Why Didn't The Romans Invade Ireland?

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Hi all.

I've taken time out from my History Thread Lurker Mode to ask a brief question of those with more knowledge than I.

I believe, although I may be proven wrong, that Scotland was too difficult to attack and occupy given the lay of the land and the possible rewards. But that leaves me with the question of:

Why didn't the Romans invade Ireland*?

I presume that effort to maintain control of Britain meant that there was a lack of political will but if anyone could enlighten me I would be obliged

*Of course if I'm wrong and they did attack feel free to point this out too

 

[Gelion]

Here's a counter question:
Why would they want to invade Ireland?

 

[Plotinus]

I'd say - with my limited knowledge - that by the time the Romans were in a position to consider mounting an attack on Ireland (ie, when mainland Britain was mostly assimilated), they had largely given up invading other countries simply out of a desire for expansion. I think this had occurred by roughly the middle of the second century AD. After that time, most of the battles on the borders of the empire were defensive - either strictly defensive, fighting invading hordes of one kind or another, or sort of pre-emptive strikes, attacking the hordes to protect the hinterland. Ireland was no threat and therefore not worth fighting.

 

[steviejay]

That would be my understanding. They had no wish to. They invaded Britain mainly to control the Tin deposits (correct me if I'm wrong) in England but I'm not sure what resources Ireland would have been able to offer them. Besides, the amount of resources required to get a fleet together would have been hellish, considering the sheer length the supply lines would have been.

but I'm a Rome Newb so my opinion ain't worth much

 

[~Corsair#01~]

Ireland was really beyond the fringes of Roman interests. The Romans attacked Scotland periodically in order to prevent any threats to England, but Ireland posed no such threat. Ireland was simply not worth the resources to attack and subdue at a time when the frontiers at the Rhine always needed more troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia#Possible_evidence_of_Roman_visits

I'm no expert, though.

 

[Mott1]

Actually, archhaelogical evidence shows that their was a Roman invasion of Ireland, or rather an intrusion by force of arms. A Roman style fort was discovered at Drumanagh near Dublin in 1995 I believe.
Archaelogical evidence alone supports a Roman intrusions into the South East around the beginning of the 1st century, but the subject is open to debate.

 

[pawpaw]

And like Scotland what would they seize? No towns, cities,ect...

 

[luiz]

Invading England was already a mistake. Lots of trouble and costs and little gain. Invading Ireland would be plain stupidity, there was pretty much nothing to gain.

 

[steviejay]

I'll agree with Luiz, Britain was nothing more than a publicity coup for Cesar. According to a book I'm reading it was the Roman equivalent of the Moon landing. when the Romans were invading Gaul they had plentiful intel from Roman Merchants about what was coming up but when it came to Britain it was a mystery. Not many people knew it existed due to it's position at the edge of the known world and some even considered it a myth, so, like bridging the Rhine, landing in Britain was another prime example of Roman superiority over all who stood before them.

Apart from the Tin trade there wasn't much else to keep them here, it's not as if they'd stay for the weather...

 

[Verbose]

England has good land for farming, getting more rugged towards the edges where "the Celtic fringe" clung on eventually. So I'm not so sure it would be deemed valueless by the Romans. There really is nothing particularily "rugged" about England itself.

It didn't have the truly intimidating forests of Germania and looked more like Gaul, which Britain and the Britannians very much resembled anyway.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

I'll agree with Luiz, Britain was nothing more than a publicity coup for Cesar. According to a book I'm reading it was the Roman equivalent of the Moon landing. when the Romans were invading Gaul they had plentiful intel from Roman Merchants about what was coming up but when it came to Britain it was a mystery. Not many people knew it existed due to it's position at the edge of the known world and some even considered it a myth, so, like bridging the Rhine, landing in Britain was another prime example of Roman superiority over all who stood before them.

Keep in mind that the true conquest of Britain began a century after Caesar's death...

The presence of Roman artifacts -even architecture, and even Roman-styled forts- does not mean that the Romans were actually there. Roman objects have been found in non-Roman Germania, Scandinavia, even India. The Romans did a lot of trade with their neighbours, and produced many items purely for export.

As for the reasons of the Romans not conquering Ireland, I agree with what has been said here- it simply wasn't worth it. Besides, the Romans had far too much trouble in Britain already, and by the time the situation got calm, interests were elsewhere- the eastern frontier, and then inner troubles.

 

[Plotinus]

England has good land for farming, getting more rugged towards the edges where "the Celtic fringe" clung on eventually. So I'm not so sure it would be deemed valueless by the Romans. There really is nothing particularily "rugged" about England itself.

It didn't have the truly intimidating forests of Germania and looked more like Gaul, which Britain and the Britannians very much resembled anyway.

Britain was far more forested in antiquity than it is today (hardly difficult, given that there are almost no forests in Britain now). The Romans began the process of deforesting the country, and this continued over the following centuries, although it was only with the Industrial Revolution that really large-scale deforestation was carried out. So there was a lot less farmland around when the Romans were considering the pros and cons of annexing the place.

 

[mrtn]

...when the Romans were considering the pros and cons of annexing the place.

No, no. Liberating!

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

No, no. Liberating!

They had Woad Warriors, the WMD of their day. They didn't give it up, so Team Rome: World Police stepped up to the plate!

 

[jimbob27]

Because Guinness hadn't been invented yet, and the potatoes were still in south america.

 

[Lotus49]

As England later spent plenty of time learning all too well, subduing the Scots and the Irish is no trivial task - and Rome was not ignorant of this situation. Plus, take into account there would have been very little return on the investment, as well as the danger of being stretched too thin, over extended. All in all, it just wasn't practical, or worthwhile. With each area / potential province, it was a question of cost, Vs. return. -They'd learned that.

 

[Marla_Singer]

England was actually only very sparsely inhabitated in the Roman times. I guess Ireland was even more empty.

 

[luiz]

Nevertheless the few inhabbitants of England and Scotland sure gave the romans a hard time.

 

[FriendlyFire]

They had no OIL

The romans did not invade due to Ireland because it was uneconomical to do so.
The largely undeveloped Ireland could not be taxed and held not resources worth controlling.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

For what purpose would they invade Ireland? Just to deal with more marauding barbarians?