Why couldn't the Romans conquer Ireland?
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 04. 2024
- Why couldn't the Romans conquer Ireland?
♦Consider supporting our work and Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @knowledgia
♦Consider supporting us on Patreon :
/ knowledgia
♦Please consider to SUBSCRIBE: goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Our general knowledge channel: / @masteringknowledge
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
Big Thank you to:
Николай Димитров, Tobias Tron, Mahmoud Shahin, Justin Bourke, Augustus Caesar, Chaim laser, Joshua Kerr, Slayer, John McKeon, Michael Morale, Rory, Smithy3371, The Angry Celt
#History #Documentary #RomanEmpire
It's too cold, too wet and you can't grow wine or olives here. Hibernia basically means winter in Latin.
😅ah, so that's where the word Hibernation comes from😅thanks for the random factoid
@@funfact8660 wasn't Caledonian, Scotland
@@barrydoyle8636You mean Pictia, or Pictland.
@@barrydoyle8636 Yes. Another cold, wet, dump. England and Wales were bad enough ( “a climate most foul, with rain and cloud” wrote Tacitus) so Ireland and Scotland out of the question.
@@robinharwood5044 👍🏻😂... Yup, weather permitting, cross the Irish sea... Leave a the wet cold dump only to come across an even more Wet, Cold, and Dump of an island with the highest possibility of experiencing 4 seasons in any given 24hrs.🤔, let's turn back..👌 👍
The conquest of Britannia is one of the greatest contrasts between Caligula and Claudius. While the first was a madman obsessed with becoming a god whose delusions brought him early death and damnation, his crippled uncle (whom he marginalized for years) achieved everything he could not, conquering Britain and being declared a god after his death. Without a doubt good old Claudius got the last laugh
Good Ole Uncle Claudius
Agricola did a lot
@@RockSmithStudio👍
“Such was life for Uncle Claudius”
-Unbiased History of Rome
My uncle can relate
"I'll tell you this. If the sword is all that you're prepared to show us Britons, then be prepared to carry it forever in your hand... and sleep with it forever by your side at night! For you will need it!"
*Caratacus' speech in the Roman Senate*
fake speech, never happened
narrator: they didn't need it
And in a few hundred years their language completely changed to a Germanic one because he was wrong.
He got a standing ovation. And then they occupied Britain nevertheless.
Does this apply to you modern Brits who haven't the balls to overthrow your woke leaders or drive your muslim invaders out?
There was an excavation in Charlestown, Ireland 🇮🇪 in Dublin where a few university historians discovered Roman coins and religious material .
🇮🇪🤪
🇮🇪🤓
🇮🇪😁
Sure that's nothing. They found the remains of a Barbara ape up in navan fort from 2300 years ago.
romans traded lots, with coin hoards being found far outside the borders of rome. there is numerous roman artefacts in india like at Arikamedu where there was likely small trading communities.
Not only did the Romans ultimately decide that Ireland was not worth the cost of conquest, but Scotland, also, represented a poor return on investment. It was more profitable to wall it off (Hadrian and Antonius Pius) and enlarge the empire in other areas (Dacia/Romania and the Parthian frontier). Ultimately, Britain fell due to attacks from three sides, with attacks from Ireland and Scotland splitting the Roman defense allowing the Saxons to take over.
Rome just left, there were no scots or irish. The vikings came before the saxons.
@@NigelHatcherN Technically, the picts and Irish as the Scots originated in Ireland. However, it is true that the Roman army left to participate in the revolts of the early 5th century. This left Roman Britain intact but undefended. See St Patrick for an Irish raid in the early 5th century, the Saxons show up in force in the mid 5th century, and Gildas writing about 625 mentions a ruler in Britain who has fought effectively against the Saxons, but hates the man and does not mention his name; was it Arthur or possibly the inspiration for Arthur? The Vikings do not show up until about 793, the raid on Lindesfarne.
@@jameshorn270 I have always wondered why Rome stopped where it did at Hadrian's Wall. Considering the size of the Empire by then Scotland was tiny. "This far and no further"...WHY?
@@HollyMoore-wo2mhIt had nothing Rome wanted , good crops to feed it's empire ,or mineral wealth . Purely economic .
@@NigelHatcherNWrong on both points I'm afraid , try reading a history book .
Even the Greenland Eskimos that paddled their kayaks there, looked around, and then paddled back to Greenland, the whole way back thinking, "Yikes, what were them freckly things?"
Nice thought, but considering the average IQ of a Greenlanders is about 75 and Ireland about 101, it's obvious why they never tried again.
@@mutteringmale apparently they english have a 102? they have owned it for the past 900 years...
@@Mobutusese These are old statistics before massive immigration of the most undesirables you can imagine.
I'm sure the base average is now about 97 and going down, also due to the welfare system/the dole that rewards the lowest to breed more and the middle and upper class gets penalized more so they have fewer children.
Caligula's war against Nepture is such a shitpost lol
👍😆 He acquired Neptune's wrath in about a year and a half
Well Neptune is very windy
There's no way he wasn't bat shit crazy
There's no way he wasn't bat shit crazy
There's no way he wasn't bat shitcrazy
It’s not that they couldn’t, it’s that they didn’t deem it worth conquering.
Just the land alone was worth Conquering; bigger than both Scotland/Wales and where Ireland geographically is, makes it well worth Conquering aswell.
@@Ulsterbhoy The return on investment (blood and treasure) would have been what exactly? There were products available, but of little value against existing sources.
@@Ulsterbhoy the land itself wasn’t worth much of anything for the Romans More rainy and aboit as cold or colder than brittania, no major cities to work with, and outside any real trade routes for sought after goods all while being disconnected from the rest of the empire including brittania thus making an argument for land based defense moot. The Romans would have more a reason to conquer and develop germania and the baltics of all things than Ireland because at least those would have the amber trade as an excusable reason. When it comes to conquest, it’s not necessarily the size that matters.
They conquered it using religion.
