Roman Hibernia. Could it work?

Could the Roman Empire have invaded Hibernia and managed to integrate it into the Empire like they did England and Wales?

I'm pretty sure a single legion could take down the paltry military forces in Ireland at the time, but would it be economically feasible for the Empire?

Although I think if it were pacified it would grow more interest in expanding the Empire in that region because after England was crumped no one did any large scale expansions other than maybe Dacia.

Also it would probably mean that without pirates attacking Brittania, more military attention could b focused on the Saxons so Britain remains Celtic possibly?
 
Britain was already at the far limits of Roman supply lines.
I think the answer is more like does the benefit of conquest justify the expense.Personally,I don't think the benefit of Britain justified the garrisoning of three legions and a equivalent number of auxiliaries.
 
Best scenario is that Rome finds an ambitious Irish king they'll support to united the island and pay Rome a small tribute while allowing Roman traders and perhaps a Roman military camp.

Crimea is often shown on maps as part of the Roman Empire, but it was in the exact same condition as above. It was actually the Bosporan Kingdom whose king was a client of Rome. There were other such client kingdoms the maps show as actually part of the empire (such as Armenia and Georgia).

Once the client kingdom becomes stable and prosperous enough, it's always possible the Romans could occupy it directly.
 
It's one of the places Rome in theory could have expanded to without too big of issue, but the issue is the cost of maintaining the place versus what you get out of it. Ireland doesn't have much besides farmland and fishing to offer. If the Romans really wanted to, they definitely could, but it wouldn't work in the end simply because you couldn't get much out of it.
 
Best scenario is that Rome finds an ambitious Irish king they'll support to united the island and pay Rome a small tribute while allowing Roman traders and perhaps a Roman military camp.

Crimea is often shown on maps as part of the Roman Empire, but it was in the exact same condition as above. It was actually the Bosporan Kingdom whose king was a client of Rome. There were other such client kingdoms the maps show as actually part of the empire (such as Armenia and Georgia).

Once the client kingdom becomes stable and prosperous enough, it's always possible the Romans could occupy it directly.

To be fair, client kingdoms of, say, Parthia or the Qing (Tibet) are often shown on historical maps as actual parts of empires.
However, on that count the Roman border should also be shown to lie somewhere to the east of the Rhine (maps don't do that because of the Limes, but the Limes to Roman eyes was more an axis of control than a boundary, let alone a border in the modern sense).
On the other hand, it seems that in some "client" states of Rome, such as Iberia (Central Georgia) actual Roman presence was pretty sparse and the Roman interest very cursory (this changed with the ERE though).
In short, however, I concur. It would be perfectly possible for Rome to manage Hibernia through a proxy client state (or more than one, given the established Roman policy of letting no ally to gather much independent power).
Recent archaeological finds seem to suggest that they may have done that for a while, or tried to at least.
Perhaps they finally decided it was not worth it.
We need to recall that, with rare exceptions like the reign of Augustus, Rome really did not have a "grand strategy" of expansion based on long-term goals, where they could have considering investing into developing a new province to exctract its future worth.
Not that they didn't develop provinces, but they didn't plan about it.
 
Last edited:
Top