One thing that I have been trying to find an answer to is how much did an army make when they sacked a city? It must have been a lot but are there any estimations out there?
The Scotti were still in Ireland at this time. The Kingdom Dal Riada was still hundreds of years away. The inhabitants were a Brythonic people (albeit with a very different culture) known as 'Pictii' due to their tattoos and Sluagh painted images on their bodies.
That's exactly what I thought but I think calling them scots is not that much wrong because modern day scots are mostly Pictish ancestory. So basically descendents of Picts are Scots.
@@bilbobaggins2302 That would be like saying that Boudica's rebellion was a war between England and Rome because the English are predominantly descended from the ancient Brythonic Celts.
Ya, Scots were subordinate to Pictish kingdoms all the way up to the 760s. It was only when the United Kingdom of Alba was created by a Dalriadan King that the Pictish identity began to be actually overtaken by Scottish identity.
Scotland, uniquely in the British isles was a nation created by a dynasty from pre-existing disparate ethnic groups. The Dal Riadan rulers of the MacAlpin dynasty forged a nation out of the Scotti of Argyll, the Picts, the 'Welsh' of Strathclyde, the English of the Lothians and the Norse of Caithness and the Isles.
Great video, love this ancient content. Mons Graupius was a new battle to me... Knew there was a legion that went truly far into hostile scotland; but thought they were ambushed or run out without much detail of the events. Didnt know we had such records on it. .
why would it make you happy the picts or the celts were not scottish there was no scotland .. these people were germanic @@7714-x1b ps i am born and bread scottish .. is there is such a thing ..
Did a recent tour of this area for my own podcast, and I have to say your artists and researchers did a stellar job on capturing the area of the proposed battle site near Ben Macaudi
It's really nice to see a young man so passionate about Roman history. You do a great job and have a wonderful voice for narration. Keep up the good work
Good video! I live within a mile of the Antonine wall in central Scotland. Although it was built of earth and turf much of it is still visible and I often think of the Roman soldiers who were stationed here and no doubt complained about our weather!
While Hadrian's Wall was built in 122 AD, the less formidable Antonine Wall was established in 142 AD. Antonine Wall was built further North in what later has become familiar to us as Scotland. Antonine Wall was abandoned about 8 years after its completion; eventually, the Roman's again became reliant upon Hadrian's Wall.
Tacitus's speech attributed to Calgacus was more likely his self criticism of Rome's imperial aggression. Especially those lines of the Romans coveting to conquer those that are wealthy and powerful while terrorizing/dominating those who are weak and impoverished. 'They make a solitude and call it peace'.
@@mostafamohy8494 I would imagine there have been quite a few ancient philosophers, historians and thinkers who felt this. I know the Roman commander who destroyed Carthage apparently wept for his gallant enemy as the reality of what was happening hit him. Then using the destruction of Troy as a reference he feared Rome would one day meet such a fate.
@@manuelacosta9463 i didn't know also about this story but it's really amazing. Its sheds a light I don't see it talked about often, alot of history telling is about the conquers and military not so much so about pacifist especially because ancient people were more warlike than modern times
@@mostafamohy8494 Truth. I'm sure quite a few chroniclers of that time like today spoke and wrote as such. The ravages of time means most are lost but those precious few that survive provide invaluable insights into both the conqueror and the victim, sometimes as s generic speech other times as a tongue in cheek indictment.
but you still went ahead anyway at 0:44 and introduced the video as "the last battle of the ancient Scots" - who gave you the authority to re-write history ?! @@InvictaHistory
Gaius Julius Caesar also frequently preferred to leave the high ground to the enemy, regardless of having to face the battle from an unfavorable position. Why? It is not easy to give an answer, perhaps due to a psychological choice: the enemy, feeling themselves in the advantage, fought with less conviction, certain that the terrain alone would favor victory, while the Romans, starting at a disadvantage, were certain that they would have to fight with great concentration and courage. In this way he also "fixed" the enemy on the spot, forcing him to deploy first and thus gaining time to think about and set up an effective tactical response. Greatest example among many of this Caesarian tactic: the Battle of Pharsalus.
For all that Rome expanded, the moments when they could have gone even further but didn't are the most fascinating. Maybe the fate of Britain as the Empire receded would have been different if no hostile lands had been left to the north.
Auxiliary troops were seen just as much as forces to a general as any other unit, to be used to their full advantage and weighed against the impact strategically of their losses
1st there was no "Ireland" from then, and the Dal Riatan Scots who inhabited western Scotland and ulster were always historically , genetically, and culturally closest to mainland Scotland, due to Pictish migration to nothern Ireland(cruthin people). Most Scots today descend from Picts and gaels, so it is accurate to call these ancient peoples "Scots"
Scott in a surname, Scot is a nationality. Tho achkually they wouldn't know what that meant - I am guessing without looking they'd believe they are part of the Maetae and Caledonii
They were parts of lots of tribes I think the caledonii are believed to be the strongest one. I think there was two confederations at this point. Scots weren't even in the territory for another 400 years
The northerners were not called Picts, or Scots, at the time of Agricola, such terms were not used until the late 3rd & 4th centuries respectively. In the 1st century various tribal groups are named in the region. Calgacus speech is a Roman forensic exercise. It represents what Tacitus would have said if he were leader of Rome's enemies. It acts as a barb against the Roman Senate being weakly subservient to the tyrant Domitian.
