@@barrydoyle8636 Yes. Another cold, wet, dump. England and Wales were bad enough ( “a climate most foul, with rain and cloud” wrote Tacitus) so Ireland and Scotland out of the question.
@@robinharwood5044 👍🏻😂... Yup, weather permitting, cross the Irish sea... Leave a the wet cold dump only to come across an even more Wet, Cold, and Dump of an island with the highest possibility of experiencing 4 seasons in any given 24hrs.🤔, let's turn back..👌 👍
The conquest of Britannia is one of the greatest contrasts between Caligula and Claudius. While the first was a madman obsessed with becoming a god whose delusions brought him early death and damnation, his crippled uncle (whom he marginalized for years) achieved everything he could not, conquering Britain and being declared a god after his death. Without a doubt good old Claudius got the last laugh
romans traded lots, with coin hoards being found far outside the borders of rome. there is numerous roman artefacts in india like at Arikamedu where there was likely small trading communities.
I’m from Belfast and my family name goes back to the old Gaelic lords of Clanbrassil in Oriel under the Northern Uí Néill. In one of the earliest tracts mentioning the family name it says an ancestor was Toirdelbach ‘The Wine Drinker’. I thought ah sweet, he liked a drink just like we still do but then I realised it wasn’t on account of drunkenness but a status nickname because he was powerful enough to bring in wine from the Mediterranean, which shows there was trade between the Mediterranean world and Ireland for millennia.
@@peteymax No Latin names apart from some names on Dublin suburbs and Landed estates created post 18th century like Marino, Pimlico, Salermo etc. The East coast town names were Norse like Carlingford,Wicklow, Arklow and Wexford.
It was king tuathal techtmar. One of the greatest irish high kings that ever lived. That mans story alone is legendary and deserves a movie. His family got massacred and he and his mother fled to Argicola when he was just a child. Argicola raised him as his own and educated him in the roman ways . He even hired a bunch of Irish exiled warriors to be his protection. These became known as the legendary na fianna. 600 of na fianna and tuathal reconquerd ireland. The romans thought they had a puppet in place but tuathtal turned on his roman paymasters and argicola . He invaded both wales and scoland and he started those rebellions in the Highlands. Argicola got recalled to rome over it. End of his career. As he had to withdraw from the Highlands. The legends of fionn mc cool and na fianna stories all come from tuathals dynasty. Some historian's point out that it was during tuathals reign that he was able to asert a lot of control over all the scotti tribes in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, that the romans never again invaded Scotland in that kind of force and Ireland was forever off the table of conquest. which ended up with the romans building hydrians wall . Even niall of the nine hostages " the guy in the saint patricks story" was a decendant of tuathals. Niall got wacked because he demanded tribune of king of leinster . A tribute that was paid since tuathals time. Most of the roman settlements and trading post's that have been found in ireland recently date back to tuathals regin. He kept trading with rome but turned on argicola and ousted him as governor of britianna. Argicola and tuathal need a movie. Its the strory when a great roman general was bested by a barbarian king. They never had a pitched battle. Tuathtal use to invade Britain wrile up the tribes. Then jump back on the boat and be gona by the time argicola come. Tuathals dynasty ruled part's of ireland right up till the ulster plantations. Even parts of king charles crown jewels are tuathals. History is written by the Victor's. However ireland and Scotland is one place they couldn't win. So they overlook it. All dowb to a guy named tuthal techtmar. A man that had been largely written out of history because he took on a superpower and won. He always does get a wee footnite in argicolas story. They always mention the exiled irish prince.
thank you for posting ... High King of ireland Tuathal Techtmar. the ancestor of the Uí Néill and Connachta dynasties. wiki dates >>> Túathal's exile as AD 56, his return as AD76 and his death as AD 106. Geoffrey Keating's Foras Feasa ar Érinn broadly agrees, dating his exile to 55, his return to 80 and his death to 100. The Lebor Gabála Érenn places him a little later, synchronising his exile with the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (81-96), his return early in the reign of Hadrian (122-138) and his death in the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161).
This is the Irish version. And we know it's true because no Irishman would ever lie about a thing like that. Honestly, sometimes I have to smile. The web is full of BS but it takes an Irishman to take it to the next level.
@@TarlachOakleaf It is very easy to go look it up and educate one's self. All you need to do is google is the current UK royal family related to tuthal techtmar. The English will litterley give you the whole bloodline. This is not the Irish who are claiming this. The joke is on you. Queen Victoria, Mary Queen of scots, the entire house of York. House of hannover. Queen matilda. Malcolm the first of Scotland , Roger mortimer , Brian boru, niall of the nine hostages and tuathal techtmar are all related. It is literally the oldest royal bloodline In history.
The term "British Isles" is offensive to many Irish people. It is a term used by the invader to attempt to imply that Ireland is part of a British entity. Britain is an island, Ireland is an island. The Irish fought for hundreds of years to remove British control of the island. The acceptable term is ‘Britain and Ireland’.
This is modern day woke nonsense. Britain is not a nation, it's a geographical location. Even Scotland and Wales have to acknowledge they're part of Britain, regardless of political views because it's not up for debate. The term 'British Isles' has origins predating any oppression in Ireland
A lot of people saying Ireland had nothing going for it, there was a lot of gold and jewellery being crafted in Ireland centuries before and after the Roman Empire
Also, Rome requested Ireland rule over Dyfed a petty kingdom in wales and you find an ogham stone with latin also on it. Its how they held Wales for so long. They also used the Irish/Scottish, I will call it gaelic for now, chariots, and wheels (metal rimmed wheels invented here). They basically wrote shit about Ireland so no one else would think there was anything of worth, it was known as the land of gold because as you say the quality was so high. Basically the romans knew of the clan system where you vote for the next ruler, they knew this means its impossible to beat. In England they found kings willing to bend the knee, in return they supported the first born son, and broke the clan system in them small kingdoms. They were attempting the same in scotland and ireland. They had wined and dined a few kings. It was this system that the anglo saxons eventually used to fully break Ireland and Scotland, they got enough kings to support them and become lords with their first son supported that the clan system in both Ireland and Scotland broke. It should also be of note that the Royal navy was built with Irish oak, which at the time was the most abundent supply of high quality wood on the planet... To the romans it would have been unlimited meat, and unlimited wood, with offerings of high quality gold jewlery thrown in.
Not only did the Romans ultimately decide that Ireland was not worth the cost of conquest, but Scotland, also, represented a poor return on investment. It was more profitable to wall it off (Hadrian and Antonius Pius) and enlarge the empire in other areas (Dacia/Romania and the Parthian frontier). Ultimately, Britain fell due to attacks from three sides, with attacks from Ireland and Scotland splitting the Roman defense allowing the Saxons to take over.
@@NigelHatcherN Technically, the picts and Irish as the Scots originated in Ireland. However, it is true that the Roman army left to participate in the revolts of the early 5th century. This left Roman Britain intact but undefended. See St Patrick for an Irish raid in the early 5th century, the Saxons show up in force in the mid 5th century, and Gildas writing about 625 mentions a ruler in Britain who has fought effectively against the Saxons, but hates the man and does not mention his name; was it Arthur or possibly the inspiration for Arthur? The Vikings do not show up until about 793, the raid on Lindesfarne.
@@jameshorn270 I have always wondered why Rome stopped where it did at Hadrian's Wall. Considering the size of the Empire by then Scotland was tiny. "This far and no further"...WHY?
Yes. Of all the European/Western countries, Ireland was the ONLY one that was "Christianized" without the sword. The Irish readily accepted Christian tenets since their belief system already used most Christian tenets, without the label. (P.s. I believe the Irish had some contact with the North American native tribes, especially the Cherokee. There are numerous "coincidences" in both people's social & governmental structures that cannot be ignored. IMHO)
People talking about weather and climate of Ireland. Nope. It's the sea. England is relatively easy to get to from France. The Irish and celtic sea that divides Ireland from both landmasses are quite difficult to navigate for roman era sea faring technology. Just not worth it
Yet there was trade between what is now Wales and Ireland which would have been done by travelling across the sea. Irish Gold was found in the area of Wrexham with a spear which is believed to be from around 800BC.
Briton was fully central by then and was basically under de-facto rule by him so it was easier also better knowledge + not needing to worry about tons of rebellionz @brendankane3546
"I'll tell you this. If the sword is all that you're prepared to show us Britons, then be prepared to carry it forever in your hand... and sleep with it forever by your side at night! For you will need it!" *Caratacus' speech in the Roman Senate*
Romans couldn't digest dairy products very well. North western Europeans are almost 100% lactose tolerant and have no problems digesting dairy in big quantities.
Julius Caesar wasn't named the "general in charge of conquering Gaul", in fact he did so against the wishes of the Senate and essentially on his own dime along with the support of Crassus and Pompey. He basically used a migrating Tribe entering Roman Territory as an excuse to conquer Gaul
If I remember it was a huge despute between Senate and Caesar to even recognise the conquest of Gaul (as he Caesar would really love a triumph for that). But having a Crassus on your side who is filthy rich (and he had some interesting idea for business) and Pompey the Great - made you powerfull allies in the Senate. That's why First Triumvirate was so important and between three - Caesar had to gain his respect and he got a lot after his campaign in Gaul. Unfortunately for him his try to land in Britain got really bad. But fully agree - Caesar took action on his own using defense of allied tribes to Rome as means to conquer Gaul for himself (and it was great political move in many ways).
@@ozyrysozi6186not quite. Caesar hadn’t finished the conquest of Gaul (though he mostly had and had already defeated Vercingetorix at the battle of Alessia) when Crassus decided to invade Parthia because despite his riches, he was the only one of the triumvirate that did not have military glory and he became jealous of Caesar’s success and tried to out do him. Of course Crassus was humiliated and killed at the battle of Carrhae and without the 3 balancing each other, Pompey became extremely jealous and turned on Caesar. Pompey had the support of the senate, not Caesar, and Caesar was essentially branded enemy of Rome and enemy of the people when he refused to surrender his positions and accept arrest and trial by the senate. That’s when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon - Pompey and the Senate didn’t really leave him any choice.
@@spudeeelad True, I would say that Caesar pretty much wanted to use Crassus and Pompey as he started as the weakest of the three. In the end Caesar with his action pretty much put himself on the crosshair of the Senate, but I think that he always knew it would come with what he was doing, maybe the harsh push from Pompey, Cato and their supporters was more sudden, but if I remember correctly situation could be defused at some point and wouldn't mean starting civil war. And yeah, Crassus was interesting guy and his death was quite a loss for Caesar I think, but like with the second triumvirate I doubt it would last long either way. Maybe it was good for Caesar if the Crassus would also oppose him in future. And also - I believe that Senate from the start seen Caesar as trouble as he had very radical ideas.
@@spudeeelad And of course Senate accused Caesar of things he really done, so I would say they were very legitimate (not talking that they were saints, but it still was valid point).
@@ozyrysozi6186 If I remeber correctly, shortly before civil war Pompey's wife died, who was coincidentally Julius's daughter ;) Which meant, there was nothing keeping them together in Triumvirate after Crassus died and stopped bankrolling them.
What a very interesting video. Thanks for mentioning Wexford, where my father's people come from, and Carlow which is my mother's ancestral county. Also Arklow where I spent many happy summer holidays. Go raibh maith agat.
Born in Dublin and grew up in Gorey Co.Wexford and unfortunately it pains me to say it but Arklow has became a complete shit hole in the last 10 years..... I'm sure it was great craic back in the day as a youth tho
Rome ruled Britania for another 250 years after Agricola was recalled. It is not true to say the opportunity for conquest of Hibernia was lost at that point. It is more likely that because Britania finally became pacified and trade had already been established with Hibernia, the cost of conquest outweighed any perceived military or economic benefit, just as with Scotland and that, later, Rome had other priorities as the empire began to falter.
yep why waste the time money and dead soldiers on Ireland when they could use those resources building up Gaul, Spain and England that they already owned. Seems logical to me.
I was visiting Wales and my friend and I decided to take a side trip to Ireland. Both she and I have taken many ferries. Irish Sea is unbelievably difficult which sailors would label confused. I never saw so many people throwing up at one time.
The Irish Sea certainly can make one seasick. Oddly enough I had little trouble with a fair number of Larne to Stranraer ferry trips. Salmon fishing trips at the mouth of the Columbia River made me very sick.
