There is another reason, and it helps explain something about how archaeology is seen. there are no written historical records of any invasion of Ireland-therefore to the vast majority of historians, who believe in the importance of the written record and still see archaeology as the 'handmaiden of history', there cannot have been any Roman presence in Ireland and any archaeological evidence that even indicates a slight possibility of such a presence must be 'wrong'. this might change in Ireland eventually-in England for example many historians now accept that the archaeological evidence for post-Roman Britain does show a very different picture to that created if you use the few written records and are willing to say the archaeological picture may be more 'correct' than the written recird influcenced one.
Roman Ireland?
- Thread starter Grimm Reaper
- Start date
There is another reason, and it helps explain something about how archaeology is seen. there are no written historical records of any invasion of Ireland-therefore to the vast majority of historians, who believe in the importance of the written record and still see archaeology as the 'handmaiden of history', there cannot have been any Roman presence in Ireland and any archaeological evidence that even indicates a slight possibility of such a presence must be 'wrong'. this might change in Ireland eventually-in England for example many historians now accept that the archaeological evidence for post-Roman Britain does show a very different picture to that created if you use the few written records and are willing to say the archaeological picture may be more 'correct' than the written recird influcenced one.
Or another converse:
"Yes, but you remained backwards, unsophisticated barbarians for longer."
someone will state the 'how the irish saved civilisation' arguement, you know that, don't you
Max Sinister
Banned
And then someone'll argue "Oh yeah? And what have you done for civilization since then?"
Guinness
(this could go on for days ) It does seem tied in, the 'we didn't get conquered by the Romans' and 'we saved western civilisation' beliefs
Honestly I thought tha Government's reluctance might come out from another direction; what about being told: "You kneel to Rome as your ancestors did 2000 years ago?"
OTOH, I do find very strange that there are records of every Roman conquest (or lack of success, like the Picts), but nothing about Ireland. I'm quite sure there have been punitive landing in areas were piracy was a second (or first?) job, but never to stay.
Depends how you want to look at it-we know about Roman ops because we have written records about them. Until recently the role of archaeology was to support the written record, if archaeology found something that disagreed with the written record, or even something not found, then well the archaeology was considered 'wrong' or largely ignored. Now we know only a small part of all that was written has survived, there could have been reports of small scale landings as you suggest that simply have not survived the long years. The future in cases like this, other than the finding of long lst manuscripts in a library, lies in archaeology-now it is valued for its own worth rather, evidence might be found that suggests Roman presence in places we previosuly wouldn't have looked for it.
Perfectly agreed with you. Without going to the excess, and trying to build a castle out of just a few straws. Remember J. Diamond in "Collapse"? When they were studying civilizations without written record it was one thing; when they were studying the collapse of Greenland was another one.
As I said, I am quite convinced that the Romans landed in Ireland, both to extirpate pirate nests, to trade and to reconnoiter. I'm much less convinced that a governor of Britain (or even an emperor) would have had resources to devote to an apparently unrewarding task like the pacification of Ireland and its transformation into a Roman province. Scarce glory, not much booty, no strategical benefit in the defense of the empire. Same thing happened with Scotland: in the profit and losses book of the empire the cost to conquer Scotland (which was obviously possible) was too high; building a limes was equally effective, to gain what they wanted (security in the settled provinces)
Of course, gold would be a perfect reason for conquest, yet there are more than enoguh other reasons, many of them already mentioned above:
1. a new emperor in need for a quick and easy propaganda coup, like conquest of a new province. I think this was one of the main reasons the Romans conquered Britain?
2. A prokonsul in Britain with some higher goals trying to gain some respect
3. Pirate raids from Ireland into Roman Britain
4. Wrong stories about gold
5. Increased trade with the Irish followed by establishment of fortified Roman camps, as mentioned above, hence no conquest, but slow development of Roman influence in Hibernia.
6. Maybe Hibernia could become an important source of recruits for the Roman army, and sooner or later, one decides this source to secure for the future, with the approval of former Roman legionaries who returned to Ireland and became chiefs...
1. a new emperor in need for a quick and easy propaganda coup, like conquest of a new province. I think this was one of the main reasons the Romans conquered Britain?
2. A prokonsul in Britain with some higher goals trying to gain some respect
3. Pirate raids from Ireland into Roman Britain
4. Wrong stories about gold
5. Increased trade with the Irish followed by establishment of fortified Roman camps, as mentioned above, hence no conquest, but slow development of Roman influence in Hibernia.
6. Maybe Hibernia could become an important source of recruits for the Roman army, and sooner or later, one decides this source to secure for the future, with the approval of former Roman legionaries who returned to Ireland and became chiefs...
Terrible thing to admit I haven't got round to reading 'collapse' just that, was actually looking in a bookshop yesterday saying 'must buy and read'. I go with you on the short term, look around type approach, possibly linked into one of the times when the Roman fleet sailed round Britain. back when I was applying to study archaeology, back in 96/7 I went for an interview at exeter with an archaeologist who had been involved in the excavations of a possible 'Roman' camp near Dublin-she dismissed the 'Roman' idea but thought it was a 'Romanised' camp for an irish chief impressed by the Romans and copying them (possibly with the help of advisors, similar to those in Britain before the conquest) or a trading settlement.
