In Scotland there's a generally accepted notion that Rome didn't conquer us because our warriors were too kick ass and they couldn't handle us. Then you grow up and learn that the real history is that we weren't worth the effort to conquer and they had bigger fish to fry. The second one makes a lot more sense but its less fun
yep i’m half scot, we are so boastful about our warrior past and how we fended off and overcame the romans, it was hard to believe at first but then reality hit. Scots are unbelievably patriotic as is my other half 😂
It seems more like luck and roman apathy 😂 every time they showed up, they won and took land, but then a random reason would cause the romans to withdraw (the roman emperor falling ill, recalling a general out of jealousy, the heir of the roman emperor not wishing to continue the war out of apathy etc.)
@Francisco HEVIA VERGARA To be fair, warlike-stubborn peoples make everything “not worth the effort”, so yeah, we can say it applies for Caledonians and Mapuches, so promps to them. 👏
I live near the Antonine wall in Glasgow and it’s so surreal to watch this and look out the window at the land it took place upon. To think I guy named “Septimus Severus” all the way from Rome was strolling around contemplating his empire on the land I walk my dog. There are some great remains of a bathhouse in a place called Bearsden which would have been close to the wall. Perhaps Severus was sat there once upon a time with his head in his hands thinking about his ill heath and whether he should return home or stay and continue the fight.
Yeah cool, I like your thinking, I live 20 miles south of you, when i was younger I went on a 2 week holiday touring hadrins wall, while staying at a campsite on the wall (we done our holidays in a touring caravan) me and some other kids,went exploring in a forest and came across a big ravine and the recent storm had washed away part of the side of the ravine and exposed a part of the wall, I was mucking about and fell through a bit right into a old bunk house, you could climb down and the window if you stuck your head out was facing the ravine. Was crazy to think us kids just found and exposed something nobody had seen for all those years. When we told the adults later they just shurged it off as kids nonsense. I wonder sometimes if anyone else found that.
I live a mile away from Hadrians Wall and often take the history for granted. I always forget about the Antonine wall further north. Are there many remnants of the wall left?
The Scottish landscapes is extremely defendable, its a huge reason Scotland was never completely conquered in history. For centuries English armies were completely destroyed despite having superior equipment, numbers and training. Their is very few nations in the world that are this impressive, Scotland is definitely one of them.
The land was harsh, and cold. And the resistance was guerilla-like. So it would cost Rome dearly not only to conquer the land, but to rule it. The people in Scotland valued their freedom more than the benefits, the Pax Romana, that would come from Roman rule. So in the end Rome wasn't willing to pay the price associated with the benefits, much like well-run corporations make decisions these days.
Romans were not stupid, Scots and Germans under their tribal leaders were. Romans had nasty plans for slaves but in all honesty, same was reserved for slaves of scottish tribes. But Romans also delivered goodies, tribes did not...
@@pexxajohannes1506 yeahhhh general rule of thumb, don't go around calling certain historical societies stupid. Sure, people make stupid decisions but generally speaking societies adapt as best they can to the circumstances they're in. 1. Slavery wasn't that prevalent in early Scotland, nowhere near as prevalent as it was in Rome. Slavery was mainly a staple of settled societies in the ancient world. 2. Scotland wasn't as developed because Scotland as a place is harsher, the clan system emerged to make the best of the limited food supply that Scotland supply. Germany was the same at this time. Both of these lands would be developed later due to advances in farming technology during the medieval period and, later, the development of global trade and colonialism.
Even as a Scotsman I always knew the reason the Romans didn't conqour us was we were just too much trouble and not worth it. England had huge resources, not only in metals and manpower but also in agriculture, it was grain from England that fed Romes armies in France and Germany, Scotland had little land to grow on, the people were rather violent and it would have been a nightmare to even set up mining operations and get the goods out. I'm proud of my history as a Scotsman, but I'm not delusional.
Well in Fairness, it wasn't the Scots that the Roman's couldn't defeat. It was the Picts. The Scots would have still been in Ireland at that time. The Scots came over later and the MacAlbin treachery and the basic culture genocide launched against the Picts by the Dal Riata led to Scotland being formed. That being said I suspect most Highland clans would be heavily related to the Picts still even if the culture and language was all but destroyed.
I think you really are delusional! How about you go learn about your history and you will find that Rome tried many times to conquer Scotland and failed so they built the wall but even then that didn't stop the Scots from raiding across the wall.
@@Kaziklu Spoken in the same spirit that history is told by. The victors. Not one shred of credit to be given for the Indigenous people who defended that land. As someone from the first highland Clan myself I can tell you it was always Pictich first, Norse second and Scottish third. Exactly in that order.
Every empire that ever was had limits as to how far they could expand. Sometimes it's just simply a matter of not having enough resources and manpower to push further especially in areas that put up a lot of resistance compared to what might be gained by trying to take those lands. Perhaps the Romans reached a point where they didn't think it was worth the effort to try and claim all of Scotland.
Not technically true, the Mongols controlled all of Asia from Vladivostok to the Mediterranean, only a lack of land stopped them expanding further, and the British controlled every corner of the globe in an age when it took months and months to relay information from London and back
@@RaphaelAmbrosiusCosteau I wasn't trying to disprove or ' HURT ' anything. The fact is the Romans obviously expended Enormous resources to try and take Scotland and continued to do so for hundreds of years but couldn't, Hadrian's wall was build to keep the Scots from fighting back, which didn't work by the way, they ransacked it on a routine basis . Much like the Mongols did on the Great wall of China. Have you ever seen Hadrian's wall in person? It's incredible!! Almost a work of art in the way it straddles and conforms to the natural landscape to be as effective as possible, it must have taken decades of surveys just to plan it's design, Putting Evan a qualter of that effort into a concerted invasion would be much less costly and resource intensive, so why didn't they ? Because as the video says, conventional forces fighting against guerilla warfare is always going to get you wrecked. Just as the US found out in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. That's why the English cut down almost every tree in Scotland, to deny them that advantage . Also the Scots clans weren't United back then, so even if the Romans could bribe some of them to do their bidding , the rest would just be like .... ' nahh, fuck that , come and try to fight us' .
@@jedaaa I mean the Mongols weren't invinciblle or anything, they had limits like anyone else. They didn't even reach their territorial peak under Genghis, yet tried and failed to conquer Japan, India, Egypt, Burma, Indonesia and Vietnam. Just like mountains and forests stopped the Romans, large bodies of water, jungles and mountains stoppedd the Mongols.
"Reaching their limits" and "not worth expanding further" are euphemisms for "they were defeated." If you call a spade a spade, then you have to say that the Afghans defeated the British, Russian and American empires in one century. Similarly, the Vietnamese (specifically the Viet Minh) defeated Japan, Britain, France and the USA.
I live right on the highland border, and walking around here you can't help but notice that it would be ambush heaven for a defending guerrilla force of locals. I think you underestimated the effect the terrain had on defining the line at 2:30. It's very easy to get lost in these old, highly folded mountains, and it's easy to imagine how impossible it would be to escape an ambush, or to imagine archers sniping from the many vantage points above the long winding passes. This terrain stretches 200 miles north from here. But go 2 miles south and the terrain becomes just like England, flat and open with isolated hill ranges.
In fact Tom, the land up to the highland line, once part of the kingdom of Northumberland, was ceded to Scotland by one of the kings of England whose name just skips my memory. Regard the language: "Scots" is Northumbrian Anglian.
you are forgettng one important thing .... and that is that scotland looked totally different back then. scotland was for the most part covered in dense forests. ENgland aswell was for the most part covered in forests.
@@Mrs.Karen_Walker I didn't forget that. A lot of land round here is still covered in ancient forests. Older forests are actually easier to see/walk through than young regenerating ones.
@@Mrs.Karen_Walker They weren't Saxons, the Saxons invaded during the Roman retreat grom from northern England. They also were driven south. Never at any time were The caledonians English. The dalriadic scots and the picts were celts.
If you've ever been hiking or deer hunting in Scotland you'll understand that it's a defenders dream.The Roman's were hopeless at fighting in forests.The Germanic tribes taught them that.
They came back and massacred the Germans, just like they came back and enacted genocide on the Picts. Evil bastards. They could and did beat these groups (our people). But they weren’t worth bringing into the empire, which was starting to have management issues and couldn’t handle becoming any bigger.
Germanicus Julius Caesar led 3 successful campaigns in Germania, if it wasn't for Tiberius's jealousy and recall he would have conquered it. Gnaeus Julius Agricola was destroying Caledonians for 4 years until Domitian ordered his recall because Agricola's successes outshone the emperor's own modest victories in Germany. Nothing could stop the Roman Legions except politics or other Roman Legions.
The problem was the same in Caledonia as in the German area, too far away from the center of power to be effective. The Goths understood this and would withdraw to a point that the Romans were too far away from logistical support to maintain battle, then turn around and push the Romans back, sometimes almost to the gates of Rome.
@@olibep4115 Patterns of empires, I suppose. They never just stop and maintain except from outside pressure, they just keep expanding and expanding until they meet resistance they can't overcome.
I know very little this particular slice of history BUT based on this video, I am left with a creased brow, shaking my head. The conclusion is that "the Romans could not conquer Caledonia"??? What about they were a hair's breadth away from doing so when internal Roman politics pulled the endlessly successful Agricola from the frontline and buried him deep within the Roman administration? I'm sure the fierce disposition of the Scots played a significant role however, if there were just a little more in the way of resources (i.e. motivation for the Romans), I'm sure they would have stuck around and whittled the Scots down to defeat. The fact seems to be that as it stands, Caledonia got lucky a few times, at a few key moments - an internal power struggle between Roman generals, an ill Roman military leader, etc. At the end of this video, when the RUclipsr comes in and says they "could not be conquered" just reeks of Scottish bias.
@@esperago The same is true for the Japanese. They got lucky _twice,_ saved from being conquered by the Chinese by typhoons. The Japanese considered it divine intervention.
On Adrian's memoires, he wrote something in the lines of "there's no reason for us to conquer these empty lands, as every day, these barbarians try to attack us, knowing that they will be killed, and they are stubborn in not surrendering."
The Romans didn't conquer Scotland for the same reasons that the Americans didn't conquer the moon. Conquering the land would cost more then it was likely to yield in profit. Plus those crazy moon-people coming out of the craters in kilts were brutal.
@@user-pv8lp6ht3z Yes, during the Viking age significant numbers of them settled in Scotland which was less able to mount large scale resistance as England was. However a significant part of England was occupied for well over a century. Ireland similarly, especially the eastern part of the country.
@@montycasper4300 wrong ethnically they are mostly Celtic they were never subsumed the amount of Scandinavians were never enough o replace the pivot Gaelic peoples. Genetically Scots are A mix of Gaelic and Pictish with a smattering of Germanic: Saxon or Nordic
@@davo1924 Well, since I'm from that neck of the woods and know the history, I disagree. My clan name was from the Northern Isles, all of which were settled by the Danes (a generic term at the time that encompassed many modern nations from Finland to Norway), as to what became of the Picts, probably some form of apartheid. That clan was subject to the highland clearance and shipped to Ireland where my ancestors mixed with Danes who settled in the Dublin area, who shared the name of a certain Boston mobster, who's name also had Viking heritage. Incidentally, the Celts migrated from present day Turkey around 8K years ago, the ancient Brits (who were apparently quite tall) died out during the little ice age.
I’ve done and still do a lot of research on the history of the British isles and have watched dozens of different videos documentaries and series on this, and this has genuinely surprised me with how accurate it is considering the amount of professional high budget documentaries that have got a-lot of these things horribly wrong, you probably don’t care about my opinion but you’ve accurately introduced now 600,000 people to this very interesting part of Scottish history that defined it even to this date, really good video!
@Terry : do you mind elaborating on parts of Scotland's resistance to Rome that wasn't covered, or scantily covered, here? This video was hasty with its account, even if it was accurate as you say, so I'm curious for more detail :-)
you do a lot of research but still consider this to be Scottish history? but Scotland did not exist yet? this would be pictish history not ''Scottish'' , Scotland did not become so until the 9th century, the romans were well gone, yes blood history will suggest a high percentage of Pictish genetics in modern Scots but roman Campaigns never took place in ''Scotland'' because ''Scotland'' did not exist yet . If you want to discus ''history'' you should follow ''history'' where Scotland has not always been Scotland, It may be populated by the majority of the ancestors of those who were there when Rome wanted to add it to their map, but those people were not Scots yet, Scotland did not exist.
I don't know how true this is, but I've read that while the Scots relied more on individual military prowess, which apparently they were impressive at, the Romans on the other hand, were infinitely more skilled than the Scots in fighting as cohesive military units, and therefore were able to subdue most their enemies in an efficient and swift way. However, the Scots would often resort to guerilla warfare, neutralizing the Roman advantage. Add to that the inhospitable landscape and weather of Scotland, I can see why the Romans eventually threw in the towel. Edifying video. Thank you.
There's a big difference between warriors and soldiers. Warriors were better fighters 1-on-1, but soldiers are trained to protect each other. Of course, most of the Britons that the Romans fought were just farmers.
Picts not Scots. Scots don't come to the area until just before the 6th century. It is unclear if they all came from Ireland or some local tribes allied with the Irish Fergus Mor (assuming he existed) to form the Dal Riata... which became Scotland but at this point it would have been Picts not Scots. It is important as the Picts culture and language was basically stamped out by the Scots after the MacAlpin Treachery. So honouring the Picts is important.
@@Kazikluprobably came from europe during the migration periods. Same with irish some time before. Picts seem to be some kind of native aboriginal tribe. Definitely less civilized than modern humans.
They did settle in quite a large area of Southern and Central Scotland, as far as the Findo Gask Ridge in Perthshire. The area between Falkirk and Edinburgh (the lands of the Manau-Gododdin) has lots of Roman sites. The land north of the River Forth is much more mountainous and would have been covered in forests. There's a dramatic steep escarpment of the Ochil Hills which although not particularly high, would create a significant barrier. This is why the town of Stirling, became so significant in medieval Scotland, it had the advantage of being at a fording point in the Forth and a pass in the hills, which required fortification but could also act as a meeting and trading point.
The Romans had a camp in the far northeast too, around about the area of Insch/Oyne, Aberdeenshire and one of the strong contenders for the as yet unproven but highly likely location of the battle of Mons Graupius is the nearby hill range of Bennachie that dominates the local landscape near my hometown. So they did unfortunately get pretty far North.
I was born between the Ochils and the Forth and hiked to both a few times. A Roman passage through Glen Devon and Glen Eagles would be perilous in the extreme, with high steep slopes on either side. Farther east, Glen Farg would have presented a smaller version of the same problems, so I suspect that they would have chosen to find a crossing in the vicinity of Perth, or even have chosen a seaborn invasion somewhere in or beyond the Firth of Tay. Now I wonder if they might have prevailed upon some of their mariners who had ferried their force onto the island of Great Britain to rendezvous with them farther north? Passing through mountains is usually perilous, as any invaders of Afghanistan have found, again and again, so an eastern coastal invasion might have been an important component of the Romans’ strategy. Unfortunately whatever records made were mostly lost, although there are many sites across Scotland whose various artefacts bear witness to a sustained occupation at least in the lowlands. And there are many ‘iron age’ ruins of hilltop forts, never after reoccupied, that provide poignant suggestive evidence of their genocide, although studies of the genome of the region don’t seem to suggest it was complete, nor that it was without similar punitive retribution once their main forces were withdrawn.
I do like that the Ancient Caledonians weren't arrogant enough to think that they could fight the Romans on or close to equal terms; they were wise enough to come up with new strategies that played to their strengths.
In the Rome Senate: - Well, useless lands with smelly useless grumpy Picts anyone? - Let's build a wall. Just kidding, love Scotland, beautiful Nature and people there. Keep it up.
@@Retro77691 They did not fail, I think they draw the same conclusion as for the Scotts: there is nothing to get out of these people. History proven right till today.
They missed Calgacus' famous speech before the battle with Agricola, in which he castigated how greedy the Romans were to come to conquer their impoverished land at the edge of the world, and the extreme means by which they would attempt to do so, ending with the famous words: "They make a desert, and call it peace."
Mind you, that's almost guaranteed to have been in invention by Tacitus for rhetorical and/or political means. Those Roman historians are unreliable bastards...
Was it not a Scottish farmer who coined the words 'best laid plans of mice and men often go awry'?. I often quote this line on the attempt the Indians make to subjugate Sri Lanka these days.
@@aloysiushettiarachchi4523 Sure looks a lot more like the Chinese are the ones subjugating Sri Lank but sure. Maybe try being allies with your neighbours instead of allying their enemies?