@lervish1966 the Irish voluntary converted to roman Catholicism, weren't forced to
Julius Caesar wasn't named the "general in charge of conquering Gaul", in fact he did so against the wishes of the Senate and essentially on his own dime along with the support of Crassus and Pompey. He basically used a migrating Tribe entering Roman Territory as an excuse to conquer Gaul
If I remember it was a huge despute between Senate and Caesar to even recognise the conquest of Gaul (as he Caesar would really love a triumph for that). But having a Crassus on your side who is filthy rich (and he had some interesting idea for business) and Pompey the Great - made you powerfull allies in the Senate. That's why First Triumvirate was so important and between three - Caesar had to gain his respect and he got a lot after his campaign in Gaul. Unfortunately for him his try to land in Britain got really bad.
But fully agree - Caesar took action on his own using defense of allied tribes to Rome as means to conquer Gaul for himself (and it was great political move in many ways).
@@ozyrysozi6186not quite. Caesar hadn’t finished the conquest of Gaul (though he mostly had and had already defeated Vercingetorix at the battle of Alessia) when Crassus decided to invade Parthia because despite his riches, he was the only one of the triumvirate that did not have military glory and he became jealous of Caesar’s success and tried to out do him. Of course Crassus was humiliated and killed at the battle of Carrhae and without the 3 balancing each other, Pompey became extremely jealous and turned on Caesar. Pompey had the support of the senate, not Caesar, and Caesar was essentially branded enemy of Rome and enemy of the people when he refused to surrender his positions and accept arrest and trial by the senate.
That’s when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon - Pompey and the Senate didn’t really leave him any choice.
@@spudeeelad True, I would say that Caesar pretty much wanted to use Crassus and Pompey as he started as the weakest of the three. In the end Caesar with his action pretty much put himself on the crosshair of the Senate, but I think that he always knew it would come with what he was doing, maybe the harsh push from Pompey, Cato and their supporters was more sudden, but if I remember correctly situation could be defused at some point and wouldn't mean starting civil war.
And yeah, Crassus was interesting guy and his death was quite a loss for Caesar I think, but like with the second triumvirate I doubt it would last long either way. Maybe it was good for Caesar if the Crassus would also oppose him in future.
And also - I believe that Senate from the start seen Caesar as trouble as he had very radical ideas.
@@spudeeelad And of course Senate accused Caesar of things he really done, so I would say they were very legitimate (not talking that they were saints, but it still was valid point).
@@ozyrysozi6186 If I remeber correctly, shortly before civil war Pompey's wife died, who was coincidentally Julius's daughter ;) Which meant, there was nothing keeping them together in Triumvirate after Crassus died and stopped bankrolling them.
The Romans arrived in Ireland after they had secured Great Britain. The weather wass so bad they renamed Ireland: Hibernia which means land of eternal winter. Isn't that a grand little story.
I was visiting Wales and my friend and I decided to take a side trip to Ireland. Both she and I have taken many ferries. Irish Sea is unbelievably difficult which sailors would label confused. I never saw so many people throwing up at one time.
Didn't stop Cromwell , tragically
They drank British beer
The Irish Sea certainly can make one seasick. Oddly enough I had little trouble with a fair number of Larne to Stranraer ferry trips. Salmon fishing trips at the mouth of the Columbia River made me very sick.
The Romans had no chance, Ireland couldn't even conquer Ireland...
A thousand years later, the Normans conquered Ireland instead.
The guy was impersonated Loki
It's still divided, but I've read that Rome Rule is weakening in the Republic, See the Wikipedia account of Rev. Ray Davey, for one of the good Protestants in the North.
It was king tuathal techtmar. One of the greatest irish high kings that ever lived. That mans story alone is legendary and deserves a movie. His family got massacred and he and his mother fled to Argicola when he was just a child. Argicola raised him as his own and educated him in the roman ways . He even hired a bunch of Irish exiled warriors to be his protection. These became known as the legendary na fianna. 600 of na fianna and tuathal reconquerd ireland. The romans thought they had a puppet in place but tuathtal turned on his roman paymasters and argicola . He invaded both wales and scoland and he started those rebellions in the Highlands. Argicola got recalled to rome over it. End of his career. As he had to withdraw from the Highlands. The legends of fionn mc cool and na fianna stories all come from tuathals dynasty. Some historian's point out that it was during tuathals reign that he was able to asert a lot of control over all the scotti tribes in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, that the romans never again invaded Scotland in that kind of force and Ireland was forever off the table of conquest. which ended up with the romans building hydrians wall . Even niall of the nine hostages " the guy in the saint patricks story" was a decendant of tuathals. Niall got wacked because he demanded tribune of king of leinster . A tribute that was paid since tuathals time. Most of the roman settlements and trading post's that have been found in ireland recently date back to tuathals regin. He kept trading with rome but turned on argicola and ousted him as governor of britianna. Argicola and tuathal need a movie. Its the strory when a great roman general was bested by a barbarian king. They never had a pitched battle. Tuathtal use to invade Britain wrile up the tribes. Then jump back on the boat and be gona by the time argicola come. Tuathals dynasty ruled part's of ireland right up till the ulster plantations. Even parts of king charles crown jewels are tuathals. History is written by the Victor's. However ireland and Scotland is one place they couldn't win. So they overlook it. All dowb to a guy named tuthal techtmar. A man that had been largely written out of history because he took on a superpower and won. He always does get a wee footnite in argicolas story. They always mention the exiled irish prince.
thank you for posting ... High King of ireland Tuathal Techtmar. the ancestor of the Uí Néill and Connachta dynasties.
wiki dates >>> Túathal's exile as AD 56, his return as AD76 and his death as AD 106. Geoffrey Keating's Foras Feasa ar Érinn broadly agrees, dating his exile to 55, his return to 80 and his death to 100. The Lebor Gabála Érenn places him a little later, synchronising his exile with the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (81-96), his return early in the reign of Hadrian (122-138) and his death in the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161).
Very interesting. Your source?
@@John-nf9ip there's plenty of historical sources. Just look them up. You won't be disappointed.
This is the Irish version. And we know it's true because no Irishman would ever lie about a thing like that.
Honestly, sometimes I have to smile. The web is full of BS but it takes an Irishman to take it to the next level.
@@TarlachOakleaf It is very easy to go look it up and educate one's self. All you need to do is google is the current UK royal family related to tuthal techtmar. The English will litterley give you the whole bloodline. This is not the Irish who are claiming this. The joke is on you. Queen Victoria, Mary Queen of scots, the entire house of York. House of hannover. Queen matilda. Malcolm the first of Scotland , Roger mortimer , Brian boru, niall of the nine hostages and tuathal techtmar are all related. It is literally the oldest royal bloodline In history.
