Why Romans didn't conquer the whole of the British Isles

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I'm interested to know why Romans didn't conquer the whole of the British Isles. I know some basic facts (like the fierce resistance of the Picts), but I'm too lazy to go after the answers. Hopefully the British TWC members / historians will clue me up.

[Markas]

Because they left centuries ago.

[Dartagnan]

Scotland was simply too difficult to invade; Extremely mountainous and fierce winters, plus, the locals didn't take to well to invading armies. Its for these same reasons that a superior English force in numbers, technology and wealth was never able to conquer Scotland.

Ireland, the Romans claim they never wished to invade due to the coldness and lack of interest -"Hibernia" meaning Winter. However, some sources do indicate Roman landings on the island, and some victories, but no further than that.

In school we were often mislead about how the Romans went about conquering lands. We were led to believe that a Roman stood on Hadrian's wall and shouted to the Scots - "Hello! We're the Romans, we have Aqueducts, libraries, baths, politics and money would you be interested in joining us?"

A scot shouts back; "No thanks!"

[Juvenal]

I think Markas was inspired by your selection of the present tense.

The Romans didn't conquer just to put another bit of red on the map, they did so either for gain or for security.

Southern Britannia was an attractive and profitable asset to the Roman Empire, the rest of it was of little interest to them.

They conquered Wales to destroy the Druid-inspired resistance. The successive positions of the northern frontier were then governed by the balance between the desire to keep the barbarians away from Roman assets, and the cost of keeping the unproductive (to them) northern territories under military rule.

It should be noted that when Roman Britain eventually fell, it was not to the Picts and Gaels, but instead to internal factions and Germanic invaders.

[conon394]

Why bother?

There was little to gain. The places that Rome didn't conquer not any really much of a threat anyway (while Rome was strong) - they had no great wealth, or mines, few people and it seems doubtful many Romans would enjoy being posted there.

[conon394]

Scotland was simply too difficult to invade; Extremely mountainous and fierce winters, plus, the locals didn't take to well to invading armies. Its for these same reasons that a superior English force in numbers, technology and wealth was never able to conquer Scotland.

But you need to look at it from the other side too. All of Scotland is a rather big addition to England and English control of all of the Islands lets England stand safety behind a navy. From a Roman perspective none of that really matters what was north of the wall would likely pay less tax in a decade than single disputed former Seleucid colony on the Parthian boarder would in a year. The Picts could have had 'Welcome Rome' banners out and I still doubt the Romans would care.

Ireland, the Romans claim they never wished to invade due to the coldness and lack of interest -"Hibernia" meaning Winter. However, some sources do indicate Roman landings on the island, and some victories, but no further than that.

You have to think that occasinaly the Local commandered found resons to land and demostrate Roman power.

[Londinium]

The Romans were interested in conquering all Britannia but political circumstances intervened most the times. The first campaign was under Agricola and he had pretty much pacified Caledonia, given another campaigning season Scotland would have been conquered but Domitian didn't like how successful Agricola was becoming and recalled him before he could finish the job. During this period there is conjecture that Agricola might have had dealings with Hibernia aswell and recently evidence has emerged that Rome -may- have intervened in Hibernian affairs although this is far from confirmed or widely accepted.

Anyways after Agricola went back there is evidence that his successor continued to fortify the highlands but problems elsewhere in the Empire required him to fall back as forces were needed elsewhere (Peter Salway) and thus the border more or less coalesced around the modern English-Scottish border, of course this was then formalised by Hadrian.

Antoninus Pius then expanded this to the Antonine Wall, which while not as impressive as Hadrian's wall was still constructed with enough effort to suggest it was meant to be a permanent fortification (it still exists now) which in turn suggests that Pius intended to permenantly occupy Lowland Scotland, this lasted 20 years before the legions again pulled back behind Hadrian's Wall, for what reason we don't know.

Then finally Septimus Severus campaigning north again and reoccupying the Antonine Wall (it was mistakenly called the Severan Wall for a number of years) but again after a few years the legions were pulled back behind Hadrian's Wall. Thus we can see at least three attempts at occupying Scotland and if we take legionnary activity on the Germanic limes as a precedent, the legions probably penetrated and raided into lowland Scotland quite frequently over the period of the empire when they weren't occupying the Antonine Wall.