Couldn't conquer Alba nor Erin because the Gaels of both Scotland and Ireland were/are basically one people, a warrior people who value/valued freedom above everything. That love of freedom included freedom/independence from their neighbouring clans and from each other, an inability to work together against a common foe for any meaningful length of time. They organised many small raids on Roman Britain, not with intention to conquer, but because they enjoyed battle and skirmishes, 'blooding' young warriors and because it provided individuals with a way of making 'a name for themselves' (as warriors). Basically they attacked Hadrian's Wall and the Romans ... because they were there. In the present day this psychological strength/weakness is most evident in the desire of the Scots (and Irish) for freedom from the overbearing English and their inability (since the demise of the clans) to agree amongst themselves how best to do it, a lack of cohesion fuelled by misinformation by the BBC and the politically controlled 'British' media.
Matey, the easiest way for the Scots to achieve independence is to get the English (what's left of them) to vote on the issue. Instant separation. And you can keep yer fried mars bars and bizarre Muslim political leaders.
The scoti tribe didn’t invade what is now Scotland until after the romans left. What is now Scotland was made up of Britons (modern Welsh) in the lowlands, with Welsh names still existing to this day eg Glasgow. And the Picts in the highlands.
You know nothing about history just your own fantasy they had no idea of freedom in that time all the lower were subject to their lords their idea of freedom was raiding to steal other food or women . You live in a dream world mate bantering words like freedom . one thing for certain they were not free from starvation disease , and infant mortality , still i suppose you are happy in your dream world
Oh boy what an insane post ,in the first instance there is no such thing as freedom ,even money can not give you freedom only independence and more choice ,only uneducated nationalist believe in freedom
Only a young Roman, son of a prominent leader, who was to become 'St Patrick', kidnapped from The Welsh Coast, can claim to've conquered Ireland; not militarily, but mentally. After escaping his Captors, he'd gone to The Vatican, was converted, and later returned to Ireland as a Monk who soon wielded great influence over The Tribes. If not for the subsequent Monasterys, none of Europe's academic knowledge would've survived The 'Dark Ages'. As for St Patrick drivin' snakes out of Ireland, a myth, given there'd not been snakes there.
Hibernia does not mean "winter" in relation to Ireland. It's a derivation of Ivernia, as the island was named by the Greek Ptolemy, who drew the first known maps of Ireland and Britain around 100CE. Ivernia probably derives from Ierne, from the goddess Eriu.
@@kcw0809 While no copies of his original map(s) survive, facsimiles have been drawn based on his writings. He seems to have lived and worked in Alexandria and there is no evidence he ever left the Mediterranean region. Not only is Ireland noted as Ivernia, to its north is "Thule" which could possibly be Iceland or Norway. He shows lands which could be modern Malaysia and Indonesia. Though individual travel was very limited back then, trade had been ongoing for centuries and knowledge of Ireland probably came from traders bringing wine and textiles to Ireland, in return for jewellery, leathers and slaves or mercenaries. The learned folk of the Eastern Mediterranean were literally at the centre of their world and they seem to have known quite a bit about it from Ireland to Indonesia.
Actually, thats a misnomer promoted by the Mainstream Academics" but it isn't accurate. (It has to do with Gaelic and Iberia, Hibernia) The *Irish are of Basque Origin " + the "Tribe of Dann" both validated by Ancient DNA Studies. The greater factual History is so interesting and it makes sense when the pieces are fit together. There were books already written on this, (Mainstream Academics resisted the History), recent DNA studies has validated them. Very exciting. Beth Bartlett Sociologist/Behavioralist and Historian .
Rome _Did_ conquer Ireland .. Why everyone in Ireland is still in denial about this is mind-boggling. Emperor Constantine (the great) merely rebranded the Roman Empire as the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century. The old Roman Gods became The Saints, The Emperor became the Pope and the senators become the bishops. Rome conquered Ireland a thousand years ago and we are still run by the Italians ever since ... The Pope is in ROME ffs!
You're a bit mistaken.. the British had large control of Ireland and used the religion the Romans/British brought over against us (Catholic vs Protestant). Ireland was largely Pagan during Roman times and stayed that way until the time of St.Patrick. Now if you want to talk about the Irish Republic during the 20th Century then yes the Catholic Church had HUGE power over the state at that point and committed numerous atrocious acts here. The 20th century Catholic Church decimated almost all Irish beliefs in Religion in general so a lot of people are just Atheist or don't claim a Religion. Only very old Irish people attend church now. Check out the Pope visits in 1970 vs today and you'll see the difference.
There are many inaccuracies in the first few minutes alone: - Caesar was never tasked with conquering gaul, that was his own private (and illegal) venture. If he had not kicked off the civil war he likely would have been executed for doing so. - Caesar's victory was pyrrhic, the Britons failed to drive him out, but he also failed to achieve a lasting foothold. The claim that he extracted a peace treaty from them is purely his claim with no confirmation in British history. It's entirely possible he reached the limit of his resources and they simply agreed to allow him to withdraw. - If his goal was to prevent them from interfering in the roman conquest of gaul he failed. They did so routinely eventually requiring his successor to mount another invasion of britain. As for Ireland it was simply irrelevant and likely beyond their supply chains could reasonably reach. They had no pressing reason to invade and doing so would have been unreasonably costly. Same reason they failed to colonise the north of britain.
Agreed, but much more than that. Given the politics of the late Republic, the possbility of Caesar surrendering was zero. He had a very large army, about a dozen legions, all of them highly experienced veterans, along with thousands of experienced cavalry mercenaries and light troops. This was a personal army loyal to him. The opposition in the Senate had no standing army. No one tried to conquer Ireland because it was utterly worthless. It had no ability to produce grain. It had no significant mineral resources of any kind. Naval transport was grossly insufficient for transporting an army across the Irish Sea. Britain on the other hand was the world's largest supplier of tin and copper. For these reasons alone Britain was worth invading and conquering. And you are quite right about the difficulty of invading Ireland. Mediterranean naval technology was just barely capable of transporting an army across the Dover Straits. It was utterly inadequate to deal with a much more hostile Irish Sea.
@@colinhunt4057 Wut? Both britain and Ireland were extremely wealthy grain producers during that time. Ireland also had significant gold/iron deposits and was an exporter of jewelry and other metal goods. As for the naval transport question... I think you're underestimating roman capabilities. They weren't so inept that they could barely cross the English channel, a roman fleet circumnavigated britain a few decades later. Crossing the Irish sea was well within their grasp. The issue would have been more that the lag between requesting resources and receiving them would have been too long to respond to evolving needs of a military campaign.
@@peterhoulihan9766 Have you evidence for, "Ireland were extremely wealthy grain producers during that time. Ireland also had significant gold/iron deposits and was an exporter of jewelry and other metal goods."?
@@markaxworthy2508 Grain: Britain was already well cultivated by the time the romans arrived and even had invented a primitive kind of combine harvester. There are also plenty of roman records of their agricultural exports. Based on mythology, brehon law and archeology, Ireland had a very similar economy at the time. Metalworking: There's extensive archeological evidence of iron/gold working in Ireland and some artifacts of Irish origin have been found on the continent. Some of those gold/silver mines are still in operation.
@@peterhoulihan9766 You say, "Britain..... even had invented a primitive kind of combine harvester." Highly, highly improbable. Details and sources, please.
If you submitted this as a history essay you'd be lucky if you passed lol. 3 of the 11 mins were relevant. This is what we needed to hear 9:50 and it was on the screen for 2 seconds. Most of the info leading up to the conquest of Britain was totally unnecessary just padding out the video. Also, the Catholicism that reached Ireland was not very Roman at all. Ireland was the first country to be Christianised without being Romanised which resulted in 6 centuries of arguments between the Irish and Roman churches, eventually culminating in the granting of a Papal Bull by Pope Adrian VI (only English pope ever) to the Anglo-Normans called the Laudabilliter. It gave them permission to invade Ireland to "normalise Irish Christianity" so your statement of "conquering Ireland with ideas" is also incredibly off base. I just finished my history degree in ireland and it dealt a lot with this. If this were a paper I was correcting I'd fail you in a heartbeat. Try better next time.
By definition, Catholicism is Roman. Saying the "Catholicism" that reached Ireland was not very Roman is like saying water isn't wet. Missionaries were dictated by the pope and sent by Rome. Christianity didn't magically materialize out of thin air here. You had normal Roman Catholic positions like an archdiocese here long before the Laudabilliter which was to bring Gregorian reforms to Ireland from the churches point of view. You can go ahead and tear up that history degree because it had absolutely nothing to do with "normalizing Irish Christianity".
@@I2obiNtube Uh, son? He's right. The Irish clerics were notorious for going their own way, making up their own liturgical masses (they almost all being illiterate), and having a reputation for contentiousness, ignorance and ignoring the church. What do you expect when you get grifters, the lazy and sneaky who don a robe and call themselves priests and then wander around tupping every girl and extracting money from those superstitious?
The battle of Ventry was supposed to be around then. When "the king of the world" ran into The Fianna. It was very unusual that ireland was pretty unified at that time and had a standing army that went straight to intercept them. The Fianna won, their 7 battalions vs their 30. I often wondered who it could have been that they fought. Fionn MacCumhaill was supposed to have lived around the 2nd to 3rd century ad so if the story is true it was probably the romans who got their ass whooped. And when the battalions never returned they probably said "fug that" or thought they got lost in a storm or something.
Rather, why WOULDN'T the Romans conquer island. There wasn't anything to get in Ireland. Far away and just farm land. "We'll be back when you have potatoes."
@@py8554 A little known fact is that the potato actually originated In Ireland but was so highly revered by the people that they successfully hid it's existence from the rest of Europe for several centuries. The potato is the single most important thing in all of Irish history, a true cultural cornerstone. Even in the present day, 86% of Irish people say they would "fight to the death any fecker that tries to take my potatoes."
It's still divided, but I've read that Rome Rule is weakening in the Republic, See the Wikipedia account of Rev. Ray Davey, for one of the good Protestants in the North.
Brian Boru did, hell Britain wasn't even worth holding for the Romans, never mind Ireland, though, if they had taken the whole lot they possibly wouldn't have had to leave such a big garrison as a base for future coup's. Britian might have bit worth for the first little while because of the mines, like with Dacia.
So a bit of rain and the mighty roman soldiers turned their boats around? They feared the Scots and probably met fierce resistance in Ireland but they would never write that.
Scots didn’t come until after the romans left. What is now Scotland was made up of Britons (modern Welsh) and Picts. Welsh names still survive in the lowlands of Scotland even now.
@@brendankane3546 Caledonia was a Brythonic kingdom. It was the low lands of scotland and parts of northern England. Or as we call it in Welsh “Hen Ogledd” which means “the old north”
They met us Scottish people and decided that we were impossible to civilize(think of the very worst of Celtic vs. Rangers fans) Then they met the Irish, and discovered that the Irish were just the same, but with a more mental outlook and dangerous charm.
@@alynwillams4297 Well they wouldn't have been regarded as "Welsh", but merely ancient Briton tribes. You are correct in thinking that the last of the truly ancient Briton DNA, is almost exclusively confined to Wales. I find the ancient Welsh, very handsome, attractive people, but then I'm an ancient Pictish and very ancient Irish combo.
The Irish tribe called the Scotia (Scots) conquered the Picts and established the name Scotland. To this day Irish people love telling Scottish people what the place-names in Scotland mean. Cairngorms =The Blue Mountains. Ardnamurchan = The Promontory over the bay. etc. etc.etc..
I read in the 1970s from an early Roman History that one of the major reasons ,the Romans wanted to come to Ireland was to acquire Obsidian - which the Romans needed for their surgical instruments . The Romans were seriously advanced in surgical techniques and their instruments are followed right up to today - by Western surgeons. Obsidian was considered by them the best edged surgical blade as it held its sharpness much longer than typical Flint . It is well known that an Obsidian Mine was operational near Lough Neagh in Co. Antrim . ( Sandy Braes. Co. Antrim . ) Such a mine would have been a great prize to the Roman Empire .
what books have you read on this subject ? because the Romans knew they would be whupped.i realize this is very difficult for the Irish haters to accept,nevertheless it is an historical fact.
@@brendankane3546 What evidence is there the Irish could have resisted the Roman empire when they couldn't resist Scandinavian pillagers or Cambro-Norman warlords?