Correction: Roman Catholicism was in Britain when the Romans left. It was wiped out by the Anglo-Saxon invasions. It was Irish missionaries who started bringing it back. Also, the island was NEVER called England until after the Anglo-Saxon conquest, which changed the name of part of the island to England (Anglo-land).
The Roman scholars who wrote about Ireland had never set foot on the island. Their writings were probably strategic to dissuade Rome for embarking on another futile, costly war at a time the "empire" was fracturing. Let's not forget that Gaelic Ireland, pre and post 4AD was governed by four provincial kings subject to a high king. The island was rich in gold, tin, copper, and fertile land. The wealthy Gaelic kings had long traded with the Iberian Peninsula and mainland Europe. Rome was not a mystery. Gaelic chiefs were kept informed of Roman governance in the lands conquered, wars and opposition. Before plotting an invasion, Roman generals would have considered the cost of such an expedition, in money and lives. Ireland was heavily forested. Battle tactics used by Gaelic chiefs in tribal wars usually comprised hit and run guerrilla manoeuvres followed by the use of light and heavy calvary to subdue the enemy. The Roman armies were trained to fight in open terrain and in formations. As was the case when Rome fought Germanic tribes, their legions would have been annihilated in Ireland by Gaelic forces better equipped to fight in tight forested spaces and combine guerilla warfare with horse. Provincial kings in Ireland at this time were in constant friction with each other, each vying for the high kingship. Their soldiers were battle hardened, more than a match for Rome's mercenaries, who were seldom paid and routinely deserting. The main reason Rome didn't invade Ireland was cost and trouble brewing as the empire was failing. BTW, pre and post 4AD, Ireland's kings were sending "missions" across Europe to build churches, monasteries and colleges of learning (Europe's first universities) from Madrid to Kiev, from Bern to Aalborg, and Paris to Frankfurt. So not as "backward" as those scared Roman fiction writers might have one think.
Now, that’s a post! You know your history Gerard!
They got to Dublin, thinking it would be great craic, then realised just how expensive it was. Then they went feck that lads, let's go and get smashed on mead in Londinium instead.
Lads, did I ever tell ye about the time I fought in the X1V Legion?
Short answer - not worth the blood it would take
Hibernia had no known mineral resources- unlike England, Scotland and Wales that had copper, lead silver gold and tin.
The losers lament- Never fancied her anyway.
@@catinthehat906 So the place name of Silvermines in Tipperary was just a clever ruse?
You left out the main reason, Ireland set up it's first ever standing army, this left the kings and chieftains free to raid Roman Britain, the old name for the Irish is the scota, it's where Scotland gets it's name from and, because there was an Irish Clan whose territory spanned from the extreme north east of Ireland to the west of Scotland including the isles, it was easy to coordinate the attacks, the usual way was to send a third of the Irish to join with the Scottish Irish and also the picts and sometimes the caledonii too and they would cross the wall or sometimes just attack it to draw Roman forces north while the rest of the Irish would raid the south from the sea.
The leprechauns were to much to deal with
Always after me Lucky Charms 😆
Especially Warwick Davis bouncing around on a pogo stick...
@funfact8660 Damn, you beat me too it! 😄
Jennifer Aniston made a deal with Jupiter
So was dealing with drunks.
They didn’t even conquer Scotland
Very interesting video. As an American I know very little about Europe and it's history. It is very hard to muddle through all the names and countries and timelines and it becomes boring really fast when you are trying to read it. However, your presentation is both interesting and informative without being dry and I learned a lot; just the maps alone were great since names of places you never heard of aren't wildly helpful. Thank you for this and you have a new subscriber.
'As an american' is all you needed to say for your lack of intelligence to be forgiven.
European history is by far the most interesting. I have been studying it just for myself since I was very young. I don't want to assume but being American I'd wager that you European blood like most over there you should learn about your ancestors 😊
Rather, why WOULDN'T the Romans conquer island. There wasn't anything to get in Ireland. Far away and just farm land. "We'll be back when you have potatoes."
Nowadays Italy is part of Tomato Europe, not Potato Europe anyway 😆
Given potatoes didn’t exist in Ireland (or in fact Europe) until the 16th century. It’d be a very long wait indeed.
@@py8554 A little known fact is that the potato actually originated In Ireland but was so highly revered by the people that they successfully hid it's existence from the rest of Europe for several centuries. The potato is the single most important thing in all of Irish history, a true cultural cornerstone. Even in the present day, 86% of Irish people say they would "fight to the death any fecker that tries to take my potatoes."
@@andrewthomson870 Little known, indeed!
@@andrewthomson870irish are descendant of potato gods.
title should be closer to 'why was ireland of so little value to rome' because realistically rome could have invaded and occupied very easily but there was just nothing there of value that the romans wanted, same goes for scotland, they bang on about 'grrrrrrrrr the romans couldnt take us on so they built a wall' no, the romans could have very easily invaded and occupied scotland, it just wasnt worth it, theres nothing there for rome to take, all it would do is take resources that could be used elsewhere, hence the cheapest option was just build a wall and forget they even exist.
There, there son. There's no need to get your Jimmies in a wad. It's ancient history and has no bearing on our lives today. If it makes you feel better we can arrange to give Rome a participation trophy and instead of saying that they lost we'll just say that they were simply just the last winner from now on too.
@@lowkeykarnak cry me a river sunshine, no need to bawl ur eyes out
Then why build a wall? I also know it gives Rome:
1 - during down time it gives an army sometimes to do (keeping them busy)
2 - a way to collect taxes from travelers. (more money) If there wasn't travelers that they could collect taxes from then why the gates?
@@HollyMoore-wo2mh because building a wall is cheaper than having to assemble small armies constantly to fight off petty raiders from the north, build a wall, place a few soldiers at gates and its done, no raids, no battles no minor wars.
@@v_cpt-phasma_v689 I do not agree with that. Why the gates then?
And Irish monks played an important in christanizing northern Europe and Germania
Only a young Roman, son of a prominent leader, who was to become 'St Patrick', kidnapped from The Welsh Coast, can claim to've conquered Ireland; not militarily, but mentally. After escaping his Captors, he'd gone to The Vatican, was converted, and later returned to Ireland as a Monk who soon wielded great influence over The Tribes. If not for the subsequent Monasterys, none of Europe's academic knowledge would've survived The 'Dark Ages'. As for St Patrick drivin' snakes out of Ireland, a myth, given there'd not been snakes there.