Arguably rather than expanding into Scotland, the Romans should've pulled back from Britain earlier or never conquered it in the first place. Its conquest was basically nothing more than a publicity stunt and the province was mostly a drain on the Roman coffers rather than an asset. And beforehand there had been trade coming from it which was way more profitable for Rome.
Had Queen Boudicca succeeded in wiping out governor Gaius Suetonius and his forces, it might have marked the beginning of the end of Roman rule in Britannia. The empire would’ve launched a punitive campaign of reprisal to punish the britons like they did the Germans, but the Romans wouldn’t have stuck around to reoccupied the island once they had their revenge.
@@DJZO1203 but its stupid and ridiculous. Why expand and waste lives when living thogeter in peace with other nations makes both nations richers and better
@@rsr7014 the main story line was based on the english War of the Roses but I think it's incorrect to say all of Westeros was based on engerland. It doesn't have deserts like Dorne for a start. The north of england has a very mild climate and is nothing like "the North" of Westeros.
Repent and follow Jesus my friend! Repenting doesn't mean confessing your sins to others, but to stop doing them altogether. Belief in Messiah alone is not enough to get you into heaven - Matthew 7:21-23, John 3:3, John 3:36 (ESV is the best translation for John 3:36). Contemplate how the Roman empire fulfilled the role of the beast from the sea in Revelation 13. Revelation 17 confirms that it is in fact Rome. From this we can conclude that A) Jesus is the Son of God and can predict the future or make it happen, B) The world leaders/nations/governments etc have been conspiring together for the last 3000+ years to accomplish the religion of the Israelites C) History as we know it is fake. You don't really need to speculate though because you can start a relationship with God and have proof. Call on the name of Jesus and pray for Him to intervene in your life. - Revelation 3:20 Revelation 6 1st Seal: White horse = Roman Empire conquering nations under Trajan 98-117 AD & Gospel spreading rapidly. 2nd Seal: Red horse, bloody civil wars with 32 different Emperors, most killed by the sword. 185-284 AD 3rd Seal: Black horse, economic despair from high taxes to pay for wars, farmers stopped growing. 200-250 AD 4th Seal: Pale horse, 1/4th of Romans died from famine, pestilence; at one point 5,000 dying per day. 250-300 AD 5th Seal: Diocletian persecuted Smyrna church era saints for ten years, blood crying out for vengeance. 303-312 AD 6th Seal: Political upheaval in the declining Roman Empire while the leaders battled each other. 313-395 AD Revelation 7 Sealing of 144,000, the saints, before trumpet war judgments, which led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Revelation 8 1st Trumpet: Alaric and the Goths attacked from the north, the path of hail, and set it on fire. 400-410 AD 2nd Trumpet: Genseric and the Vandals attacked the seas and coastlands, the blood of sailors in water. 425-470 AD 3rd Trumpet: Attila and the Huns scourged the Danube, Rhine & Po rivers area, dead bodies made water bitter. 451 AD 4th Trumpet: Odoacer and the Heruli caused the last Western Emperor (sun), Senate (moon) to lose power. 476 AD With the Western Roman Emperor (restrainer of 2 Thes. 2) removed; the son of perdition Popes took power. Revelation 9 Two woe judgments against the central 1/3rd and eastern 1/3rd of the Roman Empire. 612-1453 AD 5th Trumpet: Locust & scorpions point to Arabia, the rise of the Muslim army. Islam hides Gospel from Arabs. 612-762 AD 6th Trumpet: Turks released to attack Constantinople with large cannons (fire, smoke, brimstone). 1062-1453 AD Revelation 10 The little book is the printed Bible, which was needed after the Dark Ages when Scriptures were banned by Popes. Revelation 11 7th Trumpet: Martin Luther measured Roman Church; found that it’s an apostate church, not part of true temple. The two witnesses are the Scriptures and saints who proclaim the pure Gospel and testify against the antichrist Popes. Papal Church pronounced Christendom dead in 1514 AD. Silence for 3.5 years. Then Luther posted his 95 Thesis, which sparked the Protestant Reformation and brought the witnesses back to life. Millions of Catholics were saved. Revelation 12 Satan used the Roman Empire to try to wipe out the early Church, Satan was cast down as the Empire collapsed. Revelation 13 The antichrist beast Popes reigned in power 1,260 years, 538-1798, is the little horn of Daniel 7, son of perdition. The false prophet Jesuit Superior General rose to power from land (earth) of Vatican and has created many deceptions. Revelation 14 Points to great harvest during the Protestant Reformation & wrath on Catholic countries who obey antichrist Pope. Revelation 15 Overcoming saints victorious over the beast. Prelude to 7 vials and judgment on those who support Papal Rome. Revelation 16 1st Vial: The foul sore of atheism was poured out on Catholic France, leaving them with no hope, led to revolution. 2nd Vial: The French Revolution started in 1793, killed 250,000, as France had obeyed the Pope and killed saints. 3rd Vial: The French Revolution spread to rural areas of France, where Protestants had been killed in river areas. 4th Vial: The bloody Napoleonic wars shed the blood of countries who had revered and obeyed the antichrist Pope. 5th Vial: Judgment on the seat of the beast. Papal States invaded in 1798, Pope imprisoned, removed from power. 6th Vial: The Turks vast domain dried up, they were only left with Turkey. They lost control of Palestine in 1917 AD, Israel became a nation again in 1948
There was a Roman general who went to inspect his troops at Hadrian's wall. While he was there, a Scotsman on the other side started jeering at the Romans, making rude gestures and laughing. The general calmly sent two soldiers to go handle it. There was a noise of screaming and swords clashing and neither Roman returned back over the wall. The Scotsman poked his head back over the wall and continued his insults against Rome and Caesar. The general was enraged and sent 20 of his best warriors to go kill the Scotsman. Again, there was a huge noise, and no Roman returned. The Scotsman again continued insulting the Romans and the general was beside himself. He gathered an entire legion of troops to go kill this Scotsman. The general saw flashes of fire burst forth over the wall, more screaming, and the clash of swords grew to a horrible din. Finally, a mortally wounded Roman soldier was seen dragging himself through the gate to the general. The general knelt down and asked the dying soldier what happened. With his dying breath, the Roman soldier managed to choke out five words, "There are two of them."
When you read the Chronicles of Tacitus ( a Roman) he claimed that Calgacus (that again wouldn't have been his real name) the chieftain of the Picts was defeated at the Battle of Mons Graupius (the Grampians) in northern Scotland in AD 83 or 84, but we see from the history books that it was still an active thriving kingdom even immediately after that. My take is that the Romans may have won a battle, but not the war. Scotland wasn't the arrable landscape we see today, but was in fact heavily forested at that time, with pretty rough terrain, so I would guess that the Picts simply dispersed into the surrounding country, and the Roman's gave up the chase. It would have been a costly campaign for the Romans to pursue and conquer Scotland as it was back then.
It's was pictland my ancestors Romans said they won the battle to save face the picts can't speak for themselves because today they still have no idea how to read there symbols but all the raised stones are all over East as today Scotland. One pictish Fort is under the the towns nairn in Banff
It was the rain and cold. Same in Germania. Anyway, that's my theory. If I were a Roman legionary, or a general, I would hate being stationed in those conditions. The Romans advanced and did what they did, but as soon as someone said "turn around" they skeedaddled with a skip to their pace. It's like the US Naval Station in Adak, Alaska. The guys can't wait for thier six month tour to be over fast enough - and that's with modern heat and good chow.
I met someone stationed up there. During the summer months they moved that group to the Sinai desert where ground temperatures were over 140 degrees Farenheit. You obviously had to get on someone's sh*t list for that duty.
TBH, being a Scot and been in the Highlands where i learnt how to read a map and orientate my way, plus getting 2 know the Highland people well! Id say the Scottish reasons are as follows. 1. The climate & landscape, its a wet cold up there and many a climber has went missing, wet-cold dampens the lungs causing lots of illness' - if not fit enough and knowledgeable. 2. Locals are tall MF's, generations of strongman events and Highland Games have made them, frankly SAS types, this is no doubt due to breeding and fresh produce, oats, honey, fish, meat. soups etc...and yes we had all of that in roman times 3. Scottish mindset, untouched by soft living, unlike the romans...we're not the toughest people in the world but ffs, we wont stop, DECLARTION OF ARBROATH sums us up' Even if 100 remain we will fight 2 the death' ...highest Honours in the British Army and SAS discipline and then our redheaded women, id rather fight an army than get into a argument with a Scots lassie in full rampage. 4. Most of the Celts pushed out of modern day England due 2 roman advance untied with northern tribes, swelling numbers and uniting a common people against a formidable foe. The Brits had learnt that the romans where taking no prisoners, forcing the Celts to 'asymmetric warfare', a tactic that is hard to overcome, even today. The Celts were lightly armoured and speed and stealth was the tactic, u must see them like native American Indians, in their attack, camouflage and surprise at unfortunate moments, historians est 50k romans perished in Septimius' campaign, most probably due to exhaustion, [lots of Glens look the same, easily ambushed in tall passes] ? disorientated [lose yer company yer a goner, in the hills and glens u can b lost for hours] shipwrecks, [The North Sea is very unforgiving]. Roman pov, the above and not worth it, the romans have conquered mountains and forests b4 (WALES, SPAIN AND GEMANICUS' GERMAN CAMPAGNE), SO, had the really put their mind 2 it , it probably would have been done, but bloodshed would have been round the corner in every generation during the 400 year occupation, smart folks them roman senators, after careful valuation, improbable, at times impossible and impractical profits made it conclusively UNTHINKABLE! where's is our slaves, eh sorry governor their all dead, fought 2 the last!
Consider that Scotland was far enough north that summer days are extremely long and winter days extremely short. Mediterranean people would not have known what to make of it or how to adapt. Plus the climate was cold and unhealthy for Mediterraneans.
Not so. The Romans briefly established a colony in Thule ("Ultima Thule") in Iceland. And they had a thriving trade with Scandinavian vikings They knew about northern winters.
@@kenoliver8913 Thule is in Greenland. Is there any archeological evidence for a Roman colony there? There were no Vikings until long after the Western empire fell. Vikings did trade with the Byzantines in Constantinople, but they sailed to Constantinople, not the other way around.
you do know the Roman army was not only composed of Mediterraneans right? Romans had German and brits who were Roman citizens serving in the army and Roman legions had men locally from their provinces serving inn the army. That's what made the Roman army so powerful its adoption of different things so roman soldiers were very capable of different environment since they have been stationed at their posts for years
@Strongboy1770 So the Romans were ok with England though. Where I live, there's a Roman fort about 2 miles away. It never gets pitch black dark through July and early part of August. It gets cold in the winter and where the fort is, it's high up. I find artefacts on my drive, including coins with Hadrian on. The Romans weren't Mediterraneans per se, that idea is totally untrue. It's in it's early stages, but another Roman fort about 20 miles away, anecdotally are finding DNA in some of the residents now, to be linked to Romans that stayed there and they not Italian or on the Med.
Bah, murdering and killing humans don't care. They just want to kill and murder. Still happens every decade, even in modern times. Mankind has always been on a path to self destruction.
An outside scotland was very usefull, 1) to get rid of opposition or rebels ; throw 'em over the border 2) there is an external treath ; secures loyality inside 3) trade was more profitable with a wall then without
Repent and follow Jesus my friend! Repenting doesn't mean confessing your sins to others, but to stop doing them altogether. Belief in Messiah alone is not enough to get you into heaven - Matthew 7:21-23, John 3:3, John 3:36 (ESV is the best translation for John 3:36). Contemplate how the Roman empire fulfilled the role of the beast from the sea in Revelation 13. Revelation 17 confirms that it is in fact Rome. From this we can conclude that A) Jesus is the Son of God and can predict the future or make it happen, B) The world leaders/nations/governments etc have been conspiring together for the last 3000+ years to accomplish the religion of the Israelites C) History as we know it is fake. You don't really need to speculate though because you can start a relationship with God and have proof. Call on the name of Jesus and pray for Him to intervene in your life. - Revelation 3:20 Revelation 6 1st Seal: White horse = Roman Empire conquering nations under Trajan 98-117 AD & Gospel spreading rapidly. 2nd Seal: Red horse, bloody civil wars with 32 different Emperors, most killed by the sword. 185-284 AD 3rd Seal: Black horse, economic despair from high taxes to pay for wars, farmers stopped growing. 200-250 AD 4th Seal: Pale horse, 1/4th of Romans died from famine, pestilence; at one point 5,000 dying per day. 250-300 AD 5th Seal: Diocletian persecuted Smyrna church era saints for ten years, blood crying out for vengeance. 303-312 AD 6th Seal: Political upheaval in the declining Roman Empire while the leaders battled each other. 313-395 AD Revelation 7 Sealing of 144,000, the saints, before trumpet war judgments, which led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Revelation 8 1st Trumpet: Alaric and the Goths attacked from the north, the path of hail, and set it on fire. 400-410 AD 2nd Trumpet: Genseric and the Vandals attacked the seas and coastlands, the blood of sailors in water. 425-470 AD 3rd Trumpet: Attila and the Huns scourged the Danube, Rhine & Po rivers area, dead bodies made water bitter. 451 AD 4th Trumpet: Odoacer and the Heruli caused the last Western Emperor (sun), Senate (moon) to lose power. 476 AD With the Western Roman Emperor (restrainer of 2 Thes. 2) removed; the son of perdition Popes took power. Revelation 9 Two woe judgments against the central 1/3rd and eastern 1/3rd of the Roman Empire. 612-1453 AD 5th Trumpet: Locust & scorpions point to Arabia, the rise of the Muslim army. Islam hides Gospel from Arabs. 612-762 AD 6th Trumpet: Turks released to attack Constantinople with large cannons (fire, smoke, brimstone). 1062-1453 AD Revelation 10 The little book is the printed Bible, which was needed after the Dark Ages when Scriptures were banned by Popes. Revelation 11 7th Trumpet: Martin Luther measured Roman Church; found that it’s an apostate church, not part of true temple. The two witnesses are the Scriptures and saints who proclaim the pure Gospel and testify against the antichrist Popes. Papal Church pronounced Christendom dead in 1514 AD. Silence for 3.5 years. Then Luther posted his 95 Thesis, which sparked the Protestant Reformation and brought the witnesses back to life. Millions of Catholics were saved. Revelation 12 Satan used the Roman Empire to try to wipe out the early Church, Satan was cast down as the Empire collapsed. Revelation 13 The antichrist beast Popes reigned in power 1,260 years, 538-1798, is the little horn of Daniel 7, son of perdition. The false prophet Jesuit Superior General rose to power from land (earth) of Vatican and has created many deceptions. Revelation 14 Points to great harvest during the Protestant Reformation & wrath on Catholic countries who obey antichrist Pope. Revelation 15 Overcoming saints victorious over the beast. Prelude to 7 vials and judgment on those who support Papal Rome. Revelation 16 1st Vial: The foul sore of atheism was poured out on Catholic France, leaving them with no hope, led to revolution. 2nd Vial: The French Revolution started in 1793, killed 250,000, as France had obeyed the Pope and killed saints. 3rd Vial: The French Revolution spread to rural areas of France, where Protestants had been killed in river areas. 4th Vial: The bloody Napoleonic wars shed the blood of countries who had revered and obeyed the antichrist Pope. 5th Vial: Judgment on the seat of the beast. Papal States invaded in 1798, Pope imprisoned, removed from power. 6th Vial: The Turks vast domain dried up, they were only left with Turkey. They lost control of Palestine in 1917 AD, Israel became a nation again in 1948
The Romans decided not to invade Scotland, because they were warned that this disruption might jeopardize the future development of Scotch whisky, and that could not be allowed!
Irish invented whiskey. Scots only contribution was to store whisky in old barrels, drink the stuff and not die. :D How to speak gaelig, first drink the bottle...
@@pexxajohannes1506 firstly, it's whiskey in Ireland and the states. Its whisky on Scotland. The fact you don't know this already tells me you don't know much about the subject. Secondly your statement that all Scotland did different was to keep it in barrels. Yeh, no. Irish and Scottish whisky have very different requirements for the final product. Irish whisky is triple distilled and can use any grain. Scotch has to use malted barley, the stills have to be copper, and it has to be aged for at least 3 years, amongst many other requirements. Again, you don't know much about whisky There's no definitive evidence that it was made in Ireland first, either.
Excellent video! Scotland had harsh terrain and fierce warriors. Also, they were not unified as a people. Also, the cost of maintaing Roman Legions was to great for the reward. This also happened in Germania for Rome.
Those roman soldiers were really confident until a man in a plaid skirt and a beard down to his knees comes running out of his house playing bagpipes as he kills you.
I had a friend once who used to humorously explain why Rome never conquered Scotland like this: "The Romans got all the way up to the Northlands and then one of them says to other, "what are those guys doing?" "Wait, what, they're throwing trees? Picking up and throwing TREES?" "For FUN???!!!" Well, you know what? Let's just build a wall here. We don't need to conquer everything do we? We'll just build a wall and tell Rome we finished off the campaign with a nice wall."