@@niallbyrne2680 Did you ever hear of King Brian Boru of Ireland ?-defeated the Danish Vikings-The Norman "warlords" intermarried with the Irish,and quickly assimilated-and the Roman military engineers estimated 10,000 causalities trying to invade Hibernia.
@@niallbyrne2680Scandinavian “pillagers” were never able to conquer Ireland unlike England, the Normans also didn’t take over Ireland there was constant war and the Norman/English outside the pale became Gaelicised the Gaelic resurgence played a large role in this
Tge Romans called Ireland Hibernian as in ‘Winter’ as it was always cold; it was also very thickly covered in forests & very difficult to penetrate into. So they left it alone fortunately!
title should be closer to 'why was ireland of so little value to rome' because realistically rome could have invaded and occupied very easily but there was just nothing there of value that the romans wanted, same goes for scotland, they bang on about 'grrrrrrrrr the romans couldnt take us on so they built a wall' no, the romans could have very easily invaded and occupied scotland, it just wasnt worth it, theres nothing there for rome to take, all it would do is take resources that could be used elsewhere, hence the cheapest option was just build a wall and forget they even exist.
There, there son. There's no need to get your Jimmies in a wad. It's ancient history and has no bearing on our lives today. If it makes you feel better we can arrange to give Rome a participation trophy and instead of saying that they lost we'll just say that they were simply just the last winner from now on too.
Then why build a wall? I also know it gives Rome: 1 - during down time it gives an army sometimes to do (keeping them busy) 2 - a way to collect taxes from travelers. (more money) If there wasn't travelers that they could collect taxes from then why the gates?
@@HollyMoore-wo2mh because building a wall is cheaper than having to assemble small armies constantly to fight off petty raiders from the north, build a wall, place a few soldiers at gates and its done, no raids, no battles no minor wars.
They came, they conquered and their lasting effect on Britain is still visible to this day. From ancient forts, roads and walls, to villas, palaces and spas, discover Britain’s Roman legacy. By Penelope Rance Technology, architecture, language, government, town planning - even a sense of national identity. The depth of the Roman influence on the British Isles was such that it survives to this day, seemingly unmatched by that of any of the invading forces that followed them. But then, the majority of those invaders, and the subsequent ruling elites, wanted nothing better than to be Roman themselves. These heirs to the Roman ideal - Saxons, Danes, Normans, Plantagenets, Tudors, Georgians and Victorians - all tried to establish Britain as part of a wider empire, drawing on the example set by those first imperial overlords.
@@pablodiaz5014there is roman forts in the Iran isles,off the coast of Galway, my mum comes from there and been there twice, it's the most western point in eire, looking over the Atlantic, next stop would be america
Several reasons the Romans never invaded Ireland: - A longer sea voyage across the open Atlantic (which the Roman forces that invaded present-day England were reluctant to cross even for the narrower gap between Gaul and Britain). - A cold, damp climate that the Romans considered uninviting - A population of fierce tribes, similar to those in Caledonia, but with much more "iffy" logistics for supplying, reinforcing and, if things went badly, evacuating Roman armies, thanks to the aforementioned longer ocean voyage to travel there. - Tricky, sneaky leprechauns who were too lucky for the Romans to defeat - The fact that the only known mineral resources were "sham rocks", which were of no use to Romans - A lack of potatoes there at the time, as those were still in the Andes Mountains waiting for Europeans to find out they existed and import them to Europe many centuries later - An excess of corned beef and cabbage due to the aforementioned lack of potatoes
what did Britannia provide the Roman Empire,that Hibernia could not ? This is not a rhetorical question,i expect an answer from you ! Please don't be bashful now,or give me some silly answer either.
@@brendankane3546 Tin and gold, plus decent farmland. More importantly, controlling Britannia protected Rome's northern flank, i.e. Gaul, enabling Rome to concentrate on Germania, first offensively and later defensively. Put another way, Rome didn't need Britannia for its own sake but left to themselves England and Wales (as they became) were a threat. Ireland and Scotland weren't.
@@patrickneylan How did the Romans even know the resources of Ireland ? they were not there.Furthermore,gold and "decent farmland " was abundant in Hibernia and how do YOU know about tin in Ireland ? Put another way,the Romans wisely realized their invasion would fail. Also the Scottish Highlander clans put a major,major hurt on two of the best Legions-and one fearsome Roman legion was lost without a trace in Caledonia (courtesy, History Channel ) Now,if i may hear from Damon,please,like i asked in the first place.
@@brendankane3546 Why precisely do you "expect an answer" from me? In any case, you can find my answers (serious or otherwise) to your question in the list in my original post above.
Actually, Boudica's uprising was crushed after some initial success and lasted for about one year. Caratacus of the Catuvellauni on the other hand, managed to resist for about 10 years. After facing the romans head on and losing he employed guerrilla tactics. Now he was the major thorn in the roman boot.
The archaeologists working on the roman remains of Chester came to the decision that the size of the town was significantly larger than they expected ; roman town planning was quite standardised . Chester was designed to hold a roman army Legion and all the people who supported the troops , it aught to have been the size of Caerleon , near Newport in Wales . The reason for the increased size was possibly that Chester was intended to be the main port for the invasion of Ireland . I did say possibly ......but that was the idea of the televised program archaeologists .
The romans had such a hard time with the Scottish celts when they heard of the Irish celts were even fiercer and stronger warriors they didn’t bother occupying
The Scottish are an Irish tribe. The scoti. They didn’t arrive in what is now Scotland until after the romans left. The lowlands of Scotland were Briton (modern welsh) with Welsh names still existing to this day like Glasgow
Perhaps the Romans thought the Hibernians were too fierce to try to subjugate just like the Caledonians. Being they were Celtic it isn't hard to figure out being the Celts were a thorn in the side for the "Pax Romana".
@@kenrehill8775what ever the English are always whinging never happy. The Irish are positive and always happy. The great famine English rule allowed fuedalism to continue much longer than in England. England lost in the end and now Independent Ireland had flourished especially since joining the E U. Now England is out of the EU they are struggling while Ireland continues on with no barriers to trade.
@@MichaelEnright-gk6yc I work with a lot of Irish and they’re as a big as the English for whining, that’s why they drink so much. Yep EU hand out fool you all I to think you’re rich. Tried to buy a house recently? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You can support us creating more videos about Rome by becoming a member, here on RUclips or on Patreon: ruclips.net/user/Knowledgiajoin www.patreon.com/Knowledgia By doing so you will be able to watch our videos FIRST and with No Ads. And you will support us a lot, as any dollar helps immensely in our production process. Thank you for your consideration!
Because Emperor Domitianus had Agricola removed as Governor General of Britannia, Agricola wrote that he could subdue Caledonia with a couple of Roman Legions. Emperor Flavius Domitianus was obviously jealous.
The emperor realised that Scotland was never going to supply the taxes necessary to finance its conquest,hence the decision not to bother. Dacia was a far more appealing prospect!
@@paulmasterson386 So the Emperor let the Dacians have land, and paid them off instead, until Trajan fixed that mess. Sounds like he was jealous of Agricola's achievements to me.
egendary figures and pivotal moments that shaped its identity. This documentary brilliantly captures the spirit of the Irish people, showcasing their enduring legacy and influence on world history. A must-watch for anyone interested in the deep, mystical roots of this captivating island
The very question betrays a misunderstanding of Roman civilisation. Although generals were inclined to boast about their "conquests" the reality is that the empire spread more like the EU - by trade deals, harmonisation and infrastructure development. People queued up to JOIN the empire voluntarily and that is certainly true in Britain - the "invasion" was at the invitation of British tribes that were already important trading partners. The "pax romana" ultimately benefited everyone, which is why the whole country remained nostalgic about Roman union for centuries afte it collapsed (hence "King Arthur"). Its also why Rome had to build walls - including Hadrians - to keep illegal migrants out (and levy taxes on goods). Given that context, its obvious that Ireland didn't join the Roman empire because there was no money in it. Much of it was bogland after all. Same in Scotland. Neither battles nor rebels had anything to do with it. BTW, this view also explains why the Irish were so enthusiastic about Christianity at an early date - because it opened doors to the Roman and post-Roman civilisation they had previously been denied.
This is the best statement I've seen in a coon's age. I'm no historian, strictly a layman, but this instinctively and intellectually (as far as my poor intellect can go) is the truth as far as I'm concerned. If only all history were reworked and re-presented to us from this kind of viewpoint I think it would make much more sense. We in fact have plenty of relatively recent demonstrations of this kind of mechanism I think, haven't we? Isn't this how the British occupied India?
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 I don't know but haven't I heard that 'the dark ages' is a misnomer and in fact there is much on record from those times? if so the truth could be established perhaps?
What percentage of Hibernia was " bogland ?-Also,you act like it was some kind of special privilege to be under the Roman boot.Well,look no further than what the Romans did to the King of Gaul.How about the Roman treatment of the Celts of Britannia,including,but not limited to Queen Boudicia and her Royal daughters.Please do not Shadowban,Thanks !
When the Romans moved in, many Britons (ancient British) fled to Wales and Ireland because the mountains and rough seas made it difficult for the Romans to hold an invasion. Wales, Ireland and Scotland are where the most true British bloodlines are.
Welsh being the Germanic word in which the Anglo Saxons called the Britons. The Welsh call themselves “Cymru” or “Cymry” meaning “countrymen” or “citizens” referring themselves as the natives of Britain
As an Irishman I can happily confirm we are still undisciplined and ignorant of all virtue. The Romans would've undoubtedly took control of Ireland. I suspect the resources it would take to hold it would be more than they expected.
Caesar did not realise the range of the tides, but he could see the coast of Britain from Gaul. Even Agricola in Môn in north Wales, could not see Hibernia, over the horizon. The Irish Sea is too difficult a water body to cross militarily. Please lose your " British Isles " reference. There's Hibernia and Britannia, perfectly unambiguous to the Romans.
Where Rome conquered depended on the internal politics at the time, their army and navy were unbeatable. They created a fleet in Chester at one time to enable the full scale invasion of Ireland but this idea was abandoned when the power struggles became inward rather than outward
@@jimmymcjimmyvich9052 as I said in first comment, on the arran isles, which are three islands, inshiseah is we're my mum was born, it has a roman Fort, which they say is haunted, and I myself have been in the top of it., looks straight out to the atlantic
The picts hammered and terrified the romans in scotland and their cousins were in ireland. Ireland was also covered in forest which was not where the romans liked to fight.
As someone who loves lives in Italy can't imagine my friends from fresh cool Ireland settling here but they love it for a couple of weeks every summer❤
Nonsense, they are being eradicated in front of our eyes by their glorious EU ubermenschen and their imported various dross. Should have kept the British in charge, silly people.
I would expect him to get there but soldiers just said "fu** it we don't want to go" and he just abandoned the plan. Even Claudius years later had a problem with legion's motivation as they didnt like the idea of being few days in bad weather on the ship (while most of them couldn't even swim) to some barbarian land they didn't even hear of or what they heard was just nightmare they had already lived through in Germania but worse. I would not be that happy if my garrison duty changed to an invasion of "Siberia".
I trust it. Seashells crushed into powder was an important ingredient in some Roman concrete. Now the legions were there and not sailing anywhere anyway it would have been a somewhat valuable resource to bring back with them. Collecting them makes sense. As for the stones they could be used in road construction projects (locally I guess; I doubt they brought them back to Rome). But the "war with Neptune" story sounds like Caligula being childish (or mad).
@@kubium7546 You might be right. The story goes that Caligula had forgotten to arrange ship transport for the legions. But after his death people (probably for good reason) loved to ridicule him, so we should probably take that story with a grain of salt. Perhaps many ships wrecked before the invasion like on Caesar's first attempt? But some level of mutiny could have played it's part. We might never know the truth.
@@lightdrizzle Yes, naturally. But it would still give them some "booty" to bring home for appearance's sake. It doesn't look rgeat to return home emptyhanded. And even if not worth bringing home it could be of good use more locally. It wasn't unusual for soldiers to collect materials for their own construction projects.
Hibernia, Roman name for Ireland, is related to the Latin word for Winter, example, hibernate. Maybe the Romans just did not like the constant rain and low, by Roman standards, temperatures. The same could apply to Scotland. Came to Ireland, stayed a year, reported back, "Nah, nothing worthwhile there, I think we'll leave it."