Wrong St Patrick was kidnapped from St Malo in Brittany not Britan
That the first time I've ever seen the contaction of to have. to've.
Because boiled cabbage and mutton gave them the shits.
🤣
Curious history question: when you use the label "BCE" (before common era), what is the historical event that initiated the common era?
Better question, why not zero and negative years CE?
Part of the broader programme to marginalise Christianity.
Christian Era and Before Christian Era mate ;)
Not many people care about any fairy tale about a god being born, these days. It is called education.
It’s BC and AD.
For you maybe, BCE and CE are the norm these days. Makes more sense.
Commies doing what commies do... Anti Christs!
The very question betrays a misunderstanding of Roman civilisation. Although generals were inclined to boast about their "conquests" the reality is that the empire spread more like the EU - by trade deals, harmonisation and infrastructure development. People queued up to JOIN the empire voluntarily and that is certainly true in Britain - the "invasion" was at the invitation of British tribes that were already important trading partners. The "pax romana" ultimately benefited everyone, which is why the whole country remained nostalgic about Roman union for centuries afte it collapsed (hence "King Arthur"). Its also why Rome had to build walls - including Hadrians - to keep illegal migrants out (and levy taxes on goods). Given that context, its obvious that Ireland didn't join the Roman empire because there was no money in it. Much of it was bogland after all. Same in Scotland. Neither battles nor rebels had anything to do with it. BTW, this view also explains why the Irish were so enthusiastic about Christianity at an early date - because it opened doors to the Roman and post-Roman civilisation they had previously been denied.
This is the best statement I've seen in a coon's age. I'm no historian, strictly a layman, but this instinctively and intellectually (as far as my poor intellect can go) is the truth as far as I'm concerned. If only all history were reworked and re-presented to us from this kind of viewpoint I think it would make much more sense. We in fact have plenty of relatively recent demonstrations of this kind of mechanism I think, haven't we? Isn't this how the British occupied India?
It is true, in my opinion, that continental Europe was better off as Roman Empire than in the Dark Ages.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 I don't know but haven't I heard that 'the dark ages' is a misnomer and in fact there is much on record from those times? if so the truth could be established perhaps?
Several reasons the Romans never invaded Ireland:
- A longer sea voyage across the open Atlantic (which the Roman forces that invaded present-day England were reluctant to cross even for the narrower gap between Gaul and Britain).
- A cold, damp climate that the Romans considered uninviting
- A population of fierce tribes, similar to those in Caledonia, but with much more "iffy" logistics for supplying, reinforcing and, if things went badly, evacuating Roman armies, thanks to the aforementioned longer ocean voyage to travel there.
- Tricky, sneaky leprechauns who were too lucky for the Romans to defeat
- The fact that the only known mineral resources were "sham rocks", which were of no use to Romans
- A lack of potatoes there at the time, as those were still in the Andes Mountains waiting for Europeans to find out they existed and import them to Europe many centuries later
- An excess of corned beef and cabbage due to the aforementioned lack of potatoes
what did Britannia provide the Roman Empire,that Hibernia could not ? This is not a rhetorical question,i expect an answer from you ! Please don't be bashful now,or give me some silly answer either.
@@brendankane3546 Tin and gold, plus decent farmland. More importantly, controlling Britannia protected Rome's northern flank, i.e. Gaul, enabling Rome to concentrate on Germania, first offensively and later defensively. Put another way, Rome didn't need Britannia for its own sake but left to themselves England and Wales (as they became) were a threat. Ireland and Scotland weren't.
@@patrickneylan How did the Romans even know the resources of Ireland ? they were not there.Furthermore,gold and "decent farmland " was abundant in Hibernia and how do YOU know about tin in Ireland ? Put another way,the Romans wisely realized their invasion would fail. Also the Scottish Highlander clans put a major,major hurt on two of the best Legions-and one fearsome Roman legion was lost without a trace in Caledonia (courtesy, History Channel ) Now,if i may hear from Damon,please,like i asked in the first place.
"- An excess of corned beef and cabbage due to the aforementioned lack of potatoes." 😂
@@brendankane3546 Why precisely do you "expect an answer" from me? In any case, you can find my answers (serious or otherwise) to your question in the list in my original post above.
Ireland would have had better roads and infrastructure.
If you submitted this as a history essay you'd be lucky if you passed lol. 3 of the 11 mins were relevant. This is what we needed to hear 9:50 and it was on the screen for 2 seconds. Most of the info leading up to the conquest of Britain was totally unnecessary just padding out the video.
Also, the Catholicism that reached Ireland was not very Roman at all. Ireland was the first country to be Christianised without being Romanised which resulted in 6 centuries of arguments between the Irish and Roman churches, eventually culminating in the granting of a Papal Bull by Pope Adrian VI (only English pope ever) to the Anglo-Normans called the Laudabilliter. It gave them permission to invade Ireland to "normalise Irish Christianity" so your statement of "conquering Ireland with ideas" is also incredibly off base. I just finished my history degree in ireland and it dealt a lot with this. If this were a paper I was correcting I'd fail you in a heartbeat. Try better next time.
Its thought Papal Bull was a convenient forgery.
Good slaves love Catholicism; they're used to being slaves and being Catholic is Slavery Lite.
Could they have? Probably with a massive resource commitment that they would never see a return on investment for.
Not couldn't. Didn't. They couldn't be arsed.
England was so shit the Romans decided to stop going west
People talking about weather and climate of Ireland. Nope. It's the sea. England is relatively easy to get to from France. The Irish and celtic sea that divides Ireland from both landmasses are quite difficult to navigate for roman era sea faring technology. Just not worth it
didn't stop Cromwell,sadly
I enjoy your historical videos about European history. Keep up the good work, and I hope your channel gets support your channel.
Caesar did not realise the range of the tides, but he could see the coast of Britain from Gaul.
Even Agricola in Môn in north Wales, could not see Hibernia, over the horizon.
The Irish Sea is too difficult a water body to cross militarily.
Please lose your " British Isles " reference. There's Hibernia and Britannia, perfectly unambiguous to the Romans.