I agree totally with the idea of tough geography, lack of natural rich resources, terrible weather, and the inability to fight pitched battles all add up to the fact...it wasn't worth the price.
I am one of the few who thinks history is written by the big winners and i t seems more likely they shat their breeks when they reaslied it was not easy.
I live thousands of miles away and I envy all of you that have seen such mesmerizing antiquity. Being an American our history is young and nowhere near the magnitude of everything that has happened through the ages. I approach my 20th wedding anniversary and I and my wife will be traveling to the U. K. and to Rome because of my absolute love of history and being Italian as well!!! I cannot wait to see what you all have seen.
Thing is Aussies or Americans of European ancestry really just all have the same back story as us Anglo Saxons, except with a more recent emigration added in 😊
Depends on how you look at history. 125th Street in Harlem NYC is an old Indian footpath that pre-dates Roman London. I find that pretty astonishing. And North American history is utterly fascinating in its own right.
🤦♂️ American history goes back as far as any in the world , the problem is a lack of written history and the fact that new comers destroyed the history of the indigenous.
I know it's conventional wisdom that Domitian recalled Agricola because he didn't want to be overshadowed. I've never bought that. The conquest of Caledonia was fairly insignificant compared to Domitian's advances against the Germanic tribes. I reckon the true victor may have been the Scottish midge! Imagine them getting under Roman armour!
Mostly likely due to Rome's Legions having to live off of the land and I do not think that was possible due to the lack of agriculture and that the tribes up there live a more Nomadic life with certain herd animals which could be moved before the Legions could get their hands on them.
No. They successfully built forts and roads as they moved... combination of things - would be interesting to know the definitive reason that may have been written and long gone.
Scots were agricultural for millennia at that point. We weren't nomadic either. Some moved twice a year between two fixed locations (a summer pasture and a winter one), not at all free moving that they could just move to evade romans
@@TrueNativeScot But the peoples in that region at that time were all Picts, were they not - before the Irish began to progressively move East across to Scotland (400AD?) They were quite a different breed to the Celtic/Norse/Germanic Scot of later centuries. I don't know if your usage of the collective 'we' with the Picts is so according, my Celtic brethren :)
It seems the answer isn’t that “they couldn’t” take the land, but they decided that it wasn’t worth losing the resources it would take to gain the land. A land that didn’t really have a lot to offer in victory.
@@GG-ml3vr yah, the empire that literally conquered and held the majority of Europe for centuries, got to what was to be Scotland, and ran scared because of one tough battle. 🤦♂️ Nope! No way there’s more to that story, huh? 😂
@@Sivadtu The Vikings never conquered Scotland either . They only colonized some coastal areas and islands. The majority of the mainland was not only rough , but the vicious Scottish clans repelled the Vikings in battle . 🏴
They would definitely struggle in the Scottish Highlands if they reached them. Terrain is unforgiving and unpredictable, what may look like a Field of grass is actually a soft bog thats incredibly difficult to cross. Not to mention the weather!
Also, the Highlands were forested at the time, making control even harder. Polen analysis suggests the Lowlands, including the Southern Uplands, had been grazed into something like the way they were at the start of the 20th Century.
The terrain played a huge role, The Scots in their kilts had the High ground and when the Romans looked up the hill the saw ghastly horrors under the barbarian kilt and so they ran for they're lives back to Rome & in 1990 Scotland took revenge & conquered Italy by having more fans at the world cup than the Italian population & those fans were supporting anyone that played against England.
@@guyincognito8440 that is literally not what the joke is built around, it’s built around the concept of extremely delayed and petty retribution , a common trope.
@@guyincognito8440 what are you on. You just told me the point of the joke was something else before. I am well aware, as I said, that it was not relevant to the joke in the first place.
I live in Northumberland and there a re countless Roman forts and roads on our OS Maps. The place is marked for all time by their presence. You can't help but imagine the legions crossing the land when out walking.
I don't know why this question is being asked. Historians have pointed out long ago that the reasons were the same as for Ireland...there was no point. The land north of the border would show no return for any effort. Ireland was similar, because of the need to ship over any returns. The Romans, being a considerable force, could fairly easily have taken Scotland if the land was worth it by simply sending overwhelming numbers (which they could easily have done). But it wasn't worth it.
After explaining all that in the video... the conclusion left me scratching my head. "The short answer to why Rome didn't conquer Scotland, is simply, that they couldn't." What? Did we watch the same video? The answer was that the Caledonians got lucky and the emperor died, leaving the remaining army was under command of the heir who had to return to Rome. Then later concluded it wasn't worth the effort.
@@tiredlocke The question of the video is: Why couldn't the Romans conquer Scotland? The answer is: The Romans didn't conquer Scotland because there was never a serious attempt made to. Why not? Because Scotland never had the land and the resources (like the rest of Europe) that would return their investment in men and effort. So no 'serious' attempt was made. Could the Romans have taken Scotland if there was bountiful land and resources there? Of course! The answer is a little different for Ireland in that any returns would have to be shipped. The Romans were incredibly impressive in their might. To think (as some erroneously do) that their legions could not have defeated a thousand men (if that!) is laughable (though some Scots used to think that). If you read Roman history, and how they could fight and conquer, you get a better idea. It was over-expansion among other things that led to the fall of the Empire...and that's why they built Hadrians Wall. Scotland was simply going too far (even England was, really). The British empire collapse was exactly the same - overstretched and unrest. If Putin gets to re-build the Soviet empire, it will suffer the same fate, as will any Chinese empire. The future is insular, as Trump quite rightly stated in 2016.
But as the video points out, the Romans *did* attempt to conquer Scotland more than once, but the circumstances went against it. Clearly there were moments where it *was* deemed worth the effort by them.
@@Tlevids Historians have said that some vanity attempts were made, but never anything serious. You only have to look at it logically. The Romans had conquered hundreds of thousands of fighting men across Europe. A few hundred more would have been nothing to them had they sent legions of soldiers in. But as historians have pointed out, the land wasn't worth the trouble.
@@kingbjorn1832 i meen, seems cool live in an ancient village, near such a symbol of history, or how must be intriguing wake up in such place (i do know, i imagine it very rural) and yada yada yada There is a lot of things that tingle my subconscious about such thought and i cant describe them all
Scotland has an amazing history of bravery , fearless warriors and until ultimately succumbing to English rule through treachery , not only repelled the might of Rome , but also the Vikings hundreds of years later, as the Vikings were only able to conquer and colonize some coastal areas and islands. The highland clans were too vicious and powerful for even the barbaric Vikings . 💪♥️🏴
@@craigmyers2936 Im sorry bro but caledonia is Scotland. Pictland is Scotland. Dal Riata is (mostly) Scotland. Gaels Picts and Scotts formed Scotland. So scottish people were there but just came under different names. Its like saying muscovites in 1300 were not russian. Correct but they are the people who became russian, same goes with picts gaels and scots.
They actually could. They just did not want to invest enough troops and resources. Why? Rome was a pre-industrial civilization. Meaning, they don't like conquering lands that are mostly empty and unpopulated territories; they have no use of mostly-empty lands, as they can't extract resources without massive populations, and can't profit from taxes if the land is mostly empty. On the other hand, industrial societies like 1800s Russia and the 1800s US did profit greatly from conquering empty lands, because they have the technology to extract resources from those empty lands.
@Keiran Romans clearly wanted something: to stop those filthy barbarians to raid the civilized low-lands. So sending raw recruits to "have at them" was something quite interesting and mainly harmless for the Imperial Army, since marching itself was considered more dangerous than actual fighting the Ancient Scotts
@Keiran Actually, the Russian economy, due to its rapid industrialization, was growing at 10% per year leading up to the First World War. You are just repeating Soviet propaganda.
Repent and follow Jesus my friend! Repenting doesn't mean confessing your sins to others, but to stop doing them altogether. Belief in Messiah alone is not enough to get you into heaven - Matthew 7:21-23, John 3:3, John 3:36 (ESV is the best translation for John 3:36). Contemplate how the Roman empire fulfilled the role of the beast from the sea in Revelation 13. Revelation 17 confirms that it is in fact Rome. From this we can conclude that A) Jesus is the Son of God and can predict the future or make it happen, B) The world leaders/nations/governments etc have been conspiring together for the last 3000+ years to accomplish the religion of the Israelites C) History as we know it is fake. You don't really need to speculate though because you can start a relationship with God and have proof. Call on the name of Jesus and pray for Him to intervene in your life. - Revelation 3:20 Revelation 6 1st Seal: White horse = Roman Empire conquering nations under Trajan 98-117 AD & Gospel spreading rapidly. 2nd Seal: Red horse, bloody civil wars with 32 different Emperors, most killed by the sword. 185-284 AD 3rd Seal: Black horse, economic despair from high taxes to pay for wars, farmers stopped growing. 200-250 AD 4th Seal: Pale horse, 1/4th of Romans died from famine, pestilence; at one point 5,000 dying per day. 250-300 AD 5th Seal: Diocletian persecuted Smyrna church era saints for ten years, blood crying out for vengeance. 303-312 AD 6th Seal: Political upheaval in the declining Roman Empire while the leaders battled each other. 313-395 AD Revelation 7 Sealing of 144,000, the saints, before trumpet war judgments, which led to the fall of the Roman Empire. Revelation 8 1st Trumpet: Alaric and the Goths attacked from the north, the path of hail, and set it on fire. 400-410 AD 2nd Trumpet: Genseric and the Vandals attacked the seas and coastlands, the blood of sailors in water. 425-470 AD 3rd Trumpet: Attila and the Huns scourged the Danube, Rhine & Po rivers area, dead bodies made water bitter. 451 AD 4th Trumpet: Odoacer and the Heruli caused the last Western Emperor (sun), Senate (moon) to lose power. 476 AD With the Western Roman Emperor (restrainer of 2 Thes. 2) removed; the son of perdition Popes took power. Revelation 9 Two woe judgments against the central 1/3rd and eastern 1/3rd of the Roman Empire. 612-1453 AD 5th Trumpet: Locust & scorpions point to Arabia, the rise of the Muslim army. Islam hides Gospel from Arabs. 612-762 AD 6th Trumpet: Turks released to attack Constantinople with large cannons (fire, smoke, brimstone). 1062-1453 AD Revelation 10 The little book is the printed Bible, which was needed after the Dark Ages when Scriptures were banned by Popes. Revelation 11 7th Trumpet: Martin Luther measured Roman Church; found that it’s an apostate church, not part of true temple. The two witnesses are the Scriptures and saints who proclaim the pure Gospel and testify against the antichrist Popes. Papal Church pronounced Christendom dead in 1514 AD. Silence for 3.5 years. Then Luther posted his 95 Thesis, which sparked the Protestant Reformation and brought the witnesses back to life. Millions of Catholics were saved. Revelation 12 Satan used the Roman Empire to try to wipe out the early Church, Satan was cast down as the Empire collapsed. Revelation 13 The antichrist beast Popes reigned in power 1,260 years, 538-1798, is the little horn of Daniel 7, son of perdition. The false prophet Jesuit Superior General rose to power from land (earth) of Vatican and has created many deceptions. Revelation 14 Points to great harvest during the Protestant Reformation & wrath on Catholic countries who obey antichrist Pope. Revelation 15 Overcoming saints victorious over the beast. Prelude to 7 vials and judgment on those who support Papal Rome. Revelation 16 1st Vial: The foul sore of atheism was poured out on Catholic France, leaving them with no hope, led to revolution. 2nd Vial: The French Revolution started in 1793, killed 250,000, as France had obeyed the Pope and killed saints. 3rd Vial: The French Revolution spread to rural areas of France, where Protestants had been killed in river areas. 4th Vial: The bloody Napoleonic wars shed the blood of countries who had revered and obeyed the antichrist Pope. 5th Vial: Judgment on the seat of the beast. Papal States invaded in 1798, Pope imprisoned, removed from power. 6th Vial: The Turks vast domain dried up, they were only left with Turkey. They lost control of Palestine in 1917 AD, Israel became a nation again in 1948
Im from Norway and its pretty absurd to see the western Norwegian coast in this video, that the romans were this far north. And this was hundreds of years before the viking age.
When the Romans marched north they looked down into a valley in Scotland, where lay a small village and they watched the villages going about their work. Red haired, bearded, and wearing tartan kilts. One Roman said to the other. “By Zeus, if that’s what their women look like what must the men be like. And so they built Hadrian’s wall, and remained in the South.
Rome could have conquered Scotland if they decided to put enough men and resources to the task, but after doing what we would now call a cost-benefit analysis, they determined it simply wasn't worth their while. It was a cold, rational decision. It's also why the Romans ultimately abandoned Britain entirely - holding these islands out in the far northwestern hinterlands of their empire simply did not contribute enough to their economy or security to be worth holding. It's not as though a rival empire was waiting to swoop in and take them. The British Isles just did not matter for much at that time. It would be many centuries before the British people themselves would perform the hard work of adding tremendous value to their economy and subsequently transform their little island kingdom into a world power. Everything happens when it happens for a reason.
I think, given the factors, it would be more accurate to say that the Roman's wouldn't conquer what is now Scotland rather than that they couldn't. It seems that, aside from being able to say that they conquered he whole island, there wasn't anything that made them want to conquer the area. It just wasn't worth it.
@@ScottishRoss27 Cumbria was always English land, even before William the conqueror. Before it was a principality of Scotland it had been part of the Saxon kingdom of Northumbria.
It looks from the map of the progression of the Roman empire that the harsh highland landscape which is more difficult to move through was a factor pushing the Romans to decide it wasn't worth the effort and the death toll.
while it seems like an issue at first sight. Be aware that Italy is a bit mountainous as well, their formations were design to excell in such conditions
I quote from Scotland for Ever by John McDermott “When Armies and empires against me were hurled, firm as my native rock I have withstood the shock, Of England 🏴 Of Denmark 🇩🇰 of Rome and the World” (Emoji’s were for a bit of fun)
Prood fer wha exactly? Haggis and irn bru 😂. You weren't worth the effort for your barron wastelands and awful weather. Plus they probably preferred seeing women in skirts not men.
My ancestors fought off the English in Perthshire until my ancestor was captured by Cromwell’s forces and sent to America as an indentured servant. What a neat and ugly history, what we morphed into in America set the pace for the next 350 years
I haven’t watched historical videos in some time now. For 10 years I’ve dug into history. From Europe, Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia. It’s been a ride, but I know a generalization of everything. From the greco-Indian nation of Central Asia to the Aztecs of Central America. If I was a history teacher than I would continue, but I’m not. Thank you History RUclipsrs for 10 years of stories.
@@robertburch3813 Agreed. I've been to Londinium / London, and several places in France, Switzerland, Italy, they are a tiny part of the ancient Roman world. Among those places it's easy to see ancient Roman works, roads, bridges, buildings, theaters, schools, amphitheatres, racetracks, sports venues, tunnels, aqueducts, libraries, baths, sanitary facilities, art, statues, mosaics, etc even walls that look identical no matter in London, France, Switzerland, Italy or Rome city. And, as people in this forum have shared, they live in Scotland near ancient Roman structures and can still see them. According to a Lighthouse Spotter & Club, there is a Roman lighthouse on southeast side of Dover, Kent on Mortimer Road near Dover Castle that was built ca 1,200 years after the lighthouse. Treasures in plain sight that are too obvious to notice, even when labelled World Heritage Sites. Also, here we are utilising the Roman aka Latin alphabet.
Scotland is full of strategical advantages. Covered in huge forest was one of which, where the Romans couldn't march and set out there army, like in previous battles and shows of force. The picts used this to there advantage and would demoralise the Romans with short sharp attacks. The Romans conquered most of the flat ground but as you get into the west coast highlands, with the locals knowing the ground, they had the serious advantage over such a great force against them. Bogs, hills, forest all ruined the Romans strategy of battle 🏴
Come on it was pictland nobody understands the picts because they cannot understand there symbols so they call it whatever they want I'm from my pictish ancestors my people
I've been hearing these questions for quite some time now. I was wondering though. What sort of riches would the Romans have gained by conquering Scotland? I mean by creating and maintaining all the necessary garrisons there, there must have been something they really needed. Right? What would that possibly be?
Scotland = 500 mountains poking out of a vast forested bog pitted with hundreds of lakes. I can't think of anything the Romans could possibly have wanted from it apart from prestige.
When you have to fight thousands of hairy, naked screaming men running at you with swords on rocky terrain in the freezing rain, I'd pass on doing that every time.
