Hi all, sorry there wasn't a video on Wednesday. I'm in the process of moving so it's been a bit of pain. Next weeks episodes will be: How did Liechtenstein Survive? Why didn't Turkey join WW2?
@TheBlueHavoc9 Yeah it's a further explanation on why it wasn't done before then. I may title it 'Why didn't Turkey fight in WW2' since even when it joined its soldiers didn't fight.
Thats it fella when you go Italy you bloody tell em dont come opening your bloody pizza parlours now 2000 years bloody later its to late apologise for not invading stick your spag bol and your peroni and your bloody ice cream you bloody tell em fella attaccare il sacco
Yes slightly different to what the Ancient Egyptians called us. The fortunate Isles and the land of the setting sun. My guess is that the Celts who were Romes greatest enemy resided in Ireland, they wanted to put people off travelling there so they gave it a scary name. I live in Ireland and the weather has always been mild, no extremes and extremely fertile. One of the best climates on the planet for prosperous living.
Might sound odd to say, but Ireland would have probably been better off being invaded and conquered by the Romans, lol. Romans would have civilized them sooner, and probably paid for some infrastructure projects there.
That's what's wrong with the Irish mentality. Rather be conquered than free as long as it meant they'd be a few pound better off. Sure even now you hear people down the freestate saying "We cant afford reunification". All Irish people really care about is their money.
@@filiusreticulum2926 incorrect. Ireland wasn't the pinacle of civilization. But it existed it traded and was devolped but then brits kinda destroyed that what caused us to be a shit hole plus ór own incompetence after independence
@@jaywalkercrew4446 Judaism took quite a long time to start in Ireland as Judaisms origins were in the middle east just like those two monotheistic cousins Christianity and Islam. The religion that mostly was held was an ancient paganistic and polytheistic religion though very undocumented was practiced by the Gauls who are comprised of modern day France, Portugal, Spain, Britain, and Ireland though it can be assumed the Christianity to hit Ireland later on in its history would likely have tried to burn all records of other religion, this form of christianity would be heavily catholic. However, it is very unlikely many Jews would be in Ireland and the religion has hardly impacted the region so this is historically inaccurate. The places today with the highest recorded number of Jewish people are America, Canada, and Israel. Everywhere else, they are a complete religious minority. Similar to how Hinduism is concentrated in India and Buddhism is concentrated in China.
@@indiekiddrugpatrol3117 - Also, even before Caesar "visited" Britain, British Tin was making it's way to the nations around the Mediterranean. A tin mine operated by the Romans obvious dates from the 2nd invasion of Britain.
The conquest of the province of Britannia had no real motive behind it either, Emperor Claudius just caved in to peer pressure generated by the military track record of his predecessors. I wouldn't be surprised if he simply had someone fetch a map, closed his eyes and conquered the first place outside Roman territory he landed his finger on.
If you read Tacitus' accounts of Agricola and the occupation of Britannia, he does mention an Irish prince being held by the Romans as a sort of potential puppet king in a future conquest. Agricola believed that if Hibernia could be conquered, those in the British Islands seeking independence would feel surrounded and their hopes would be crushed into resignation. He talks about the trade potential (or lack thereof) with Hibernians as well. It's quite interesting.
Yeah then he ran into the dala ratia 1 Irish clan with inhabitants in Ireland and Scotland, and handrains wall was built, and they were not even close to the the two ruling northern clans the O'Neil and the O'Donnell clans who would have crushed them, Niall of the nine hostages raided Roman Briton often, and his nine hostages were from his nine kingdoms he controlled 7 Irish counties and whales and Scotland. Dala ratia would form the first non Roman kingdom on the island called alba, and Irish Celts invented chainmail which Rome would take credit.
I was in Copenhagen and visited their National Museum, they had Roman artifacts (coins, weapons, intact glassware (surprisingly), and other goods clearly made in Rome, but all found in Denmark. All of it is believed to have come from contact and trade with Rome, despite being no where near the Roman border. So Rome had a bigger influence outside of their empire that is less well known.
Yeah, the modern view is that the traditional view of Germanic barbarians as unwashed masses of hairy men who first saw civilization when they crossed the border with Rome is mostly wrong. Rome had a massive cultural influence well outside its borders and there were numerous very well established trade routes, the Amber road connecting the Mediterranean and the modern-day Baltic states through trade of amber as just one example. So by the time the Germanics began crossing the Roman frontier en masse in 5th century AD, they were likely already heavily Romanized anyway.