Keep up the great content!
Thanks!
Rome couldn’t conquer the island of Britain. They were severely stretched later calling legions back to fight in Europe.
Ireland was considered to be even wilder than Scotland. Stories of how the natives were so wild they were cannibals, it never stopped raining, and the island sat in a constant dense fog didn’t exactly promise a quick campaign. Nevermind another harsh sea crossing and apart from green land Ireland offered little in terms of minerals.
Simply put they weren’t in a position and it just wasn’t worth the cost.
Also few artefacts and coins have been found all in prominent ancient Irish strongholds. Possibly from trade but also it’s possible they were brought back from raids and attacks on the British coast.
If you took a poll in Ireland today, you would find that the majority of under 50s would be either atheist or agnostic. Theres still some of the old beliefs, like when it come to weddings and funerals. But all the worship and Sunday mass taken a huge dip recently
👍👍 i had learn a lot from this
Because Emperor Domitianus had Agricola removed as Governor General of Britannia, Agricola wrote that he could subdue Caledonia with a couple of Roman Legions. Emperor Flavius Domitianus was obviously jealous.
The emperor realised that Scotland was never going to supply the taxes necessary to finance its conquest,hence the decision not to bother. Dacia was a far more appealing prospect!
@@paulmasterson386 So the Emperor let the Dacians have land, and paid them off instead, until Trajan fixed that mess. Sounds like he was jealous of Agricola's achievements to me.
I look forward to the rest of the Roman Emperor videos. I was really enjoying that series. I wanted it to continue all the way to the fall of the Empire.
I realize that this is a very snapshot view of many events but all very interesting, well done and thank you.
My answer is that Rome was overstretched logistically and spread too thin in terms of manpower.
That was recognised later when 'limes' were constructed and imperial expansion ended.
Someone should have told Trajan that; he went on to conquer Dacia and Mesopotamia which are many times larger than Scotland and Ireland combined.
Alos the Irish sea was alot more dangerous the the Mediterranean and a longer voyage then just crossing the English channel.
no, they didn't left behind "Catholicism", because Catholicism didn't exist in the 4th century, the Christianity split in Catholics and Orthodox only in early 1000s ; they left in Britain simply Christianity
Yes, pretty poor to get this basic historical fact wrong.
But Ireland would be in the western church that recognized the Popes authority even before the official split
You do realize the Catholic Church existed before the schism? The East was in communion with the Catholic (Universal) Church
Fun Fact :Christianity,Catholic faith came into Ireland from Wales
Catholic, or katholikos in Greek, simply means universal. The name "Catholic Church" was first used in 110 AD, and Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica, "De fide Catolica", in 380 AD. I do think it's fair to say that it was "Catholicism" that the Romans left behind.
Hibernia does not mean "winter" in relation to Ireland. It's a derivation of Ivernia, as the island was named by the Greek Ptolemy, who drew the first known maps of Ireland and Britain around 100BC. Ivernia probably derives from Ierne, from the goddess Eriu.
Well they did try once but soon as they landed the Irish tribes began attacking each other with such ferocity even the Romans were shocked and horrified they had never witnessed such strange behaviour the Roman leader became convinced that the place was inhabited entirely by Raving Lunatics so they left and returned to Britain then they sent a Christian missionary Patrickus to try to civilise them the Romans never saw or heard from him again
they did not want Ireland; very different from not being able to conquer it, they didn't even try!
The first time I’ve been to Ireland I fell in love with how untouched that island still is. Green, lush, and beautiful. And it came to my mind that what the romans might have seen, in the end, would not be this different than what I saw back then. Amazing
They weren't looking for scenery
@@derekhough-jm9gc Romans wanted slaves and grain.
The Irish population was tiny and there was little farming.
Not a lot of point in going there.
what year did you go to Ireland 3500 BC
@@johndelaney459 2023. Passive-aggressive comments will be reported
The Romans would have seen an immense amount of bogland - Ireland's landscape today is the product of centuries of drainage.
Actually the Romans did land there looked around and said "Nah. Not worth the effort" similar to what they did in Scotland virtually conquered Scotland, discovered no mining of any worth and would cost more to stay than leave so built a wall and said "Here will be the border"
The Gaels were to cool and intimidation for the Romans. Who pretended they didn't know of their great warriors, yet conviently never ACTUALLY invaded.
You should be using BC and AD, otherwise good video
No, BCE and CE are the standard for scholarship. BC and AD is a Christian only system and most of the world isn't Christian.
@@Lexivor and yet they still count from the birth of Jesus Christ? CE and BCE is a ridiculous system. Stick to BC and AD, thank you.
It's now politically correct to use CE and crap like that. Yu call tell the author is a youngling educated in a modern school system.
Why was my reply deleted??
@@Lexivor Yup, and I guess now we have to stop saying "Ok" and "Chiao" and "siesta" and all those other words that arn't "Approved" by some self-appointed committee of morals and standards?
And uh, most of the world IS christian, largest amount until the world started bringing medicine to the muslims.
No one had ever heard of CE etc except the atheists and muslims. Now these "scholars" think they're cool to be different.
Too many Irish
Lervish
Nice video! Well put together!
Where Rome conquered depended on the internal politics at the time, their army and navy were unbeatable. They created a fleet in Chester at one time to enable the full scale invasion of Ireland but this idea was abandoned when the power struggles became inward rather than outward
Co. Kilkenny is short for County Kilkenny, and the emphasis is on Ken.
They killed Kenny?
A lot of doubts about the seashell stories tbh.
I would expect him to get there but soldiers just said "fu** it we don't want to go" and he just abandoned the plan. Even Claudius years later had a problem with legion's motivation as they didnt like the idea of being few days in bad weather on the ship (while most of them couldn't even swim) to some barbarian land they didn't even hear of or what they heard was just nightmare they had already lived through in Germania but worse. I would not be that happy if my garrison duty changed to an invasion of "Siberia".
I trust it. Seashells crushed into powder was an important ingredient in some Roman concrete. Now the legions were there and not sailing anywhere anyway it would have been a somewhat valuable resource to bring back with them. Collecting them makes sense. As for the stones they could be used in road construction projects (locally I guess; I doubt they brought them back to Rome). But the "war with Neptune" story sounds like Caligula being childish (or mad).