Fun fact: in scots Gaelic certain words are Latinised such as numbers and general trading items, like salt (salainn) because of the trades that would happen between the 2 nations
that cant be correct as gaelic peoples didnt arrive in scotland until after these events, most likely because of trade between irish tribes and the romans
@@oof3397 The Scots was a description of language not a people, the barbarian conspiracy was the Scots( gaelic speakers), Picts( not there real name) and the attecoti What year did gaelic start to be spoken in Caledonia ?
@@oof3397 Picts and Scots working together goes back to roman Times Fergus Mac mor coming in the year 500 has no evidence whatsoever Dal reuda of the Dal Riata is believed to have come to Caledonia 300 years before Fergus Dal riata coming to Caledonia with their gaelic language is being pushed back to 60ad - 120ad
After two gruelling campaigns, one of the main reasons they didn't launch further campaigns was because of the northern Brythonic tribes, often thought to be the land of Valentia, held a sort of buffer state between the Picts in the north and the Roman and Roman Britons in the south. Although often grouped in as Caledonians, the northern Britons were ethnically linked with the southern Britons moreso than with the Picts, although their cultural influences were from the surrounding regions (hence they were considered much more warlike than the southern tribes). As a buffer state, and having experienced Roman occupation twice, these northern Britons were known to trade with both the Romans and Picts (and Scotti - the Scottish-Irish seafarers who built the later kingdom of Dàl Riada), as well as fight regularly. As a result, why would the Romans spend finances, resources and troops in fighting themselves when a bunch of fiery northern Britons could do the hard yards, and yet Rome could still access the Scottish resources through trade? It was not the only place this sort of arrangement existed - the frontiers of Rome were almost defined by this type of arrangement where buffer states extended beyond Rome's own borders. Across the Rhine, Danube, down the Black Sea into the Middle East, and across northern Africa, a patchwork of independent states existed that grew in size and strength based on trade with Rome, yet were outside of Rome's direct control.
Good comment: the Antonine wall even features a lot of art in stone that combines Roman and British Celtic stylistic influences. Those Brythonic tribes in the "buffer zone" would eventually be written about in Y Gododdin, a Welsh epic poem that may be the earliest example of vernacular literature in Britain that details their war against Germanic invaders following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Many place names in the lowland of Scotland are Welsh in their etymology as a result, even Glasgow and Edinburgh.
@@sa25-svredemption98 Yeah, I am using the word 'Welsh' in the broader historical sense (rather than referring only to modern Wales) as the people in these parts, from modern lowland 'Scotland' to modern 'Wales' and 'Cornwall', all considered themselves part of the same ethnic group.
It wasn't that they couldn't, it was a mixture of there being no resources there that made it worth the effort coupled with them not having the troop numbers to go in and conquer while simultaneously keeping control of their other conquered lands.
This, there seems to be an assumption all over Romes border that they "couldn't" expand further. It was more the lack of seeing the value of it and their borders at the height of the empire were also very defensible. The Roman borders in Europe pretty much lined rivers, they weren't just happenstance.
So, when did the Anglo Saxon come to Scotland and did they fight/war with the native Caledonians? Scotland got a beautiful history, of war, peace and love; the Scottish are extremely loving and helpful People in my experience.
I’ve read that when the Roman’s first sailed off the shores of northern Scotland they were met by Pictish warriors all holding up the severed heads of fallen enemies. That must have been incredibly frightening.
It seems for some reason Rome thought it was worth the effort to invade twice but Scotland was saved due to a set of more pressing circumstances during Rome's invasion efforts.
I think about someone trying to siege Scotland and all it makes me think of is that one episode of the Pacific where it was raining so much on the soldiers they started offing themselves just to get out of the weather… I feel like that may have been not far off for Romans used to Italian weather trying to survive in the highlands far from home
Also I’d like to just point out that life in Scotland at these times were incredibly harsh and brutal life expectancy was short and people weren’t afraid to die on contrary I think a lot of Scotsman were completely suicidal imagine an army of suicidal people a bit like kamikaze pilots that’s not something you want to fight against especially if the rewards reap little benefit.
@@brianstokes563 Not even close. Back then the average person had to slave away in fields to hope to keep themself and their family alive. We are far more comfortable and lazy.
@@alkali8355There human trafficking in epic scales now shelves are emptying there planning 20 mins cities look at what's happening in the streets from France to Pakistan we should be living a life of luxury, I disagree with what your saying lifes brutal more today than ever b4, wake up my friend.
Rome had found the Celts more trouble than they were worth and Scotland was pretty much worthless, no exploitable resources, no commercially viable farming, distant, cold and would cost too much to govern. This they found after building more castles in Wales, to keep the Celts there "pacified", than they did in all of Gaul and after Boudica had gotten angry destroyed the 9th legion and burnt London to the ground.
I really enjoyed this video, thanks for putting in the research and the time to create it. As a metal detectorist I love history and anything to do with the Romans. And now I know why the Romans could not take the mighty Scotland
@Jabs05 Didn’t take anything. After years of wars and Scotland winning its independence in 1314 the kingdoms were joined in union. Don’t act like England conquered Scotland and in fact the British empire would be nothing without us on the front lines.
@Jabs05 if england is so powerful why can't you suppress the Scottish influence that spreads throughout the world today? Asking because you too brain fucked by my reply to come up with an answer
I am blessed to live in the rural Santa Cruz California mountains know as Bonny Doon. The early Scottish settlers named this area after the Scottish Highlands they came from.I hope when the SHTF we will be granted the same fate.🌲⛰👨🌾✝️
“Haha, why bother?” They probably thought. The best land in the isle of GB is in the south anyway. The wall was there so that the proto-scots wouldn’t attack the civilized Roman Britons.
Firstly, the Romans barely wanted to conquer southern Britain. Several times it was stated by the romans that Britain was a "Cold, desolate place on the cusp of the civilised world." Secondly, the best land in Britain is actually in Ireland still the romans didn't conquer that and thirdly, the wall wasn't built to keep Picts out, it was too put tolls on trade as well as mitigate it. The fact that it was a wall was just a bonus. There is a lot of evidence that proves it was used for trade more than anything simply because of the large amount of Pictish jewellery and roman pottery found in northern England and southern Scotland. If the Roman's really thought that it wasn't worth anything, they wouldn't have invested several legions of the years trying to conquer it. General rule of thumb back in those days, if you think something isn't worth your time, you don't invade simple as that. P.S Scotland did have resources the Romans could've made use of, one of these resources was the Great Caledonian Rain Forest which would've provided A METRIC FUCK TON of timber for the Roman war machine this is not including the fertile Lowlands, the Red Iron deposits also included in the lowlands and various other resources scattered around Scotland at the time including Scottish pearls, which would later become a staple of Scottish jewellery and would be renowned throughout Europe for their beauty and rarity.
@@ThatNwah3200 every place has resources any civ can make use of it. Scotland just didnt have more than anywhere else romans were going to lol. And no Ireland was extremely poor soil, there is a reason famine was pretty common in ireland. Delusional to think they couldnt conqu for centuries if they so wished.
I don't like how this video ignores Domitian wanting to keep Agricola from succeeding. Such military success was almost certainly seen by Domitian as a threat, like the Eponymous Julius of a century earlier, against the Caledonian relatives in Gaul. Also, while using Caledonia as the name for Scotland, it makes no sense for the narrator to refer to other parts of the Island as England and Wales. The Angles hadn't started immigrating, ergo no England, and Wales is an exonym imposed by the Angles. The locals in both regions probably thought of themselves by local tribal names, and as Britons when dealing with the Romans.
Septimius Severus made an attempt to conquer it but he died of natural causes and his sons Caracalla and Geta in very rare form of agreement we're more interested in maintaining the eastern provinces and perhaps pushing into Persia, will also note on side that the Romans knew that Ireland existed and the Romans understood they were not welcomed ☠️ but the Irish like the did allow for limited trade with Rome as long as Rome's intentions were strictly were for bartering reasons
What is up with the title? It's doesn't make sense and is historically incorrect. Scotland didn't exist at that time neither the scottish people. And to say they couldn't conquer the northern part of the British island is wrong they certainly could but chose not to as Caledonia had almost nothing to offer so conquering it simply wasn't worth it.
I would guess it’s because this audience plays to a general audience and using “Caledonia” would generate fewer clicks from people who aren’t familiar with the time period. This way, history buffs watch and understand what’s going on, while others (the people who aren’t familiar with Caledonia and only know Scotland) will also watch the video and learn something.
It actually calls the land Caledonia in the video you clown. The title is just there as a useful descriptor for browsing. It also details the reasons for the failure to occupy it. Try watching things before you go full bro, brah.
@@derekmclellan7337 are you playing dumb on purpose? I wasn't talking about the video but the title itself which is clickbait and just false. And they didn't fail to occupy it but because subsequent roman emperors didn't have any interest in the region all the troops pulled back. Now fuck off kid.
@@hazzmati feel better now? Getting it all out... I mean, everyone gets to see you for what you are. But it must feel good to get all that out your system.
They supposedly had a productive trading relationship with Ireland. They were getting everything they wanted from Ireland without having to pay for an army or an administration for it. The Irish also couldn't really raid across the sea at the time so they were not any kind of military threat. The land wasn't considered attractive for roman agriculture. They had plenty of similar land in Roman Britain. There was supposedly a healthy slave trade from Ireland into Britain. There was no great wealth in Ireland at the time for the Romans to steal. So there wasn't any compelling reason to do anything with it.
In Scotland there's a generally accepted notion that Rome didn't conquer us because our warriors were too kick ass and they couldn't handle us. Then you grow up and learn that the real history is that we weren't worth the effort to conquer and they had bigger fish to fry. The second one makes a lot more sense but its less fun
Both reasons are why they didn’t come to Ireland
yep i’m half scot, we are so boastful about our warrior past and how we fended off and overcame the romans, it was hard to believe at first but then reality hit. Scots are unbelievably patriotic as is my other half 😂
It seems more like luck and roman apathy 😂 every time they showed up, they won and took land, but then a random reason would cause the romans to withdraw (the roman emperor falling ill, recalling a general out of jealousy, the heir of the roman emperor not wishing to continue the war out of apathy etc.)
Not worth the effort is how all wars end.
@Francisco HEVIA VERGARA To be fair, warlike-stubborn peoples make everything “not worth the effort”, so yeah, we can say it applies for Caledonians and Mapuches, so promps to them. 👏
If you've ever been to Scotland and had a disagreement with someone from Glasgow, you would know exactly why Roman occupation failed
@@AngusMacKinnon-xm5ko no one provokes me with impunity 👌
Easy to know. Weather. People from mediterranean don't love harsh weather.
'Laddie' fs.
@@AngusMacKinnon-xm5ko you don’t half talk some waffle 🧇 😂😂😂😂
@@StephenSmith-ie9ew I would expect that kind of remark from a fucking Englishman;m particularly from a non entity named smith!!!
I live near the Antonine wall in Glasgow and it’s so surreal to watch this and look out the window at the land it took place upon. To think I guy named “Septimus Severus” all the way from Rome was strolling around contemplating his empire on the land I walk my dog. There are some great remains of a bathhouse in a place called Bearsden which would have been close to the wall. Perhaps Severus was sat there once upon a time with his head in his hands thinking about his ill heath and whether he should return home or stay and continue the fight.
Probably still cunts in bearsden called Septimus Severus knowing they lot
Cool!
Yeah cool, I like your thinking, I live 20 miles south of you, when i was younger I went on a 2 week holiday touring hadrins wall, while staying at a campsite on the wall (we done our holidays in a touring caravan) me and some other kids,went exploring in a forest and came across a big ravine and the recent storm had washed away part of the side of the ravine and exposed a part of the wall, I was mucking about and fell through a bit right into a old bunk house, you could climb down and the window if you stuck your head out was facing the ravine. Was crazy to think us kids just found and exposed something nobody had seen for all those years.
When we told the adults later they just shurged it off as kids nonsense.
I wonder sometimes if anyone else found that.
Live just next to Bearsden and they still have a Roman solider on their coat of arms
I live a mile away from Hadrians Wall and often take the history for granted. I always forget about the Antonine wall further north. Are there many remnants of the wall left?
The Scottish landscapes is extremely defendable, its a huge reason Scotland was never completely conquered in history. For centuries English armies were completely destroyed despite having superior equipment, numbers and training.
Their is very few nations in the world that are this impressive, Scotland is definitely one of them.
The queen being on their money says that they can and were defeated lol
Uh, the BRITS???
@@hardchooligan The act of union was not a military conflict. England asked the king of Scotland if he would be their king also, Somewhat different.
@@hardchooligan technically Scotland conquered England 😉
@@hardchooligan Yeah that never happened.
The real question is, why didn't Scotland take Rome
Underrated comment.
There's still time.
Wasn't worth it. Have you tried parking there? Nightmare.
@@Malky24 can't say I have 😂
Too touristy
The land was harsh, and cold. And the resistance was guerilla-like. So it would cost Rome dearly not only to conquer the land, but to rule it. The people in Scotland valued their freedom more than the benefits, the Pax Romana, that would come from Roman rule. So in the end Rome wasn't willing to pay the price associated with the benefits, much like well-run corporations make decisions these days.
And this is why such things like calculus is so damn important. Because both are stupid decisions. Short term vs long term.
Yes, as a Scot we learn about this in history, Scotland is basically Rome's Vietnam.
because of the Scots! Even they want to leave.
Romans were not stupid, Scots and Germans under their tribal leaders were. Romans had nasty plans for slaves but in all honesty, same was reserved for slaves of scottish tribes. But Romans also delivered goodies, tribes did not...
@@pexxajohannes1506 yeahhhh general rule of thumb, don't go around calling certain historical societies stupid. Sure, people make stupid decisions but generally speaking societies adapt as best they can to the circumstances they're in.
1. Slavery wasn't that prevalent in early Scotland, nowhere near as prevalent as it was in Rome. Slavery was mainly a staple of settled societies in the ancient world.
2. Scotland wasn't as developed because Scotland as a place is harsher, the clan system emerged to make the best of the limited food supply that Scotland supply. Germany was the same at this time. Both of these lands would be developed later due to advances in farming technology during the medieval period and, later, the development of global trade and colonialism.
Even as a Scotsman I always knew the reason the Romans didn't conqour us was we were just too much trouble and not worth it. England had huge resources, not only in metals and manpower but also in agriculture, it was grain from England that fed Romes armies in France and Germany, Scotland had little land to grow on, the people were rather violent and it would have been a nightmare to even set up mining operations and get the goods out.
I'm proud of my history as a Scotsman, but I'm not delusional.
Well in Fairness, it wasn't the Scots that the Roman's couldn't defeat. It was the Picts. The Scots would have still been in Ireland at that time. The Scots came over later and the MacAlbin treachery and the basic culture genocide launched against the Picts by the Dal Riata led to Scotland being formed. That being said I suspect most Highland clans would be heavily related to the Picts still even if the culture and language was all but destroyed.
I think you really are delusional! How about you go learn about your history and you will find that Rome tried many times to conquer Scotland and failed so they built the wall but even then that didn't stop the Scots from raiding across the wall.
@@Kaziklu Spoken in the same spirit that history is told by. The victors. Not one shred of credit to be given for the Indigenous people who defended that land. As someone from the first highland Clan myself I can tell you it was always Pictich first, Norse second and Scottish third. Exactly in that order.
@@Kaziklu Picts and a celtic tribe called the scots were the anccestors of the scottish people
nope. you didn't KNOW that you Were TOLD that and most likely by the English who are forever lying about Scotland. Money and History.
Every empire that ever was had limits as to how far they could expand. Sometimes it's just simply a matter of not having enough resources and manpower to push further especially in areas that put up a lot of resistance compared to what might be gained by trying to take those lands. Perhaps the Romans reached a point where they didn't think it was worth the effort to try and claim all of Scotland.
Not technically true, the Mongols controlled all of Asia from Vladivostok to the Mediterranean, only a lack of land stopped them expanding further, and the British controlled every corner of the globe in an age when it took months and months to relay information from London and back
@@RaphaelAmbrosiusCosteau I wasn't trying to disprove or ' HURT ' anything. The fact is the Romans obviously expended Enormous resources to try and take Scotland and continued to do so for hundreds of years but couldn't, Hadrian's wall was build to keep the Scots from fighting back, which didn't work by the way, they ransacked it on a routine basis . Much like the Mongols did on the Great wall of China. Have you ever seen Hadrian's wall in person? It's incredible!! Almost a work of art in the way it straddles and conforms to the natural landscape to be as effective as possible, it must have taken decades of surveys just to plan it's design,
Putting Evan a qualter of that effort into a concerted invasion would be much less costly and resource intensive, so why didn't they ? Because as the video says, conventional forces fighting against guerilla warfare is always going to get you wrecked. Just as the US found out in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
That's why the English cut down almost every tree in Scotland, to deny them that advantage . Also the Scots clans weren't United back then, so even if the Romans could bribe some of them to do their bidding , the rest would just be like .... ' nahh, fuck that , come and try to fight us' .
