Scotland Unconquered

I've always wondered, what was the reasoning for the Romans not conquering Scotland? I highly doubt tbe inhabitants were that strong. Is there evidence that the Romans were using defense in depth, possibly forseeing germanic tribes making landings in the north?

Well, I think the Romans just had better things to do, thats all. The Caladonians were smashed at the battle of Mons Grapius in 84AD. But as soon as the legions went away, they all rose up again and kept rebelling no matter how many times they were ethnicly clensed. Scotland wasn't paticularly attractive to the Romans anyway - too cold and hilly - they never really made a big deal about securing it. Of course Hadrian and Antonius Pius put their walls up to keep them out of Britain though.

Latter on Septimis Severus attempted to conquer them but fell ill and died before he could finish doing it. Huge amounts of Scots, Picts and Saxns also swarmed into Britain in 367AD, but Theodosius thrashed them.

possibly forseeing germanic tribes making landings in the north

I don't know about this, the Romans evacuated Britain on their own accord after their borders were crumbling back on the mainland at the start of the 5th Century.

There was some talk of conquering Scotland and Ireland to crush the last remaining vestiges of Celtic independence ... but the combination of bad terrain and more pressing matters in other parts of the empire meant they never got around to doing it.

Problem with Caledonia was that there really wasn;t much else to do but herd animals. The caledonians had a few rural settlement but hardly noteworthy, so it would have been very hard for an urban society such as Rome to get a hold of it. Their lasting independence is prove they never accepted Rome's ways - they never became a vassal state such as in other instances.

The Caledonians were defeated at Mons Grapius, but not crippled. Eventually the Romans abandoned the Antonine Wall - probably because the Picts made it too expensive to remain present in Caledonia. The Romans lost their field advantage in their forts, and the Caledonians supposidly managed to inflict harmful numbers of casualties.

But mathematically, if they were all that threatened them, given the finiteness of the terrain, it would be in the Roman intrests to take the region and settle it, cause after a shaky early occupation, all the troops used to defend Hadrian's wall could move forward and occupy the north, increasing revenues and the mercenary pool. With this, they'ld be able to reduce the total occupation forces in the British Isles all together, turning it from a region that sucked in troops to one that produced them for attacking mainland Europe.

Could the reason they didn't want to take the north be because they wanted them to take the initial punch of the Anglo-Saxon (or perhaps another group) without cost of pressure to retaliate immediately? I'm not denying it was a difficult area to hold, but from a financial/manpower point of view, if the germans look as if they would want to invade, what would be the point of conquering the north?

Saxon raids did occur but there was no full-scale migration/invasion going on until after the Western Roman Empire fell. Most Anglo-Saxons were actually invited to Britain as mercenaries under a Romano-Celtic king. That's when they settled and became dominant.

Kick me if I don't have my facts straight.

The Roman Empire was already overstretched by the time it reached Caledonia. My impression is that they lacked the resources and capability for a Romanisation of Caledonia, so instead they build a nice wall and loaded it with auxiliary to keep the Caledonians out.

I've always wondered, what was the reasoning for the Romans not conquering Scotland? I highly doubt tbe inhabitants were that strong.

Ah well, forget the Caledonii and the Picts, and the Celts and the Rangers. Although we may eat it today (the domesticated version), there was a strange, vicious beasty that struck fear into the hearts of the Romans - the Haggis!

Three-legged, fiercely territorial, and undetectable beyond twenty paces, it would strike, launching from the heather and attach itself to the unwitting legionary's face. It would then implant a wee baby haggis into the poor victim, sending him into a coma while the horrid thingy gestated. Of course, his comrades would try to cut it off, but the acid for blood soon put a stop to this practice. Hence, walls were built, spanning the entire country - not to keep the wild men of the North at bay, but to protect the rest of Brittania from this evil creature and its symbiotic parasite, the Neap. Two legions fought terrible battles against the Haggis before abandoning the fort at Inchtuthil forever. The first, XX Valeria Victrix, was to retreat south to Chester. The second, IX Hispana, was never to be seen again......

They should have just tried nuking them from orbit .... it's the only way to be sure, after all.

Is that the reason the British have such bad teeth, to make their heads as unattractive as possible to the hummis?

Gingivitis seems like it would be an awful STD, having to brush those delicate organs three times a day....ooooohhhh!

Is that the reason the British have such bad teeth, to make their heads as unattractive as possible to the hummis?

No, that would be the other fiend of the British Isles - the 20th Century British school dentist! Often referred to, by my South African dentist, as "the Butchers of Modern Dentistry".

I've always wondered, what was the reasoning for the Romans not conquering Scotland? I highly doubt tbe inhabitants were that strong. Is there evidence that the Romans were using defense in depth, possibly forseeing germanic tribes making landings in the north?

Sorry I'm late on this one (must've been while I was on vacation)

Mainly they didn't conquer Scotland because they couldn't flush the Picts and Caledones out of the highlands. They tried on several occasions beginning with Agricola through to Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Severus and Caracalla. The Romans were simply incapable of defeating an enemy who refused to face them in open battle.

Many will argue that the Romans did not conquer Caledonia in its entirety because it was unnecessary. Yes, there was no great advantage for Rome in conquering these lands (ie from a natural resource or economic perspective) but it would it not have been tactically preferred to conquer the land and Romanize it rather than spend time and resources building two massive walls and fortification systems (Hadrians and Antonines). Even Severus, the master soldier that he was, was unable to provide any lasting solution to the problem posed by the northern tribes.

I understand there are many reasons why anyone wouldn't want to invade Scotland back then. But its boggles me why Rome stopped short. Terrain shouldn't have been a deterrent. It never really was before. Just to get out of Italy the Romans have to cross the Alps which are at least as treacherous as anything Britain has to offer. They've fought in the dark, thick forests of Germania. THey fought in the desert environment of Egypt. Rugged terrain in Asia Minor. Terrain couldn't have been the reason.

There are two possible explanations left the way I see it. Lack of resources to go on or fear. I'd say it's evident priority for resources were for the east. All the great hubs of trade were in the east. What would've been the strategic purpose of conquering Scotland? A launchpad for the invasion of Iceland? Scandinavia?

Scotland would've been a waste.

But, Romans were known for their excesses. So why not. It would've given them more slaves at least. And the additional wool from the sheep could've given some profit in the trade arena. So, it couldn't have been their conservative impulse that restrained them from moving further north.

From the little I've read about the battles in Briton they were quite bloody. The Britons didn't tend to break and run like the Gauls. Maybe the Romans had finally met an enemy that actually made them "not" want to fight anymore.

They've fought in the dark, thick forests of Germania.

Agreed, but again these were people the Romans were incapable of completely subduing. Whatever the reasons, of which there are a multitude, I believe the same things can be translated for the conditions in Caledonia. Whether it was logistics, fear, a determined resistance, lack of a single cohesive target, etc. I truly believe the Romans were incapable of conquering 'Scotland' in the time period where it could have happened historically.

Consider it this way.. if all things were 'right' and there were no pressures in the east, and the Germanics were not an issue, and there were no civil wars, I believe that the Romans could have technically bested the fragmented tribes in the highlands. However, these problems were real concerns of the empire, and coupled with the other things already mentioned, the conquest of Caledonia was impossible.

Shoot, they could of given much of the northern lands up for settlements with a section of the invading barbarian groups, a joint conquest. Imagine joint roman/barbarian control of the north sea! Speaking of which, how far north are the Romans known to of traveled?

''But, Romans were known for their excesses.''

Actually, if anything Romans were practical.