So while the Romans never definitively occupied Scotland, they definitely had an interest in it, it's just a case it was pretty low on their priority list and could only be dealt with when the pax romana was in full swing (Pius' reign) and they had no threats from elsewhere and things always intervened elsewhere that ensured a prolonged occupation of longer than twenty years never formalised.

As for the rest of the British isles, as I said above theres evidence of Roman activity in Hibernia, a mention of some contact between Agricola and Hibernia from Tacitus and almost certainly some trade going on between Roman Britain and Hibernia and theres also conjecture of some kind of relationship between the Romans and the Orkney Islands, indeed the leader of the Orkneys was one of the first native leaders to meet Claudius in Colchester during the initial invasion of Britannia.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Everytime the Romans had a chance at conquring Scotland, manpower issues lead to the withdrawl of the troops needed to hold it.

They could have conqured it, but simply lacked the men on the ground

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Scotland was too poor and they knew the Picts would fight hard to protect their land. It just wasn't worth it when you could use those soldiers somewhere else.

[BritPatriot1815]

They didn't but they were SO close!!!! Hadrian came in & they bugged out, I once read they set up a fort in Ireland once actually

[Ardruire Iacób]

Ireland, the Romans claim they never wished to invade due to the coldness and lack of interest -"Hibernia" meaning Winter. However, some sources do indicate Roman landings on the island, and some victories, but no further than that.

Coincidental. The Latin Hibernia comes from the Greek Hierni, which actually comes from a Prehistoric Irish variant of Éireannaigh. Read Norman Davies's 'The Isles'. The ancient Greeks reached Britain, where the native Britons traded with them, and nted the names of the islands, Nesos Albionon (Britain, referred to sometimes as Albion, and survives as the native name for Scotland, Alba, which in Irish originally referred to all of Britain) and Hierni (Ireland, but actually the name of the tribe who traded most with the Greeks and Britons).

Anyway, there is NO physical evidence for ANY Roman military activity in Ireland, let alone "some victories". Only a couple of Roman-made weapons have ever been found in Ireland, and the conditions suggest trade rather than invasion. Ireland is notoriously devoid of any arcaeological evidence of major conflict in this period, nevermind any evidence of Roman invasion. You need to stop relying on Wikipedia for your information (Wikipedia implies a Roman invasion of Ireland), because the archaeologists I've spoken to do not give this theory any backing, there's no evidence for it.

In school we were often mislead about how the Romans went about conquering lands. We were led to believe that a Roman stood on Hadrian's wall and shouted to the Scots - "Hello! We're the Romans, we have Aqueducts, libraries, baths, politics and money would you be interested in joining us?"

A scot shouts back; "No thanks!"

Strange, Scotland wasn't founded until several centuries after Rome fell, and all the original Scotti were in Ireland. How could they be in contact with the Romans on Hadrian's Wall?


The Romans never conquered Pictland because it was simply not worth it. The Picts didn't have anything the Romans wanted. The expense of subduing all the land between the Antonine and Hadrian Walls was too great, compared with the actual value of the occupation.

They never conquered Ireland because they could get everything they wanted through trade. There is evidence of a large Roman trading post on Ireland's east coast, and Roman artefacts have been found here. The best evidence is the Latin influence on the Irish language. The Irish word for purple, corcra, clearly comes from the Latin purpura (Prehistoric Irish had no 'p' sound, and replaced 'p' with 'c') and the Irish crócha, meaning saffron, clearly comes from the Latin crocus. The Romans traded with the Irish, they had no need to conquer them, as they weren't any threat until the late 300s AD.



@ BritPatriot1815 - It wasn't a fort, it was a trading post that was fortified. There's a massive difference. Fort implies military activity, of which there was none on the part of the Romans.

[Londinium]

Anyway, there is NO physical evidence for ANY Roman military activity in Ireland, let alone "some victories". Only a couple of Roman-made weapons have ever been found in Ireland, and the conditions suggest trade rather than invasion. Ireland is notoriously devoid of any arcaeological evidence of major conflict in this period, nevermind any evidence of Roman invasion. You need to stop relying on Wikipedia for your information (Wikipedia implies a Roman invasion of Ireland), because the archaeologists I've spoken to do not give this theory any backing, there's no evidence for it.