@@RaphaelAmbrosiusCosteau sure, okay, I'm on board with that, but what would have been the limits if Genghis Khan hadn't fallen off his horse ?
@@jedaaa I mean the Mongols weren't invinciblle or anything, they had limits like anyone else. They didn't even reach their territorial peak under Genghis, yet tried and failed to conquer Japan, India, Egypt, Burma, Indonesia and Vietnam. Just like mountains and forests stopped the Romans, large bodies of water, jungles and mountains stoppedd the Mongols.
"Reaching their limits" and "not worth expanding further" are euphemisms for "they were defeated." If you call a spade a spade, then you have to say that the Afghans defeated the British, Russian and American empires in one century. Similarly, the Vietnamese (specifically the Viet Minh) defeated Japan, Britain, France and the USA.
I live right on the highland border, and walking around here you can't help but notice that it would be ambush heaven for a defending guerrilla force of locals. I think you underestimated the effect the terrain had on defining the line at 2:30. It's very easy to get lost in these old, highly folded mountains, and it's easy to imagine how impossible it would be to escape an ambush, or to imagine archers sniping from the many vantage points above the long winding passes. This terrain stretches 200 miles north from here. But go 2 miles south and the terrain becomes just like England, flat and open with isolated hill ranges.
In fact Tom, the land up to the highland line, once part of the kingdom of Northumberland, was ceded to Scotland by one of the kings of England whose name just skips my memory.
Regard the language: "Scots" is Northumbrian Anglian.
you are forgettng one important thing .... and that is that scotland looked totally different back then. scotland was for the most part covered in dense forests. ENgland aswell was for the most part covered in forests.
@@gordonsmith8899 indeed. southern scotland was english. people spoke scots, a saxon-germanic language, were largely saxons
@@Mrs.Karen_Walker I didn't forget that. A lot of land round here is still covered in ancient forests. Older forests are actually easier to see/walk through than young regenerating ones.
@@Mrs.Karen_Walker They weren't Saxons, the Saxons invaded during the Roman retreat grom from northern England. They also were driven south. Never at any time were The caledonians English. The dalriadic scots and the picts were celts.
If you've ever been hiking or deer hunting in Scotland you'll understand that it's a defenders dream.The Roman's were hopeless at fighting in forests.The Germanic tribes taught them that.
They came back and massacred the Germans, just like they came back and enacted genocide on the Picts.
Evil bastards.
They could and did beat these groups (our people).
But they weren’t worth bringing into the empire, which was starting to have management issues and couldn’t handle becoming any bigger.
Interesting a somewhat similar point in Bond.
Germanicus Julius Caesar led 3 successful campaigns in Germania, if it wasn't for Tiberius's jealousy and recall he would have conquered it. Gnaeus Julius Agricola was destroying Caledonians for 4 years until Domitian ordered his recall because Agricola's successes outshone the emperor's own modest victories in Germany. Nothing could stop the Roman Legions except politics or other Roman Legions.
@@Elandil5 And a nice high wall to wave from.......
@@S-u-p-a Welcome to Scotland ......boom!
The problem was the same in Caledonia as in the German area, too far away from the center of power to be effective. The Goths understood this and would withdraw to a point that the Romans were too far away from logistical support to maintain battle, then turn around and push the Romans back, sometimes almost to the gates of Rome.
Then why would the Romans follow them? Why wouldn't they just stop at a certain point when their supply line was getting too inefficient.
@@olibep4115 Patterns of empires, I suppose. They never just stop and maintain except from outside pressure, they just keep expanding and expanding until they meet resistance they can't overcome.
@@olibep4115 Arrogance
I know very little this particular slice of history BUT based on this video, I am left with a creased brow, shaking my head. The conclusion is that "the Romans could not conquer Caledonia"??? What about they were a hair's breadth away from doing so when internal Roman politics pulled the endlessly successful Agricola from the frontline and buried him deep within the Roman administration? I'm sure the fierce disposition of the Scots played a significant role however, if there were just a little more in the way of resources (i.e. motivation for the Romans), I'm sure they would have stuck around and whittled the Scots down to defeat. The fact seems to be that as it stands, Caledonia got lucky a few times, at a few key moments - an internal power struggle between Roman generals, an ill Roman military leader, etc. At the end of this video, when the RUclipsr comes in and says they "could not be conquered" just reeks of Scottish bias.
@@esperago The same is true for the Japanese. They got lucky _twice,_ saved from being conquered by the Chinese by typhoons. The Japanese considered it divine intervention.
Antonine wall literally runs through my back backgarden 😅 Always awesome learning the history behind it 😁
On Adrian's memoires, he wrote something in the lines of "there's no reason for us to conquer these empty lands, as every day, these barbarians try to attack us, knowing that they will be killed, and they are stubborn in not surrendering."
Hi
Im Adrian
No, you are not.
@@dwightschrute900 you aren't Dwight Schrute either
Scotland loss. Why would you not be seduced by the Roman way of coins wine and hot hookers from Morocco 😚
The Romans didn't conquer Scotland for the same reasons that the Americans didn't conquer the moon. Conquering the land would cost more then it was likely to yield in profit. Plus those crazy moon-people coming out of the craters in kilts were brutal.
Kilts didn't come for another 15 centuries and by that time their ethnic lineage was mostly Scandinavian.
@@montycasper4300 Scandinavian?
@@user-pv8lp6ht3z Yes, during the Viking age significant numbers of them settled in Scotland which was less able to mount large scale resistance as England was. However a significant part of England was occupied for well over a century. Ireland similarly, especially the eastern part of the country.
@@montycasper4300 wrong ethnically they are mostly Celtic they were never subsumed the amount of Scandinavians were never enough o replace the pivot Gaelic peoples. Genetically Scots are A mix of Gaelic and Pictish with a smattering of Germanic: Saxon or Nordic
@@davo1924 Well, since I'm from that neck of the woods and know the history, I disagree. My clan name was from the Northern Isles, all of which were settled by the Danes (a generic term at the time that encompassed many modern nations from Finland to Norway), as to what became of the Picts, probably some form of apartheid. That clan was subject to the highland clearance and shipped to Ireland where my ancestors mixed with Danes who settled in the Dublin area, who shared the name of a certain Boston mobster, who's name also had Viking heritage. Incidentally, the Celts migrated from present day Turkey around 8K years ago, the ancient Brits (who were apparently quite tall) died out during the little ice age.
I’ve done and still do a lot of research on the history of the British isles and have watched dozens of different videos documentaries and series on this, and this has genuinely surprised me with how accurate it is considering the amount of professional high budget documentaries that have got a-lot of these things horribly wrong, you probably don’t care about my opinion but you’ve accurately introduced now 600,000 people to this very interesting part of Scottish history that defined it even to this date, really good video!
@Terry : do you mind elaborating on parts of Scotland's resistance to Rome that wasn't covered, or scantily covered, here? This video was hasty with its account, even if it was accurate as you say, so I'm curious for more detail :-)
you do a lot of research but still consider this to be Scottish history? but Scotland did not exist yet? this would be pictish history not ''Scottish'' , Scotland did not become so until the 9th century, the romans were well gone, yes blood history will suggest a high percentage of Pictish genetics in modern Scots but roman Campaigns never took place in ''Scotland'' because ''Scotland'' did not exist yet . If you want to discus ''history'' you should follow ''history'' where Scotland has not always been Scotland, It may be populated by the majority of the ancestors of those who were there when Rome wanted to add it to their map, but those people were not Scots yet, Scotland did not exist.
I don't know how true this is, but I've read that while the Scots relied more on individual military prowess, which apparently they were impressive at, the Romans on the other hand, were infinitely more skilled than the Scots in fighting as cohesive military units, and therefore were able to subdue most their enemies in an efficient and swift way. However, the Scots would often resort to guerilla warfare, neutralizing the Roman advantage. Add to that the inhospitable landscape and weather of Scotland, I can see why the Romans eventually threw in the towel. Edifying video. Thank you.
There's a big difference between warriors and soldiers. Warriors were better fighters 1-on-1, but soldiers are trained to protect each other.
Of course, most of the Britons that the Romans fought were just farmers.
Picts not Scots. Scots don't come to the area until just before the 6th century. It is unclear if they all came from Ireland or some local tribes allied with the Irish Fergus Mor (assuming he existed) to form the Dal Riata... which became Scotland but at this point it would have been Picts not Scots. It is important as the Picts culture and language was basically stamped out by the Scots after the MacAlpin Treachery. So honouring the Picts is important.
it was the Picts
@@Kazikluprobably came from europe during the migration periods. Same with irish some time before. Picts seem to be some kind of native aboriginal tribe. Definitely less civilized than modern humans.
Oooh it was the weather and landscape? Nothing to do with the Scots being absolutely mEnTaL 😂
They did settle in quite a large area of Southern and Central Scotland, as far as the Findo Gask Ridge in Perthshire. The area between Falkirk and Edinburgh (the lands of the Manau-Gododdin) has lots of Roman sites. The land north of the River Forth is much more mountainous and would have been covered in forests. There's a dramatic steep escarpment of the Ochil Hills which although not particularly high, would create a significant barrier. This is why the town of Stirling, became so significant in medieval Scotland, it had the advantage of being at a fording point in the Forth and a pass in the hills, which required fortification but could also act as a meeting and trading point.
A great post Evelyn
Domitian was jealous of General Agricola
Also, they could trade for what they needed form the points north, as in the parts of Germany they did not occupy.
The Romans had a camp in the far northeast too, around about the area of Insch/Oyne, Aberdeenshire and one of the strong contenders for the as yet unproven but highly likely location of the battle of Mons Graupius is the nearby hill range of Bennachie that dominates the local landscape near my hometown. So they did unfortunately get pretty far North.
I was born between the Ochils and the Forth and hiked to both a few times. A Roman passage through Glen Devon and Glen Eagles would be perilous in the extreme, with high steep slopes on either side. Farther east, Glen Farg would have presented a smaller version of the same problems, so I suspect that they would have chosen to find a crossing in the vicinity of Perth, or even have chosen a seaborn invasion somewhere in or beyond the Firth of Tay. Now I wonder if they might have prevailed upon some of their mariners who had ferried their force onto the island of Great Britain to rendezvous with them farther north? Passing through mountains is usually perilous, as any invaders of Afghanistan have found, again and again, so an eastern coastal invasion might have been an important component of the Romans’ strategy. Unfortunately whatever records made were mostly lost, although there are many sites across Scotland whose various artefacts bear witness to a sustained occupation at least in the lowlands. And there are many ‘iron age’ ruins of hilltop forts, never after reoccupied, that provide poignant suggestive evidence of their genocide, although studies of the genome of the region don’t seem to suggest it was complete, nor that it was without similar punitive retribution once their main forces were withdrawn.
Love your map graphics. They really helped make it easy to follow what you said.
I do like that the Ancient Caledonians weren't arrogant enough to think that they could fight the Romans on or close to equal terms; they were wise enough to come up with new strategies that played to their strengths.
GOD blesses anyone that Resists Roma Pax. Especially TODAY!!!.
@@lamonthamilton667
Which god? Be specific.
@@lamonthamilton667 JESUS!! KING OF KINGS!
.
LORD OF LORDS!
.
( EVERY KNEE WILL BOW
.
EVERY TONGUE WILL CONFESS JESUS CHRIST IS LORD)🕛⏳✝️
They saw what happened to the English and Welsh and knew better than to engage en mass
@@Tempusverum how did the see what the Romans did to England & Wales not as if they had TV, Radio or the Internet pmsl
In the Rome Senate:
- Well, useless lands with smelly useless grumpy Picts anyone?
- Let's build a wall.
Just kidding, love Scotland, beautiful Nature and people there. Keep it up.
@@Retro77691 They did not fail, I think they draw the same conclusion as for the Scotts: there is nothing to get out of these people. History proven right till today.
They missed Calgacus' famous speech before the battle with Agricola, in which he castigated how greedy the Romans were to come to conquer their impoverished land at the edge of the world, and the extreme means by which they would attempt to do so, ending with the famous words: "They make a desert, and call it peace."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgacus Maybe because it is largely believed to be fabricated
As opposed to the Scots who make a sandwich and call it piece.
Mind you, that's almost guaranteed to have been in invention by Tacitus for rhetorical and/or political means. Those Roman historians are unreliable bastards...
Was it not a Scottish farmer who coined the words 'best laid plans of mice and men often go awry'?. I often quote this line on the attempt the Indians make to subjugate Sri Lanka these days.
@@aloysiushettiarachchi4523 Sure looks a lot more like the Chinese are the ones subjugating Sri Lank but sure. Maybe try being allies with your neighbours instead of allying their enemies?
Man, I wish these kinds of videos and RUclips existed back in the 90's. This content makes History exciting.
Arguably rather than expanding into Scotland, the Romans should've pulled back from Britain earlier or never conquered it in the first place. Its conquest was basically nothing more than a publicity stunt and the province was mostly a drain on the Roman coffers rather than an asset. And beforehand there had been trade coming from it which was way more profitable for Rome.
i don’t think you understand the goal of an empire
England was a Burden to Mainland Europe since Roman times, eh?
Had Queen Boudicca succeeded in wiping out governor Gaius Suetonius and his forces, it might have marked the beginning of the end of Roman rule in Britannia. The empire would’ve launched a punitive campaign of reprisal to punish the britons like they did the Germans, but the Romans wouldn’t have stuck around to reoccupied the island once they had their revenge.
That argument can be applied to most imperial/colonial conquests. But the Map sure does look pretty with are flags every where. 😅
@@DJZO1203 but its stupid and ridiculous. Why expand and waste lives when living thogeter in peace with other nations makes both nations richers and better
That was fun and educational! THANK YOU!!!
Fun fact: The great north wall in Game of Thrones is inspired by Hadrian's Wall. And the Wildlings represent the Scotts( Picts).
duh
@@jakxcombat Fucks your problem?
Yeah the Scots didn't live in Scotland at this point this would be like calling the cells english
@@rsr7014 the main story line was based on the english War of the Roses but I think it's incorrect to say all of Westeros was based on engerland. It doesn't have deserts like Dorne for a start.
The north of england has a very mild climate and is nothing like "the North" of Westeros.
No shit
Thanks for your time and effort in producing this content. More people appreciate it than you could imagine.
It's story telling rubbish.
Repent and follow Jesus my friend! Repenting doesn't mean confessing your sins to others, but to stop doing them altogether. Belief in Messiah alone is not enough to get you into heaven - Matthew 7:21-23, John 3:3, John 3:36 (ESV is the best translation for John 3:36). Contemplate how the Roman empire fulfilled the role of the beast from the sea in Revelation 13. Revelation 17 confirms that it is in fact Rome. From this we can conclude that A) Jesus is the Son of God and can predict the future or make it happen, B) The world leaders/nations/governments etc have been conspiring together for the last 3000+ years to accomplish the religion of the Israelites C) History as we know it is fake. You don't really need to speculate though because you can start a relationship with God and have proof. Call on the name of Jesus and pray for Him to intervene in your life. - Revelation 3:20
Revelation 6 1st Seal: White horse = Roman Empire conquering nations under Trajan 98-117 AD & Gospel spreading rapidly. 2nd Seal: Red horse, bloody civil wars with 32 different Emperors, most killed by the sword. 185-284 AD 3rd Seal: Black horse, economic despair from high taxes to pay for wars, farmers stopped growing. 200-250 AD 4th Seal: Pale horse, 1/4th of Romans died from famine, pestilence; at one point 5,000 dying per day. 250-300 AD 5th Seal: Diocletian persecuted Smyrna church era saints for ten years, blood crying out for vengeance. 303-312 AD 6th Seal: Political upheaval in the declining Roman Empire while the leaders battled each other. 313-395 AD
Revelation 7 Sealing of 144,000, the saints, before trumpet war judgments, which led to the fall of the Roman Empire.
Revelation 8 1st Trumpet: Alaric and the Goths attacked from the north, the path of hail, and set it on fire. 400-410 AD 2nd Trumpet: Genseric and the Vandals attacked the seas and coastlands, the blood of sailors in water. 425-470 AD 3rd Trumpet: Attila and the Huns scourged the Danube, Rhine & Po rivers area, dead bodies made water bitter. 451 AD 4th Trumpet: Odoacer and the Heruli caused the last Western Emperor (sun), Senate (moon) to lose power. 476 AD With the Western Roman Emperor (restrainer of 2 Thes. 2) removed; the son of perdition Popes took power.