Who said the Romans couldn't take Ireland? They chose not to I assume because the rewards, very little in natural resources, did not justify the costs.
Agreed, they could've but it wasn't worth the trouble. Not enough of a return on the investment of conquest. Ireland probably would be different today if they had. My Ulster English ancestry would have never been if they had.
@@zuppymac-xi8rk Rubbish. The sort of resources which mattered were things like minerals. The principal reason for taking Britain was to control its Tin production.
No spuds in Europe, let alone Ireland, until they were brought back to England by Sir Walter Raleigh in the latter end of the 16thC. They were comparatively easy to cultivate - ideal for the peasant economy of rural Ireland.
Basically the Romans got to England and didn't really care for it. They got to Wales and positively HATED it. Ireland is basically more Wales but harder to get to in Roman ships.
@@Gallogley From my understanding all Roman attempts to conquer, civilize or subjugate the Celts ended up in financial ruin. Sure, they could conquer the local tribes and establish Roman cities but nothing good ever actually came of it. From what I read Britain was known as a place of disease, savagery and foreigners. It was basically Germania, but worse because it was full of even crazier barbarians and was seperated from land by miles of deadly freezing water.
England didn’t exist at this point. All of Britain was what we now call Welsh. “Welsh” being the Germanic word in which the invaders called the native Britons.
Correction: Roman Catholicism was in Britain when the Romans left. It was wiped out by the Anglo-Saxon invasions. It was Irish missionaries who started bringing it back. Also, the island was NEVER called England until after the Anglo-Saxon conquest, which changed the name of part of the island to England (Anglo-land).
@@richardthomas5362 Clever answer, the worst years of the persecutions were the 1st and second centuries-they continued until around 313 AD-the fourth century-so your timeline is very much in doubt,but nice try,for sure-(insert SAD face emoji here )
Angle-land not Anglo from the the word Angles a Northern Germanic peoples who invaded Southern and eastern Britannia named from the area called the Angeln peninsula now in Northern Germany but before the late 19c was part of Denmark.
They never settled in Scotland and could not conquer. They built two walls to try and keep the Picts back. First they built the Antonine wall , when that failed they built Hadrians wall again that failed and they gave up . The were constantly harassed by small guerrilla groups and found the terrain to difficult to conquer.
Actually the Romans did land there looked around and said "Nah. Not worth the effort" similar to what they did in Scotland virtually conquered Scotland, discovered no mining of any worth and would cost more to stay than leave so built a wall and said "Here will be the border"
As an "Irelander" I tell u all it was "The Poitin!" They couldn't handle it, went blind and marched joyfully off the Cliffs of Moher as we all sang 👍🇮🇪💕
@@brendankane3546 brittania alone costed more to defend than what it generated - no need to take offence, ireland now and 2000years ago are pretty different, duh
@@brendankane3546 there is not much especially focused on hibernia during the roman empire - the only decent books that i've read on the subject are Roman Ireland and Ireland's Forgotten Past (not really on the romans, just a mix)
@@mabeSc you must know that Roman military engineers predicted 10,000 causalities attempting to invade Hibernia-? Also,bear in mind,Roman and English historians are very,very slow to give any credit to Irish,Scottish,for obvious reasons.
@@Lexivor Yup, and I guess now we have to stop saying "Ok" and "Chiao" and "siesta" and all those other words that arn't "Approved" by some self-appointed committee of morals and standards? And uh, most of the world IS christian, largest amount until the world started bringing medicine to the muslims. No one had ever heard of CE etc except the atheists and muslims. Now these "scholars" think they're cool to be different.
wasn't it St Patrick, not the Roman Empire, who brought Christianity to Ireland? Also why do all your maps mark the Roman frontier well south of Hadrian's wall?
Ireland = Hibernia = land of winter You know the old Roman joke "What's the difference between winter and summer in Hibernia?"...."in summer the rain gets slightly warmer"😅
Please tell us why, and what system you would employ to replace these commonly-accepted terms. After all, the islamics use the date of the hegirah - the year that the founder of their religion legged it to escape slaughter by his fellow countrymen - so what's to prevent the rest of the civilised world from using a similar bit of a religious 'landmark' to describe a date/time?
Ireland would have been worth the expedition due to the abundance of livestock and wood alone. What people miss out on is that Ireland was dense forest across most of the land. The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was still very fresh in the minds of every Roman at the time. The psychological impact would have been enormous. It was another sea to cross into a world of superstition and druids. Irelands climate was also warmer than today(not amazing but winters were mild in comparison to Central Europe) with vineyards found at archaeological digs from around that time. It’s geographic location, the psychological factors, the lack of strategic value and also the PAX Romana played a crucial role in the decision. When Hadrian built his wall, it cost a lot of man power. But with Ireland, if Mother Nature had already done the hard work, who were they to argue.
Stop using BCE and CE. It's BC and AD. It was a group of Jesuit priests that came up with the Gregorian calendar and it's the same reference point that you're discrediting them for. The Catholic Church evolved out of the Roman empire and wouldn't have gotten the traction it did but for an emporer converting to Christianity. I'm not religious but am on Neil Degrasse Tyson's side on the argument against BCE and CE. It's BC and AD whether you're "politically correct" offended by someone else's religion being credited for something good or not.
Yep, definitely makes sense. The Caledonians helped spare Ireland from imperial conquest. That said the scenario of an exiled Irish monarch going to Britain for help would occur again except this time to the Normans centuries later. Sadly the Caledonians couldn't help us on that one
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone who lives in Ireland | couldn't imagine people coming from warm Italy and saying, I want to settle here
🤣
peeps from Italy went to live in NYC, Chicago, Detroit,Cleveland... etc. and...it...gets much colder there than Ireland
Some do.
Curry chips!!!
Thank god
scotland terrain too difficut
It's too cold, too wet and you can't grow wine or olives here. Hibernia basically means winter in Latin.
😅ah, so that's where the word Hibernation comes from😅thanks for the random factoid
@@AutomatedPersonnelUnit_3947 wasn't Caledonian, Scotland
@@barrydoyle8636You mean Pictia, or Pictland.
@@barrydoyle8636 Yes. Another cold, wet, dump. England and Wales were bad enough ( “a climate most foul, with rain and cloud” wrote Tacitus) so Ireland and Scotland out of the question.
@@robinharwood5044 👍🏻😂... Yup, weather permitting, cross the Irish sea... Leave a the wet cold dump only to come across an even more Wet, Cold, and Dump of an island with the highest possibility of experiencing 4 seasons in any given 24hrs.🤔, let's turn back..👌 👍
"The worst Winter I ever experienced was April in Hibernia"-- Unknown Roman soldier.
totally made-up-what is your source ?
@@brendankane3546 It was a JOKE, genius!
@@LSeverusPertinax Once again, this is not a forum for Irish jokes-Kindly take that elsewhere.
That soldier didn't reach Glasgow 😂
"Caligula is a flamer''
- Unknown Roman soldiers collecting pretty seashells
The conquest of Britannia is one of the greatest contrasts between Caligula and Claudius. While the first was a madman obsessed with becoming a god whose delusions brought him early death and damnation, his crippled uncle (whom he marginalized for years) achieved everything he could not, conquering Britain and being declared a god after his death. Without a doubt good old Claudius got the last laugh
Good Ole Uncle Claudius
Agricola did a lot
@@RockSmithStudio👍
“Such was life for Uncle Claudius”
-Unbiased History of Rome
My uncle can relate
There was an excavation in Charlestown, Ireland 🇮🇪 in Dublin where a few university historians discovered Roman coins and religious material .
🇮🇪🤪
🇮🇪🤓
🇮🇪😁
Sure that's nothing. They found the remains of a Barbara ape up in navan fort from 2300 years ago.
romans traded lots, with coin hoards being found far outside the borders of rome. there is numerous roman artefacts in india like at Arikamedu where there was likely small trading communities.
I’m from Belfast and my family name goes back to the old Gaelic lords of Clanbrassil in Oriel under the Northern Uí Néill. In one of the earliest tracts mentioning the family name it says an ancestor was Toirdelbach ‘The Wine Drinker’.
I thought ah sweet, he liked a drink just like we still do but then I realised it wasn’t on account of drunkenness but a status nickname because he was powerful enough to bring in wine from the Mediterranean, which shows there was trade between the Mediterranean world and Ireland for millennia.
Wine is heavier than beer then?
Yes, New Ross was a spice and wine port. Some towns on the east coast of Ireland have Latin as well as Irish and England place names
France would have been close enough. And most trade was going on rivers when possible, rather then roads.
Yes. Archeologists found trinkets in Britain originating with the Etruscans!!! Now that was a long time ago...
@@peteymax No Latin names apart from some names on Dublin suburbs and Landed estates created post 18th century like Marino, Pimlico, Salermo etc. The East coast town names were Norse like Carlingford,Wicklow, Arklow and Wexford.
It was king tuathal techtmar. One of the greatest irish high kings that ever lived. That mans story alone is legendary and deserves a movie. His family got massacred and he and his mother fled to Argicola when he was just a child. Argicola raised him as his own and educated him in the roman ways . He even hired a bunch of Irish exiled warriors to be his protection. These became known as the legendary na fianna. 600 of na fianna and tuathal reconquerd ireland. The romans thought they had a puppet in place but tuathtal turned on his roman paymasters and argicola . He invaded both wales and scoland and he started those rebellions in the Highlands. Argicola got recalled to rome over it. End of his career. As he had to withdraw from the Highlands. The legends of fionn mc cool and na fianna stories all come from tuathals dynasty. Some historian's point out that it was during tuathals reign that he was able to asert a lot of control over all the scotti tribes in Ireland, Scotland and Wales, that the romans never again invaded Scotland in that kind of force and Ireland was forever off the table of conquest. which ended up with the romans building hydrians wall . Even niall of the nine hostages " the guy in the saint patricks story" was a decendant of tuathals. Niall got wacked because he demanded tribune of king of leinster . A tribute that was paid since tuathals time. Most of the roman settlements and trading post's that have been found in ireland recently date back to tuathals regin. He kept trading with rome but turned on argicola and ousted him as governor of britianna. Argicola and tuathal need a movie. Its the strory when a great roman general was bested by a barbarian king. They never had a pitched battle. Tuathtal use to invade Britain wrile up the tribes. Then jump back on the boat and be gona by the time argicola come. Tuathals dynasty ruled part's of ireland right up till the ulster plantations. Even parts of king charles crown jewels are tuathals. History is written by the Victor's. However ireland and Scotland is one place they couldn't win. So they overlook it. All dowb to a guy named tuthal techtmar. A man that had been largely written out of history because he took on a superpower and won. He always does get a wee footnite in argicolas story. They always mention the exiled irish prince.
thank you for posting ... High King of ireland Tuathal Techtmar. the ancestor of the Uí Néill and Connachta dynasties.
wiki dates >>> Túathal's exile as AD 56, his return as AD76 and his death as AD 106. Geoffrey Keating's Foras Feasa ar Érinn broadly agrees, dating his exile to 55, his return to 80 and his death to 100. The Lebor Gabála Érenn places him a little later, synchronising his exile with the reign of the Roman emperor Domitian (81-96), his return early in the reign of Hadrian (122-138) and his death in the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161).
Very interesting. Your source?
@@John-nf9ip there's plenty of historical sources. Just look them up. You won't be disappointed.
This is the Irish version. And we know it's true because no Irishman would ever lie about a thing like that.
Honestly, sometimes I have to smile. The web is full of BS but it takes an Irishman to take it to the next level.
@@TarlachOakleaf It is very easy to go look it up and educate one's self. All you need to do is google is the current UK royal family related to tuthal techtmar. The English will litterley give you the whole bloodline. This is not the Irish who are claiming this. The joke is on you. Queen Victoria, Mary Queen of scots, the entire house of York. House of hannover. Queen matilda. Malcolm the first of Scotland , Roger mortimer , Brian boru, niall of the nine hostages and tuathal techtmar are all related. It is literally the oldest royal bloodline In history.
The term "British Isles" is offensive to many Irish people. It is a term used by the invader to attempt to imply that Ireland is part of a British entity. Britain is an island, Ireland is an island. The Irish fought for hundreds of years to remove British control of the island. The acceptable term is ‘Britain and Ireland’.
IH YOUR OFFENDED.... GOOD
Imagine getting offended by the correct term.