The Pictish kingdoms didn't come into being until 150 years+ later either. They are called either British or Caledonians as far as I've ever heard & I've been an ancient history fan 60 years.
It wasn't the picts either that name didn't even exist for another 300 years. The Romans fought the Caledonian confederacy a confederacy of many different brythonic tribes
Just one question why would the Picts move from the high ground? to engage in "battle" its highly unlikely in fact out of character, i doubt it happened. The romans didn't do well in Scotland
Well one they aren't picts but two roman sources explain why. The Romans attacked the britons granaries forcing the confederacy into a pitches battle or they'd potentially starve. What the real issue is , is that its highly believed tacitus massively exaggerated how well the romans did
Gaels, not Scots, which is a Roman label. Also the Lowlanders were a mixture of Anglo-Saxon and Brythonic and spoke Old English. They Highlanders were a mix of mix of Gaels and Picts and spoke Gaelic!!
@@chucklynch6523This isn't very true. For starters picts were brythonic aswell just like all of the territory. The destination between lowlander and highlander is very new. Lowlanders didn't speak old English for quite a while they spoke cumbrian untill the gaels conquered them and smashed the language then they predominantly grew to speak scots after gaelic declined. The Highlands aren't a mixture of gaels and picts. It's mostly the north West and the islands around argyll that are gaelic and predominantly gaelic not pictish.
I wish you had included the speeches Tacitus reported. Calgacus' speech, while invented, is the some of the most empathetic writing ever written by a Roman towards a defeated foe. It includes the famous declaration: "they make a desolation, and call it peace."
This is the reason why I want to visit England because not only has Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Norman roots but also like has Roman roots just like many Romance-speaking countries like Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, and Romania!
It's extremely unlikely that there were 30,000 Pict troops and that 10,000 were killed. The population and infrastructure of the area couldn't have supported such a force.
"We outnumbered them two to one and were lucky to get out alive" just doesn't sound as impressive as there were 30,000 of them and we killed endless thousands.
Well they weren't picts but it's possible the Caledonian confederacy could muster 30,000 men going off previous recordings of the amount of settlements
A Legion has between 4.000 and 6.000 soldiers. Thats 16.000 to 24.000 soldiers + 8.000 auxiliary infantry + 3.000 cavalry. Thats 27.000 to 35.000 Soldiers.
I think it is absolutely likely that the casualty numbers were exaggerated. From Tacitus own description, it sounded like it was at times a bit of an uphill battle for the Romans. The Romans were also fond of talking themselves up. I think the Romans decided to set up forts for the reason that they did not defeat the Caledonian's so soundly as we believe. They may have put up forts because pushing forward with an army was untenable after Mons Graupius, but the Caledonians had been subdued just enough to establish a foothold
Yeah, romans were just lying. Seriously. And yet the entire island was subdued, colonized and alphabetized, like any other place. Such good liers! PS leaving former scotland alone had the same reason like germania. Far away frozen land, poor, fierce autoctone populations rebellous in nature... Too expensive to colonize, because the potential tax revenue was negligible, and the barbarians useless as legionnaires because reputed untrustable. Romans were interested only in lands that could be colonized and developed, generating revenues and soldiers. If these conditions lacked, a wall was built. This does not change the obliterating defeats suffered by anyone that tried to face the legions on a pitch battle, picts included. The germanic tribes were as well destroyed, before the romans stepped across the big river and fortified the border. The ambush in the teutoburg forest (basically, a treason) carried no luck to the tribes, that were defeated again and again. Romans stopped only if there was not sufficient prize fo finance the enterprise.
I agree. Their were no Roman forts north of the Grampian Mountains which formed the southern boundary of the Northeast of Scotland. The Grampians is considered the most likely site of the battle. If the romans had so decisively defeated the Picts, why did they only use marching camps in the NE (eg Raedykes and Normandyke) ? Also, more recent archaeological evidence has shown that Roman generals, including Julius Caesar, greatly embellished their successes in provincial wars for political advantage.
4:50 Oh that. Well there are a number of things. First, Rome normally puts there least experienced troops (Hastati) in the front, followed by the more experienced (Principes) making up the second rank. While deploying there most experienced troops, the Triarii in the rear. They use this strategy to wear down the enemy and hit them with their more experienced troops that are fresh. That way, he could have used his legions to mop up. . Also you need to consider the auxiliary's were made-up of Germanic tribes. These tribes were some of the best and fiercest in Europe at the time and would have known how to best the Picks. Where as the Roman legions may not have been used to them or at least, not as suited to dealing with them. That and because the General dismounted and fought in the front ranks shows me that he considered the Germanic tribes in high regard. Julius Caesar personal guard was made-up of German calvary which decimated and demoralized the Spanish calvary during the Roman civil war.