Revelation 9 Two woe judgments against the central 1/3rd and eastern 1/3rd of the Roman Empire. 612-1453 AD 5th Trumpet: Locust & scorpions point to Arabia, the rise of the Muslim army. Islam hides Gospel from Arabs. 612-762 AD 6th Trumpet: Turks released to attack Constantinople with large cannons (fire, smoke, brimstone). 1062-1453 AD
Revelation 10 The little book is the printed Bible, which was needed after the Dark Ages when Scriptures were banned by Popes.
Revelation 11 7th Trumpet: Martin Luther measured Roman Church; found that it’s an apostate church, not part of true temple. The two witnesses are the Scriptures and saints who proclaim the pure Gospel and testify against the antichrist Popes. Papal Church pronounced Christendom dead in 1514 AD. Silence for 3.5 years. Then Luther posted his 95 Thesis, which sparked the Protestant Reformation and brought the witnesses back to life. Millions of Catholics were saved.
Revelation 12 Satan used the Roman Empire to try to wipe out the early Church, Satan was cast down as the Empire collapsed.
Revelation 13 The antichrist beast Popes reigned in power 1,260 years, 538-1798, is the little horn of Daniel 7, son of perdition. The false prophet Jesuit Superior General rose to power from land (earth) of Vatican and has created many deceptions.
Revelation 14 Points to great harvest during the Protestant Reformation & wrath on Catholic countries who obey antichrist Pope.
Revelation 15 Overcoming saints victorious over the beast. Prelude to 7 vials and judgment on those who support Papal Rome.
Revelation 16 1st Vial: The foul sore of atheism was poured out on Catholic France, leaving them with no hope, led to revolution. 2nd Vial: The French Revolution started in 1793, killed 250,000, as France had obeyed the Pope and killed saints. 3rd Vial: The French Revolution spread to rural areas of France, where Protestants had been killed in river areas. 4th Vial: The bloody Napoleonic wars shed the blood of countries who had revered and obeyed the antichrist Pope. 5th Vial: Judgment on the seat of the beast. Papal States invaded in 1798, Pope imprisoned, removed from power. 6th Vial: The Turks vast domain dried up, they were only left with Turkey. They lost control of Palestine in 1917 AD, Israel became a nation again in 1948
@@crinolynneendymion8755
Best get some ice on your butthurt or it will end up looking like a burst doughnut.
"One small village held out against the invaders, fortified with a magic potion they called Iron Bru"
Hahaha!!!
Exactly!
Irn*
Or as me and my brother like to call it, the bubblegum soda.
There was a Roman general who went to inspect his troops at Hadrian's wall. While he was there, a Scotsman on the other side started jeering at the Romans, making rude gestures and laughing. The general calmly sent two soldiers to go handle it. There was a noise of screaming and swords clashing and neither Roman returned back over the wall. The Scotsman poked his head back over the wall and continued his insults against Rome and Caesar. The general was enraged and sent 20 of his best warriors to go kill the Scotsman. Again, there was a huge noise, and no Roman returned. The Scotsman again continued insulting the Romans and the general was beside himself. He gathered an entire legion of troops to go kill this Scotsman. The general saw flashes of fire burst forth over the wall, more screaming, and the clash of swords grew to a horrible din. Finally, a mortally wounded Roman soldier was seen dragging himself through the gate to the general. The general knelt down and asked the dying soldier what happened. With his dying breath, the Roman soldier managed to choke out five words, "There are two of them."
Wasn't that from when Astrix the Gaul went to Britannia?😂😂😂
Brilliant !
err the 'other side' of Hadrian's Wall is Northumberland. At no point is Hadrian's Wall the English/Scottish border - never has been.
Barbarian propaganda for the feeble minded.
@@ronhall9394🤓👆🏻
Fantastic video, thank you. History can be complex and difficult to understand, but the voiceover and graphics in this are superb. Bravo!
When you read the Chronicles of Tacitus ( a Roman) he claimed that Calgacus (that again wouldn't have been his real name) the chieftain of the Picts was defeated at the Battle of Mons Graupius (the Grampians) in northern Scotland in AD 83 or 84, but we see from the history books that it was still an active thriving kingdom even immediately after that. My take is that the Romans may have won a battle, but not the war. Scotland wasn't the arrable landscape we see today, but was in fact heavily forested at that time, with pretty rough terrain, so I would guess that the Picts simply dispersed into the surrounding country, and the Roman's gave up the chase. It would have been a costly campaign for the Romans to pursue and conquer Scotland as it was back then.
It's was pictland my ancestors Romans said they won the battle to save face the picts can't speak for themselves because today they still have no idea how to read there symbols but all the raised stones are all over East as today Scotland. One pictish Fort is under the the towns nairn in Banff
@@lesterjohnston8888 note Scotland had universal literacy before Rome.
@@jerrymichaelgreen2675 That's impressive considering that "Scotland" didn't exist until 500 years _after_ the fall of the Roman empire.
@@jerrymichaelgreen2675 Universal literacy started in Scotland after the Reformation when Scotland became Presbyterian.
Picts were apparently still around by the viking age.
It was the rain and cold. Same in Germania. Anyway, that's my theory. If I were a Roman legionary, or a general, I would hate being stationed in those conditions. The Romans advanced and did what they did, but as soon as someone said "turn around" they skeedaddled with a skip to their pace. It's like the US Naval Station in Adak, Alaska. The guys can't wait for thier six month tour to be over fast enough - and that's with modern heat and good chow.
I met someone stationed up there. During the summer months they moved that group to the Sinai desert where ground temperatures were over 140 degrees Farenheit. You obviously had to get on someone's sh*t list for that duty.
"Modern Heat" lol.
TBH, being a Scot and been in the Highlands where i learnt how to read a map and orientate my way, plus getting 2 know the Highland people well! Id say the Scottish reasons are as follows.
1. The climate & landscape, its a wet cold up there and many a climber has went missing, wet-cold dampens the lungs causing lots of illness' - if not fit enough and knowledgeable.
2. Locals are tall MF's, generations of strongman events and Highland Games have made them, frankly SAS types, this is no doubt due to breeding and fresh produce, oats, honey, fish, meat. soups etc...and yes we had all of that in roman times
3. Scottish mindset, untouched by soft living, unlike the romans...we're not the toughest people in the world but ffs, we wont stop, DECLARTION OF ARBROATH sums us up' Even if 100 remain we will fight 2 the death' ...highest Honours in the British Army and SAS discipline and then our redheaded women, id rather fight an army than get into a argument with a Scots lassie in full rampage.
4. Most of the Celts pushed out of modern day England due 2 roman advance untied with northern tribes, swelling numbers and uniting a common people against a formidable foe. The Brits had learnt that the romans where taking no prisoners, forcing the Celts to 'asymmetric warfare', a tactic that is hard to overcome, even today. The Celts were lightly armoured and speed and stealth was the tactic, u must see them like native American Indians, in their attack, camouflage and surprise at unfortunate moments, historians est 50k romans perished in Septimius' campaign, most probably due to exhaustion, [lots of Glens look the same, easily ambushed in tall passes] ? disorientated [lose yer company yer a goner, in the hills and glens u can b lost for hours] shipwrecks, [The North Sea is very unforgiving].
Roman pov, the above and not worth it, the romans have conquered mountains and forests b4 (WALES, SPAIN AND GEMANICUS' GERMAN CAMPAGNE), SO, had the really put their mind 2 it , it probably would have been done, but bloodshed would have been round the corner in every generation during the 400 year occupation, smart folks them roman senators, after careful valuation, improbable, at times impossible and impractical profits made it conclusively UNTHINKABLE! where's is our slaves, eh sorry governor their all dead, fought 2 the last!
Well said kid and no maps until a Scot, General Roy, mapped Highlands & Lowlands in the 18th century. General Roy's superb maps are available on line.
dumbest take ive ever heard
Consider that Scotland was far enough north that summer days are extremely long and winter days extremely short. Mediterranean people would not have known what to make of it or how to adapt. Plus the climate was cold and unhealthy for Mediterraneans.
Not so. The Romans briefly established a colony in Thule ("Ultima Thule") in Iceland. And they had a thriving trade with Scandinavian vikings They knew about northern winters.
@@kenoliver8913 Thule is in Greenland. Is there any archeological evidence for a Roman colony there? There were no Vikings until long after the Western empire fell. Vikings did trade with the Byzantines in Constantinople, but they sailed to Constantinople, not the other way around.
you do know the Roman army was not only composed of Mediterraneans right? Romans had German and brits who were Roman citizens serving in the army and Roman legions had men locally from their provinces serving inn the army. That's what made the Roman army so powerful its adoption of different things so roman soldiers were very capable of different environment since they have been stationed at their posts for years
@Strongboy1770 So the Romans were ok with England though. Where I live, there's a Roman fort about 2 miles away. It never gets pitch black dark through July and early part of August. It gets cold in the winter and where the fort is, it's high up. I find artefacts on my drive, including coins with Hadrian on. The Romans weren't Mediterraneans per se, that idea is totally untrue. It's in it's early stages, but another Roman fort about 20 miles away, anecdotally are finding DNA in some of the residents now, to be linked to Romans that stayed there and they not Italian or on the Med.
Bah, murdering and killing humans don't care. They just want to kill and murder.
Still happens every decade, even in modern times.
Mankind has always been on a path to self destruction.
An outside scotland was very usefull,
1) to get rid of opposition or rebels ; throw 'em over the border
2) there is an external treath ; secures loyality inside
3) trade was more profitable with a wall then without
The Romans also called the Caledonians the Picts, meaning the painted ones in Latin.
actually there is not a single shred of evidence that the Picts actually painted themelves. It turns out to be a myth
Picts sounds too anglo... Pictus or pictos maybe
Repent and follow Jesus my friend! Repenting doesn't mean confessing your sins to others, but to stop doing them altogether. Belief in Messiah alone is not enough to get you into heaven - Matthew 7:21-23, John 3:3, John 3:36 (ESV is the best translation for John 3:36). Contemplate how the Roman empire fulfilled the role of the beast from the sea in Revelation 13. Revelation 17 confirms that it is in fact Rome. From this we can conclude that A) Jesus is the Son of God and can predict the future or make it happen, B) The world leaders/nations/governments etc have been conspiring together for the last 3000+ years to accomplish the religion of the Israelites C) History as we know it is fake. You don't really need to speculate though because you can start a relationship with God and have proof. Call on the name of Jesus and pray for Him to intervene in your life. - Revelation 3:20
Revelation 6 1st Seal: White horse = Roman Empire conquering nations under Trajan 98-117 AD & Gospel spreading rapidly. 2nd Seal: Red horse, bloody civil wars with 32 different Emperors, most killed by the sword. 185-284 AD 3rd Seal: Black horse, economic despair from high taxes to pay for wars, farmers stopped growing. 200-250 AD 4th Seal: Pale horse, 1/4th of Romans died from famine, pestilence; at one point 5,000 dying per day. 250-300 AD 5th Seal: Diocletian persecuted Smyrna church era saints for ten years, blood crying out for vengeance. 303-312 AD 6th Seal: Political upheaval in the declining Roman Empire while the leaders battled each other. 313-395 AD
Revelation 7 Sealing of 144,000, the saints, before trumpet war judgments, which led to the fall of the Roman Empire.
Revelation 8 1st Trumpet: Alaric and the Goths attacked from the north, the path of hail, and set it on fire. 400-410 AD 2nd Trumpet: Genseric and the Vandals attacked the seas and coastlands, the blood of sailors in water. 425-470 AD 3rd Trumpet: Attila and the Huns scourged the Danube, Rhine & Po rivers area, dead bodies made water bitter. 451 AD 4th Trumpet: Odoacer and the Heruli caused the last Western Emperor (sun), Senate (moon) to lose power. 476 AD With the Western Roman Emperor (restrainer of 2 Thes. 2) removed; the son of perdition Popes took power.
Revelation 9 Two woe judgments against the central 1/3rd and eastern 1/3rd of the Roman Empire. 612-1453 AD 5th Trumpet: Locust & scorpions point to Arabia, the rise of the Muslim army. Islam hides Gospel from Arabs. 612-762 AD 6th Trumpet: Turks released to attack Constantinople with large cannons (fire, smoke, brimstone). 1062-1453 AD
Revelation 10 The little book is the printed Bible, which was needed after the Dark Ages when Scriptures were banned by Popes.
Revelation 11 7th Trumpet: Martin Luther measured Roman Church; found that it’s an apostate church, not part of true temple. The two witnesses are the Scriptures and saints who proclaim the pure Gospel and testify against the antichrist Popes. Papal Church pronounced Christendom dead in 1514 AD. Silence for 3.5 years. Then Luther posted his 95 Thesis, which sparked the Protestant Reformation and brought the witnesses back to life. Millions of Catholics were saved.
Revelation 12 Satan used the Roman Empire to try to wipe out the early Church, Satan was cast down as the Empire collapsed.
Revelation 13 The antichrist beast Popes reigned in power 1,260 years, 538-1798, is the little horn of Daniel 7, son of perdition. The false prophet Jesuit Superior General rose to power from land (earth) of Vatican and has created many deceptions.
Revelation 14 Points to great harvest during the Protestant Reformation & wrath on Catholic countries who obey antichrist Pope.
Revelation 15 Overcoming saints victorious over the beast. Prelude to 7 vials and judgment on those who support Papal Rome.
Revelation 16 1st Vial: The foul sore of atheism was poured out on Catholic France, leaving them with no hope, led to revolution. 2nd Vial: The French Revolution started in 1793, killed 250,000, as France had obeyed the Pope and killed saints. 3rd Vial: The French Revolution spread to rural areas of France, where Protestants had been killed in river areas. 4th Vial: The bloody Napoleonic wars shed the blood of countries who had revered and obeyed the antichrist Pope. 5th Vial: Judgment on the seat of the beast. Papal States invaded in 1798, Pope imprisoned, removed from power. 6th Vial: The Turks vast domain dried up, they were only left with Turkey. They lost control of Palestine in 1917 AD, Israel became a nation again in 1948
The picts were a group in Caledonia or Scotland but weren't the only culture that lived there.
Thank you for the information! I'm 58 years old and this is new to me although I have been aware of Hadrian's and the Antonine walls since jr high.
And we made them pay for both .
The Romans decided not to invade Scotland, because they were warned that this disruption might jeopardize the future development of Scotch whisky, and that could not be allowed!
Irish invented whiskey. Scots only contribution was to store whisky in old barrels, drink the stuff and not die. :D
How to speak gaelig, first drink the bottle...
@@pexxajohannes1506 firstly, it's whiskey in Ireland and the states. Its whisky on Scotland. The fact you don't know this already tells me you don't know much about the subject.
Secondly your statement that all Scotland did different was to keep it in barrels. Yeh, no. Irish and Scottish whisky have very different requirements for the final product.
Irish whisky is triple distilled and can use any grain. Scotch has to use malted barley, the stills have to be copper, and it has to be aged for at least 3 years, amongst many other requirements.
Again, you don't know much about whisky
There's no definitive evidence that it was made in Ireland first, either.
Had us in the first half
@@pexxajohannes1506 After tasting that shyt Connor Mcgregor punts out - ill stick to my "whisky" here thanks
@@pexxajohannes1506 Aye the Irish made that shite called Whiskey
While Scots made the perfection that is Whisky
Excellent video! Scotland had harsh terrain and fierce warriors. Also, they were not unified as a people. Also, the cost of maintaing Roman Legions was to great for the reward. This also happened in Germania for Rome.
Unified? That's a good one. 🤣
@@DefinitelyJarvis he said they were NOT unified. That would make them easier to conquer, but more difficult to govern.
@@PoochieCollins yeah Ik I was saying they were right, sorry if that got portrayed weirdly.
😂😂😂 peccato che la Scozia e' esistita dall' 843 d.C.
Those roman soldiers were really confident until a man in a plaid skirt and a beard down to his knees comes running out of his house playing bagpipes as he kills you.
I had a friend once who used to humorously explain why Rome never conquered Scotland like this: "The Romans got all the way up to the Northlands and then one of them says to other, "what are those guys doing?" "Wait, what, they're throwing trees? Picking up and throwing TREES?" "For FUN???!!!" Well, you know what? Let's just build a wall here. We don't need to conquer everything do we? We'll just build a wall and tell Rome we finished off the campaign with a nice wall."
👏😂😂😂
I agree totally with the idea of tough geography, lack of natural rich resources, terrible weather, and the inability to fight pitched battles all add up to the fact...it wasn't worth the price.
Being not worth the price doesn't mean they couldn't.... they most likely could have conquered it eventually.
That's wrong cause they were literally about to take it until the last minute and were like eh maybe tomorrow
@NIHKEY1 yeah and they could have conquered australia too.. could have would have... shut up
I am one of the few who thinks history is written by the big winners and i t seems more likely they shat their breeks when they reaslied it was not easy.
Good work! Nicely outlined piece of history. Your description, logic and reasoning makes sense. Thank you!