@@kubium7546 You might be right. The story goes that Caligula had forgotten to arrange ship transport for the legions. But after his death people (probably for good reason) loved to ridicule him, so we should probably take that story with a grain of salt. Perhaps many ships wrecked before the invasion like on Caesar's first attempt? But some level of mutiny could have played it's part. We might never know the truth.
@@larsrons7937 I think they had seashells in Italy tbh.
@@lightdrizzle Yes, naturally. But it would still give them some "booty" to bring home for appearance's sake. It doesn't look rgeat to return home emptyhanded. And even if not worth bringing home it could be of good use more locally. It wasn't unusual for soldiers to collect materials for their own construction projects.
Ireland would have been worth the expedition due to the abundance of livestock and wood alone. What people miss out on is that Ireland was dense forest across most of the land. The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was still very fresh in the minds of every Roman at the time. The psychological impact would have been enormous. It was another sea to cross into a world of superstition and druids. Irelands climate was also warmer than today(not amazing but winters were mild in comparison to Central Europe) with vineyards found at archaeological digs from around that time. It’s geographic location, the psychological factors, the lack of strategic value and also the PAX Romana played a crucial role in the decision.
When Hadrian built his wall, it cost a lot of man power. But with Ireland, if Mother Nature had already done the hard work, who were they to argue.
I think it would be easier to finish the conquest of Brittania and take over the Picts to the north than it would be to island hop _again_
Caligula attempted to force the God of the Sea to retreat?! Did he leave his brain in Rome or something?!
Caligula was indeed a funny guy, I would say that I think that many things about him were fabricated, but who knows. I like an idea of horse being my advisor. And I mean - take it Neptune, Calligula took all his shells from those beaches lol.
He seems to have been crazy by our modern standards.
@@pranc236 Not only by our modern standards haha. If everything is true about what they said about him then Commodus in some way could only hold the candle for Caligula.
But as with Nero - I have doubts that Caligula was that mad.
@@pranc236it was probably propaganda c'mon now any emperor would have been smarter than a down syndrome patient
Caligula (Booties when translated into English) was a piece of work. He ended up marrying a notorious courtesan (apparently well know by most of the men in the Senate if you know what I mean). They had a daughter who was just as ... unusual as him - he praised her when she tried, as a little girl, to put out the eyes of her playmates. Once he was overthrown I think that courtesan met her fate with calmness (she played the game of power and lost), Caligula cried like a little girl, and their hellcat daughter had her head bashed against a wall by a soldier.
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁💯
Thanks, Knowledge.
Geology and location. Although milder weathered than Britain, the soil is poor compared to southeastern Britain, and it is even further away. Empires are all about profit. Economies back then were mostly agricultural
Very good grass for dairy tho we have the best milk in the world. Noting compares to Irish milk and butter ect.
So basically, Ireland wasn't worth the conquest. Good to know
that's what i call a lazy assumption of history-Reading Is Fundamental ! Books are fun,try one sometime
Why wasn’t Scotland occupied either? In both cases, the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze in terms of resources.
Ireland had alot of gold and silver back then most of our ancient relics are made of these materials. They just didn't know I suppose
Rome ruled Britania for another 250 years after Agricola was recalled. It is not true to say the opportunity for conquest of Hibernia was lost at that point. It is more likely that because Britania finally became pacified and trade had already been established with Hibernia, the cost of conquest outweighed any perceived military or economic benefit, just as with Scotland and that, later, Rome had other priorities as the empire began to falter.
The picts hammered and terrified the romans in scotland and their cousins were in ireland. Ireland was also covered in forest which was not where the romans liked to fight.
wasn't it St Patrick, not the Roman Empire, who brought Christianity to Ireland?
Also why do all your maps mark the Roman frontier well south of Hadrian's wall?
He brought ROMAN Catholisism, if you get the link there.
No It was Palidus who brought christianity to ireland It was Patrick who beat the snakes into defeat.
"Couldn't" ??? Seriously?😂😂😂
Yes they couldn't conquer Ireland or Scotland either.
The Romans could have conquered Ireland and there should be no doubt of it; but why would they want to? It was cold and damp, and had no natural resources to make it worthwhile except for its people who were basically half-naked beggars, and have been described as such. It's sobering to reflect on the fact that had they already invented Usquebaugh at that time things might have been different.
Perhaps it's best to have nothing others want, lest they invade you for it.
"The worst Winter I ever experienced was April in Hibernia"-- Unknown Roman soldier.
You may take our lives, but you’ll never take our freedom!
Caratacus' speech in the Roman Senate
Free to live in land nobody else wanted
The romans didnt bring Catholism to Ireland the Normans did. You were doing pretty well until the end
No. Monks across europe brought christianity to Ireland, Chalecadonian Christianity during the European Dark Age, hence the nickname of Ireland, the Isle of Saints and Scholars. It was considered a golden age for Ireland.
Said monks slowly spread it but St Patrick successly pushed the conversion.
Catholicism didnt exist then. It would not appear until the Othordox split. You can forget the Normans, all they did was murder.
The Roman Christian Church was indeed "Catholic". The "Catholic Church" was a normal name for the Catholic Church in Roman times, the name first used in 110 AD. Catholic is Greek, "katholikos", and simply means "universal". In the "Edith of Thessalonica" issued by Emperor Theodosius I in 380 AD (and later published in the "Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2"), it says that _"We order the followers of this law to embrace the name of Catholic Christians..."_
Back then, Rome was basically discovering new lands that civilization never seen til that point
They were still in the iron age
Romans didn't wage war for lust of conquest, usually. War was normally waged to protect an ally from an enemy, or to protect Rome from aggressive and expanding enemies, or to be able to trade freely. Ireland never posed a menace to the integrity of Roman borders, or trade.
"Couldn't"?
BCE and CE mean Before Christian Era, and Christian Era, right?
Yes
The terms mean "before common era" and "common era" in other historical videos. BC and AD have served us so long, why is it now being changed?
Reject "common era" stuff (CE & BCE). It’s nothing less than an insidious attempt to separate 'The West' from its Judeo-Christian heritage, to the detriment of all.
It’s a weird new thing they’re doing to try to take credit away from the men who created our modern calendar (Pope Gregory and his bros).