They weren't Scots though. That's like calling the Byzantines "ancient Turkish". But well, I guess some titles generate more attraction. It has a nice ring to it.
So Domitian's Decision was not an admission of Domitian's lack of judgement, but instead was Domitian's decision to assign a mission to prevent the remission of Domitian's dominion?
not the last stand at all , the Pecht (pecht is ancient word for ancestor )that survived conducted guerilla warfare against the legions , and remained unconquered by rome
These ancient cultures that banded men together to fight against professional solders were always going to be at a disadvantage. I can imagine that the Pict army was made up of men who work as farmers and such when they are living out their normal lives while the Roman soldiers were always practicing the art of war. Normal men can fight well no doubt but against men who routinely kill throughout their lives is hard thing to overcome.
But lets not forget these amazing tattooed people of the British isles. What a mysterious culture they had. It was like something out of a sci fi movie.
Wondering aloud if Julian's choice of words when switching from background info to the battle to actual battlefield info "The Battle of Mons Grapius was about to begin" is an intended or unintended homage to Bazbattles's RUclips video about the same battle (Bazbattles always end the initial battle intro with "the battle of ******* was about to begin")
Um, thumbnail is anachronistic. Regular Roman soldiers were not having round shields, spears, and mail as their standard equipment until 300 years later.
Perhaps if the Romans conquered Scotland it would have led to a United Kingdom quicker because after the Romans were gone the Anglo-Saxons moved in so maybe in that kind of timeline you wouldn't have so many wars between England and Scotland that lasted for centuries
There wouldn’t have been so many wars on the isles if England weren’t so God forsaken warmongering half the time. Not to say the Scots were spotless in history of course, but still.
Without a shred of evidence. A work of fiction written 30 years after the supposed event by Agricolas son in law who had never set foot in Britain let alone visited Scotland, to cover for the Romans singular failure to dominate the Caledonians. There is however stories handed down through generations of running battles on the high ground between Blairgowrie and Dunkeld (Blar means battle). Roman remains have been found and the nearest fort was abandoned in haste to the point 5 tons of nails were buried to prevent them falling into the hands of the Caledonians. The Romans came north and had to build a wall to keep the Scots out.
Well by this logic we don't have much evidence for most battles. It's unlikely the battle is made up the roman success is just most likely heavily exaggerated. The rest of tacitus work on britian is real he's the one who wrote of boudicas revolt decades after the revolt. Many historic sources are written decades after the events. Its a very strange lie to make up
@@RoyalRegimentofScotland err I think you have just managed to defeat your own argument. Logic depends on being able to deduce facts and reach a conclusion based upon evidence. So without evidence its impossible to say if something actually occurred. I have pointed out that there is no evidence to corroborate the narrative written by someone who had never visited britain 30 years after the event and was closely related to the roman leader. At the very least we would see roman casualties recorded but all we see is the constant drip drip of losses consistent with a loosing campaign. Whereas there is evidence from the local story record and place names and artefacts of roman losses near Blairgowrie plus the hastily abandoned fortress nearby where for example 5 tons of nails were buried to prevent the Picts getting them (and making them into spears). Hope that helps. PS Macbeth is another one. Shakespeare made up the story to keep in with the current royals.
To Invicta: The Spartans did train into hoplomachia, weapons handling competition or weapons training. Is this true. Also did the Ancient Greek play field hockey?
The Picts were not a thing at this time but called the Callidonian tribes later they combined due to the Roman threat and became the Picts.The Scots or Scotti were not in Scotland at this time being an Irish tribe
The conquering victorious write history to suit their situation. Whether the skirmish/battle took place is a point for conjecture. There has been no positive proof of a skirmish/battle site. Plenty of guess work to date but no positive proof. It sounds a fantastic story or victory from a Roman point of view but until there is actual proof and evidence let’s just say it was ‘the great skirmish of 83/84 AD’.
Hey, subject I am ignorant on. Thank you for the niche but important subject. Odd how these obscure battles hav important implementations centuries later.
Long term conquering Britannia and Ireland would have benefited the Romans. That is because if Romanized, these regions would no longer require large garrisons to maintain - Similar to the situation in Spain, Numidia & Mauretania. It's a long term investment, but one that could have paid off.
While I get that the focus is more on the battle and the harder facts about the invasion, why did you not choose to actually include Calgacus's speech in a video? Sure, it was probably all made up by Tacitus, but it's still what I think is his most hard-hitting writing and what could be interpreted as a fascinating self-critique from the Romans of their own empire. "Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; where they make a desolation, they call it peace."
I still think pulling back was a long term mistake. If all of Britania could be pacified (note it would need Hibernia as well) then the region could have simply been held with the navy. Then of course there is the issue of creating a civil war bastion if there is no local external threat
The Romans didn't even managed to heavily Romanise Britain much beyound it's Colonies (cities). The Roman Empire was never too invested in Britain and going on a slugging match against the rest of the tribes might've even opened them up to bigger threats. Besides, the Germanic tribes were still a massive threat to Britain.