This is modern day woke nonsense. Britain is not a nation, it's a geographical location. Even Scotland and Wales have to acknowledge they're part of Britain, regardless of political views because it's not up for debate. The term 'British Isles' has origins predating any oppression in Ireland
These archipelagos are known as the British Isles……..that’s just what they’re called ………why should that offend anyone?
@@Duncan-Bizkitts who decided to call it that?
A lot of people saying Ireland had nothing going for it, there was a lot of gold and jewellery being crafted in Ireland centuries before and after the Roman Empire
It's amusing how so many people here talk like they have done geological,agricultural, and meteorological surveys of Dear Old Ireland
Also, Rome requested Ireland rule over Dyfed a petty kingdom in wales and you find an ogham stone with latin also on it. Its how they held Wales for so long. They also used the Irish/Scottish, I will call it gaelic for now, chariots, and wheels (metal rimmed wheels invented here). They basically wrote shit about Ireland so no one else would think there was anything of worth, it was known as the land of gold because as you say the quality was so high. Basically the romans knew of the clan system where you vote for the next ruler, they knew this means its impossible to beat. In England they found kings willing to bend the knee, in return they supported the first born son, and broke the clan system in them small kingdoms. They were attempting the same in scotland and ireland. They had wined and dined a few kings. It was this system that the anglo saxons eventually used to fully break Ireland and Scotland, they got enough kings to support them and become lords with their first son supported that the clan system in both Ireland and Scotland broke. It should also be of note that the Royal navy was built with Irish oak, which at the time was the most abundent supply of high quality wood on the planet... To the romans it would have been unlimited meat, and unlimited wood, with offerings of high quality gold jewlery thrown in.
@brendankane3546 what? You know museums exist right
@@jackyback2578 yes i do-Thanks for asking !
@@geroutathatthanks very informative
Not only did the Romans ultimately decide that Ireland was not worth the cost of conquest, but Scotland, also, represented a poor return on investment. It was more profitable to wall it off (Hadrian and Antonius Pius) and enlarge the empire in other areas (Dacia/Romania and the Parthian frontier). Ultimately, Britain fell due to attacks from three sides, with attacks from Ireland and Scotland splitting the Roman defense allowing the Saxons to take over.
Rome just left, there were no scots or irish. The vikings came before the saxons.
@@NigelHatcherN Technically, the picts and Irish as the Scots originated in Ireland. However, it is true that the Roman army left to participate in the revolts of the early 5th century. This left Roman Britain intact but undefended. See St Patrick for an Irish raid in the early 5th century, the Saxons show up in force in the mid 5th century, and Gildas writing about 625 mentions a ruler in Britain who has fought effectively against the Saxons, but hates the man and does not mention his name; was it Arthur or possibly the inspiration for Arthur? The Vikings do not show up until about 793, the raid on Lindesfarne.
@@jameshorn270 I have always wondered why Rome stopped where it did at Hadrian's Wall. Considering the size of the Empire by then Scotland was tiny. "This far and no further"...WHY?
@@HollyMoore-wo2mhIt had nothing Rome wanted , good crops to feed it's empire ,or mineral wealth . Purely economic .
@@NigelHatcherNWrong on both points I'm afraid , try reading a history book .
And Irish monks played an important in christanizing northern Europe and Germania
True it's in Tom Cahill bestselling book how the Irish saved civilization
They've a lot to answer for.
In 432AD the Irish Barbarians snatched a new slave from the coast of Britain.....his name was Saint Patrick.
@@petergibson2318. That is why so many of us have a Roman name, Patricius, despite never having the Romans in Ireland.
Yes. Of all the European/Western countries, Ireland was the ONLY one that was "Christianized" without the sword. The Irish readily accepted Christian tenets since their belief system already used most Christian tenets, without the label. (P.s. I believe the Irish had some contact with the North American native tribes, especially the Cherokee. There are numerous "coincidences" in both people's social & governmental structures that cannot be ignored. IMHO)
One simple answer - horizontal rain!
People talking about weather and climate of Ireland. Nope. It's the sea. England is relatively easy to get to from France. The Irish and celtic sea that divides Ireland from both landmasses are quite difficult to navigate for roman era sea faring technology. Just not worth it
didn't stop Cromwell,sadly
Yet there was trade between what is now Wales and Ireland which would have been done by travelling across the sea. Irish Gold was found in the area of Wrexham with a spear which is believed to be from around 800BC.
too far from Rome with little apparent value. Too many other problems to fix at the time.
That makes sense. They probably didn't check to see what the locals were using to cross the Irish Sea. No one ever checks with the locals
Briton was fully central by then and was basically under de-facto rule by him so it was easier also better knowledge + not needing to worry about tons of rebellionz @brendankane3546
"I'll tell you this. If the sword is all that you're prepared to show us Britons, then be prepared to carry it forever in your hand... and sleep with it forever by your side at night! For you will need it!"
*Caratacus' speech in the Roman Senate*
fake speech, never happened
narrator: they didn't need it
And in a few hundred years their language completely changed to a Germanic one because he was wrong.
He got a standing ovation. And then they occupied Britain nevertheless.
Does this apply to you modern Brits who haven't the balls to overthrow your woke leaders or drive your muslim invaders out?
Also Ireland used top quality butter from grass fed cows while the Romans preferred olive oil.
But the all loved beef.
Romans couldn't digest dairy products very well. North western Europeans are almost 100% lactose tolerant and have no problems digesting dairy in big quantities.
Not to mention that the Irish could out-drink the Romans! Wine vs "Uisce Beatha" (anglicized to "whiskey"). 🤠🥴
Answer too cold, they never set foot here
And Guinness, whilst Romans drank poncy wine. Ireland v Italy Rugby games are an illustration of the difference)
Caligula's war against Nepture is such a shitpost lol
👍😆 He acquired Neptune's wrath in about a year and a half
Well Neptune is very windy
There's no way he wasn't bat shit crazy
There's no way he wasn't bat shit crazy
There's no way he wasn't bat shitcrazy
Julius Caesar wasn't named the "general in charge of conquering Gaul", in fact he did so against the wishes of the Senate and essentially on his own dime along with the support of Crassus and Pompey. He basically used a migrating Tribe entering Roman Territory as an excuse to conquer Gaul
If I remember it was a huge despute between Senate and Caesar to even recognise the conquest of Gaul (as he Caesar would really love a triumph for that). But having a Crassus on your side who is filthy rich (and he had some interesting idea for business) and Pompey the Great - made you powerfull allies in the Senate. That's why First Triumvirate was so important and between three - Caesar had to gain his respect and he got a lot after his campaign in Gaul. Unfortunately for him his try to land in Britain got really bad.
But fully agree - Caesar took action on his own using defense of allied tribes to Rome as means to conquer Gaul for himself (and it was great political move in many ways).
@@ozyrysozi6186not quite. Caesar hadn’t finished the conquest of Gaul (though he mostly had and had already defeated Vercingetorix at the battle of Alessia) when Crassus decided to invade Parthia because despite his riches, he was the only one of the triumvirate that did not have military glory and he became jealous of Caesar’s success and tried to out do him. Of course Crassus was humiliated and killed at the battle of Carrhae and without the 3 balancing each other, Pompey became extremely jealous and turned on Caesar. Pompey had the support of the senate, not Caesar, and Caesar was essentially branded enemy of Rome and enemy of the people when he refused to surrender his positions and accept arrest and trial by the senate.
That’s when Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon - Pompey and the Senate didn’t really leave him any choice.
@@spudeeelad True, I would say that Caesar pretty much wanted to use Crassus and Pompey as he started as the weakest of the three. In the end Caesar with his action pretty much put himself on the crosshair of the Senate, but I think that he always knew it would come with what he was doing, maybe the harsh push from Pompey, Cato and their supporters was more sudden, but if I remember correctly situation could be defused at some point and wouldn't mean starting civil war.
And yeah, Crassus was interesting guy and his death was quite a loss for Caesar I think, but like with the second triumvirate I doubt it would last long either way. Maybe it was good for Caesar if the Crassus would also oppose him in future.
And also - I believe that Senate from the start seen Caesar as trouble as he had very radical ideas.
@@spudeeelad And of course Senate accused Caesar of things he really done, so I would say they were very legitimate (not talking that they were saints, but it still was valid point).
@@ozyrysozi6186 If I remeber correctly, shortly before civil war Pompey's wife died, who was coincidentally Julius's daughter ;) Which meant, there was nothing keeping them together in Triumvirate after Crassus died and stopped bankrolling them.
What a very interesting video. Thanks for mentioning Wexford, where my father's people come from, and Carlow which is my mother's ancestral county. Also Arklow where I spent many happy summer holidays. Go raibh maith agat.
Born in Dublin and grew up in Gorey Co.Wexford and unfortunately it pains me to say it but Arklow has became a complete shit hole in the last 10 years..... I'm sure it was great craic back in the day as a youth tho
Rome ruled Britania for another 250 years after Agricola was recalled. It is not true to say the opportunity for conquest of Hibernia was lost at that point. It is more likely that because Britania finally became pacified and trade had already been established with Hibernia, the cost of conquest outweighed any perceived military or economic benefit, just as with Scotland and that, later, Rome had other priorities as the empire began to falter.
yep why waste the time money and dead soldiers on Ireland when they could use those resources building up Gaul, Spain and England that they already owned.
Seems logical to me.
I was visiting Wales and my friend and I decided to take a side trip to Ireland. Both she and I have taken many ferries. Irish Sea is unbelievably difficult which sailors would label confused. I never saw so many people throwing up at one time.
Didn't stop Cromwell , tragically
They drank British beer
The Irish Sea certainly can make one seasick. Oddly enough I had little trouble with a fair number of Larne to Stranraer ferry trips. Salmon fishing trips at the mouth of the Columbia River made me very sick.
Didn’t stop King Diarmuid MacMurchada either.
A shining beacon of Irish machismo.
Should have taken the 'Ulysses', big enough (biggest RORO in the world when launched) to take the weather. Beautiful ship, like a mini cruise.
Couldn't conquer Alba nor Erin because the Gaels of both Scotland and Ireland were/are basically one people, a warrior people who value/valued freedom above everything. That love of freedom included freedom/independence from their neighbouring clans and from each other, an inability to work together against a common foe for any meaningful length of time. They organised many small raids on Roman Britain, not with intention to conquer, but because they enjoyed battle and skirmishes, 'blooding' young warriors and because it provided individuals with a way of making 'a name for themselves' (as warriors). Basically they attacked Hadrian's Wall and the Romans ... because they were there. In the present day this psychological strength/weakness is most evident in the desire of the Scots (and Irish) for freedom from the overbearing English and their inability (since the demise of the clans) to agree amongst themselves how best to do it, a lack of cohesion fuelled by misinformation by the BBC and the politically controlled 'British' media.
Matey, the easiest way for the Scots to achieve independence is to get the English (what's left of them) to vote on the issue. Instant separation. And you can keep yer fried mars bars and bizarre Muslim political leaders.
The scoti tribe didn’t invade what is now Scotland until after the romans left. What is now Scotland was made up of Britons (modern Welsh) in the lowlands, with Welsh names still existing to this day eg Glasgow. And the Picts in the highlands.
You know nothing about history just your own fantasy they had no idea of freedom in that time all the lower were subject to their lords their idea of freedom was raiding to steal other food or women . You live in a dream world mate bantering words like freedom . one thing for certain they were not free from starvation disease , and infant mortality , still i suppose you are happy in your dream world
spot on pal
Oh boy what an insane post ,in the first instance there is no such thing as freedom ,even money can not give you freedom only independence and more choice ,only uneducated nationalist believe in freedom
Only a young Roman, son of a prominent leader, who was to become 'St Patrick', kidnapped from The Welsh Coast, can claim to've conquered Ireland; not militarily, but mentally. After escaping his Captors, he'd gone to The Vatican, was converted, and later returned to Ireland as a Monk who soon wielded great influence over The Tribes. If not for the subsequent Monasterys, none of Europe's academic knowledge would've survived The 'Dark Ages'. As for St Patrick drivin' snakes out of Ireland, a myth, given there'd not been snakes there.
Wrong St Patrick was kidnapped from St Malo in Brittany not Britan
That the first time I've ever seen the contaction of to have. to've.