@@EllieMaes-Grandad We are talking about history. It doesn't matter if the West has a Judeo-Christian heritage. That has nothing to do with studying history. Stop trying to force your religion on everyone else.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad Absolutely.
Most of Modern
Day England was Conquered by the Romans up to the Scottish tribes Territory up north .👍
They picked up Joe Duffy on RTE and understood Ireland was already conquered.
You are a history channel... If you say GREECE then MACEDONIA is included. If you say MACEDONIA then say all Greek city states.
This is inaccurate. Since early times, Greeks considered Macedonians as only partly Helene. During the Diadodichi, they were separate entities. During the entirety of the Roman Republic and Empire, they were different provinces. During the entirety of the Byzantine and Ottoman. empires, they were also separated. Thus, 2400 years they were two different entities, and you get confused because they have been together in the same country for 160 years. Don't use modern concepts for historical.
@@Orbirik Its beacuase i dont use modern concepts as historical that i reply like this. Back then there were no countries but city states (video did a mistake there). Macedonias did participated in the Olympic games (only greek city states participated). They spoke Greek and believed in Greek gods. Their names were Greek (Filipos... filos and Ipos, Alexandros... alex and andros). I understand that modern politicians try to rewrite history to give identity to some nations but this is not history this is politics... So next time... its either greeks or... athenians, spartans, macedonias, thibea etc.
P.S. During Diadochi* empire was splited after Alexander death and did not called Macedonia but Seleucid empire, Ptolemaic, Kasandros, Antigonos, Licimachos and they fought with each other like all Greeks back then did.
@@akaros96 let's then use your own arguments and logic against yourself. Follow me:
1. You say that it is improper to say Greek and Macedonia because by saying Greece, Macedonia is included.
2. Your basis for saying they were the same and thus one included the other, is not political or administrative, but cultural.
3. Among the reasons to prove they were culturally the same, you mention participation in the Olympics, as they were restricted to Greeks. Let's focus then to the analysis of Olympic participants while Olympics existed.
4. Among the known participants of the Greeks, we find athletes from, as you subtly mentioned, Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Syria and Asia (particularly from Anriocheia), but also Lysimachian Thrace, Cassandrian and Antigonid Macedon (yeah, such a kingdom existed and had a 180 degrees change in dynasty). But also included were Odressian athletes from today's Bulgarian mountains, Epirus (today southern Albania), Ionian, Mysian, Bithinkan, Lydian, Carian, Lycian, Phrygian, Galatian, Cilician and even Cappadocian athletes, Bosporan athletes from today's Ucraine and Crimea, Magna Graecia athletes from Sicily and southern Italy, Cypriot athletes, Cyrene athletes from today's Lybia, and even there is evidence of participants from Massilia (today France) from Bactria (today Afganistán and Fergana Valley in Central Asia) and one from the Yavana Kingdom (today Pakistan). And there are few records of non-Greeks participating, like an Armenian, but while such was rare, let's not mess it that much as it was an exception (I mean, Nero participated, but he broke the rules).
5. Thus, as a logic conclusion, considering only your own arguments and historical evidence, by saying "GREEECE", then such term includes Macedonia, Thracia, Epirus, Egypt, Syria, most of Anatolia, Cyprus, the Ukrainian coastal cities, eastern Lybia, southern Italy, southern France, and far away places as the Fergana Valley and the Indus. I mean, all of them were considered Greek enough to allow them to participate in the Olympics. In contract, not even Hellenized Romans were allowed to join without prior granting of citizenship to a Greek City State.
See? This conclusion is absurd, do you agree? But it is entirely based on your own arguments. If your thesis is granted, this conclusion is logic and natural. Your over simplification of a very complex reality got us here.
In my perspective, culture as a classifier is complex. Culture is too fluid and flexible. Most of times is is a cultural geographic continuum, and a cultural chronologic continuum. When and where one culture stops and the other begins? Claiming two things separated by geography or time to be the same culture, is tough and complex. It requires taking one element above and even in disregard of all the others, which can be arbitrary. That's why I prefer using more objective and factual items such as administrative divisions. Greece and Macedonia were politically and administratively separated most of their history. We're they culturally linked? Well, so did Gallia Narbonensis and Aquitania. Others were not originally culturally related but eventually were, such as Italia and Gallia Cisalpina, which became romanized quite fast, faster than Sicily which was closer and conquered before. But even romanization is a harsh concept. Cultural homogeneization makes historians, linguists, archeologists and others really go crazy. Hard to measure, hard to prove. Use of names counts, as you said? Maybe... But it could be aspirational. Go to central America or Venezuela and most kids are called Brian or Britney. That doesn't make them American culture. Even Alexander himself did a LOT to prove he was descendent from the Argives, and was not believed by most back then. My recommendation is to use culture with a lot much more care.
@@Orbirik too much writting for nothing. What was MACEDONIA for us is shown in our language. Alexander the great united all greek dialects and simplified for everyone in the empire to talk the same language. Greek became Lingua franca of the known world. New testament was written in KOINE GREEK by jews... The Gods were the same and even Ptolemai ''marry'' greek gods with egyptians... So because this took long... race can be fluid but CULTURE NO. Greeks were everywhere... from Marseille and Portugal to Bactria and India. They are honoured to this day in statues in cities in coins. As long as you prove you are Greek you participated... Alexander the first... King of macedon participated in the Olympics at 460 BCE, rules to who participate back then were too strict.
So to finish this because it seems you have a hidden agenda (and at this case no matter what i writte makes no point) GREEKS WERE SPARTANS, ATHENIANS, MACEDONIAN, THEBES, SICILY And wherever there were Greek city states. EITHER say Greeks or say all the city states. What made you a Greek Hirodotos say, first historian in the world... όμαιμον, ομόγλωσσον, ομότροπον.