@@aidansumner8364 That's my point, no efforts were put to Romanise and end the conquest of Britania, when similar efforts to what they did in Gallia could have done the trick within half a century or so. As to the German tribes as said they could have been held back simply with the threat of the Navy. But I'll admit this is taking into account the knowledge of a bird's eye view of the shape and distances of the islands, which neither the senate or the emperors possessed
That may have only been possible by eventually by generations of genocide to beat the northern tribe into submision & replace them with submissive & immigrant peoples from the empire.
@@Cancoillotteman Rome had a dreadful time holding back German tribes even with fixed land defences across Europe. There were pretty regular major & minor incursions into the empire, sometimes as far as Italy & Spain. That & events on the eastern borders probably meant that Rome couldn't commit as many forces for as long as a total victory & occupation would take. Hence consolidating at Hadrians & Antonine walls with only occasional forays further north.
Great video. A minor correction. Picts are not Scots. The Scotti is the Latin name for the Gaels. The Scotti were an Irish tribe that began raiding Britain in the late 300s and invaded what is now Scotland in the late 400s. The tribes in Scotland during Agricola’s time were, like the other British tribes, Celts.
![Tee Grizzley - Blow for Blow (feat. J. Cole) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNLN5xsx5dc/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Siege of Jerusalem (70 AD) - The Great Jewish Revolt [FULL DOCUMENTARY]](/img/1.gif)
What forgotten wars should we cover next? Go to piavpn.com/Invicta to get 83% off Private Internet Access with 4 months free!
Tis 1 T in scots sur
imagine being pressed up into a roman shield wall while they stab and thrust your in the face
One thing that I have been trying to find an answer to is how much did an army make when they sacked a city? It must have been a lot but are there any estimations out there?
Please correct the spelling as it is pretty annoying for us Scots, great video tho
@@TheSheepPimp corrected, thanks for catching that
This channel is one of the reasons why I think about the Roman Empire so much.
😂💯
May locusts and parasites come to you!
I probably carry some blame for skewing poll results higher for how often people think about the Roman Empire lol
@@InvictaHistory It's important and has an important effect on people that normally wouldn't be interested. You're doing the gods work.
I came to the comments for this comment
The Scotti were still in Ireland at this time. The Kingdom Dal Riada was still hundreds of years away. The inhabitants were a Brythonic people (albeit with a very different culture) known as 'Pictii' due to their tattoos and Sluagh painted images on their bodies.
That's exactly what I thought but I think calling them scots is not that much wrong because modern day scots are mostly Pictish ancestory. So basically descendents of Picts are Scots.
@@bilbobaggins2302 That would be like saying that Boudica's rebellion was a war between England and Rome because the English are predominantly descended from the ancient Brythonic Celts.
Ya, Scots were subordinate to Pictish kingdoms all the way up to the 760s. It was only when the United Kingdom of Alba was created by a Dalriadan King that the Pictish identity began to be actually overtaken by Scottish identity.
Scotland, uniquely in the British isles was a nation created by a dynasty from pre-existing disparate ethnic groups. The Dal Riadan rulers of the MacAlpin dynasty forged a nation out of the Scotti of Argyll, the Picts, the 'Welsh' of Strathclyde, the English of the Lothians and the Norse of Caithness and the Isles.
@@notalizard6994 I know and it kinda was haha but iget what you're saying I would prefer that he would use term : Picts.
Great video, love this ancient content. Mons Graupius was a new battle to me... Knew there was a legion that went truly far into hostile scotland; but thought they were ambushed or run out without much detail of the events. Didnt know we had such records on it. .
its a really fascinating encounter and I had previously not know much about the extent of Agricola's campaigns or just how far his fleet went
@@InvictaHistory As a person of scotish decent this makes me happy
why would it make you happy the picts or the celts were not scottish there was no scotland .. these people were germanic @@7714-x1b ps i am born and bread scottish .. is there is such a thing ..
Did a recent tour of this area for my own podcast, and I have to say your artists and researchers did a stellar job on capturing the area of the proposed battle site near Ben Macaudi
@@CelticHistoryPod what is your podcast
@@ka-boom2083 The Celtic History Podcast :)
Hell yeah! I love scottish/pictish history, it sucks that we know very little. Thanks for the awesome content!
sadly this story is widely believed to be fiction by historians as most of the story is literally impossible.
And the real site of this battle is actually unknown; just guesses by historians.
@@richbob9155by some historians. It's not widely.
It's really nice to see a young man so passionate about Roman history. You do a great job and have a wonderful voice for narration. Keep up the good work
It went from "we have 50% more soldiers" to "they didn't even deploy their hastati".
The Scots were still in Ireland at this point, and would be for another several hundred years.
Good video! I live within a mile of the Antonine wall in central Scotland. Although it was built of earth and turf much of it is still visible and I often think of the Roman soldiers who were stationed here and no doubt complained about our weather!