Well, there are always folks engaging in trade. Smart rulers didn't harass traders. Shut down trade routes is killing the goose that lays gold eggs. Of course, smart rules "tax" the traders a bit.
Here is the reason: Agricola: Let's conquer Ireland! Emperor: Good idea, what's the place like? Agricola: Well, densely forested with lots of box and loads of nasty little tribes. Emperor: So, just like Germania then? Agricola: well, in a way... Emperor: Sorry can't be bothered.
@@luchthonn Well, then maybe the Romans, Brits, and whoever else tried to conquer Ireland saw the Lucky Charms commercials and were like, "We ain't even gonna bother with fighting this magical leprechaun lmao" xD
@@thedemon0843 Oooh, not too sure. Maybe they saw that the Scots eat sheep's stomachs and were like, "Hey, we better stay FAR away from these weird northern hills people otherwise they're gonna come down here and beat us with their golf clubs and force us to wear their skirts!" XD
@@peterbrown1012 Yes, but they are the same people with different names. Romans called them Gallic - Britons The English called them Welsh They refer to themselves as Cymro.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. As an ignorant American, I'd always thought of grassy rolling hills, not forests. But it kinda makes sense bc, I know Britannia was always looking for lumber to build ships with. They probably cut the Irish forests before they sailed the Atlantic to harvest the forests of North America.
It was normal at that time ,like the territory of what is now France, Which had 99% of the territory being forest ,a squirrel could literally go from Lille to Marseille without touching the ground ,the percentage of the territory covered by forest got reduced to 9% at the end of the Middle-Ages ,and increased to 36% today .
@@davidbryden7904 We used British oak for warships. Americans destroyed most of your forests in the 19th century, when steam trains were able to move the lumber for construction.
Much of it was burned, either for cooking or keeping us warm. And after the forests were mostly depleted the started digging for peat. If it hadn't been for the discovery of oil and gas nature and consequently us would no longer have existed today.
"With the notable of exception of those in the North, called the Scotii, who were well-known raiders." Good to know that Northern Ireland has always been the source of troubles.
Fun fact: the scoti are reportedly to have eventually become the scots/Scottish people (by way of the kingdom of Dal Riata which covered much of Northern Ireland and northwestern Scotland). The picts of the Roman times “disappeared” (to put it one way) during the early Middle Ages and the Scottish of today in general are the descendants of the Irish Scoti. So with that in mind, you could also imply this joke to Scotland.
@@xXxSkyViperxXx yes, and the same applies to most of the people who became “English” during the Anglo-Saxon take over of most of what we regard as England today. The people of what we think of as England didn’t simply all move to wales, become Cornish or die.
@@forsociopoliticalstuff2629 yeah the ones that migrated away to wales became welsh, the ones that migrated to cornwall became cornish and the ones that migrated to armorica became breton and the ones that went to cumbria became cumbrians whivh later also became scots, the ones the remained became anglicized and the british saxons also became anglicized and became english along with the angles or at least their language became regarded as sn english dialect since they were close related in the first place too
@@forsociopoliticalstuff2629This is probably the rule throughout the history of civilisation; memories of the colonisation of the americas has greatly skewed our perception of the reality of settler colonialism. in truth the vast majority of territorial changes would have been the changing of the government between a small elite minority and then the peasant masses would be then assimilated over time
The Romans would have made short work of the tribes in a battle. But constant oversight and rule would have been near impossible. And when the tribes adopted a dully guerrilla style fight, the Romans would have fled faster than a smart boy in a catholic priests conclave.
@Baldur Not exactly lol, but a lot of people were forced to go to the New World to settle there ( mostly mobs hehe). But they had to be paid and stuff and couldn't really manage everything about the hard job, which was one of the reason blacks were transported there
@@atriox7221 Those weren’t really sports through they were entertainment you wouldn’t really find a random Roman popping into the colosseum for a battle to the death do you ?
Rome: I wonder if in like some thousands of years into the future we will be remembered People: representing Rome as if it was some sort of singular entity hive-mind.
The Scoti actually referred to Irishmen/Gaels in general and not just those in the north, at one point Ireland was known as Scotia Major and Scotland as Scotia Minor. And it wasn't just those in the north that raided either though obviously they were the only ones to make a lasting permanent settlement
Indeed: Since the Germanic Migrations of Anglo-Saxons had not yet taken place at that time, actually the whole of Britain(England included) and Ireland combined where Gaels/Gaelic people...