Driving the snakes from Ireland is referring to driving everything non Christian from Ireland, Old Gods, old religion, old ways . . Sin/snakes
@@TheDarkCelt if that is true,can he please come back,asap
Christianity was here for at least 100 years before he arrived
Hibernia does not mean "winter" in relation to Ireland. It's a derivation of Ivernia, as the island was named by the Greek Ptolemy, who drew the first known maps of Ireland and Britain around 100CE. Ivernia probably derives from Ierne, from the goddess Eriu.
Thanks or clarifying that. I was under the aforementioned misapprehension. Aint langwij wunderfool?
Thank You, I had no idea that Ptolemy had any idea about Ireland or Ivernia. That's amazing.
@@kcw0809 .your one new word you learned is weak with your lack of other words to make yòr point .proves it
@@kcw0809 While no copies of his original map(s) survive, facsimiles have been drawn based on his writings. He seems to have lived and worked in Alexandria and there is no evidence he ever left the Mediterranean region. Not only is Ireland noted as Ivernia, to its north is "Thule" which could possibly be Iceland or Norway. He shows lands which could be modern Malaysia and Indonesia. Though individual travel was very limited back then, trade had been ongoing for centuries and knowledge of Ireland probably came from traders bringing wine and textiles to Ireland, in return for jewellery, leathers and slaves or mercenaries. The learned folk of the Eastern Mediterranean were literally at the centre of their world and they seem to have known quite a bit about it from Ireland to Indonesia.
Actually, thats a misnomer promoted by the Mainstream Academics" but it isn't accurate. (It has to do with Gaelic and Iberia, Hibernia)
The *Irish are of Basque Origin " + the "Tribe of Dann" both validated by Ancient DNA Studies.
The greater factual History is so interesting and it makes sense when the pieces are fit together.
There were books already written on this, (Mainstream Academics resisted the History), recent DNA studies has validated them.
Very exciting.
Beth Bartlett
Sociologist/Behavioralist
and Historian
.
Rome _Did_ conquer Ireland .. Why everyone in Ireland is still in denial about this is mind-boggling.
Emperor Constantine (the great) merely rebranded the Roman Empire as the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.
The old Roman Gods became The Saints, The Emperor became the Pope and the senators become the bishops.
Rome conquered Ireland a thousand years ago and we are still run by the Italians ever since ... The Pope is in ROME ffs!
You're a bit mistaken.. the British had large control of Ireland and used the religion the Romans/British brought over against us (Catholic vs Protestant). Ireland was largely Pagan during Roman times and stayed that way until the time of St.Patrick. Now if you want to talk about the Irish Republic during the 20th Century then yes the Catholic Church had HUGE power over the state at that point and committed numerous atrocious acts here. The 20th century Catholic Church decimated almost all Irish beliefs in Religion in general so a lot of people are just Atheist or don't claim a Religion. Only very old Irish people attend church now. Check out the Pope visits in 1970 vs today and you'll see the difference.
There are many inaccuracies in the first few minutes alone:
- Caesar was never tasked with conquering gaul, that was his own private (and illegal) venture. If he had not kicked off the civil war he likely would have been executed for doing so.
- Caesar's victory was pyrrhic, the Britons failed to drive him out, but he also failed to achieve a lasting foothold. The claim that he extracted a peace treaty from them is purely his claim with no confirmation in British history. It's entirely possible he reached the limit of his resources and they simply agreed to allow him to withdraw.
- If his goal was to prevent them from interfering in the roman conquest of gaul he failed. They did so routinely eventually requiring his successor to mount another invasion of britain.
As for Ireland it was simply irrelevant and likely beyond their supply chains could reasonably reach. They had no pressing reason to invade and doing so would have been unreasonably costly. Same reason they failed to colonise the north of britain.
Agreed, but much more than that. Given the politics of the late Republic, the possbility of Caesar surrendering was zero. He had a very large army, about a dozen legions, all of them highly experienced veterans, along with thousands of experienced cavalry mercenaries and light troops. This was a personal army loyal to him. The opposition in the Senate had no standing army.
No one tried to conquer Ireland because it was utterly worthless. It had no ability to produce grain. It had no significant mineral resources of any kind. Naval transport was grossly insufficient for transporting an army across the Irish Sea. Britain on the other hand was the world's largest supplier of tin and copper. For these reasons alone Britain was worth invading and conquering.
And you are quite right about the difficulty of invading Ireland. Mediterranean naval technology was just barely capable of transporting an army across the Dover Straits. It was utterly inadequate to deal with a much more hostile Irish Sea.
@@colinhunt4057 Wut? Both britain and Ireland were extremely wealthy grain producers during that time. Ireland also had significant gold/iron deposits and was an exporter of jewelry and other metal goods.
As for the naval transport question... I think you're underestimating roman capabilities. They weren't so inept that they could barely cross the English channel, a roman fleet circumnavigated britain a few decades later. Crossing the Irish sea was well within their grasp.
The issue would have been more that the lag between requesting resources and receiving them would have been too long to respond to evolving needs of a military campaign.
@@peterhoulihan9766 Have you evidence for, "Ireland were extremely wealthy grain producers during that time. Ireland also had significant gold/iron deposits and was an exporter of jewelry and other metal goods."?
@@markaxworthy2508 Grain: Britain was already well cultivated by the time the romans arrived and even had invented a primitive kind of combine harvester. There are also plenty of roman records of their agricultural exports. Based on mythology, brehon law and archeology, Ireland had a very similar economy at the time.
Metalworking: There's extensive archeological evidence of iron/gold working in Ireland and some artifacts of Irish origin have been found on the continent. Some of those gold/silver mines are still in operation.
@@peterhoulihan9766 You say, "Britain..... even had invented a primitive kind of combine harvester." Highly, highly improbable. Details and sources, please.
Real question is why didn’t Ireland conquer Rome
They went on the beer that week
@@theeaskey Have to say, it was a good week.
Good one
Whiskey
YO.😂
I enjoy your historical videos about European history. Keep up the good work, and I hope your channel gets support your channel.
If you submitted this as a history essay you'd be lucky if you passed lol. 3 of the 11 mins were relevant. This is what we needed to hear 9:50 and it was on the screen for 2 seconds. Most of the info leading up to the conquest of Britain was totally unnecessary just padding out the video.
Also, the Catholicism that reached Ireland was not very Roman at all. Ireland was the first country to be Christianised without being Romanised which resulted in 6 centuries of arguments between the Irish and Roman churches, eventually culminating in the granting of a Papal Bull by Pope Adrian VI (only English pope ever) to the Anglo-Normans called the Laudabilliter. It gave them permission to invade Ireland to "normalise Irish Christianity" so your statement of "conquering Ireland with ideas" is also incredibly off base. I just finished my history degree in ireland and it dealt a lot with this. If this were a paper I was correcting I'd fail you in a heartbeat. Try better next time.
Its thought Papal Bull was a convenient forgery.
Good slaves love Catholicism; they're used to being slaves and being Catholic is Slavery Lite.
By definition, Catholicism is Roman. Saying the "Catholicism" that reached Ireland was not very Roman is like saying water isn't wet. Missionaries were dictated by the pope and sent by Rome. Christianity didn't magically materialize out of thin air here. You had normal Roman Catholic positions like an archdiocese here long before the Laudabilliter which was to bring Gregorian reforms to Ireland from the churches point of view.
You can go ahead and tear up that history degree because it had absolutely nothing to do with "normalizing Irish Christianity".
@@I2obiNtube Uh, son? He's right. The Irish clerics were notorious for going their own way, making up their own liturgical masses (they almost all being illiterate), and having a reputation for contentiousness, ignorance and ignoring the church.
What do you expect when you get grifters, the lazy and sneaky who don a robe and call themselves priests and then wander around tupping every girl and extracting money from those superstitious?
@@I2obiNtube there has been archaeology discoveries,that at least suggest, that Greek Christianity arrived in Ireland first.
Nice video! Well put together!
The battle of Ventry was supposed to be around then. When "the king of the world" ran into The Fianna. It was very unusual that ireland was pretty unified at that time and had a standing army that went straight to intercept them. The Fianna won, their 7 battalions vs their 30. I often wondered who it could have been that they fought. Fionn MacCumhaill was supposed to have lived around the 2nd to 3rd century ad so if the story is true it was probably the romans who got their ass whooped. And when the battalions never returned they probably said "fug that" or thought they got lost in a storm or something.
Rather, why WOULDN'T the Romans conquer island. There wasn't anything to get in Ireland. Far away and just farm land. "We'll be back when you have potatoes."
Nowadays Italy is part of Tomato Europe, not Potato Europe anyway 😆
Given potatoes didn’t exist in Ireland (or in fact Europe) until the 16th century. It’d be a very long wait indeed.
@@py8554 A little known fact is that the potato actually originated In Ireland but was so highly revered by the people that they successfully hid it's existence from the rest of Europe for several centuries. The potato is the single most important thing in all of Irish history, a true cultural cornerstone. Even in the present day, 86% of Irish people say they would "fight to the death any fecker that tries to take my potatoes."
@@andrewthomson870 Little known, indeed!
@@andrewthomson870irish are descendant of potato gods.
The Romans had no chance, Ireland couldn't even conquer Ireland...
A thousand years later, the Normans conquered Ireland instead.
The guy was impersonated Loki
It's still divided, but I've read that Rome Rule is weakening in the Republic, See the Wikipedia account of Rev. Ray Davey, for one of the good Protestants in the North.
Brian Boru did, hell Britain wasn't even worth holding for the Romans, never mind Ireland, though, if they had taken the whole lot they possibly wouldn't have had to leave such a big garrison as a base for future coup's. Britian might have bit worth for the first little while because of the mines, like with Dacia.
@Paddy234 I am aware, and accurate enough...
So a bit of rain and the mighty roman soldiers turned their boats around? They feared the Scots and probably met fierce resistance in Ireland but they would never write that.
Scots didn’t come until after the romans left. What is now Scotland was made up of Britons (modern Welsh) and Picts. Welsh names still survive in the lowlands of Scotland even now.
The Scots were decimated in every open battle with the Romans. They kept fleeing to the hills like rats so they were impossible to fully wipe conquer.
If you actually look into it from Roman soldiers letters at the time they were scared of the British isle’s inhabitants generally
Question:What became of Rome's fearsome 9th Legion ? Answer:disappeared without a trace attempting to conquer Caledonia a.k.a., Scotland.
@@brendankane3546 Caledonia was a Brythonic kingdom. It was the low lands of scotland and parts of northern England. Or as we call it in Welsh “Hen Ogledd” which means “the old north”
Very informative for less than 12 minutes. Thank you.
They met us Scottish people and decided that we were impossible to civilize(think of the very worst of Celtic vs. Rangers fans) Then they met the Irish, and discovered that the Irish were just the same, but with a more mental outlook and dangerous charm.
Yes - They met the ancestors of the Rangers fans & decided not to take on the Ancestors of the Celtic fans.
What is now Scotland was Welsh bar the highlands which was pict. Welsh names still exist in the lowlands like Glasgow for example.
@@alynwillams4297 Well they wouldn't have been regarded as "Welsh", but merely ancient Briton tribes. You are correct in thinking that the last of the truly ancient Briton DNA, is almost exclusively confined to Wales. I find the ancient Welsh, very handsome, attractive people, but then I'm an ancient Pictish and very ancient Irish combo.
The Irish tribe called the Scotia (Scots) conquered the Picts and established the name Scotland.
To this day Irish people love telling Scottish people what the place-names in Scotland mean.
Cairngorms =The Blue Mountains. Ardnamurchan = The Promontory over the bay. etc. etc.etc..
@@petergibson2318 absolute nonsense behave yourself
I read in the 1970s from an early Roman History that one of the major reasons ,the Romans
wanted to come to Ireland was to acquire Obsidian - which the Romans needed
for their surgical instruments .
The Romans were seriously advanced in surgical techniques and their instruments
are followed right up to today - by Western surgeons.
Obsidian was considered by them the best edged surgical blade as it held its
sharpness much longer than typical Flint .
It is well known that an Obsidian Mine was operational near Lough Neagh in Co. Antrim .
( Sandy Braes. Co. Antrim . )
Such a mine would have been a great prize to the Roman Empire .
My answer is that Rome was overstretched logistically and spread too thin in terms of manpower.
That was recognised later when 'limes' were constructed and imperial expansion ended.
Someone should have told Trajan that; he went on to conquer Dacia and Mesopotamia which are many times larger than Scotland and Ireland combined.
