Did Rome ever raid or invade Hibernia/Ireland?
- Thread starter usertron2020
- Start date
Hard to tell.
They certainly have found Roman goods and fortifications in Ireland. But whether that meant they actually placed troops there or merely traded is difficult to tell.
Tacticus talked about an exiled irish king being hosted by the roman governor of britain and there is irish folklore in both the 'Lebor Gabala Erenn' and 'annals of the four masters' of irish kings returning from exile in britain with foreign support to overthrow usurpers, which could mean romans or it could mean picts.
And Juvenal did claim in his satires that roman arms had reached the shores of ireland.
So I think the circumstancial evidence is strong enough for it to be used in a timeline. But there's no actual proof it happened, so a timeline where it didn't is equally plausible.
They certainly have found Roman goods and fortifications in Ireland. But whether that meant they actually placed troops there or merely traded is difficult to tell.
Tacticus talked about an exiled irish king being hosted by the roman governor of britain and there is irish folklore in both the 'Lebor Gabala Erenn' and 'annals of the four masters' of irish kings returning from exile in britain with foreign support to overthrow usurpers, which could mean romans or it could mean picts.
And Juvenal did claim in his satires that roman arms had reached the shores of ireland.
So I think the circumstancial evidence is strong enough for it to be used in a timeline. But there's no actual proof it happened, so a timeline where it didn't is equally plausible.
Romans, especially Britto-Romans, certainly did on a semi-regular basis : Roman goods and coins does attest at exchanges, which most certainly represented a huge source for Roman geographic knowledge, as in Ptolemy's work, which focuses on coastal settlements.
This trade relationship seems to have been mostly present in southern and central-eastern Ireland.
Now, if you meant Rome, as a state : it's hard to tell but we have traces of fortification such as in Drumanach which could hint at a clientele-like relationship with eastern Irish chiefdoms, the same way it existed with Rhineish germanic chiefdoms.
Personally, I'd tend to take Roman-era depiction or hints (that @Youngmarshall already mentioned) of a Roman military presence in Ireland in this light. Britain and Ireland never were two separate world, at the contrary : a war and change of regime in Britain had to have consequences and continuity in Ireland as it did in the IVth century and in the VIth century.
The presence of coins and goods could be as much a hint of a pretty much attested trade, than subsides or insitutional exchanges with Irish chiefdoms. In any case, even if Rome as a state doesn't seem to have maintained on the long term relations with Hibernia (at least no longer past the IIIrd century), exchanges were still presents (Gaelic raiding in Britain is just another, violent, form of exchange) which explains, IMO, the relative easy christianisation of the island.
This article is excessively interesting on this matter.
usertron2020
Donor
I only mentioned this because I was reminded of a horribly bad Fox TV series in 1997 (so bad that the final 5 episodes out of 13 were not aired until the year 2000) called Roar.
The concept was of an Irish prince fighting to drive out "the Roman Invader" from his native country. Which could all be very well, if not for the year it was set in: 400 AD! At THAT time, as I had always understood it, it was IRISH raiders wrecking havoc and even settling in on the Western British/Welsh coastlines, not the other way around. Of course, depicting the Irish as the "bad guys" and the Romans/Romano-British/British Tribes(1) as the "good guys" would certainly be a hard sell to the executives of a new television network.
The poor Romans/Romano-British/Welsh were in no shape to be playing the role of the "rapacious invader" as late as 400. Especially in Hibernia/Ireland of all places. As we all know, within the decade the Romans would be gone from Britannia for good.
No, my thinking was over campaigns that might have been launched pre- or post Agricola, but long before the End Times of Rome (i.e., well before 383 AD).
1) The last two drawing a reaction of "Who?" from John Q. Six-Pack.
With so many Irish-Americans having lived in the USA for so many generations, along with the nature of Anglo-British history since the 11th century until recently, the idea that there could have ever been a time when the Irish were the major aggressors against the British populace (and for a very long time), must be most politically most unpalatable today. Even, if you can use the term in Ancient Times, "Politically Incorrect?"
The concept was of an Irish prince fighting to drive out "the Roman Invader" from his native country. Which could all be very well, if not for the year it was set in: 400 AD! At THAT time, as I had always understood it, it was IRISH raiders wrecking havoc and even settling in on the Western British/Welsh coastlines, not the other way around. Of course, depicting the Irish as the "bad guys" and the Romans/Romano-British/British Tribes(1) as the "good guys" would certainly be a hard sell to the executives of a new television network.
The poor Romans/Romano-British/Welsh were in no shape to be playing the role of the "rapacious invader" as late as 400. Especially in Hibernia/Ireland of all places. As we all know, within the decade the Romans would be gone from Britannia for good.No, my thinking was over campaigns that might have been launched pre- or post Agricola, but long before the End Times of Rome (i.e., well before 383 AD).
1) The last two drawing a reaction of "Who?" from John Q. Six-Pack.
With so many Irish-Americans having lived in the USA for so many generations, along with the nature of Anglo-British history since the 11th century until recently, the idea that there could have ever been a time when the Irish were the major aggressors against the British populace (and for a very long time), must be most politically most unpalatable today. Even, if you can use the term in Ancient Times, "Politically Incorrect?"
Last edited:
You mean the general understanding of Late Antiquity and Early Medieval is poor at best, and hilarously wrong more regularily?
Where the world is going?
In fact, they were already in the process of abandoning the province. Since 383, most of western and northern Britain was already abandoned, meaning that the more or less romanized Brittonic peoples being raided over were already on their own, Déisi beggining to settle in Wales, Scots raiding as far as Midlands.
For what matter Irish raiders and settlers, Rome was already gone for good.
Well, you do have some strong hints that it might have been the case c. 100 AD, in the usual fashion of supporting the claim of a clientelized prince, in order to stabilize and impose Roman influnce on a given region (as it was made elsewhere).
Later, in the IInd century, that's still a technical possibility, seeing that Septimus Severius did launched a campaign in Caledonia and planned another before he died.
But it was really following the model of "beating peripherical people into sumbission" which was prevalent at this point, in order to make Caledonians and Maetes stopping their general rebeliousness, raiding and to eventually enforce their clientelisation.
Now, why would have it been the case for Ireland? I could see some trouble-maker, managing or trying to gain local power or to unify some of the chiefdoms in Ireland, and importantly dirsupting the political balance up to creating enough troubles leading to raids or even revolts in Britain (you may had parenty relations between some Irish and peoples as Brigantes IOTL); and ending being reminded of his position. Namely, corpsy.
But historically, Ireland seems to have been relatively calm on these manners. I'm not sure there's a good reason why : we don't know of any major roman operation, even the possibility of such, after Agricola nevertheless.