I live thousands of miles away and I envy all of you that have seen such mesmerizing antiquity. Being an American our history is young and nowhere near the magnitude of everything that has happened through the ages. I approach my 20th wedding anniversary and I and my wife will be traveling to the U. K. and to Rome because of my absolute love of history and being Italian as well!!! I cannot wait to see what you all have seen.
If you ever come to Scotland, send me a message and I'll give you a tour and help you out.
Thing is Aussies or Americans of European ancestry really just all have the same back story as us Anglo Saxons, except with a more recent emigration added in 😊
Depends on how you look at history. 125th Street in Harlem NYC is an old Indian footpath that pre-dates Roman London. I find that pretty astonishing. And North American history is utterly fascinating in its own right.
🤦♂️ American history goes back as far as any in the world , the problem is a lack of written history and the fact that new comers destroyed the history of the indigenous.
@@chrisbrunette9495 Bullshit. Indigenous people had no written language, printing press, or had anything even remotely resembling civilization.
So in short
They would’ve if they could’ve but they couldnae so they didnae 🏴❤️
Wonderful animations to go along with the narration.
I know it's conventional wisdom that Domitian recalled Agricola because he didn't want to be overshadowed. I've never bought that. The conquest of Caledonia was fairly insignificant compared to Domitian's advances against the Germanic tribes. I reckon the true victor may have been the Scottish midge! Imagine them getting under Roman armour!
Yes, that and all the cold, wind and rain. Not what they were used to further south.
👍🏽😂💥
The midges beat me too!
Domitian needs agricola troops for dealing with dacian Kingdom and germanic tribes
This tiny creature inspired the book "War of the Worlds".
Mostly likely due to Rome's Legions having to live off of the land and I do not think that was possible due to the lack of agriculture and that the tribes up there live a more Nomadic life with certain herd animals which could be moved before the Legions could get their hands on them.
No. They successfully built forts and roads as they moved... combination of things - would be interesting to know the definitive reason that may have been written and long gone.
Scots were agricultural for millennia at that point. We weren't nomadic either. Some moved twice a year between two fixed locations (a summer pasture and a winter one), not at all free moving that they could just move to evade romans
@@TrueNativeScot But the peoples in that region at that time were all Picts, were they not - before the Irish began to progressively move East across to Scotland (400AD?)
They were quite a different breed to the Celtic/Norse/Germanic Scot of later centuries.
I don't know if your usage of the collective 'we' with the Picts is so according, my Celtic brethren :)
It seems the answer isn’t that “they couldn’t” take the land, but they decided that it wasn’t worth losing the resources it would take to gain the land. A land that didn’t really have a lot to offer in victory.
@Mick Barnes if you say so. 🙄
Apparently you didn’t watch the same video I did. Which of course would be what my comment was referring to.
They though we would be a pushover like the english untill the first encounter then thought f#ck that.
@@GG-ml3vr yah, the empire that literally conquered and held the majority of Europe for centuries, got to what was to be Scotland, and ran scared because of one tough battle. 🤦♂️
Nope! No way there’s more to that story, huh? 😂
Not worth the effort? I agree, LOL Sort of like the Iron Islands. A pile of rocks and birdstains.
@@Sivadtu The Vikings never conquered Scotland either . They only colonized some coastal areas and islands. The majority of the mainland was not only rough , but the vicious Scottish clans repelled the Vikings in battle . 🏴
The Romans couldn’t beat the Scots because the highlanders were beefed AF on fried mars bars and Irn bru. Unstoppable. Pure energy.
They would definitely struggle in the Scottish Highlands if they reached them. Terrain is unforgiving and unpredictable, what may look like a Field of grass is actually a soft bog thats incredibly difficult to cross. Not to mention the weather!
Huh no lol
And the isolation - quite a distance by sea from any other land mass.
Also, the Highlands were forested at the time, making control even harder. Polen analysis suggests the Lowlands, including the Southern Uplands, had been grazed into something like the way they were at the start of the 20th Century.
The terrain played a huge role, The Scots in their kilts had the High ground and when the Romans looked up the hill the saw ghastly horrors under the barbarian kilt and so they ran for they're lives back to Rome & in 1990 Scotland took revenge & conquered Italy by having more fans at the world cup than the Italian population & those fans were supporting anyone that played against England.
Minor point but we did not have kilts then
@@guyincognito8440 didn’t miss the joke king,the joke was not centred around that point, I was just pointing out a common misconception
@@guyincognito8440 that is literally not what the joke is built around, it’s built around the concept of extremely delayed and petty retribution , a common trope.
@@guyincognito8440 what are you on. You just told me the point of the joke was something else before. I am well aware, as I said, that it was not relevant to the joke in the first place.
Youse two spend close to a week arguing about what another person might've joked about? Fuck me, I forgot the popcorn...
I live in Northumberland and there a re countless Roman forts and roads on our OS Maps. The place is marked for all time by their presence. You can't help but imagine the legions crossing the land when out walking.
3:04 Good news! The Dacia Sandero is now available in left hand drive markets
I don't know why this question is being asked. Historians have pointed out long ago that the reasons were the same as for Ireland...there was no point. The land north of the border would show no return for any effort. Ireland was similar, because of the need to ship over any returns. The Romans, being a considerable force, could fairly easily have taken Scotland if the land was worth it by simply sending overwhelming numbers (which they could easily have done). But it wasn't worth it.
It’s nice to see that someone else here understands this.
After explaining all that in the video... the conclusion left me scratching my head. "The short answer to why Rome didn't conquer Scotland, is simply, that they couldn't." What? Did we watch the same video? The answer was that the Caledonians got lucky and the emperor died, leaving the remaining army was under command of the heir who had to return to Rome. Then later concluded it wasn't worth the effort.
@@tiredlocke
The question of the video is:
Why couldn't the Romans conquer Scotland?
The answer is:
The Romans didn't conquer Scotland because there was never a serious attempt made to.
Why not?
Because Scotland never had the land and the resources (like the rest of Europe) that would return their investment in men and effort. So no 'serious' attempt was made.
Could the Romans have taken Scotland if there was bountiful land and resources there?
Of course!
The answer is a little different for Ireland in that any returns would have to be shipped. The Romans were incredibly impressive in their might. To think (as some erroneously do) that their legions could not have defeated a thousand men (if that!) is laughable (though some Scots used to think that). If you read Roman history, and how they could fight and conquer, you get a better idea. It was over-expansion among other things that led to the fall of the Empire...and that's why they built Hadrians Wall. Scotland was simply going too far (even England was, really). The British empire collapse was exactly the same - overstretched and unrest. If Putin gets to re-build the Soviet empire, it will suffer the same fate, as will any Chinese empire. The future is insular, as Trump quite rightly stated in 2016.
But as the video points out, the Romans *did* attempt to conquer Scotland more than once, but the circumstances went against it. Clearly there were moments where it *was* deemed worth the effort by them.
@@Tlevids
Historians have said that some vanity attempts were made, but never anything serious. You only have to look at it logically. The Romans had conquered hundreds of thousands of fighting men across Europe. A few hundred more would have been nothing to them had they sent legions of soldiers in. But as historians have pointed out, the land wasn't worth the trouble.
Many thanks from Scotland for this piece of history!
I live in a small Village ,along the Antonine wall , Which was the last village in the Roman empire.
Cool
@@anryx555 you mean the furthest village in the roman empire?
@@kingbjorn1832 i meen, seems cool live in an ancient village, near such a symbol of history, or how must be intriguing wake up in such place (i do know, i imagine it very rural) and yada yada yada
There is a lot of things that tingle my subconscious about such thought and i cant describe them all
The Romans heard those bagpipes and ran away screaming, “That’s-a terrible music!”
Great video! ⚔
Scotland has an amazing history of bravery , fearless warriors and until ultimately succumbing to English rule through treachery , not only repelled the might of Rome , but also the Vikings hundreds of years later, as the Vikings were only able to conquer and colonize some coastal areas and islands. The highland clans were too vicious and powerful for even the barbaric Vikings . 💪♥️🏴
You do know that their was no Scottish people their at this time .
@@craigmyers2936 Gaels , Picts , Scotia - all eventually Scottish.
@@craigmyers2936 Im sorry bro but caledonia is Scotland. Pictland is Scotland. Dal Riata is (mostly) Scotland. Gaels Picts and Scotts formed Scotland.
So scottish people were there but just came under different names. Its like saying muscovites in 1300 were not russian.
Correct but they are the people who became russian, same goes with picts gaels and scots.
@@craigmyers2936 *Sigh, always one.
Well yes and no, we became part of the United Kingdom when our king was crowned king of England as well therefore uniting the Kingdoms.
They actually could. They just did not want to invest enough troops and resources. Why?
Rome was a pre-industrial civilization. Meaning, they don't like conquering lands that are mostly empty and unpopulated territories; they have no use of mostly-empty lands, as they can't extract resources without massive populations, and can't profit from taxes if the land is mostly empty.
On the other hand, industrial societies like 1800s Russia and the 1800s US did profit greatly from conquering empty lands, because they have the technology to extract resources from those empty lands.
@Keiran
Romans clearly wanted something: to stop those filthy barbarians to raid the civilized low-lands.
So sending raw recruits to "have at them" was something quite interesting and mainly harmless for the Imperial Army, since marching itself was considered more dangerous than actual fighting the Ancient Scotts
@Keiran Actually, the Russian economy, due to its rapid industrialization, was growing at 10% per year leading up to the First World War. You are just repeating Soviet propaganda.
Repent and follow Jesus my friend! Repenting doesn't mean confessing your sins to others, but to stop doing them altogether. Belief in Messiah alone is not enough to get you into heaven - Matthew 7:21-23, John 3:3, John 3:36 (ESV is the best translation for John 3:36). Contemplate how the Roman empire fulfilled the role of the beast from the sea in Revelation 13. Revelation 17 confirms that it is in fact Rome. From this we can conclude that A) Jesus is the Son of God and can predict the future or make it happen, B) The world leaders/nations/governments etc have been conspiring together for the last 3000+ years to accomplish the religion of the Israelites C) History as we know it is fake. You don't really need to speculate though because you can start a relationship with God and have proof. Call on the name of Jesus and pray for Him to intervene in your life. - Revelation 3:20
Revelation 6 1st Seal: White horse = Roman Empire conquering nations under Trajan 98-117 AD & Gospel spreading rapidly. 2nd Seal: Red horse, bloody civil wars with 32 different Emperors, most killed by the sword. 185-284 AD 3rd Seal: Black horse, economic despair from high taxes to pay for wars, farmers stopped growing. 200-250 AD 4th Seal: Pale horse, 1/4th of Romans died from famine, pestilence; at one point 5,000 dying per day. 250-300 AD 5th Seal: Diocletian persecuted Smyrna church era saints for ten years, blood crying out for vengeance. 303-312 AD 6th Seal: Political upheaval in the declining Roman Empire while the leaders battled each other. 313-395 AD
Revelation 7 Sealing of 144,000, the saints, before trumpet war judgments, which led to the fall of the Roman Empire.
Revelation 8 1st Trumpet: Alaric and the Goths attacked from the north, the path of hail, and set it on fire. 400-410 AD 2nd Trumpet: Genseric and the Vandals attacked the seas and coastlands, the blood of sailors in water. 425-470 AD 3rd Trumpet: Attila and the Huns scourged the Danube, Rhine & Po rivers area, dead bodies made water bitter. 451 AD 4th Trumpet: Odoacer and the Heruli caused the last Western Emperor (sun), Senate (moon) to lose power. 476 AD With the Western Roman Emperor (restrainer of 2 Thes. 2) removed; the son of perdition Popes took power.
Revelation 9 Two woe judgments against the central 1/3rd and eastern 1/3rd of the Roman Empire. 612-1453 AD 5th Trumpet: Locust & scorpions point to Arabia, the rise of the Muslim army. Islam hides Gospel from Arabs. 612-762 AD 6th Trumpet: Turks released to attack Constantinople with large cannons (fire, smoke, brimstone). 1062-1453 AD
Revelation 10 The little book is the printed Bible, which was needed after the Dark Ages when Scriptures were banned by Popes.
Revelation 11 7th Trumpet: Martin Luther measured Roman Church; found that it’s an apostate church, not part of true temple. The two witnesses are the Scriptures and saints who proclaim the pure Gospel and testify against the antichrist Popes. Papal Church pronounced Christendom dead in 1514 AD. Silence for 3.5 years. Then Luther posted his 95 Thesis, which sparked the Protestant Reformation and brought the witnesses back to life. Millions of Catholics were saved.
Revelation 12 Satan used the Roman Empire to try to wipe out the early Church, Satan was cast down as the Empire collapsed.
Revelation 13 The antichrist beast Popes reigned in power 1,260 years, 538-1798, is the little horn of Daniel 7, son of perdition. The false prophet Jesuit Superior General rose to power from land (earth) of Vatican and has created many deceptions.
Revelation 14 Points to great harvest during the Protestant Reformation & wrath on Catholic countries who obey antichrist Pope.
Revelation 15 Overcoming saints victorious over the beast. Prelude to 7 vials and judgment on those who support Papal Rome.
Revelation 16 1st Vial: The foul sore of atheism was poured out on Catholic France, leaving them with no hope, led to revolution. 2nd Vial: The French Revolution started in 1793, killed 250,000, as France had obeyed the Pope and killed saints. 3rd Vial: The French Revolution spread to rural areas of France, where Protestants had been killed in river areas. 4th Vial: The bloody Napoleonic wars shed the blood of countries who had revered and obeyed the antichrist Pope. 5th Vial: Judgment on the seat of the beast. Papal States invaded in 1798, Pope imprisoned, removed from power. 6th Vial: The Turks vast domain dried up, they were only left with Turkey. They lost control of Palestine in 1917 AD, Israel became a nation again in 1948
Really good. Thanks.
Im from Norway and its pretty absurd to see the western Norwegian coast in this video, that the romans were this far north. And this was hundreds of years before the viking age.
When the Romans marched north they looked down into a valley in Scotland, where lay a small village and they watched the villages going about their work. Red haired, bearded, and wearing tartan kilts. One Roman said to the other. “By Zeus, if that’s what their women look like what must the men be like. And so they built Hadrian’s wall, and remained in the South.
Wrong.
Clayton's Wall is not even 200 years old and Adrianus was nowhere in sight. You have been hornswaddled by academic bullshit.
Spoken like a true Englishman.
Thank you for all the information Laurence Eoin McInnis
Hahahahaha!!
Rome could have conquered Scotland if they decided to put enough men and resources to the task, but after doing what we would now call a cost-benefit analysis, they determined it simply wasn't worth their while. It was a cold, rational decision. It's also why the Romans ultimately abandoned Britain entirely - holding these islands out in the far northwestern hinterlands of their empire simply did not contribute enough to their economy or security to be worth holding. It's not as though a rival empire was waiting to swoop in and take them. The British Isles just did not matter for much at that time. It would be many centuries before the British people themselves would perform the hard work of adding tremendous value to their economy and subsequently transform their little island kingdom into a world power.
Everything happens when it happens for a reason.
A little island that created an empire that shits on the Roman empire
@@glasgowrossco916 than the English beat up the Scottish so what's your point
"transform their little island kingdom into a world power."
Transformed their island kingdom into the world superpower
@@RS__7 Wow they used guns to shoot unarmed Africans,What an impressive feat
@@LukaPavlovic1 40% of all inventions and discoveries come from Britain.... eastern European peasant
this is like some kind of historical fan service, its great!
Some of the great gladiators from that time actually came from Celtic and Caledonian tribesmen captured during the battles 🫡🫡🏴🏴🏴
Fantastic video keep it up your doing amazing job
If you've ever been to Scotland it's easy to understand why they gave up.
There were no resources there the Roman's wanted, growing cereal crops like wheat is difficult, there were no precious metals to mine.
Yeah the country was OK but the people were sh1t and still are 😏
@@jon-ei8iz nonsense
Mel Gibson
@@suedenim6590 MacAulish!
I think, given the factors, it would be more accurate to say that the Roman's wouldn't conquer what is now Scotland rather than that they couldn't. It seems that, aside from being able to say that they conquered he whole island, there wasn't anything that made them want to conquer the area. It just wasn't worth it.
William the Conqueror also couldn't take Scotland...
Wait, did William the conqueror ever even invade Scotland?
@@Valencetheshireman927 No but the conqueror of England stole Cumbria which was a principality of Scotland
@@ScottishRoss27 Cumbria was always English land, even before William the conqueror. Before it was a principality of Scotland it had been part of the Saxon kingdom of Northumbria.
@@Valencetheshireman927 Was part of Scotland until 1092.
Not even Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler could conquer Scotland...
