonia. I refured to it a couple of posts down as Caldonia, please excuse any referances in the future the Scots/caldonia or tories/English.

[Felix Marcellus]

Sorry, I know that, but my brain is wired to the modern demographics in England, but the rest of Europe I think of as Roman, I still call Instanbul Constantinople. I have the right concept, but use the wrong language. It was Scotland to me years before I knew it was Caldonia. I refured to it a couple of posts down as Caldonia, please excuse any referances in the future the Scots/caldonia or tories/English.

I have the same problem. Only my problem is I'm not very well spun up on Roman era Geography. My problem is whenever I read anything about Roman era geography or see a Roman era map I instantly go to a modern map to match it up. So, I end up filing it in my brain data group as Scotland rather than Caledonia or Tunisia rather than Africa, etc.

[galileo]

Didn't they use a lot of guerilla warfare? - as I think it was Primus Pilus that said they wouldn't openly stand and fight the Romans, they would just flee to the highlands. Although it may not have been impossible for the Romans to settle in Caledonia, the way I remember it, the Romans didn't really have a real enemy to fight.

 

It is simple enough to conduct a war when the enemy stands visible in front of you, but when there is no defined enemy and not necessarily a lot of open battles, but just a constant nuissance nipping at your heels I would think that the undertaking would increase a great deal in cost and in difficulty to outright win.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Didn't they use a lot of guerilla warfare? - as I think it was Primus Pilus that said they wouldn't openly stand and fight the Romans, they would just flee to the highlands. Although it may not have been impossible for the Romans to settle in Caledonia, the way I remember it, the Romans didn't really have a real enemy to fight.

 

It is simple enough to conduct a war when the enemy stands visible in front of you, but when there is no defined enemy and not necessarily a lot of open battles, but just a constant nuissance nipping at your heels I would think that the undertaking would increase a great deal in cost and in difficulty to outright win.

 

Although it was a serious vexation, the Romans were still militarily effective. It was just because they didn't need to pointless go further and conquer without benefits.

[Neos Dionysos]

Didn't they use a lot of guerilla warfare? - as I think it was Primus Pilus that said they wouldn't openly stand and fight the Romans, they would just flee to the highlands. Although it may not have been impossible for the Romans to settle in Caledonia, the way I remember it, the Romans didn't really have a real enemy to fight.

 

It is simple enough to conduct a war when the enemy stands visible in front of you, but when there is no defined enemy and not necessarily a lot of open battles, but just a constant nuissance nipping at your heels I would think that the undertaking would increase a great deal in cost and in difficulty to outright win.

 

 

Pretty much... 3-4 campaigns were launched against Caldonia from the late 1st Century AD, of which culminated int he battle of Mons Granipus where the Romans inflicted a horrible defeat on the natives. Though the land and people did not in any way wish to be Roman, and unless so great of a number of manpower and resources and money were used, I do not think that Romanizing was possible. Also, as someone earlier asked, would they rebel if they were in the army if used far off? It's possible, many times during the late empire units of men who were ordered far away rebelled from the imperial system. A prime example being the troops in Gaul and the Rhine under Julian. When Constanius II ordered them east, the men revolted because in thier contracts it stated they would not go further east or south of the Alps.

[Pertinax]

the unconquered frontier thread overlaps with this thread!

 

and can I cross refer to my Roman Frontier Map in the Gallery (under Miscellenia), some notes and references applicable.

Edited January 16, 2006 by Pertinax

[Arvioustus]

I think the Romans went where the generals wanted them to go, ussualy for poltical advancement and riches. Too much advancement as in the case of Caesar poses risks, civil wars and the like. In Caesars case his troops realy had little fears, chariots in Britain or facing the huge numbers in Germania or trapped at Alessia. Caesar just went to the troops and gave a little speech and they attacked forces way larger than themselves. If they had fear their troops would have been the ones who fleed dropping their weapons as the German troops did. So you really think the Roamns feared the picts? I think they were really to well trained to have much fear. Caesar was stopped by poltics and economics. Not sure if the picts traded slaves to the Romans as the Germans east of the Rhine did but this would have kept the senators happy if they and perhaps been a poltical burden in Rome if these lands were 'illegally attacked'. (Caesar had a lot of explaining to do already)

[Neos Dionysos]

All soldiers have fear, but the difference is the dicipline and training as you describe, but to inspire your men to fight. I'm not sure that he would tell them they were outnumbered or that they aren't supposed to be afraid, we have little to tell us of his speech's, (his own commentaries should be taken with analysis since he would most certainly make himself look better). Again, this is Roman training in general, not Caesar's personal training.