@@kzizzles8329 Its the IRISH who were related to the continental Celts. Britain (and Wales) were colonised by Welsh speaking Anatolian farmers in the Bronze age.
@@Mirokuofnite To be fair, back in Mongol days Russia consisted of a dozen major polities or so (two of which, the Novgorod and Pskov Republics, surrendered without a fight), and several hundred or thousand native tribes on the east. A unified Russia is, by every metric, a much scarier Russia to invade
More or less correct. I did a research paper on Roman Britain in grad school. Ireland was even farther away than the British coast. It's also full of hostiles and poorly organized. Agricola also had tepid support at best, only to consolidate existing Roman rule, and not expand. Agricola's expedition to Ireland was exactly that: an expedition. Agricola was having problems with raiders, some of whom were supported by forces in Hibernia. The solution? Go to Hibernia, kick major butt, and eliminate the problem for a generation. And that's exactly what he did. Staying in Hibernia was never seriously considered between the lack of supplies, lack of forces, hostile natives, and the chaotic political climate Rome was under. In the end, it was Rome who decided it didn't feel like conquering Hibernia (or holding onto Britain). By the early 5th century, Rome pulled out, and shortly after, blew up.
Well they technically did but they didn't bother to occupy it which is why it isn't included as part of the empire. Everywhere else they conquered they stayed. Scotland was too remote.
@@attiepollard7847 Silly question, of course they did... In fact, we have scientific proofs that all the emus and koalas you can find in Australia are actually Romans that evolved into those animals
There is a Prof Alice Roberts video about Chester which suggests the answer. Somewhat recently archeologists figured out that Roman Chester was massively overbuilt for a regional town off in an upper corner of Britannia. The sea was closer in those days so it was a good port. A sensible explanation for all the Roman building in Chester is that it was being prepared as a capital, maybe the capital of Roman Britain + quite possibly Roman Ireland. If Rome had Scotland and Ireland, then Chester would have been a perfectly central administrative and military/invasion center. However, the building program stopped when Hadrian decided to stop expanding the boundaries and consolidate the empire as it stood. In sum, there was probably a Roman plan to conquer Ireland. But Hadrian pulled the plug.
Ireland's relationship to Rome is only beginning to be unearthed recently and it's absolutely fascinating. There are some old written records of a general (it may have been Agricola, it's been a while since I've read it) who was doing the equivalent to island hopping at the time, around some of the smaller islands around Britain. They were planning on conquering some of the Hebrides and using them as a forward operating base, but instead turned to the Isle of Man because Scotland was proving to hard to conquer. The invasion was planned with two legions, but it was decided six would be best and a lot safer. They couldn't get all six so they decided to go ahead with it, but a rebellion somewhere else in the empire kicked off and it wasn't named. The document is really weird and vague and was only unearthed by an Irish university about 5 years ago so a lot of it has yet to come to light and be properly translated/understood.
Idk about the Isle of Man, but I have heard there was apparently a very briefly established Roman settlement of the orkneys (really not sure why they chose there honestly).
@Jay M nice insult. I dont know what your talking about lemonade and a fanny and shit. But i only tried irish cider once and usally drink hieno and guiness. You 12 little shit
@@barbarossa5700 it didn't really take over the Roman Empire... it was adopted by the Roman Empire and became part of the State. The church became the lifeboat from which the empire was rebuilt. It now spans the world!
@@historiculgeomocule5569 The Byzantium was the Catholic Church. The Corpus Juris (or Iuris) Civilis ("Body of Civil Law") is the modern name for a collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I, Eastern Roman Emperor (Byzantine). It is also sometimes referred to as the Code of Justinian, although this name belongs more properly to the part titled Codex Justinianus. *The very first law in the Codex requires all persons under the jurisdiction of the Empire to hold the Christian faith.* This text later became the springboard for discussions of international law, especially the question of just what persons are under the juris-diction of a given state or legal system. Christianity was forced upon the people by the Roman Christians, an amalgamation of Gods law with mans, a conflation of both being the same. A justification(Root word is Justinian) to punish those in the name of God, it's not them it's Gods will, the diametric opposite of what any parent should be, loving. As I said after the "fall"(re-branding) of the Roman Empire Theo-Monarchy(Roman Catholicism) took place and it needed everyone to have the same denomination, every must be under one rule, one regulation, one religion the etymology of both come from the Latin word religare, which means “to tie, to bind.”
