Roman Ireland?

Grimm Reaper

It was even suggested that a single legion would suffice to claim Ireland, a land rich in agriculture and other resources but divided into countless tribes and with a total population of perhaps 100,000.

Help determine how Ireland gets 'grabbed'.

Which emperor makes the decision. How the conquest goes. What benefits occur for either side. What this means when Rome begins to decline.
 

DuQuense

OK I'll try a Idea.
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0100.htm -- Look at Scotland
http://www.euratlas.com/big/europe_200.jpg -- See how Rome had to pull back

POD
Rome is willing to send a extra legion, and manages to hold the northern extension.
by 200 the Border is pretty well settled.

sometime in the mid/late 200's Rome sends a Legion across the narrow part to put down Pirate raids from the Winter Isle.

Once there they suffer from Mission creep as the various tribes attempt to repel them, by 300 the island is firmly in roman hands, and Vetrans are receiving land Grants there upon Retirement.

By the mid 400's when the Legions are removed from Britain, Ireland is covered by a network of Roman Roads. and a large protion of the two Legions are composed of Irish Recruits.

In the early 500's Scots start migrating to Caledonia, north of Roman Britain, They come into conflict with the Picts that Rome never could subdue.

These Romanizied Scots ally with the Roman Celts, taking the pressure of the Picts off Arthur the Dux, in his war with the Invading Saxons,
 

Jason

Ok, I'm having to do all this from memory as the relevant archaeological reports are in storage 200 miles away :rolleyes:

There is a possible 'Roman' camp on the Irish coast (possibly more than one) near Dublin, excavations were a bit inconclusive though (largely for political reasons I believe) the preferred explanations for it were not a military base but either it was a trading camp for romanised merchants from Britain who put some 'defences' up for effect or it was a camp for a local leader who just liked Roman-style 'stuff'.

However there is an alternative theory that it was a camp established by the Roman fleet that sailed round the British Isles in the 2nd Century. If it was, then the POD could be a series of such camps established by the Roman Fleet which in turn become jumping off points for Rome to take the island so it can exploit its resources (gold for example). To give the Romans a bit more incentive, perhaps have more and earlier Irish raids on Romanised Britain so taking Ireland is not just about resources but also securing the province.
 

Starviking

Jason said:
Ok, I'm having to do all this from memory as the relevant archaeological reports are in storage 200 miles away :rolleyes:

There is a possible 'Roman' camp on the Irish coast (possibly more than one) near Dublin, excavations were a bit inconclusive though (largely for political reasons I believe) the preferred explanations for it were not a military base but either it was a trading camp for romanised merchants from Britain who put some 'defences' up for effect or it was a camp for a local leader who just liked Roman-style 'stuff'.
Click to expand...

A pal of mine who works for the Archaeology Dept in The Queen's University of Belfast would agree with you on the political influence brought to bear on the excavations. Apparently there are a lot of Roman artifacts under lock-and-key. Could just be hearsay, but the Republic is very touchy about 'conquests', Roman or otherwise...;)

Starviking
 

Jason

Starviking said:
A pal of mine who works for the Archaeology Dept in The Queen's University of Belfast would agree with you on the political influence brought to bear on the excavations. Apparently there are a lot of Roman artifacts under lock-and-key. Could just be hearsay, but the Republic is very touchy about 'conquests', Roman or otherwise...;)

Starviking
Click to expand...


I do know of one archaeologist in Ireland who actually received death threats on this matter, he actually ended up relocating to an English archaeological unit for his own safety.
 

Alratan

If we go with DuQuense's idea.

Some thoughts. With a prosperous and defensible Ireland included as part of Brittania (not to mention the butterflying of the Yellow Plague), it may form a viable Roman successor state, better able to resist barbarian incursion.
 

Jason

Alratan said:
If we go with DuQuense's idea.

Some thoughts. With a prosperous and defensible Ireland included as part of Brittania (not to mention the butterflying of the Yellow Plague), it may form a viable Roman successor state, better able to resist barbarian incursion.
Click to expand...

I wonder if it might be seen as a seperate province being a seperate island (how did the Romans deal with the Med islands, they were considered seperate or united?).