@@akaros96 oh boy. "hidden agenda". I'm dealing with a conspiracy paranoid. No, boy. I have no agenda but academic intellectual pursuit. Not everything is modern politics. I only used your own logic and your own arguments against you, and defeated you. If you are Greek (you seem to be due your paranoid comments), remember some Greek philosophers created the methodology I used above. A pity you used no logical structured methodology. Vomiting data without logic makes no arguments. For example, Alexander was no linguist nor interested in linguistic unification. There's no evidence in that. Anyone with basic learning knows Greeks had different variants (you may call them dialects, but any linguist can tell you that the difference between dialect and language is merely political, and NOT linguistic). The Pella Curse Tablet is evidence. Koine Greek, based on Attic and Ionic Greek (while Alexander spoke Doric), was a military coordination language. A military lingua franca. This is not something unique. Germans and Basques unified their language around 150 years ago! Bahasa was also a standardized created lingua franca spoken by million people. And you think Javanese and Bornean or Timorese are culturally the same because they speak the same language? Arabic is another good example. The Qur'an is written in Arabic and has been the basis of all Arabic speakers. And yet, a Moroccan and an Omani can hardly understand each other. They read the same, and speak the same, and can't understand themselves. Spanish is the opposite. Spanish is based on Cervantes Don Quijote work, helped by a centralized linguistic academia. And a Spanish Speaker in Los Angeles and a Spanish Speaker in Argentina or Equatorial Guinee or Philippines, understand each other when they use a standard neutral Spanish. That was Koine: a standard neutral Greek created for military coordination during the Alexandrian and Diadochi Wars. It was not meant for cultural homogeneity (as Spanish) religious homogeneity (Arabic) or mercantile homogeneity (Bahasa).
Again, I prove that your hyper nationalism avoids you from learning. You only want to be right by your own decree. Instead of being right by the correct reasons. Reality is extremely complex and over simplifications like yours are for simple minds. Read and study before simply spitting out words. You need a methodology. Either Mayeutics like I used in the Olympics logical argument, or Hegelian Dialectics (used in the linguistic analysis), you need structure and argumentation. And please please please don't mix political paranoid items to academic discussion. They are not proper of intellectuals.
Caligula is funny as always
Caligula would have blushed
Simple. While Irish people can be marvelous, they are also determined!
and dense
There is ine thing I have to correct you on Rome was an Empire even when it was a Republic. We tend to associate empires with monarchies but neither the Athenian Empire aka the Delian Legue, nor the Carthaginian Empire, nor the Venitian nor the Dutch nor the French Empire post 1870 were monarchical Empires.
It’s BC, bro
BEFORE CHRIST!
Iceni is pronounced e-cen-e.
whoever gave you the borders for the tutones and ambrones lied to you to make you look bad. The territory wrongly labelled was Gaul and Helvetica. it's presumed the nomadic "Germanic" tribes were from either Scandinavia (As Cimbrii literally means nomads in Germanic) or possibly what is today north-west Germany as the rest of the continent was Celtic and had no Germanic peoples to speak of.
After watching this video (and now I don't remember if I watched it all the way through), I came to wonder if the Vikings from Scandinavia ever clashed with the Romans from the Roman Empire. I think that topic might be good for you to discuss in a video.
See Cimbrian or Cimbric War (113-101 BC), although I doubt that at that time the Cimbri could already be called "Vikings", despite they came from Scandinavia (modern Jutland).
Nordic men fought for the eastern Roman Empire for hundreds of years, they formed the Varangian Guard who were imperial bodyguards. Nordic runes are inscribed in Haghia Sophia in Constantinople and many Saxons went to serve the empire after the battle of Hastings,fighting the Normans again in southern Italy.
@@slopermarco Thank You!
@@paulmasterson386 Thank You!
The Romans couldn't conquer Ireland because there were the Irish there. That's a HUGE obstacle...
Not huge at all,most Irish are practically dwarves
Don't know mate, the English did alright. However, Erin go bragh.
They probably realized they didn't want to settle in such a cold rainy land and it wasn't worth it to extend their control in Ireland
Not "couldn`t",wouldn`t!!.....The Romans took one look and decided it wasn`t worth having.
Stop using BCE and CE. It's BC and AD. It was a group of Jesuit priests that came up with the Gregorian calendar and it's the same reference point that you're discrediting them for. The Catholic Church evolved out of the Roman empire and wouldn't have gotten the traction it did but for an emporer converting to Christianity. I'm not religious but am on Neil Degrasse Tyson's side on the argument against BCE and CE. It's BC and AD whether you're "politically correct" offended by someone else's religion being credited for something good or not.
BCE - BEFORE CHRISTIAN ERA
CE - CHRISTIAN ERA .
I thought that b.c.e. and c.e. stand for before common era and common era. As it was a way to getting the religious aspect from the naming. Like b.c. and a.d. - before Christ and Anno Domini (Year of Our Lord). The more you know!
@@ozyrysozi6186 Reject "common era" stuff (CE & BCE).
It’s nothing less than an insidious attempt to separate 'The West' from its Judeo-Christian heritage, to the detriment of all.
@@ozyrysozi6186and Gregorian Calendar basically means “Christian Calendar”
@@Gwebb74 Of that I am aware, but I would not call it "Christian Calendar" as Orthodox Church still uses Julian Calendar (and they are Christians). But yes, if we want to go with basics then Church created Gregorian Calendar or rather supported and spreaded it- but calendar is still a tool.
At this rate, in few decades:
BME - BEFORE MOHAMMEDAN ERA
ME - MOHAMMEDAN ERA
There was nothing worth having as far as the Romans were concerned. Britain was the golden nugget.
The Romans lost more men in Britain than any other area of the empire. They were constantly harassed and attacked it was never a Roman walk over like it's portrayed
THATS BECAUSE OF THE IRISH who controlled the northern part of the Island which later became Britan as they couldnt beat the Irish in the north of the Island so they were'nt going to try crossing to Ireland.The romans lost more men on the island to the Irish than anywhere else in Europe The Irish had a massive navy and the romans had none.
@@johndelaney459 The Romans didn't invade Ireland cause there was nothing there they wanted. when you say Irish do you mean the Irish Scots who invaded and took land in Scotland?
Because they can't
Christianity conquered both Ireland and Rome 💪 Christ is King
If Christ is king, then Mohammed must be too since his religion conquered land from Morocco to Indonesia.
'I come not to bring peace but a sword.'
Just like in Britanica an invasion of land to the north of Britanica Inferior, which centuries later became Scotland, Ireland offered very little return for the Romans on the cost of invading.
"Too many Irish there"
- Roman Centurion
But yes, they would not invest in an invasion until they were sure they got their investment back. In time, they probably would have taken both Scotland and Ireland, but now we will never know.
It was full of leprechauns
Always after me Lucky Charms 😆