Trance the church only controls the Fake so called settled irish the church has nothing to do with the natives of Ireland the native white Celtic tinker travlers 👌🏻💪🏻🛡🗡💣💣💣💣💣💣
Why didn't Rome Conquer Ireland? They kind of wanted to, but didn't really care enough to actually put in the effort. Save one guy who kind of made "Conquer Hibernia" into his "Carthage must be destroyed".
Ireland was producing copper and gold since the bronze age and Britain had lots of tin. The Romans couldn't conquer the Bretons or picts and it wasn't through lack of trying, They sent their best legions to Britain and failed Ireland was a no go although a heavily fortified roman trading post was established north of Dublin and that's it.
@@odinbiflindi the reason the Roman's didn't go further into the British Isles wasn't necessarily because of stout resistance (though there was plenty of that). Strategically, it made little sense to go further north.
Agricola was recalled by the Emperor Domitian - this is why neither Ireland (or really Scotland) was conquered. This has been known for almost two thousand years - it is in the writings of the historian Tacitus who knew the people involved. If the British Isles had been fully (not partly) conquered then the raiding would have stopped (or at least been greatly reduced) - as there would have been much less of a place to run to after a raid. The capital of a united British isles (under Roman rule) would probably have been at Chester - just about the centre. Many of the buildings started in Chester were clearly intended for a much more important place than it actually became. The Romans sometimes reacted very badly to defeat - for example an Elbe-Danube (or Elbe and then mountain chain) frontier would have been much shorter than the Rhine-Danube frontier. But after the defeat in the time of Augustus the Romans never seriously tried to make the river Elbe the eastern frontier again. In the case of Ireland - no later commander seems to have had the vision of Agricola, perhaps because a commander who had the entire British Isles under his command would be seen as threat to the Emperor in Rome.
Me: >sees video< Me: "Meh... because it wouldn't have been worth the trouble" History Matters: "Because... it wouldn't have been worth the trouble" Me: >grins triumphantly
me and my friends went to Ireland a few years back (my bestfriend and some mutual) and my friends friend was drunk in a bar and shouted ginger cunts and he got stabbed to death, carful what you say.
@@cloroxblach7284 Then just say; "ginger son of a whore" or; "ginger fuckface" or, my favorite and probably the most offensive; "red haired englishman"
It's believed that one of the reasons the Norse never subjugated Ireland is because of the extreme level of decentralisation of the system of governance, so it's not unreasonable to believe that even if the Romans had designs on it they would be difficult to enact. Remember, if your hydra has a near infinite number of heads (chieftains and kings), it's difficult to cut them all off.
Exactly! The Irish clan system along with the Gaelic Order and Brehon laws etc were almost impossible to break from without, so, they sent St. Patrick to go 'within'. The beginning of the end of the Gaelic order and decentralization. And, of course, hello Rome.
@@fwinyeogbeag9827 the western Roman had already been pulled out of British around two years before saint patrick was even born and the WRE was fighting to keep itself from just collapsing, sending a random person from brittania to destabilize the traditional systems of succession and government over in Ireland would have been both pointless and a waste of precious time and resources.
As for the original comment, it’s an interesting thought, but the celts of Gaul, Hispania, and brittania weren’t much (or any really) better before conquest and they ended up being organized just fine, Ireland/Hibernia just wasn’t worth Rome’s time (neither was brittania, but emperor Claudius needed the prestige of some conquest and germania was now off the table).
@@GAMER123GAMING The east in general had riches and development, the former Carthaginian territories already were well suited, Gaul was pretty good farming as well as other major resources that Rome hadn’t apparently gotten enough yet , and the more wild parts of Hispania had some pretty good known resources and fell into the category for them of a people that they’d feel the need to use their “defensive expansionism” mindset on while brittania was at least initially, a manner of something to prove a conqueror via emperor Claudius and it was at least known to be a relatively lovable land to try conquering and settling (and made really good rain cloaks). Even germania had a combo of that “defensive expansion” idea being on their land border and could be used as a territory for the amber trade, but tutonborg forest incident put the kiboshed on expanding there. Ireland/Hibernia by comparison didn’t offer much of anything to them and from what Romans would have known about it for the most part would have indeed seem basically worthless and not worth trying. So basically to answer your question: basically anywhere they seriously tried to conquer in otl (though brittania and germania are debatable), and most of the ancient eastern world. Told Ed that would secure their (particularly land) borders or provide some sort of major resource/resources in conquering, or perhaps considerable glory to the consuls/generals/emperors. Even Nubia and the west coast of Arabian peninsula got a wack at them (didn’t stick obviously) thanks to glory and exotic goods.