While Hadrian's Wall was built in 122 AD, the less formidable Antonine Wall was established in 142 AD. Antonine Wall was built further North in what later has become familiar to us as Scotland. Antonine Wall was abandoned about 8 years after its completion; eventually, the Roman's again became reliant upon Hadrian's Wall.
Love your videos!
I used to read all the Conan novels and he was always battling the Picts. Interesting. Thanks for your work.
Tacitus's speech attributed to Calgacus was more likely his self criticism of Rome's imperial aggression. Especially those lines of the Romans coveting to conquer those that are wealthy and powerful while terrorizing/dominating those who are weak and impoverished. 'They make a solitude and call it peace'.
Thanks for the information, i didn't care to Google the speech but now I'm interested, i expect some people to be critical in every empire expansion
@@mostafamohy8494 I would imagine there have been quite a few ancient philosophers, historians and thinkers who felt this. I know the Roman commander who destroyed Carthage apparently wept for his gallant enemy as the reality of what was happening hit him. Then using the destruction of Troy as a reference he feared Rome would one day meet such a fate.
@@manuelacosta9463 i didn't know also about this story but it's really amazing.
Its sheds a light I don't see it talked about often, alot of history telling is about the conquers and military not so much so about pacifist especially because ancient people were more warlike than modern times
@@mostafamohy8494 Truth. I'm sure quite a few chroniclers of that time like today spoke and wrote as such. The ravages of time means most are lost but those precious few that survive provide invaluable insights into both the conqueror and the victim, sometimes as s generic speech other times as a tongue in cheek indictment.
They were Picts not Scots!
Yeah the term scots is definitely anachronistic. Its just there in the title but in the context of the video we show the actual tribal names.
but you still went ahead anyway at 0:44 and introduced the video as "the last battle of the ancient Scots" - who gave you the authority to re-write history ?! @@InvictaHistory
@@Gudha_Ismintis I don't think it's that big of a deal.
Actually the Picts didn't become a people by that name until over a century later. So they weren't there either!
It's 1 t in Scots. :)
Aye bro a just noticed this
Tbf if he is going to make a video about a fictitious battle, may as well make up a new fictitious people to fight it lol
Oh shit... I'm going in the book
What do you mean?
@@MapperMalta the video was originally titled last stand of the ancient scotts
Gaius Julius Caesar also frequently preferred to leave the high ground to the enemy, regardless of having to face the battle from an unfavorable position. Why? It is not easy to give an answer, perhaps due to a psychological choice: the enemy, feeling themselves in the advantage, fought with less conviction, certain that the terrain alone would favor victory, while the Romans, starting at a disadvantage, were certain that they would have to fight with great concentration and courage. In this way he also "fixed" the enemy on the spot, forcing him to deploy first and thus gaining time to think about and set up an effective tactical response. Greatest example among many of this Caesarian tactic: the Battle of Pharsalus.
I found this episode both educational and entertaining.
For all that Rome expanded, the moments when they could have gone even further but didn't are the most fascinating. Maybe the fate of Britain as the Empire receded would have been different if no hostile lands had been left to the north.
Auxiliary troops were seen just as much as forces to a general as any other unit, to be used to their full advantage and weighed against the impact strategically of their losses
Agreed
When fighting against the tribes on this island there was no difference at all.
Aberdeen is still much the same on a Saturday night even today!
Not Scots, but free Britons, the Scots were Irish, 600 years later, and themselves descended from Gaelic speakers
1st there was no "Ireland" from then, and the Dal Riatan Scots who inhabited western Scotland and ulster were always historically , genetically, and culturally closest to mainland Scotland, due to Pictish migration to nothern Ireland(cruthin people). Most Scots today descend from Picts and gaels, so it is accurate to call these ancient peoples "Scots"
Scott in a surname, Scot is a nationality. Tho achkually they wouldn't know what that meant - I am guessing without looking they'd believe they are part of the Maetae and Caledonii
They were parts of lots of tribes I think the caledonii are believed to be the strongest one. I think there was two confederations at this point. Scots weren't even in the territory for another 400 years
The Scots were an Irish tribe that invaded modern day Scotland around the mid 5th century. There were no “Scots” at this battle.
Good video
Take a shot every time the narrator says "however." Deceased five minutes in.
The northerners were not called Picts, or Scots, at the time of Agricola, such terms were not used until the late 3rd & 4th centuries respectively.
In the 1st century various tribal groups are named in the region. Calgacus speech is a Roman forensic exercise. It represents what Tacitus would have said if he were leader of Rome's enemies. It acts as a barb against the Roman Senate being weakly subservient to the tyrant Domitian.
The two main contenders for the battle site are Bennachie and the hills north of Dunning (near Perth).
'Scotts' had not moved over from Ireland at this point it was the Picts the Romans fought
The Pictish kingdoms didn't come into being until 150 years+ later either. They are called either British or Caledonians as far as I've ever heard & I've been an ancient history fan 60 years.