Alos the Irish sea was alot more dangerous the the Mediterranean and a longer voyage then just crossing the English channel.
......and didn't see the point. Not much there but hostile primitive tribes.
Not couldn't. Didn't. They couldn't be arsed.
England was so shit the Romans decided to stop going west
what books have you read on this subject ? because the Romans knew they would be whupped.i realize this is very difficult for the Irish haters to accept,nevertheless it is an historical fact.
@@brendankane3546 What evidence is there the Irish could have resisted the Roman empire when they couldn't resist Scandinavian pillagers or Cambro-Norman warlords?
@@niallbyrne2680 Did you ever hear of King Brian Boru of Ireland ?-defeated the Danish Vikings-The Norman "warlords" intermarried with the Irish,and quickly assimilated-and the Roman military engineers estimated 10,000 causalities trying to invade Hibernia.
@@niallbyrne2680Scandinavian “pillagers” were never able to conquer Ireland unlike England, the Normans also didn’t take over Ireland there was constant war and the Norman/English outside the pale became Gaelicised the Gaelic resurgence played a large role in this
Tge Romans called Ireland Hibernian as in ‘Winter’ as it was always cold; it was also very thickly covered in forests & very difficult to penetrate into. So they left it alone fortunately!
title should be closer to 'why was ireland of so little value to rome' because realistically rome could have invaded and occupied very easily but there was just nothing there of value that the romans wanted, same goes for scotland, they bang on about 'grrrrrrrrr the romans couldnt take us on so they built a wall' no, the romans could have very easily invaded and occupied scotland, it just wasnt worth it, theres nothing there for rome to take, all it would do is take resources that could be used elsewhere, hence the cheapest option was just build a wall and forget they even exist.
There, there son. There's no need to get your Jimmies in a wad. It's ancient history and has no bearing on our lives today. If it makes you feel better we can arrange to give Rome a participation trophy and instead of saying that they lost we'll just say that they were simply just the last winner from now on too.
@@lowkeykarnak cry me a river sunshine, no need to bawl ur eyes out
Then why build a wall? I also know it gives Rome:
1 - during down time it gives an army sometimes to do (keeping them busy)
2 - a way to collect taxes from travelers. (more money) If there wasn't travelers that they could collect taxes from then why the gates?
@@HollyMoore-wo2mh because building a wall is cheaper than having to assemble small armies constantly to fight off petty raiders from the north, build a wall, place a few soldiers at gates and its done, no raids, no battles no minor wars.
@@v_cpt-phasma_v689 I do not agree with that. Why the gates then?
They came and saw how crap the weather is and called it Hibernian which means “Winter” enough said
They didn’t even try, just like when the vikings turned up and could only control 5 small coastal areas the Irish had fantastic warriors
I happened to visit Dublin one thousand years after its founding, by the Vikings.
Keep up the great content!
Thanks!
Co. Kilkenny is short for County Kilkenny, and the emphasis is on Ken.
They killed Kenny?
omg they killed Kenny
I didnt know what this comment was about until I heard it
They came, they conquered and their lasting effect on Britain is still visible to this day. From ancient forts, roads and walls, to villas, palaces and spas, discover Britain’s Roman legacy.
By Penelope Rance
Technology, architecture, language, government, town planning - even a sense of national identity. The depth of the Roman influence on the British Isles was such that it survives to this day, seemingly unmatched by that of any of the invading forces that followed them. But then, the majority of those invaders, and the subsequent ruling elites, wanted nothing better than to be Roman themselves.
These heirs to the Roman ideal - Saxons, Danes, Normans, Plantagenets, Tudors, Georgians and Victorians - all tried to establish Britain as part of a wider empire, drawing on the example set by those first imperial overlords.
They couldn't get planning permission for their Forts😂😂
They probably didn't know who to give the brown envelopes too
@@pablodiaz5014there is roman forts in the Iran isles,off the coast of Galway, my mum comes from there and been there twice, it's the most western point in eire, looking over the Atlantic, next stop would be america
😂😂😂
Imperial bureocracy
Several reasons the Romans never invaded Ireland:
- A longer sea voyage across the open Atlantic (which the Roman forces that invaded present-day England were reluctant to cross even for the narrower gap between Gaul and Britain).
- A cold, damp climate that the Romans considered uninviting
- A population of fierce tribes, similar to those in Caledonia, but with much more "iffy" logistics for supplying, reinforcing and, if things went badly, evacuating Roman armies, thanks to the aforementioned longer ocean voyage to travel there.
- Tricky, sneaky leprechauns who were too lucky for the Romans to defeat
- The fact that the only known mineral resources were "sham rocks", which were of no use to Romans
- A lack of potatoes there at the time, as those were still in the Andes Mountains waiting for Europeans to find out they existed and import them to Europe many centuries later
- An excess of corned beef and cabbage due to the aforementioned lack of potatoes
what did Britannia provide the Roman Empire,that Hibernia could not ? This is not a rhetorical question,i expect an answer from you ! Please don't be bashful now,or give me some silly answer either.
@@brendankane3546 Tin and gold, plus decent farmland. More importantly, controlling Britannia protected Rome's northern flank, i.e. Gaul, enabling Rome to concentrate on Germania, first offensively and later defensively. Put another way, Rome didn't need Britannia for its own sake but left to themselves England and Wales (as they became) were a threat. Ireland and Scotland weren't.
@@patrickneylan How did the Romans even know the resources of Ireland ? they were not there.Furthermore,gold and "decent farmland " was abundant in Hibernia and how do YOU know about tin in Ireland ? Put another way,the Romans wisely realized their invasion would fail. Also the Scottish Highlander clans put a major,major hurt on two of the best Legions-and one fearsome Roman legion was lost without a trace in Caledonia (courtesy, History Channel ) Now,if i may hear from Damon,please,like i asked in the first place.
"- An excess of corned beef and cabbage due to the aforementioned lack of potatoes." 😂
@@brendankane3546 Why precisely do you "expect an answer" from me? In any case, you can find my answers (serious or otherwise) to your question in the list in my original post above.
Actually, Boudica's uprising was crushed after some initial success and lasted for about one year. Caratacus of the Catuvellauni on the other hand, managed to resist for about 10 years. After facing the romans head on and losing he employed guerrilla tactics. Now he was the major thorn in the roman boot.
The archaeologists working on the roman remains of Chester came to the decision that the size of the town was significantly larger than they expected ; roman town planning was quite standardised . Chester was designed to hold a roman army Legion and all the people who supported the troops , it aught to have been the size of Caerleon , near Newport in Wales . The reason for the increased size was possibly that Chester was intended to be the main port for the invasion of Ireland . I did say possibly ......but that was the idea of the televised program archaeologists .
The romans had such a hard time with the Scottish celts when they heard of the Irish celts were even fiercer and stronger warriors they didn’t bother occupying
The Scottish are an Irish tribe. The scoti. They didn’t arrive in what is now Scotland until after the romans left. The lowlands of Scotland were Briton (modern welsh) with Welsh names still existing to this day like Glasgow
@ChadMcChopper.Picts were Britons. Similar language as what we now call Welsh
Perhaps the Romans thought the Hibernians were too fierce to try to subjugate just like the Caledonians. Being they were Celtic it isn't hard to figure out being the Celts were a thorn in the side for the "Pax Romana".
Ireland was never and is not now a "British Isle" . It's offensive to the Irish people to refer to Ireland as such
Everything offends the Irish!
Nation of victims
Yes , now piss off !!@@kenrehill8775
@@kenrehill8775what ever the English are always whinging never happy.
The Irish are positive and always happy.
The great famine English rule allowed fuedalism to continue much longer than in England.
England lost in the end and now Independent Ireland had flourished especially since joining the E U.
Now England is out of the EU they are struggling while Ireland continues on with no barriers to trade.
@@MichaelEnright-gk6yc I work with a lot of Irish and they’re as a big as the English for whining, that’s why they drink so much.
Yep EU hand out fool you all I to think you’re rich. Tried to buy a house recently? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁💯
You can support us creating more videos about Rome by becoming a member, here on RUclips or on Patreon:
ruclips.net/user/Knowledgiajoin
www.patreon.com/Knowledgia
By doing so you will be able to watch our videos FIRST and with No Ads. And you will support us a lot, as any dollar helps immensely in our production process.
Thank you for your consideration!
Because Emperor Domitianus had Agricola removed as Governor General of Britannia, Agricola wrote that he could subdue Caledonia with a couple of Roman Legions. Emperor Flavius Domitianus was obviously jealous.
The emperor realised that Scotland was never going to supply the taxes necessary to finance its conquest,hence the decision not to bother. Dacia was a far more appealing prospect!
@@paulmasterson386 So the Emperor let the Dacians have land, and paid them off instead, until Trajan fixed that mess. Sounds like he was jealous of Agricola's achievements to me.
👍👍 i had learn a lot from this
If u learn fiction you retain fiction.
egendary figures and pivotal moments that shaped its identity. This documentary brilliantly captures the spirit of the Irish people, showcasing their enduring legacy and influence on world history. A must-watch for anyone interested in the deep, mystical roots of this captivating island
The very question betrays a misunderstanding of Roman civilisation. Although generals were inclined to boast about their "conquests" the reality is that the empire spread more like the EU - by trade deals, harmonisation and infrastructure development. People queued up to JOIN the empire voluntarily and that is certainly true in Britain - the "invasion" was at the invitation of British tribes that were already important trading partners. The "pax romana" ultimately benefited everyone, which is why the whole country remained nostalgic about Roman union for centuries afte it collapsed (hence "King Arthur"). Its also why Rome had to build walls - including Hadrians - to keep illegal migrants out (and levy taxes on goods). Given that context, its obvious that Ireland didn't join the Roman empire because there was no money in it. Much of it was bogland after all. Same in Scotland. Neither battles nor rebels had anything to do with it. BTW, this view also explains why the Irish were so enthusiastic about Christianity at an early date - because it opened doors to the Roman and post-Roman civilisation they had previously been denied.
This is the best statement I've seen in a coon's age. I'm no historian, strictly a layman, but this instinctively and intellectually (as far as my poor intellect can go) is the truth as far as I'm concerned. If only all history were reworked and re-presented to us from this kind of viewpoint I think it would make much more sense. We in fact have plenty of relatively recent demonstrations of this kind of mechanism I think, haven't we? Isn't this how the British occupied India?
It is true, in my opinion, that continental Europe was better off as Roman Empire than in the Dark Ages.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 I don't know but haven't I heard that 'the dark ages' is a misnomer and in fact there is much on record from those times? if so the truth could be established perhaps?
What percentage of Hibernia was " bogland ?-Also,you act like it was some kind of special privilege to be under the Roman boot.Well,look no further than what the Romans did to the King of Gaul.How about the Roman treatment of the Celts of Britannia,including,but not limited to Queen Boudicia and her Royal daughters.Please do not Shadowban,Thanks !
When the Romans moved in, many Britons (ancient British) fled to Wales and Ireland because the mountains and rough seas made it difficult for the Romans to hold an invasion.
Wales, Ireland and Scotland are where the most true British bloodlines are.
Don’t say that, they’ll get all offended 😂😂😂
@@Duncan-Bizkitts They're quite proud of it
Welsh being the Germanic word in which the Anglo Saxons called the Britons. The Welsh call themselves “Cymru” or “Cymry” meaning “countrymen” or “citizens” referring themselves as the natives of Britain
As an Irishman I can happily confirm we are still undisciplined and ignorant of all virtue.
The Romans would've undoubtedly took control of Ireland. I suspect the resources it would take to hold it would be more than they expected.
Curious history question: when you use the label "BCE" (before common era), what is the historical event that initiated the common era?
Better question, why not zero and negative years CE?
Part of the broader programme to marginalise Christianity.
Christian Era and Before Christian Era mate ;)
Not many people care about any fairy tale about a god being born, these days. It is called education.
@@Andrew-yl7lm Just the same as BC and AD then!
Caesar did not realise the range of the tides, but he could see the coast of Britain from Gaul.
Even Agricola in Môn in north Wales, could not see Hibernia, over the horizon.
The Irish Sea is too difficult a water body to cross militarily.
Please lose your " British Isles " reference. There's Hibernia and Britannia, perfectly unambiguous to the Romans.