Gold, rich farmland, the prestige of adding a province, removing a potential threat in the long term...no doubt someone can offer more reasons behind a Roman invasion. Personal prestige was all Claudius needed to justify invading Britain.
I remember reading somewhere that the Romans landed some auxiliaries to support some chief or other. No legionaries were involved.
Both of these things make sense. What I would love is the idea of a Roman (or a Romanised Briton) freebooter, who lands in Ireland to carve out a kindom for himself. Obviously he did not succeed, but it would neatly explain why there were Roman-style fortified camps near Dublin.
Read "Collapse": well written, and thought-provoking (even more for someone who is involved in archeology, I would assume).
There are some tantalising hints about a Roman presence in Ireland, at least in the 1st/2nd centuries AD (or CE if you prefer).
Some verge on the conspiracy theory - notably the suppression of genuine finds because they contradict the "official" view that Erin was unconquered. Much of these centre around the (alleged) finds at Drumanagh, a Roman Fort, Trading Post, Complete fabrication...take your ideological pick. From what I have seen the debates tended away from the polite exchanges of academia and descended into vituperative name calling - no difference there from normal behaviour then.
Others come from Irish mythology - Tuathal Teachtmar, the 106th High King won his position after returning from exile in Alba (Britain). He existed sometime between 50AD and 150AD (probably High King from 80 - 106AD). He has been tentatively identified as being a prince of Ireland mentioned by Tacitus in Agricola. Some Roman support is, therefore, possible. Juvenal also hints that Roman arms went to Ireland.
I have read, although I can't quite remember the source, of a multi-limbed and fanged monster that devoured armies - the source suggested that it could describe a legionary / auxila cohort in close order drill chewing through native levies and thus a description of a real roman armed force on the island. This may be a touch too fanciful.
My own opinion, is that during the apex of Empire, the Romans exerted some level of trans border influence in Ireland, client kings etc, as they did in other parts of the Empire. However, as this was normal behaviour and not directly run by the emperor, it would be downplayed by the central authorities. Cetainly there was trade and Ptolemy does give a reasonably good description of Ireland and its tribes.
As an aside, and often mentioned in discussions about Rome and Ireland, there is little archeological evidence for Caesar's invasion of Britain. But, so far as I am aware, no-one disputes that it happened, mostly as a result of Caesar's Commentaries (which, I hasten to add, are not the most objective of sources) supplemented by other contemporary writings.
Some verge on the conspiracy theory - notably the suppression of genuine finds because they contradict the "official" view that Erin was unconquered. Much of these centre around the (alleged) finds at Drumanagh, a Roman Fort, Trading Post, Complete fabrication...take your ideological pick. From what I have seen the debates tended away from the polite exchanges of academia and descended into vituperative name calling - no difference there from normal behaviour then.
Others come from Irish mythology - Tuathal Teachtmar, the 106th High King won his position after returning from exile in Alba (Britain). He existed sometime between 50AD and 150AD (probably High King from 80 - 106AD). He has been tentatively identified as being a prince of Ireland mentioned by Tacitus in Agricola. Some Roman support is, therefore, possible. Juvenal also hints that Roman arms went to Ireland.
I have read, although I can't quite remember the source, of a multi-limbed and fanged monster that devoured armies - the source suggested that it could describe a legionary / auxila cohort in close order drill chewing through native levies and thus a description of a real roman armed force on the island. This may be a touch too fanciful.
My own opinion, is that during the apex of Empire, the Romans exerted some level of trans border influence in Ireland, client kings etc, as they did in other parts of the Empire. However, as this was normal behaviour and not directly run by the emperor, it would be downplayed by the central authorities. Cetainly there was trade and Ptolemy does give a reasonably good description of Ireland and its tribes.
As an aside, and often mentioned in discussions about Rome and Ireland, there is little archeological evidence for Caesar's invasion of Britain. But, so far as I am aware, no-one disputes that it happened, mostly as a result of Caesar's Commentaries (which, I hasten to add, are not the most objective of sources) supplemented by other contemporary writings.
Fascinating thread. Funnily enough, Grey Wolf and myself have been talking about that here.
It would certainly be interesting to see what further developments in archaeological terms turn up.
Sargon
A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose
It would certainly be interesting to see what further developments in archaeological terms turn up.
Sargon
A Timeline of mine: The Roman Emperor Who Lost His Nose
I do suspect any future discoveries will have to be handled very carefully PR wise given the emotions it raises.
It would be interesting to consider what an Roman Ireland would look like. I can see it be like Wales-with few towns and at best a vaneer of Romanisation.
It would be interesting to consider what an Roman Ireland would look like. I can see it be like Wales-with few towns and at best a vaneer of Romanisation.