Perhaps as the troubles started in the Empire they might decide withdraw about the same time they withdrew from Dacia; possibly with a Romanised High King? If Ireland christianised sooner, could we not see St Patrick being kidnapped?

seperate thing but possibly of interest, have a very good book at home "archaeology of Medieval ireland" that says the majority of Roman artifacts found in Ireland actually appear to have arrived after the collapse of the empire, judging by the sealed contexts they have been found in-the thinking is they were brought back by medieval pilgrims going to Rome etc
 

Max Sinister

Banned
I think Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica (and Cyprus) were a province each. If only for historical reasons, being the first provinces.
 

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

Banned
Max Sinister said:
I think Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica (and Cyprus) were a province each. If only for historical reasons, being the first provinces.
Click to expand...

Sicily and Cyprus were provinces, Sardinia and Corsica formed one (Corsica and Sardinia), the Balearic Islands probably weren't, and Crete was joined to Cyrenaica (Crete and Cyrenaica).

I think Hibernia would be its own province. I mean the Romans had 2 Germanies, 2 Pannonias, 2 Mauretanias, 3 Alpine provinces, Noricum separate from Raetia, and just look at the mess in Asia Minor and northern Mesopotamia. I doesn't seem to me like they were afraid of adding new provinces. I think they could afford to get rid of at least a dozen. Not lose them, just merge them into others. (I'm referring to the administrative structure as it was during Rome's better days.)
 
Last edited:

Max Sinister

Banned
Well, the provinces were ruled by proconsuls. Remove provinces, and some proconsuls will lose their jobs. Of course they didn't like the idea.
 

orion900

A newly crowned emperor would want a some military advancement on his record, very important if his told on the empire was weak, so that could be another reason for attacking Ireland.

Very interesting, about Government Officials taking sides on a Historical Question, didn't think it happen in Ireland, other places yes I could understand, why so upset about Roman invasion?

Orion.
 

Starviking

orion900 said:
Very interesting, about Government Officials taking sides on a Historical Question, didn't think it happen in Ireland, other places yes I could understand, why so upset about Roman invasion?

Orion.
Click to expand...

I think because it would demolish the Irish Republican mythos that Ireland was an unconquered unitary state until the "English" invaded around 800 years ago.

Starviking
 

orion900

Starviking said:
I think because it would demolish the Irish Republican mythos that Ireland was an unconquered unitary state until the "English" invaded around 800 years ago.

Starviking
Click to expand...

OK, there was the Viking invasions, Norman invasions, English invasions and the Republican Invasions, why should they care about an earlier Roman Invasions, doesn't make any sense, the truth or facts about earlier Roman Sites could tell so much about early Irish/Celtic Culture. I have little knowledge about local Irish politics concerning local ideals.

Orion
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
Was there anything in Ireland that the Romans wanted? Pre-Roman Britain was IIRC rather a rich province, just as was pre-Roman Gaul, which gave the Romans a good motivation to conquer them. Additionally, I think that Roman style agriculture, at least part of it, worked in England.

Ireland, OTOH, has a different sort of soil base and is rainier than England, so Roman style agriculture might not have worked there. More importantly, really ancient Ireland is notable in having no cities or even large villages that we know of. This implies a somewhat low standard of living and/or population or both.
 

Starviking

orion900 said:
OK, there was the Viking invasions, Norman invasions, English invasions and the Republican Invasions, why should they care about an earlier Roman Invasions, doesn't make any sense, the truth or facts about earlier Roman Sites could tell so much about early Irish/Celtic Culture. I have little knowledge about local Irish politics concerning local ideals.

Orion
Click to expand...

Dogma usually doesn't make sense. I suppose they see the Viking invasions as settlement followed by absorption into the local culture. Normans, and subsequent invasions from England are all seen as "800 years of English Oppression".

It also occured to me that it could be the case that the Irish Republicans could no longer gloat:

"The Romans took you over, but they couldn't conquer us"

And the converse could be: "Roman, Vikings, Norman, English - you are always getting invaded, is there something wrong with you?!"

Starviking
 
Last edited:

Jason

Gold-in prehistory its gold mines were very active-work has shown that a lot of the gold objects produced in Britain in 1st centuries BC and AD came from Ireland.

NapoleonXIV said:
Was there anything in Ireland that the Romans wanted? Pre-Roman Britain was IIRC rather a rich province, just as was pre-Roman Gaul, which gave the Romans a good motivation to conquer them. Additionally, I think that Roman style agriculture, at least part of it, worked in England.

Ireland, OTOH, has a different sort of soil base and is rainier than England, so Roman style agriculture might not have worked there. More importantly, really ancient Ireland is notable in having no cities or even large villages that we know of. This implies a somewhat low standard of living and/or population or both.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top