It wasn't the picts either that name didn't even exist for another 300 years. The Romans fought the Caledonian confederacy a confederacy of many different brythonic tribes
Just one question why would the Picts move from the high ground? to engage in "battle" its highly unlikely in fact out of character, i doubt it happened.
The romans didn't do well in Scotland
Well one they aren't picts but two roman sources explain why. The Romans attacked the britons granaries forcing the confederacy into a pitches battle or they'd potentially starve. What the real issue is , is that its highly believed tacitus massively exaggerated how well the romans did
Remember History is told by those who wrote things down, and not always is it truth. They built two walls and lost one of them for a reason.
Beautiful animations. Bravo!
Wow, Fantastic video. Thx
I love these battle videos where you explain the strategy, thank you! 😭oops wrong emoji 💀
Excellent video & well researched.
Love this topic, keep up the good work!
Great episode
Please do a video on the veneti (some navil gauls ceaser fought) and ancient persan ships
Really an excellent series.
WOOOOOOONDERFUL. Finally got to see the face of THE voice🎉🎉🎉🥳🥳
These were not Scots though, they were Brythonic Tribes (British)
Gaels, not Scots, which is a Roman label. Also the Lowlanders were a mixture of Anglo-Saxon and Brythonic and spoke Old English. They Highlanders were a mix of mix of Gaels and Picts and spoke Gaelic!!
@@chucklynch6523This isn't very true. For starters picts were brythonic aswell just like all of the territory. The destination between lowlander and highlander is very new. Lowlanders didn't speak old English for quite a while they spoke cumbrian untill the gaels conquered them and smashed the language then they predominantly grew to speak scots after gaelic declined. The Highlands aren't a mixture of gaels and picts. It's mostly the north West and the islands around argyll that are gaelic and predominantly gaelic not pictish.
I suspect this was the same reason Rome didn't go to Ireland, there was no value to do so in their eyes.
I wish you had included the speeches Tacitus reported. Calgacus' speech, while invented, is the some of the most empathetic writing ever written by a Roman towards a defeated foe. It includes the famous declaration: "they make a desolation, and call it peace."
This is the reason why I want to visit England because not only has Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Norman roots but also like has Roman roots just like many Romance-speaking countries like Italy, Spain, France, Portugal, and Romania!
This isn't in England
Since the Caledonians, Maetae, Taxalli, Goddodin, Etc stayed in power until at least 865 AD, this far from their last stand.
I don't think they did. The later kingdoms are different kingdoms yet decend from these tribes
It's extremely unlikely that there were 30,000 Pict troops and that 10,000 were killed. The population and infrastructure of the area couldn't have supported such a force.
"We outnumbered them two to one and were lucky to get out alive" just doesn't sound as impressive as there were 30,000 of them and we killed endless thousands.
Well they weren't picts but it's possible the Caledonian confederacy could muster 30,000 men going off previous recordings of the amount of settlements
great stuff!
Good VPN Advert, I’ll check it out.
A Legion has between 4.000 and 6.000 soldiers. Thats 16.000 to 24.000 soldiers + 8.000 auxiliary infantry + 3.000 cavalry. Thats 27.000 to 35.000 Soldiers.
great video
Calgacus, Vercingetorix, Dolabella, Agricola, Pupienus.... Ancient names were full of Bravado.
Now we got Chad... sad
I couldn't help it, as soon as you said "the high ground" I instantly pictured Ewan McGregor with his face painted blue 🤦😅
>Battle of Mons Graupius
Also known to historians as the battle that never took place anywhere other then within Roman Propaganda.
I think it is absolutely likely that the casualty numbers were exaggerated. From Tacitus own description, it sounded like it was at times a bit of an uphill battle for the Romans. The Romans were also fond of talking themselves up. I think the Romans decided to set up forts for the reason that they did not defeat the Caledonian's so soundly as we believe. They may have put up forts because pushing forward with an army was untenable after Mons Graupius, but the Caledonians had been subdued just enough to establish a foothold
Yeah, romans were just lying. Seriously.
And yet the entire island was subdued, colonized and alphabetized, like any other place.
Such good liers!
PS leaving former scotland alone had the same reason like germania.
Far away frozen land, poor, fierce autoctone populations rebellous in nature...
Too expensive to colonize, because the potential tax revenue was negligible, and the barbarians useless as legionnaires because reputed untrustable.
Romans were interested only in lands that could be colonized and developed, generating revenues and soldiers. If these conditions lacked, a wall was built.
This does not change the obliterating defeats suffered by anyone that tried to face the legions on a pitch battle, picts included. The germanic tribes were as well destroyed, before the romans stepped across the big river and fortified the border.
The ambush in the teutoburg forest (basically, a treason) carried no luck to the tribes, that were defeated again and again.
Romans stopped only if there was not sufficient prize fo finance the enterprise.
I agree. Their were no Roman forts north of the Grampian Mountains which formed the southern boundary of the Northeast of Scotland. The Grampians is considered the most likely site of the battle. If the romans had so decisively defeated the Picts, why did they only use marching camps in the NE (eg Raedykes and Normandyke) ?