It looks from the map of the progression of the Roman empire that the harsh highland landscape which is more difficult to move through was a factor pushing the Romans to decide it wasn't worth the effort and the death toll.
while it seems like an issue at first sight. Be aware that Italy is a bit mountainous as well, their formations were design to excell in such conditions
This makes me proud to be Scottish
Amen to that brother. Our ancestors were such menaces they walled them out lol
I quote from Scotland for Ever by John McDermott
“When Armies and empires against me were hurled, firm as my native rock I have withstood the shock, Of England 🏴 Of Denmark 🇩🇰 of Rome and the World”
(Emoji’s were for a bit of fun)
Because your country wasn’t worth capturing?
Prood fer wha exactly? Haggis and irn bru 😂. You weren't worth the effort for your barron wastelands and awful weather. Plus they probably preferred seeing women in skirts not men.
My ancestors fought off the English in Perthshire until my ancestor was captured by Cromwell’s forces and sent to America as an indentured servant. What a neat and ugly history, what we morphed into in America set the pace for the next 350 years
Enjoyed that, cheers
I haven’t watched historical videos in some time now. For 10 years I’ve dug into history. From Europe, Americas, Africa, Asia, and Australia. It’s been a ride, but I know a generalization of everything. From the greco-Indian nation of Central Asia to the Aztecs of Central America. If I was a history teacher than I would continue, but I’m not. Thank you History RUclipsrs for 10 years of stories.
I'm Scottish and live in the borders and the Romans were here, I still love learning about them....way ahead of their time man
And great engineers. When I visited Rome I couldn’t believe all the structures still around 2,000 years later.
@@robertburch3813 Agreed. I've been to Londinium / London, and several places in France, Switzerland, Italy, they are a tiny part of the ancient Roman world.
Among those places it's easy to see ancient Roman works, roads, bridges, buildings, theaters, schools, amphitheatres, racetracks, sports venues, tunnels, aqueducts, libraries, baths, sanitary facilities, art, statues, mosaics, etc even walls that look identical no matter in London, France, Switzerland, Italy or Rome city.
And, as people in this forum have shared, they live in Scotland near ancient Roman structures and can still see them.
According to a Lighthouse Spotter & Club, there is a Roman lighthouse on southeast side of Dover, Kent on Mortimer Road near Dover Castle that was built ca 1,200 years after the lighthouse. Treasures in plain sight that are too obvious to notice, even when labelled World Heritage Sites.
Also, here we are utilising the Roman aka Latin alphabet.
I went to Scotland once….it was closed. I think the Romans were wise not to bother going further north.
Lol
Only the brave enter
@@AquaFyrre
I live in Scotland ya rocket.
@@AquaFyrre
I see what you done there 🤣😂. Now flurry off.
@@AquaFyrre
Poor patter. 🥱
And we annoy the Italians to this day 🎶 "deep fry yer pizza, were going to deep fry yer pizza" 😅
Scotland is full of strategical advantages. Covered in huge forest was one of which, where the Romans couldn't march and set out there army, like in previous battles and shows of force. The picts used this to there advantage and would demoralise the Romans with short sharp attacks. The Romans conquered most of the flat ground but as you get into the west coast highlands, with the locals knowing the ground, they had the serious advantage over such a great force against them. Bogs, hills, forest all ruined the Romans strategy of battle 🏴
Come on it was pictland nobody understands the picts because they cannot understand there symbols so they call it whatever they want I'm from my pictish ancestors my people
Cause up there is too cold for them, believe me! 😅😅😅👌
We visited Hadrian's Wall, and that place is absolutely beautiful!! 🥰🥰🥰
That's the lowlands.
You should see the highlands.
Even more beautiful.
Aye, try the Highlands.
Your Roman ancestors never got that far.
😜😂😂
I've been hearing these questions for quite some time now. I was wondering though. What sort of riches would the Romans have gained by conquering Scotland? I mean by creating and maintaining all the necessary garrisons there, there must have been something they really needed. Right? What would that possibly be?
Whiskey?
@@johnadams-wp2yb Whiskey is Irish. Whisky is Scottish. And we’ll worth fighting for. Slainté!😊
@@humblebum59 go raibh maith agat
Ian Bru and deep fried Mars bars (in batter of course).
Scotland = 500 mountains poking out of a vast forested bog pitted with hundreds of lakes. I can't think of anything the Romans could possibly have wanted from it apart from prestige.
When you have to fight thousands of hairy, naked screaming men running at you with swords on rocky terrain in the freezing rain, I'd pass on doing that every time.
Fun fact: in scots Gaelic certain words are Latinised such as numbers and general trading items, like salt (salainn) because of the trades that would happen between the 2 nations
Pretty sure that's not true, esp seen as the caledonians actually spoke a Britannic language
that cant be correct as gaelic peoples didnt arrive in scotland until after these events, most likely because of trade between irish tribes and the romans
the scots came way after the romans
@@oof3397 The Scots was a description of language not a people, the barbarian conspiracy was the Scots( gaelic speakers), Picts( not there real name) and the attecoti
What year did gaelic start to be spoken in Caledonia ?
@@oof3397 Picts and Scots working together goes back to roman Times
Fergus Mac mor coming in the year 500 has no evidence whatsoever
Dal reuda of the Dal Riata is believed to have come to Caledonia 300 years before Fergus
Dal riata coming to Caledonia with their gaelic language is being pushed back to 60ad - 120ad
After two gruelling campaigns, one of the main reasons they didn't launch further campaigns was because of the northern Brythonic tribes, often thought to be the land of Valentia, held a sort of buffer state between the Picts in the north and the Roman and Roman Britons in the south. Although often grouped in as Caledonians, the northern Britons were ethnically linked with the southern Britons moreso than with the Picts, although their cultural influences were from the surrounding regions (hence they were considered much more warlike than the southern tribes). As a buffer state, and having experienced Roman occupation twice, these northern Britons were known to trade with both the Romans and Picts (and Scotti - the Scottish-Irish seafarers who built the later kingdom of Dàl Riada), as well as fight regularly. As a result, why would the Romans spend finances, resources and troops in fighting themselves when a bunch of fiery northern Britons could do the hard yards, and yet Rome could still access the Scottish resources through trade? It was not the only place this sort of arrangement existed - the frontiers of Rome were almost defined by this type of arrangement where buffer states extended beyond Rome's own borders. Across the Rhine, Danube, down the Black Sea into the Middle East, and across northern Africa, a patchwork of independent states existed that grew in size and strength based on trade with Rome, yet were outside of Rome's direct control.
This was beautifully written, every word. And I didn't know this. Thank you.
Good comment: the Antonine wall even features a lot of art in stone that combines Roman and British Celtic stylistic influences. Those Brythonic tribes in the "buffer zone" would eventually be written about in Y Gododdin, a Welsh epic poem that may be the earliest example of vernacular literature in Britain that details their war against Germanic invaders following the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Many place names in the lowland of Scotland are Welsh in their etymology as a result, even Glasgow and Edinburgh.
@@Tlevids very true, although not so much Welsh as Cumbric in etymology (a related, although distinct, Brythonic language).
@@sa25-svredemption98 Yeah, I am using the word 'Welsh' in the broader historical sense (rather than referring only to modern Wales) as the people in these parts, from modern lowland 'Scotland' to modern 'Wales' and 'Cornwall', all considered themselves part of the same ethnic group.
It wasn't that they couldn't, it was a mixture of there being no resources there that made it worth the effort coupled with them not having the troop numbers to go in and conquer while simultaneously keeping control of their other conquered lands.
This, there seems to be an assumption all over Romes border that they "couldn't" expand further. It was more the lack of seeing the value of it and their borders at the height of the empire were also very defensible. The Roman borders in Europe pretty much lined rivers, they weren't just happenstance.
So, when did the Anglo Saxon come to Scotland and did they fight/war with the native Caledonians?
Scotland got a beautiful history, of war, peace and love; the Scottish are extremely loving and helpful People in my experience.
I’ve read that when the Roman’s first sailed off the shores of northern Scotland they were met by Pictish warriors all holding up the severed heads of fallen enemies. That must have been incredibly frightening.
No big deal for a Roman Army or any ancient army. Savagery was their byword.
Legend has it they all immediately visited a safe space
@@tooyoungtobeold8756 well yeah it was a big deal being as they weren’t able to conquer this bunch of savages.
@@WOMPITUS I wouldn't say they weren't able to, they just decided not to.
@@brandonenke2680 yeah they decided not to after they weren’t able to after 400 years of trying to.
It seems for some reason Rome thought it was worth the effort to invade twice but Scotland was saved due to a set of more pressing circumstances during Rome's invasion efforts.
Nop the Romans lost a complete legion to the picts
The Antonine Wall is in Scotland. It runs just north of Glasgow.
I think about someone trying to siege Scotland and all it makes me think of is that one episode of the Pacific where it was raining so much on the soldiers they started offing themselves just to get out of the weather… I feel like that may have been not far off for Romans used to Italian weather trying to survive in the highlands far from home
Also I’d like to just point out that life in Scotland at these times were incredibly harsh and brutal life expectancy was short and people weren’t afraid to die on contrary I think a lot of Scotsman were completely suicidal imagine an army of suicidal people a bit like kamikaze pilots that’s not something you want to fight against especially if the rewards reap little benefit.
Do keep in mind the majority of life expectancy drops in the past were because of child mortality rates, not adults.
It's now 2023 and nothings changed if anything it's got worse?
@@brianstokes563 Not even close. Back then the average person had to slave away in fields to hope to keep themself and their family alive. We are far more comfortable and lazy.
Defenders always have the advantage and a standing army can not win against a resolute enemy in guerilla warfare.
@@alkali8355There human trafficking in epic scales now shelves are emptying there planning 20 mins cities look at what's happening in the streets from France to Pakistan we should be living a life of luxury, I disagree with what your saying lifes brutal more today than ever b4, wake up my friend.
Rome had found the Celts more trouble than they were worth and Scotland was pretty much worthless, no exploitable resources, no commercially viable farming, distant, cold and would cost too much to govern.
This they found after building more castles in Wales, to keep the Celts there "pacified", than they did in all of Gaul and after Boudica had gotten angry destroyed the 9th legion and burnt London to the ground.
she did not destroy the 9th legion but a detachment.
I really enjoyed this video, thanks for putting in the research and the time to create it. As a metal detectorist I love history and anything to do with the Romans. And now I know why the Romans could not take the mighty Scotland
@Jabs05 Didn’t take anything. After years of wars and Scotland winning its independence in 1314 the kingdoms were joined in union. Don’t act like England conquered Scotland and in fact the British empire would be nothing without us on the front lines.
@Jabs05 the english needed Scottish support, so once again the Scots took mighty Scotland, the only thing the english took was the credit
@Jabs05 because the english were too cowardly to hold it in Glasgow, and the only Scot in politics is a weak one
You'll need 5 jabs won't ya
@Jabs05 if england is so powerful why can't you suppress the Scottish influence that spreads throughout the world today?
Asking because you too brain fucked by my reply to come up with an answer
@Jabs05 masters of sucking down their own propaganda, bet you lived in london ur whole life
I am blessed to live in the rural Santa Cruz California mountains know as Bonny Doon. The early Scottish settlers named this area after the Scottish Highlands they came from.I hope when the SHTF we will be granted the same fate.🌲⛰👨🌾✝️
Why didn't Roman Empire take all of Europe or more or it? They lose to Germans yes and Vikings maybe. Anyone else?
They would have massively overextended their empire and also wasn't good natural resources or good agriculture.
@@eternal_riftz8801 True...
Magic potion 🤣🤣🤣
They actually beat the Germans . But decided not to continue because their land was just endless forests , cold marshes and wasn't worth the effort.
@@jiggsborah7041 lol
I'm surprised Rome conquered Wales
Wales had gold, Cornwall had tin, Cumbria and Yorkshire had lead and copper.
Scotland was mostly just rocks and trees.
We all make mistakes. Even Romans.
Why
ey those trees and rocks are our trees and rocks
@@chrishb7074 Scotland has gold but even better hundreds of fresh water lochs.
“Haha, why bother?” They probably thought. The best land in the isle of GB is in the south anyway. The wall was there so that the proto-scots wouldn’t attack the civilized Roman Britons.
They did try. Many times. But the Celtic tribes would run into the Highlands.
Firstly, the Romans barely wanted to conquer southern Britain. Several times it was stated by the romans that Britain was a "Cold, desolate place on the cusp of the civilised world." Secondly, the best land in Britain is actually in Ireland still the romans didn't conquer that and thirdly, the wall wasn't built to keep Picts out, it was too put tolls on trade as well as mitigate it. The fact that it was a wall was just a bonus. There is a lot of evidence that proves it was used for trade more than anything simply because of the large amount of Pictish jewellery and roman pottery found in northern England and southern Scotland. If the Roman's really thought that it wasn't worth anything, they wouldn't have invested several legions of the years trying to conquer it. General rule of thumb back in those days, if you think something isn't worth your time, you don't invade simple as that.
P.S Scotland did have resources the Romans could've made use of, one of these resources was the Great Caledonian Rain Forest which would've provided A METRIC FUCK TON of timber for the Roman war machine this is not including the fertile Lowlands, the Red Iron deposits also included in the lowlands and various other resources scattered around Scotland at the time including Scottish pearls, which would later become a staple of Scottish jewellery and would be renowned throughout Europe for their beauty and rarity.
@@ThatNwah3200 every place has resources any civ can make use of it. Scotland just didnt have more than anywhere else romans were going to lol. And no Ireland was extremely poor soil, there is a reason famine was pretty common in ireland. Delusional to think they couldnt conqu for centuries if they so wished.
@@ThatNwah3200 Ireland is not in Britain.
The comment was made in a joking way. Chill out.
I don't like how this video ignores Domitian wanting to keep Agricola from succeeding.
Such military success was almost certainly seen by Domitian as a threat,
like the Eponymous Julius of a century earlier, against the Caledonian relatives in Gaul.
Also, while using Caledonia as the name for Scotland,
it makes no sense for the narrator to refer to other parts of the Island as England and Wales.
The Angles hadn't started immigrating, ergo no England,
and Wales is an exonym imposed by the Angles.
The locals in both regions probably thought of themselves by local tribal names,
and as Britons when dealing with the Romans.
Septimius Severus made an attempt to conquer it but he died of natural causes and his sons Caracalla and Geta in very rare form of agreement we're more interested in maintaining the eastern provinces and perhaps pushing into Persia, will also note on side that the Romans knew that Ireland existed and the Romans understood they were not welcomed ☠️ but the Irish like the did allow for limited trade with Rome as long as Rome's intentions were strictly were for bartering reasons
His sons were smarter than him and didn't want to be haunted by failure.
Rome - the further they went north in Ireland the more dangerous the warriors where and the bigger the Hounds got.. was a rumour apparently
What is up with the title? It's doesn't make sense and is historically incorrect. Scotland didn't exist at that time neither the scottish people. And to say they couldn't conquer the northern part of the British island is wrong they certainly could but chose not to as Caledonia had almost nothing to offer so conquering it simply wasn't worth it.
Damn right. 👏👏👏
I would guess it’s because this audience plays to a general audience and using “Caledonia” would generate fewer clicks from people who aren’t familiar with the time period. This way, history buffs watch and understand what’s going on, while others (the people who aren’t familiar with Caledonia and only know Scotland) will also watch the video and learn something.
It actually calls the land Caledonia in the video you clown. The title is just there as a useful descriptor for browsing. It also details the reasons for the failure to occupy it.
Try watching things before you go full bro, brah.
@@derekmclellan7337 are you playing dumb on purpose? I wasn't talking about the video but the title itself which is clickbait and just false. And they didn't fail to occupy it but because subsequent roman emperors didn't have any interest in the region all the troops pulled back. Now fuck off kid.
@@hazzmati feel better now? Getting it all out... I mean, everyone gets to see you for what you are. But it must feel good to get all that out your system.
It would be interesting to know why they never bothered with Ireland as it wasn't much of a sea crossing. The Isle of Man as well.
No one bothers with Ireland even today🤣😂
They supposedly had a productive trading relationship with Ireland. They were getting everything they wanted from Ireland without having to pay for an army or an administration for it. The Irish also couldn't really raid across the sea at the time so they were not any kind of military threat.
The land wasn't considered attractive for roman agriculture. They had plenty of similar land in Roman Britain. There was supposedly a healthy slave trade from Ireland into Britain. There was no great wealth in Ireland at the time for the Romans to steal.
So there wasn't any compelling reason to do anything with it.
You obviously don’t know how crazy Irish are. I’m half n we don’t fight to lose. We fight to the death.
@@king77solomon30 Yet you got absolutely dominated by the British for 800yrs lol not as good at fighting as you make out clearly
@@oracle8589 You mean enslaved. Raping weak women is not dominating.
The romans introduced civilization concepts to the Scottish ancestors Caledonians