@@JazzPikmin Yeah. I don't think people realise the reputation the Gauls had in Antiquity. These guys were fierce and afraid of nothing (except that The Sky would fall on their heads).
It should be mentionned that even the conquest of Britannia, was mostly due to the fact that emperor Claudius needed (or one could help) a victory to solidify his reign. Strabo said that conquering the island was worth less than keeping the client kingdoms there.
In Rome: Total War, I loved Hibernia because it was such a mystical land on the edge of the known world. Despite the absurd distance from my SCIPII Capital, I conquered it but couldn't keep that due to PONTVS taking over the Near East and wrecking me.
I was disappointed with the Celts in general in Rome: Total War. The game has alot of good but the australia development team seemed to do something better namely better historical accuracy and more balanced factions as seen in M2TW.
Now I play only Age of Empires 2 HD and the original about antiquity. See "ATHEIST PROPAGANDA in Age of Empires." Huns weren't atheists. They lied. And I also did a series exposing propaganda in Hellywood and even academia depicting native southern European ancients as blond. The world drowns in lies, and don't see that entertainment is also propaganda.@@GAMER123GAMING
Imagine being an Irish tribesman or Roman soldier looking at the other if a battle did happen. First contacts are so alien and amazing to think about from their perspective.
I had an Italian mate living in Galway and he told me about the time he shared a house with a huge red bearded gentle giant who would stand up after dinner every evening and say:"I'm off to get some black soup". My friend was puzzled about this for a long time and finally asked him:"what is this black soup?" Thankfully the big man showed him and Danielle hasn't been the same since. And that's why the Romans could never conquer Ireland...
Actually, contact with the Empire is why Christianity started to gain a foothold in Ireland easily two centuries before Patrick. The Vatican was not in the habit of sending bishops where no Christians existed. Patrick and Palladius were both sent there in the 5th century. Palladius worked with the Christians already established in southern Ireland while Patrick struck out northward.
2 года назад
That makes sense as it would seem weird to go where the missionaries would have no one to help them.
@Cymro 65 except the vikings never conquered Ireland or modern day Canada. They invaded many times and settled in some places but they didn't "conquer" most of the island or its people. You might say "they could have", maybe so. However the fact is they didn't.
Back then, Ireland was literally on the edge of the world, the new world hadn't been discovered yet so literally it was on the edge of the known world. to outsiders, it was a strange, dark, place full of dense forests and crazed savage pagans.
I'm 99% sure that the Romans where in fact trading partners with us Irish. Romans needed lots of leather and meat, I guess for one reason or another it was easier to come trade with us than just take it from other parts of Britain. There is actually a documentary series of the ancient history of Ireland (five part series) that mentions the fact that trade was common between the Romans and the Irish.
Sorry but your depiction of Irelands history is heavily bias by anti Irish narratives perpetuated in England for centuries. Your depiction of Ireland flies on the face of all archeological and historical evidence to the contrary. Ireland wasn't a heavily forested island full of bog and scary tribes. Far from it. The idea it was politically fractured is to put is succintly a racist narritive the English and later British state perpetuated to pretend Ireland had no right to national self determination and thus deligitimise any and all resistance to external rule over the centuries. When the Normans came. It did indeed shatter the prior governance system and do so perminently to a point where Ireland was never truely independent again. But prior to 1180 treaty of Windsor Ireland had been a confederated state with a centralized monarchy and semi democratic political units since the first high King Slaine mac Dela in 1934BC. The caveat to that statement that there were 2 subsequent documented invasions by the Tuath de Dannan and Geals but these retained the early Fir Bolg governance model. The system did evolve over time and some shits in sub kingdoms occured and from the 750s AD to 1000 AD Irish state integrity was precarious and incomplete. But bar that period, the High Kingship model of Irish soverignty prevailed over the Island as a state as valid as any early state the world over. The concept of Ireland being fully of petty kings was an arrogant and inaccurate depiction of Irish society and statehood on the part of the early English who were unitary monarchists and thus basically followed an undemocratic heredity dictator, so when they encountered a proto confederal Irish state with multiple layers of elected leaders, they saw a gaggle of kings. If the early English had Westminister described to them today they'd probably see the same. Ireland was typically divided into 4 provinces. With a 5th at times called Meath. Early on the High King was always from the Province of Connachta, so a 5th DC like neutral kingdom wasnt required. Laws in Ireland were called Brehon law and the whole Island adhered