Also, more recent archaeological evidence has shown that Roman generals, including Julius Caesar, greatly embellished their successes in provincial wars for political advantage.
4:50 Oh that. Well there are a number of things. First, Rome normally puts there least experienced troops (Hastati) in the front, followed by the more experienced (Principes) making up the second rank. While deploying there most experienced troops, the Triarii in the rear.
They use this strategy to wear down the enemy and hit them with their more experienced troops that are fresh. That way, he could have used his legions to mop up.
.
Also you need to consider the auxiliary's were made-up of Germanic tribes. These tribes were some of the best and fiercest in Europe at the time and would have known how to best the Picks. Where as the Roman legions may not have been used to them or at least, not as suited to dealing with them.
That and because the General dismounted and fought in the front ranks shows me that he considered the Germanic tribes in high regard.
Julius Caesar personal guard was made-up of German calvary which decimated and demoralized the Spanish calvary during the Roman civil war.
This is well after the Marian reforms. Are you just regurgitating something you saw somewhere
Excelent video
Caledonians were not Scots. Scots came from Ireland later on. So the title is a bit missleading.
They weren't Scots though.
That's like calling the Byzantines "ancient Turkish".
But well, I guess some titles generate more attraction. It has a nice ring to it.
So Domitian's Decision was not an admission of Domitian's lack of judgement, but instead was Domitian's decision to assign a mission to prevent the remission of Domitian's dominion?
I never realised that the Roman army travelled so far north. I always thought Hadrians Wall was the frontier.
Undefeated against the mighty Roman’s, this is what gave the Picts and the Scots the might to also beat back the Vikings and the english.
not the last stand at all , the Pecht (pecht is ancient word for ancestor )that survived conducted guerilla warfare against the legions , and remained unconquered by rome
Who were this myriad legion of Mr Scotts? And how do they differ from those individuals called Scott today?
To be honest, every time I read Mons Graupius, I always end up thinking of Mons Venus instead. 😁
Wonderful introduction of last Scottish tribe's against Roman empire legions
These ancient cultures that banded men together to fight against professional solders were always going to be at a disadvantage. I can imagine that the Pict army was made up of men who work as farmers and such when they are living out their normal lives while the Roman soldiers were always practicing the art of war. Normal men can fight well no doubt but against men who routinely kill throughout their lives is hard thing to overcome.
But lets not forget these amazing tattooed people of the British isles. What a mysterious culture they had. It was like something out of a sci fi movie.
Wondering aloud if Julian's choice of words when switching from background info to the battle to actual battlefield info "The Battle of Mons Grapius was about to begin" is an intended or unintended homage to Bazbattles's RUclips video about the same battle (Bazbattles always end the initial battle intro with "the battle of ******* was about to begin")
coincidence in this case
You should do one about Romans in Ireland...I'm not sure if they ever reached Ireland but it'd be cool if they did
Um, thumbnail is anachronistic. Regular Roman soldiers were not having round shields, spears, and mail as their standard equipment until 300 years later.
Perhaps if the Romans conquered Scotland it would have led to a United Kingdom quicker because after the Romans were gone the Anglo-Saxons moved in so maybe in that kind of timeline you wouldn't have so many wars between England and Scotland that lasted for centuries
Well I’m glad that never happened lol Alba gu brath
There wouldn’t have been so many wars on the isles if England weren’t so God forsaken warmongering half the time.
Not to say the Scots were spotless in history of course, but still.
And then the Scottish King was made the King of England.
Why didn't yous give up earlier, you were never going to win.
@@johnhenry4844 We also kicked the English outta America. Alba gu brath.
@@theGhostofRoberttheBruceHow exactly did we kick England out of America
I’ve been thinking about Rome a lot again
As I understand it, auxiliary troops contain skirmishers? Maybe that is also one of the reasons Agricola put them on the first line?
I think that has been covered in a previous video....
Not at all. Skirmishes were totally different. Auxiliary troops were highly trained
Even Legionaries were trained to also act as light troops & skirmishers when needed.
Awesome
Without a shred of evidence. A work of fiction written 30 years after the supposed event by Agricolas son in law who had never set foot in Britain let alone visited Scotland, to cover for the Romans singular failure to dominate the Caledonians.
There is however stories handed down through generations of running battles on the high ground between Blairgowrie and Dunkeld (Blar means battle). Roman remains have been found and the nearest fort was abandoned in haste to the point 5 tons of nails were buried to prevent them falling into the hands of the Caledonians.
The Romans came north and had to build a wall to keep the Scots out.
Well by this logic we don't have much evidence for most battles. It's unlikely the battle is made up the roman success is just most likely heavily exaggerated.
The rest of tacitus work on britian is real he's the one who wrote of boudicas revolt decades after the revolt. Many historic sources are written decades after the events. Its a very strange lie to make up
@@RoyalRegimentofScotland err I think you have just managed to defeat your own argument.