Depending on which archaeologist you speak to, some suggest that Drumanagh (near Dublin) was a Roman military bridgehead, indeed the Times even published an article about it, but regardless as I said it's contentious and there is no concensus. Personally speaking I doubt there was any military activity as there would have been reference to it somewhere, nearly all Roman wars are documented even minor little things.

The Romans never conquered Pictland because it was simply not worth it. The Picts didn't have anything the Romans wanted. The expense of subduing all the land between the Antonine and Hadrian Walls was too great, compared with the actual value of the occupation.

Thats strange considering the lowlands was pacified during Antoninus Pius' reign and the Roman troops were removed for a reason we do not know of, but theres certainly no evidence of a major military defeat that caused the withdrawal or even continued military action after the Antonine Wall was constructed.

And if you want to be pedantic as you were to the other poster, Pictland exists about as much as Scotland does in this period, Pictland is a sub roman realm that eventually Gaelicises and merges with Gaelic kingdoms to form the Kingdom of Alba which develops into the Kingdom of Scotland, Pictland doesn't exist in the Roman era. Scotland during this period is a random assortment of tribes such as the Selgovae, Novantae, Votadini etc etc not the Picts, they don't even appear until late in the Empire, let alone form a coherant political entity.

[Shatov]

Out of curiosity; do we know if the majority of the Romano-British population spoke Latin or did they stick to a Celtic tongue? Seems odd that Latin could spread to Romania in...150 years and stay there for the next 2000 but could not spread to Britain in 500 years of Roman rule.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Out of curiosity; do we know if the majority of the Romano-British population spoke Latin or did they stick to a Celtic tongue? Seems odd that Latin could spread to Romania in...150 years and stay there for the next 2000 but could not spread to Britain in 500 years of Roman rule.

Well a Romanized populace did remain in Britain as the Welsh using the mountain range. It was much smaller than the Carpathian mountains which acted as a shield for both Romanized populations. Also the colonization process in Dacia was the largest and most extensive in Roman history.

It is also misleading to believe that Roman/Dacian contact began with Trajan. Dacia was a powerful kingdom with extensive mining net work. They were "cursed with gold".

There's a thread concerning this specifically in VV somewhere you can try searching.


As for why the Romans didn't conquor all the British Isles...only the southern part had any use.

[Watchman]

Pretty much, yeah. Plus sustaining an army in the impoverished highlands would've been an imperial logistical pain and a half indeed, and most definitely not worth the expense.

[Erebus Pasha]

Well a Romanized populace did remain in Britain as the Welsh using the mountain range. It was much smaller than the Carpathian mountains which acted as a shield for both Romanized populations. Also the colonization process in Dacia was the largest and most extensive in Roman history.

Well the native Britons living in the Welsh mountains were probably the leat Romanized of the lot.

[Ardruire Iacób]

Depending on which archaeologist you speak to, some suggest that Drumanagh (near Dublin) was a Roman military bridgehead, indeed the Times even published an article about it, but regardless as I said it's contentious and there is no concensus. Personally speaking I doubt there was any military activity as there would have been reference to it somewhere, nearly all Roman wars are documented even minor little things.

The Times article was quite triumphantalistic, taking a few ditches and wooden walls to mean that Ireland was a Roman province. Forgive me if I don't take it seriously. If it was a military bridghead, why is there no evidence of a significant military presence (ie- something beyond a few guards)? It is far more likely that it's a trading post.

[Treize]

Coincidental. The Latin Hibernia comes from the Greek Hierni, which actually comes from a Prehistoric Irish variant of Éireannaigh. Read Norman Davies's 'The Isles'. The ancient Greeks reached Britain, where the native Britons traded with them, and nted the names of the islands, Nesos Albionon (Britain, referred to sometimes as Albion, and survives as the native name for Scotland, Alba, which in Irish originally referred to all of Britain) and Hierni (Ireland, but actually the name of the tribe who traded most with the Greeks and Britons).

Not the Foenicians??
(Or whatever there name is..)

[Ardruire Iacób]

Not the Foenicians??
(Or whatever there name is..)

Phoenicians? Not that I know of. The earliest records relating to the Isles that I'm aware of are copies of a document detailing the voyage of the Greek explorer Pytheas of Massilia (or whatever Marseilles was called) to somewhere in Britain.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Thanks for the replies so far.

simple, problems elsewhere in the empire prevented Rome from mustering the forces nessescarry to campaign in Scotland.

False, Rome started campaigns in Scotland. They were not too successful though.