Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
Gaelic Brithenig?!
Not likely. Britannia was barely Romanized asides in the southeast. Ireland will be even less so.
Agricola's Folly- The Tale of a Roman Ireland
- Thread starter Abhakhazia
- Start date
Not likely. Britannia was barely Romanized asides in the southeast. Ireland will be even less so.
What'd be more interesting is how Gaelic might influence Brythonic............ totally talking out of my ass
Abhakhazia
Banned
Chapter II: How to be Roman, In Three Easy Steps
The Roman Empire considered Agricola's victory a great triumph, and as the Emperor Titus passed away quitely in the Roman Imperial Palace just as Agricola stepped off his ship in Ostia. Under the consuls, the triumph took place. And then Domitian took over.
After he forced Agricola into retirement in 85, he seperated Brittania and Hibernia into two seperate provinces. The first governor of Hibernia was just Domitian's lackey, he never actually visited Hibernia in his tenure.
But the legate of the XX Valeria Victrix, a young general, recently trasfered from Hispania by Agricola by the name of Marcus Ulpius Traianus wasn't. He built Hibernia from the ground up, focusing on the development of Valeria, and the planning and foundation of the soon-to-be important seaport of Flaviapolis.
Hibernia was even less pratical than Britannia, but there were some slightly important lead and salt mines. They need ports to get the resources out to the rest of the empire, so the port of Flaviapolis was vital.
Romanization of the South and East occured fairly quickly- good ports, retired legionaries from the Valeria Victrix, enterprising locals looking to sell things to the legions- they were all a good start for economic advancement, and mines popping up around the countryside also helped.
Trajan, with the few remaining money he had, built a Roman road from Valeria to Flaviapolis.
The West, and to a lesser extent the North was not so hot on this "Roman" thing. The revolt was from 87-89. The revolt was short, but it brought home to Trajan and all the Romans that Hibernia was not a pacified province.
The Roman Empire considered Agricola's victory a great triumph, and as the Emperor Titus passed away quitely in the Roman Imperial Palace just as Agricola stepped off his ship in Ostia. Under the consuls, the triumph took place. And then Domitian took over.
After he forced Agricola into retirement in 85, he seperated Brittania and Hibernia into two seperate provinces. The first governor of Hibernia was just Domitian's lackey, he never actually visited Hibernia in his tenure.
But the legate of the XX Valeria Victrix, a young general, recently trasfered from Hispania by Agricola by the name of Marcus Ulpius Traianus wasn't. He built Hibernia from the ground up, focusing on the development of Valeria, and the planning and foundation of the soon-to-be important seaport of Flaviapolis.
Hibernia was even less pratical than Britannia, but there were some slightly important lead and salt mines. They need ports to get the resources out to the rest of the empire, so the port of Flaviapolis was vital.
Romanization of the South and East occured fairly quickly- good ports, retired legionaries from the Valeria Victrix, enterprising locals looking to sell things to the legions- they were all a good start for economic advancement, and mines popping up around the countryside also helped.
Trajan, with the few remaining money he had, built a Roman road from Valeria to Flaviapolis.
The West, and to a lesser extent the North was not so hot on this "Roman" thing. The revolt was from 87-89. The revolt was short, but it brought home to Trajan and all the Romans that Hibernia was not a pacified province.
true. my guess Ireland will be the conquerers hellhole which it was for everyone who conquered it (or tried). I dont think they would ever be content with following the rules of a foreing might.
the update: very nice
glad to see the Irish putting up some resistance
would Trajan still become emperor?
Abhakhazia
Banned
true. my guess Ireland will be the conquerers hellhole which it was for everyone who conquered it (or tried). I dont think they would ever be content with following the rules of a foreing might.
the update: very nice
glad to see the Irish putting up some resistance
would Trajan still become emperor?
Yes, except I'm taking Nerva out of the equation.
my guess he either forgets ireland or he puts more effort into it. either way, Ireland will be a hellhole
The problem with conquering Ireland in later centuries -- and it applied equally to local rulers like Brian Boru as it did to foreign conquerors -- was that the country's administrative primitivism was matched by its constitutional sophistication.
Rulers were frequently appalling thugs, especially to potential challengers; but they were neither legislators nor owners of territory. Thus they couldn't conquer territory (as opposed to assuming over-kingship) without undermining their own legitimacy and neither could they secede territory because territorial boundaries were fixed. So when Henry VIII tried to turn the Gaelic rulers into English lords he was asking of them something they had neither the right nor the power to make a reality; primogeniture did not exist as a legal concept for the Gaelic lords.
Tiny kingdoms constrained in collective action to the most basic sort of organisation could never grow very powerful and therefore many forms of development -- especially in the presence of a decisive external power like Henry II or Henry VIII -- became simply suicidal. To construct roads would be to build a highway for their conquerors and to build workshops would be to tie wealth down to a location that couldn't be defended directly. This is why, apart from the monasteries which enjoyed religious protection, the country's economic and political development was so rudimentary when compared with the time, patience and skill exhibited by its artistic and cultural treasures.
I don't know how well developed these constitutional arrangements -- fixed territories (tuatha) having rulers related by over- and under-kingship and chosen by electors (septs) -- were in the first century, but already in the very early Christian period they had the form they would retain more or less unaltered until the 16th Century.
I imagine Agricola's successors will find more convenient initially to subsidise allies (the wealth they have to throw around is stupefying by local standards) than to conquer territory. The country isn't just large and quite empty but also dominated by woodland having dense underbrush of brambles. Moreover, for the Romans cheating on diplomatic deals is a disgrace whereas for the locals nothing could be more honourable than rebelling a week after agreeing a peace because under-kingship is not the same thing as vassalage (and they didn't have the authority to become vassals even if they wanted to).