Where Rome conquered depended on the internal politics at the time, their army and navy were unbeatable. They created a fleet in Chester at one time to enable the full scale invasion of Ireland but this idea was abandoned when the power struggles became inward rather than outward
There are several Roman graves to be seen on the Arran Islands on the west coast. So it is only a half arsed effort at research...
@@jimmymcjimmyvich9052 as I said in first comment, on the arran isles, which are three islands, inshiseah is we're my mum was born, it has a roman Fort, which they say is haunted, and I myself have been in the top of it., looks straight out to the atlantic
@@Vince-l4k There is no Island named inshiseah. Maby research better, Ask your ma)))
@@Vince-l4k Dun Aengus is not a Roman fort.
The picts hammered and terrified the romans in scotland and their cousins were in ireland. Ireland was also covered in forest which was not where the romans liked to fight.
As someone who loves lives in Italy can't imagine my friends from fresh cool Ireland settling here but they love it for a couple of weeks every summer❤
What happened to change BCE to CE? Was there a particular historic event? That would make an interesting video.
Answer: Failure to invent zero, and negative numbers
Christ, bro
Simple. While Irish people can be marvelous, they are also determined!
and dense
@@derekhough-jm9gc hateful bot,not a real person.
@@derekhough-jm9gcbetter educated population than the British these days.
@@brendankane3546 perhaps if i wasn't irish i might experience his jealousy ?
Nonsense, they are being eradicated in front of our eyes by their glorious EU ubermenschen and their imported various dross. Should have kept the British in charge, silly people.
Nicely done, pithy and interesting. Please do some more 😊
Too miserable raining all the time and windy, cold you are never guaranteed a summer
Tell that to the asylum seekers🤣
Could they have? Probably with a massive resource commitment that they would never see a return on investment for.
The English didn't have that much of a problem taking over and owning the country for hundreds of years.
Weather in Northern Europe during Roman times would have been colder than now. So if it is cold now, it would have been even colder than.
'British Isles' is a colonial and outdated term, and is particularly anachronistic when used in the context of the Roman Empire
A lot of doubts about the seashell stories tbh.
I would expect him to get there but soldiers just said "fu** it we don't want to go" and he just abandoned the plan. Even Claudius years later had a problem with legion's motivation as they didnt like the idea of being few days in bad weather on the ship (while most of them couldn't even swim) to some barbarian land they didn't even hear of or what they heard was just nightmare they had already lived through in Germania but worse. I would not be that happy if my garrison duty changed to an invasion of "Siberia".
I trust it. Seashells crushed into powder was an important ingredient in some Roman concrete. Now the legions were there and not sailing anywhere anyway it would have been a somewhat valuable resource to bring back with them. Collecting them makes sense. As for the stones they could be used in road construction projects (locally I guess; I doubt they brought them back to Rome). But the "war with Neptune" story sounds like Caligula being childish (or mad).
@@kubium7546 You might be right. The story goes that Caligula had forgotten to arrange ship transport for the legions. But after his death people (probably for good reason) loved to ridicule him, so we should probably take that story with a grain of salt. Perhaps many ships wrecked before the invasion like on Caesar's first attempt? But some level of mutiny could have played it's part. We might never know the truth.
@@larsrons7937 I think they had seashells in Italy tbh.
@@lightdrizzle Yes, naturally. But it would still give them some "booty" to bring home for appearance's sake. It doesn't look rgeat to return home emptyhanded. And even if not worth bringing home it could be of good use more locally. It wasn't unusual for soldiers to collect materials for their own construction projects.
Hibernia, Roman name for Ireland, is related to the Latin word for Winter, example, hibernate.
Maybe the Romans just did not like the constant rain and low, by Roman standards, temperatures. The same could apply to Scotland. Came to Ireland, stayed a year, reported back, "Nah, nothing worthwhile there, I think we'll leave it."
A better question is why didn’t Ireland take Rome?
Too hot.
Imagine the sunburn!
C'mon, 😂
At the time ,Ireland was coast-to-coast dense oak forested,and had a de-facto coast guard.The Romans could not land and get in proper battle formation
Who said the Romans couldn't take Ireland?
They chose not to I assume because the rewards, very little in natural resources, did not justify the costs.
Agreed, they could've but it wasn't worth the trouble. Not enough of a return on the investment of conquest. Ireland probably would be different today if they had. My Ulster English ancestry would have never been if they had.
@@zuppymac-xi8rk Rubbish. The sort of resources which mattered were things like minerals. The principal reason for taking Britain was to control its Tin production.
@@zuppymac-xi8rk Ireland had run out of copper 1000 years before the Romans.
Correct
@@zuppymac-xi8rk Rubbish, Ireland had very little Iron, Gold or Silver being mined in Roman times.
Short answer - not worth the blood it would take
Hibernia had no known mineral resources- unlike England, Scotland and Wales that had copper, lead silver gold and tin.
The losers lament- Never fancied her anyway.
@@catinthehat906 So the place name of Silvermines in Tipperary was just a clever ruse?
@@catinthehat906 Fake news
@@SirAntoniousBlock how about the "Ring of Kerry" ? chock full of gold.
Maybe they didn't like the idea of eating a lot of potatoes and preferred a diet or pasta.
No spuds in Europe, let alone Ireland, until they were brought back to England by Sir Walter Raleigh in the latter end of the 16thC. They were comparatively easy to cultivate - ideal for the peasant economy of rural Ireland.
Basically the Romans got to England and didn't really care for it. They got to Wales and positively HATED it. Ireland is basically more Wales but harder to get to in Roman ships.
Of course they did there was tin and silver mines there for the taking.
@@Gallogley From my understanding all Roman attempts to conquer, civilize or subjugate the Celts ended up in financial ruin. Sure, they could conquer the local tribes and establish Roman cities but nothing good ever actually came of it. From what I read Britain was known as a place of disease, savagery and foreigners. It was basically Germania, but worse because it was full of even crazier barbarians and was seperated from land by miles of deadly freezing water.
England didn’t exist at this point. All of Britain was what we now call Welsh. “Welsh” being the Germanic word in which the invaders called the native Britons.
Correction: Roman Catholicism was in Britain when the Romans left. It was wiped out by the Anglo-Saxon invasions. It was Irish missionaries who started bringing it back. Also, the island was NEVER called England until after the Anglo-Saxon conquest, which changed the name of part of the island to England (Anglo-land).
So,they were throwing Christians to the lions in back in Rome-and evangelizing Britannia simultaneously ? Hmmm,you sure about that ?
@@brendankane3546 Very sure. The persecutions were in the 1st and 2nd centuries. The Christian missionaries were 4th and 5th centuries.
@@richardthomas5362 Clever answer, the worst years of the persecutions were the 1st and second centuries-they continued until around 313 AD-the fourth century-so your timeline is very much in doubt,but nice try,for sure-(insert SAD face emoji here )
Angle-land not Anglo from the the word Angles a Northern Germanic peoples who invaded Southern and eastern Britannia named from the area called the Angeln peninsula now in Northern Germany but before the late 19c was part of Denmark.
They didn’t even conquer Scotland
couldn't is the proper word.
The Romans under Agricola went up into the far north of Scotland and defeated the Caledonian at Mons Graupius.
They never settled in Scotland and could not conquer. They built two walls to try and keep the Picts back. First they built the Antonine wall , when that failed they built Hadrians wall again that failed and they gave up . The were constantly harassed by small guerrilla groups and found the terrain to difficult to conquer.
@@brendankane3546
Didn't is the proper word.
Scotland didn’t exist. It was part Briton (modern Welsh) and Pict. The scoti tribe didn’t invade until after the romans left
Actually the Romans did land there looked around and said "Nah. Not worth the effort" similar to what they did in Scotland virtually conquered Scotland, discovered no mining of any worth and would cost more to stay than leave so built a wall and said "Here will be the border"
the Scots destroyed the 3 top Legions of Rome attempting to conquer them.
It´s not Ceasar as written in the documentary, but CAESAR
If you ever felt stupid, just remember caligula ordered his men to stab the water.
As an "Irelander" I tell u all it was "The Poitin!" They couldn't handle it, went blind and marched joyfully off the Cliffs of Moher as we all sang 👍🇮🇪💕
they did not want Ireland; very different from not being able to conquer it, they didn't even try!
what are the names of the books that you have read on this subject ? or is this just bias-driven improv ?
@@brendankane3546 brittania alone costed more to defend than what it generated - no need to take offence, ireland now and 2000years ago are pretty different, duh
@@mabeSc i asked what books you have read,and btw,i'm not offended
@@brendankane3546 there is not much especially focused on hibernia during the roman empire - the only decent books that i've read on the subject are Roman Ireland and Ireland's Forgotten Past (not really on the romans, just a mix)
@@mabeSc you must know that Roman military engineers predicted 10,000 causalities attempting to invade Hibernia-? Also,bear in mind,Roman and English historians are very,very slow to give any credit to Irish,Scottish,for obvious reasons.
You should be using BC and AD, otherwise good video
No, BCE and CE are the standard for scholarship. BC and AD is a Christian only system and most of the world isn't Christian.
@@Lexivor and yet they still count from the birth of Jesus Christ? CE and BCE is a ridiculous system. Stick to BC and AD, thank you.
It's now politically correct to use CE and crap like that. Yu call tell the author is a youngling educated in a modern school system.
Why was my reply deleted??
@@Lexivor Yup, and I guess now we have to stop saying "Ok" and "Chiao" and "siesta" and all those other words that arn't "Approved" by some self-appointed committee of morals and standards?
And uh, most of the world IS christian, largest amount until the world started bringing medicine to the muslims.
No one had ever heard of CE etc except the atheists and muslims. Now these "scholars" think they're cool to be different.
The Romans failed to conquer the Scots and decided that Scots that knew how to swim could only be a bigger headache!
Scots were still in Ireland. They’d of been Welsh in modern context
wasn't it St Patrick, not the Roman Empire, who brought Christianity to Ireland?
Also why do all your maps mark the Roman frontier well south of Hadrian's wall?
No It was Palidus who brought christianity to ireland It was Patrick who beat the snakes into defeat.
No. It was here a century at least before he arrived
The weather was too poor.
Ireland = Hibernia = land of winter
You know the old Roman joke
"What's the difference between winter and summer in Hibernia?"...."in summer the rain gets slightly warmer"😅
The use of BCE and CE is a sign of historical dishonesty.
Please tell us why, and what system you would employ to replace these commonly-accepted terms. After all, the islamics use the date of the hegirah - the year that the founder of their religion legged it to escape slaughter by his fellow countrymen - so what's to prevent the rest of the civilised world from using a similar bit of a religious 'landmark' to describe a date/time?
They didn't like the weather
Ireland would have been worth the expedition due to the abundance of livestock and wood alone. What people miss out on is that Ireland was dense forest across most of the land. The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest was still very fresh in the minds of every Roman at the time. The psychological impact would have been enormous. It was another sea to cross into a world of superstition and druids. Irelands climate was also warmer than today(not amazing but winters were mild in comparison to Central Europe) with vineyards found at archaeological digs from around that time. It’s geographic location, the psychological factors, the lack of strategic value and also the PAX Romana played a crucial role in the decision.
When Hadrian built his wall, it cost a lot of man power. But with Ireland, if Mother Nature had already done the hard work, who were they to argue.
Stop using BCE and CE. It's BC and AD. It was a group of Jesuit priests that came up with the Gregorian calendar and it's the same reference point that you're discrediting them for. The Catholic Church evolved out of the Roman empire and wouldn't have gotten the traction it did but for an emporer converting to Christianity. I'm not religious but am on Neil Degrasse Tyson's side on the argument against BCE and CE. It's BC and AD whether you're "politically correct" offended by someone else's religion being credited for something good or not.
St.Gregory came up with that calendar,and also musical notation.St.Ignatius Loyola started the Jesuit order much later in history.
The Romans couldn't conquer Ireland because there were the Irish there. That's a HUGE obstacle...
Not huge at all,most Irish are practically dwarves
Don't know mate, the English did alright. However, Erin go bragh.
@@jeramyahrussell2784 English had a thousand years,couldn't get it done.Made a huge,huge,huge mess of it,nevertheless.
Yep, definitely makes sense. The Caledonians helped spare Ireland from imperial conquest. That said the scenario of an exiled Irish monarch going to Britain for help would occur again except this time to the Normans centuries later. Sadly the Caledonians couldn't help us on that one
THEY DIDN'T CONQUER IRELAND BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CAPPUCCINO.