Hibernia

[Marcus Tullius Cicero]

Did the Romans invade Ireland (Hibernia)?

 

At first all answers seemed to point towards no, but recently a Roman camp was found 20 miles south of Dublin at Drumanagh. The Governor of Brittania in 78-84 AD Gnaeus Juliius Agricola, father in law of the historian Tacitus, said that Hibernia could be conquered by one legion alone.

 

I am hoping there is someone on this site that can help me answer this question. It appears that the Latin culture spread to Hibernia, but was this forced by a military expedition or by immigration of recently subjugated tribespeople of Brittania who were fleeing Roman rule.

[Pantagathus]

There was trade interaction for sure and recon was more than likely but never an 'invasion'.

 

Just read what the geographers had to say and you'll realize that Hibernia to the Romans was a strange and barbaric place that had no strategic value so they wanted no part of it.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Had Hibernia been conquered we'd see at least one administrative city and the area would have been made a province of it's own. But no mention in the texts speak about what would have been a feat equal to Caesar's british expedition and no remain of a roman city was ever found in Ireland. Thus one may doubt about any roman settlement in the area. But what might very well have been is a mixed local and foreign traders settlement that would have exported the island's ressources for roman luxury commodities ( wine ). Kind of an emporion but not a colony.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Tacitus was the first (?) to refer to ireland - the year is 72 CE - "...Agricola began with a sea passage, and in a series of successful actions subdued nations hitherto unknown. The whole side of Britain that faces Ireland was lined with his forces. But his motive was rather hope than fear. Ireland, lying between Britain and Spain, and easily accessible also from the Gallic sea, might, to great general advantage, bind in closer union that powerful section of the empire. Ireland is small in extent as compared to Britain, but larger than the islands of the Mediterranean. In soil, in climate and in the character and civilization of its inhabitants it is much like Britain. Its approaches and harbours are tolerably well known from merchants who trade there. Agricola had given a welcome to an Irish prince, who had been driven from home by a rebellion; nominally a friend, he might be used as a pawn in the game. I have often heard Agricola say that Ireland could be reduced and held by a single legion and a few auxiliaries, and that the conquest would also pay from the point of view of Britain, if Roman arms were in evidence on every side and liberty vanished off the map".

 

So , they desided not to take the island .

[Pantagathus]

Tacitus was the first (?) to refer to ireland - the year is 72 CE -

Strabo & Pliny mentioned it before then, just tersely. Strabo was using Pytheas (& ?) as a reference and Pliny named Pytheas, Isidorus & Agrippa as references.

 

I love what Strabo (4.5.3) had to say:

 

"There are also other small islands around Britain; but one, of great extent, Ierna (Hibernia/Ireland), lying parallel to it towards the north, long, or rather, wide; concerning which we have nothing certain to relate, further than that its inhabitants are more savage than the Britons, feeding on human flesh, and enormous eaters, and deeming it commendable to devour their deceased fathers, as well as openly to have commerce not only with other women, but also with their own mothers and sisters. But this we relate perhaps without very competent authority"

[spittle]

Yeah! Sounds just like the guys down the Catholic club!

I suppose when it came to incest the sources had to exaggerate just to eclipse Claudius. Married to his brothers daughter who'd already been sleeping with her darling brother, Caligula. (or is that a myth?)

 

Agrippa as a reference?

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa?

[Pantagathus]

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa?

One & the same. Here is what is said in a commentary footnote in Pliny (when he listed Agrippa as a ref):

 

Pliny often refers to the "Commentarii" of Agrippa, by which are meant, it is supposed, certain official lists drawn up by him in the measurement of the Roman world under Augustus. His map of the world is also mentioned by Pliny in c. 3 of the present Book.

[Northern Neil]

Earlier this year I posted a Google Earth image of the promontory fort at Drumanagh, 20 miles North of Dublin. It is there still, on page 3 of the gallery section, entitled 'Celtic and 'Roman' forts.'

 

Alas, I see nothing whatsoever in this image to suggest even the most vague Roman influence.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Northern Neil

[Germanicus]

Here is a thought provoking essay on the subject.

[caldrail]

All the evidence this article has suggests that there were romans in ireland. Diplomats, traders, and who knows, possibly even some ex-patriots. Some had guards? A fortified estate? I think this evidence shows the initial stage of roman conquest. Individuals going there, trading, meeting, and working with the irish to cement relations with possible allies and find out who their enemies will be, as well as what to expect in terms of resources.

 

The romans had done the same thing in britain and germany. No, not an invasion, but the groundwork for one that never happened?

[Germanicus]

I think this evidence shows the initial stage of roman conquest. Individuals going there, trading, meeting, and working with the irish to cement relations with possible allies and find out who their enemies will be, as well as what to expect in terms of resources.

 

Yes, that's a good way of putting it. Perhaps invasion was on the minds of some British governors, like Agricola for instance, but they learnt (if we believe Tacitus) not to shine too brightly. The only person who could triumph or conquer at least in name was now the Emperor. Then later we have Hadrian establishing borders and ending expansion in that part of the Empire. There is also the possibility that Ireland was detirmed to be not worth invading.

[Callaecus]

Here is a thought provoking essay on the subject.

Very weak article. The author assumes that:

 

1) Becase Caesar's invasion of Britain left few archaeological remaisn then something similar could also have happened in Ireland. That is a forced analogy and the same could be said for any other place outside the Roman empire such as India.

 

2) The existence of contacts at the high level between Romans and Hibernians; another forced argument; Pantagathus and Bryaxis Hecatee have already provided a good reply.

 

And the author of the article is the keeper of the Ulster Museum. I wonder what kind of archaeology the Irish are doing?...

[caldrail]

And the author of the article is the keeper of the Ulster Museum. I wonder what kind of archaeology the Irish are doing?...

 

Local archaeologists have a tendency to overstate the importance of their own finds and produce their own theories of what was going on at that time. A few decades ago the Battle of Beranburgh (568ad?) near Swindon was seen as a major turning point in the saxon invasion of the south west of england and much was made of the evidence found on wroughton plateau. These days its a much smaller engagement. Actually it was still an important breakthrough for saxon colonists (Waylands Smithy is in the area) but the battle itself was hundreds rather than thousands, and may have only been handfuls.

 

There is one roman expert who believes the saxon invasions were of a peaceful colonial nature. This is despite the roman coastal forts, the britons sending diplomats to Honorius in 410ad begging for assistance, or an english monk describing the saxons as 'a race hateful to god'.

 

Its easy to evolve pet theories about how things were. Lets face it, I'm just as guilty. However, the real test is to be prepared to change those ideas when the evidence suggests something else. I think the overall picture and the local evidence must agree. If not, then someone needs to get on the case and figure out why not.

Edited December 23, 2006 by caldrail

[Germanicus]

Very weak article

 

I see what you mean. While his definition of Invasion is not the same as mine, or yours, his view is not completely in conflict with either Pantagathus, who postulates trade and recon or Bryaxis Hecatee, who asserts that there was never a conquest, exactly the point the author of the article makes when he says "Let us not fall into the error of understanding invasion to be synonymous with national conquest or incorporation into Empire, or that all the persons involved were Italians."

 

The weakness of the article lies essentially in his blurry definition of a Roman invasion, which for him could just mean some British tribal men with some Roman training launching a smale scale raid. Your first point about the forced analogy is well made.