Henry II's successors got sucked into this even though they didn't want to. But when their Irish representatives concluded local alliances to pacify the country, they automatically acquired their allies' local enemies as a side effect. Those enemies then concluded their own alliances with the royal representatives' rivals. Once they were sucked in to local politics and began to make war and peace independently the royal officials started to assume an alarming resemblance to Gaelic kings themselves.
The pattern of conflict imposed on Gaelic Ireland in the interests of divide-and-rule thus began to flow back into the the English territories. This is why the FitzGeralds and Butlers arrived as representatives of European feudalism and wound up as unruly Gaelic lords who fought with much greater enthusiasm amongst each other than they did for the crown.
Rulers were frequently appalling thugs, especially to potential challengers; but they were neither legislators nor owners of territory. Thus they couldn't conquer territory (as opposed to assuming over-kingship) without undermining their own legitimacy and neither could they secede territory because territorial boundaries were fixed. So when Henry VIII tried to turn the Gaelic rulers into English lords he was asking of them something they had neither the right nor the power to make a reality; primogeniture did not exist as a legal concept for the Gaelic lords.
Tiny kingdoms constrained in collective action to the most basic sort of organisation could never grow very powerful and therefore many forms of development -- especially in the presence of a decisive external power like Henry II or Henry VIII -- became simply suicidal. To construct roads would be to build a highway for their conquerors and to build workshops would be to tie wealth down to a location that couldn't be defended directly. This is why, apart from the monasteries which enjoyed religious protection, the country's economic and political development was so rudimentary when compared with the time, patience and skill exhibited by its artistic and cultural treasures.
I don't know how well developed these constitutional arrangements -- fixed territories (tuatha) having rulers related by over- and under-kingship and chosen by electors (septs) -- were in the first century, but already in the very early Christian period they had the form they would retain more or less unaltered until the 16th Century.
I imagine Agricola's successors will find more convenient initially to subsidise allies (the wealth they have to throw around is stupefying by local standards) than to conquer territory. The country isn't just large and quite empty but also dominated by woodland having dense underbrush of brambles. Moreover, for the Romans cheating on diplomatic deals is a disgrace whereas for the locals nothing could be more honourable than rebelling a week after agreeing a peace because under-kingship is not the same thing as vassalage (and they didn't have the authority to become vassals even if they wanted to).
Henry II's successors got sucked into this even though they didn't want to. But when their Irish representatives concluded local alliances to pacify the country, they automatically acquired their allies' local enemies as a side effect. Those enemies then concluded their own alliances with the royal representatives' rivals. Once they were sucked in to local politics and began to make war and peace independently the royal officials started to assume an alarming resemblance to Gaelic kings themselves.
The pattern of conflict imposed on Gaelic Ireland in the interests of divide-and-rule thus began to flow back into the the English territories. This is why the FitzGeralds and Butlers arrived as representatives of European feudalism and wound up as unruly Gaelic lords who fought with much greater enthusiasm amongst each other than they did for the crown.
A very nice start to the timeline. It's good to see more Irish based timelines.I wonder if the Romans would or could ever pacify Ireland fully preferring to concentrate on a pale as the English did for several centuries... albeit a larger one.
I like the idea of Flaviaolis being in the Cork area. I can imagine modern Corkonians would be amused to live in Fla-town! (Fla being Cork slang for sex)
Abhakhazia
Banned
Ha! That's hilarious!
Anyway, expect an update about the same time every day, except on Sundays, which I will take off.
Thanks for the feedback everyone!
Well, true. And distance is obviously a problem for Romanizing these areas. But if the entire island of Ireland coast to coast is Roman territory then it's fairly easy to Romanize. If Great Britain is also entirely Roman (though that seems a stretch due to the highlands) then Britannia will also be more Romanized than OTL.
Abhakhazia
Banned
The only differnce in Britain's border is that it will extend a little further to the north in the west.
Falkenburg
Monthly Donor
An intriguing start.
Ireland in this period is a relatively blank slate.
Whatever the difficulties of conquering Ireland in later years might have been they need not exist in the 1st Century.
This TL could easily incorporate many of the heroes of legend to good effect given how elastic dating in this period can be.
If Trajan keeps a special place in his heart for his old stomping ground Rome has the energy and resources to make its Irish adventure a success.
Especially if a well-rooted naval capability can be fostered.
Such an investment could deliver dividends long after Rome itself falls.
I shall be watching with interest.
Falkenburg
Ireland in this period is a relatively blank slate.
Whatever the difficulties of conquering Ireland in later years might have been they need not exist in the 1st Century.
This TL could easily incorporate many of the heroes of legend to good effect given how elastic dating in this period can be.
If Trajan keeps a special place in his heart for his old stomping ground Rome has the energy and resources to make its Irish adventure a success.
Especially if a well-rooted naval capability can be fostered.
Such an investment could deliver dividends long after Rome itself falls.
I shall be watching with interest.
Falkenburg
Ha! That's hilarious!
Anyway, expect an update about the same time every day, except on Sundays, which I will take off.
/QUOTE]
I look forward to the uipdates!
Abhakhazia
Banned
Thanks man.Ha! That's hilarious!
Anyway, expect an update about the same time every day, except on Sundays, which I will take off.
I look forward to the uipdates!
They're short, but often so you have to keep up!