Logic depends on being able to deduce facts and reach a conclusion based upon evidence. So without evidence its impossible to say if something actually occurred.
I have pointed out that there is no evidence to corroborate the narrative written by someone who had never visited britain 30 years after the event and was closely related to the roman leader. At the very least we would see roman casualties recorded but all we see is the constant drip drip of losses consistent with a loosing campaign.
Whereas there is evidence from the local story record and place names and artefacts of roman losses near Blairgowrie plus the hastily abandoned fortress nearby where for example 5 tons of nails were buried to prevent the Picts getting them (and making them into spears). Hope that helps.
PS Macbeth is another one. Shakespeare made up the story to keep in with the current royals.
I can hardly comprehend how many people groups fought for their freedom against imperial hunger.
It would've been practical for Rome to pish the Caledonians off the island than stop at the walls.
Thank you all for the video it was really good 👍🏻
Ancient rome content = best content
As a person of scottish decent this makes me happy
"Wallsend" many town named this, based on Roman walls.
This is the 3rd time ive thought about the Roman Empire today.😂
I LOVE AGRICOLLA! A GREAT PERSON!
To Invicta:
The Spartans did train into hoplomachia, weapons handling competition or weapons training. Is this true. Also did the Ancient Greek play field hockey?
The Picts were not a thing at this time but called the Callidonian tribes later they combined due to the Roman threat and became the Picts.The Scots or Scotti were not in Scotland at this time being an Irish tribe
I think Agriculia put the auxiliary in front to insure their loyalty.
The conquering victorious write history to suit their situation. Whether the skirmish/battle took place is a point for conjecture. There has been no positive proof of a skirmish/battle site. Plenty of guess work to date but no positive proof. It sounds a fantastic story or victory from a Roman point of view but until there is actual proof and evidence let’s just say it was ‘the great skirmish of 83/84 AD’.
The Tungrians were Beasts!!!!
Hey, subject I am ignorant on. Thank you for the niche but important subject. Odd how these obscure battles hav important implementations centuries later.
How many of the members of the Legions would have been Roman, ie from the city, rather than the provinces anyway?
I thought that the iceni and other tribe groups where all pushed back to Scotland resulting in a mixed bag of chips.
Long term conquering Britannia and Ireland would have benefited the Romans. That is because if Romanized, these regions would no longer require large garrisons to maintain - Similar to the situation in Spain, Numidia & Mauretania. It's a long term investment, but one that could have paid off.
Wait, is it 83 like the title or 73 like the thumbnail?
While I get that the focus is more on the battle and the harder facts about the invasion, why did you not choose to actually include Calgacus's speech in a video? Sure, it was probably all made up by Tacitus, but it's still what I think is his most hard-hitting writing and what could be interpreted as a fascinating self-critique from the Romans of their own empire.
"Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep. If the enemy be rich, they are rapacious; if he be poor, they lust for dominion; neither the east nor the west has been able to satisfy them. Alone among men they covet with equal eagerness poverty and riches. To robbery, slaughter, plunder, they give the lying name of empire; where they make a desolation, they call it peace."
Caledones - Picts were later
Calgacus ? Is he one of the warriors of Baodecia ?
I still think pulling back was a long term mistake. If all of Britania could be pacified (note it would need Hibernia as well) then the region could have simply been held with the navy.
Then of course there is the issue of creating a civil war bastion if there is no local external threat
Interesting perspective
The Romans didn't even managed to heavily Romanise Britain much beyound it's Colonies (cities). The Roman Empire was never too invested in Britain and going on a slugging match against the rest of the tribes might've even opened them up to bigger threats.
Besides, the Germanic tribes were still a massive threat to Britain.
@@aidansumner8364 That's my point, no efforts were put to Romanise and end the conquest of Britania, when similar efforts to what they did in Gallia could have done the trick within half a century or so. As to the German tribes as said they could have been held back simply with the threat of the Navy.
But I'll admit this is taking into account the knowledge of a bird's eye view of the shape and distances of the islands, which neither the senate or the emperors possessed
That may have only been possible by eventually by generations of genocide to beat the northern tribe into submision & replace them with submissive & immigrant peoples from the empire.
@@Cancoillotteman Rome had a dreadful time holding back German tribes even with fixed land defences across Europe. There were pretty regular major & minor incursions into the empire, sometimes as far as Italy & Spain. That & events on the eastern borders probably meant that Rome couldn't commit as many forces for as long as a total victory & occupation would take. Hence consolidating at Hadrians & Antonine walls with only occasional forays further north.
How do you do the animations? Is there a program?
Those Four legions at Mons Graupius would have been better served retaking the German lands lost in 9 AD.
The Scots werent present in Britain at that time. They began arriving towards the end of Roman rule, shortly before the English did.
Great video. A minor correction. Picts are not Scots. The Scotti is the Latin name for the Gaels. The Scotti were an Irish tribe that began raiding Britain in the late 300s and invaded what is now Scotland in the late 400s. The tribes in Scotland during Agricola’s time were, like the other British tribes, Celts.