to it with certain clans specializing in the safeguarding, development and administration of the law. "Kings" at all levels in all provinces were bound by the brehon law. The 4 sub kindgoms were subdivided into petty kingdoms called tuath, from these petty kingdoms later emerged the Irish clans post Norman Invasion. Each tuath elected a leader from among a group of nobel families via the Tainistry model. They were required to maintain peace in their tuatha as well as provide for Fianna bands(legendary standing army of Ireland reputed in myth to join together to repel common threat to the island as a whole). The king of the tuatha also had to host & show hospitality to any bard or poet and sponsor the arts, music and literature. They also were obliged to provide a hostel for travellers and food maintainence and shelter for the poor. Not the halmarks of a routinely unsafe or disunited culture. Other evidence implying Ireland wasnt backward like you portray is that while bronze age forifications litter the landscape, ironage and later fortifications are few and far between. That would be glaring evidence anywhere else of a mostly peaceful, socially united polity. The kings of tuatha could be removed if they suffered dismembering wounds or failed in duties to the people or king or a province. In which case another was elected. A high king was chosen from among the 4 provincial subkings and ruled till he died or was deposed by another king who grew more powerful and could get tje backing of the other 2. The High King while sometimes merely a ceremonial title was mostly a true king and while waring could occur between the subkingdoms, when or if the high king put their foot down. They could stop wars between the provinces or call on the other provinces to sort out misbehaving sub kingdoms. Otherwise the provincial were autonomous in many ways. The truth is the Romans did come to Ireland, there was a roman legion camp found. When the Vikings turned up in 700s the Irish had swapped out the celtic La Tene style sword for Roman Gladus's all around and frankly Ireland with a centralized rule, across a sea at the extent of their supply line with that line via troublesome Britain, Ireland was probably just too hard a nut to crack. Also, if pirate or raider suppression was something which the Romans responded to militarily, Ireland would not have been ignored. The Irish were prolific raiders of roman Britain & gaul. Famously St. Patrick being a product of that. The last Pagan High King of Ireland, Dathí of the Uí Neill reigned from 404-427. He died on campaign in the French Alps when he was struck by lightening. If Ireland was not a unitary state, how was it organising military expiditions into Roman Britain and Gaul. Rome didnt fall till 476. If they could have come after Ireland they would. The reality was it was probably too mucb effort, then too strong to subdue. Additionally Ireland was entering a golden age of literacy and knowledge. It was not backward in the last 500 yrs of rome. It was literally called the island of saints and scholars & the gaelic missionary system is credited with causing the end of the dark ages, the rechristianization of Britain & western Europe and caused at least the conversion and ultimate founding of Norway in part. By the 5-6th century western European aristocracy were sending their sons to ireland to be educated. It wasent backward until the normans and later tudors etc. trashed the country and knock the natives back into the stone age.
Agri-cola has a meaningful (something like wild-life) explaination, ag rick ola doesn't. As a compound word, pronounciation cannot be independant from two seperate root words.
England in particular and the UK in general are essentially fragments of Rome, and the situation is basically unchanged. The UK now has the north of Ireland and has had difficulty keeping it, while Wales and Scotland are also historically troublesome in many regards. So, yeah, it was a long time ago, but really very little has fundamentally changed.
2 года назад
Keep fighting while the world watches the coolest 4 man smash bros round with all the items.
Thank you sir for keeping the video short, sweet, on topic and not pointlessly recording you speaking to a camera. Kudos, sir. You care about your content, and you'll do well as a result.
@Static Method [citation needed]. Britain was a big place (8th largest island in the world) with three physically distinct ethnic groups according to Tacitus, and connections to much of north and western europe via sea trade. It's not some tiny isolated community.
@@iapetusmccool Yeah. I don't think Britain can be considered insular. In Roman times it was pretty much an extension of Gaul which is probably why the Romans conquered it.
If I remember correctly in De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae (The life and death of Agricola), Tacitus, famous roman historian that was the husband of Agricola's daughter, says basically that the emperor Domitian stopped Agricola from conquering the rest of Britannia and Ireland because he was envious of Agricola, that was a beloved general and had a lot of power. After recalling Agricola back in Italy Tacitus lets the reader conclude that he was killed by Domitian (but it's not 100% sure)
No one ever REALLY conquers Ireland... it gets invaded Blood spills Myths emerge Songs get written and after a generation or two, everybody’s Irish again...
