There is another wall that most people outside Scotland don't seem to know of. The Antonine wall that runs from the Firth of Clyde to the Firth of Forth. Parts of it and its defenses can still be found. Would be nice if it got some attention.
Bonjour. I really enjoyed the vid. Just a couple of things. At that time most of Scotland's highlands were covered in mixed primordal forests like Scandinavia at the same latitude is today. Septimius Severus was the only Roman emporer born in Africa two winters spent campaigning in damp cold Scotland did him in.
@@tolrem A young Viking on his second voyage, asked a older member of the crew if the Scots were tough as he had never been there. The response was 'well put it this way, they LIVE here'...
you can give them a regular substantial donation so they would not need ad money, instead you're criticising them while watching for free. (they are not forcing you to buy the product) Just enjoy the content.
Totally agree. Until this happened I really respected the author of this channel and his work, and I can perfectly understand taking up sponsorship for all kind of things. But in order to advertise this title scam one has to pretend to be massively stupid about precisely the kind of historical subject matter which this channel deals, and pretend to agree with a laughable misinterpretation of constitutional and social history motivated uniquely by (the scammers') greed. Very off-putting to anyone who thinks we shouldn't lie about history.
Rome could have easily conquered those places on a military level if it wanted to but it made no sense for Rome to do so. The only reason why they were pushing into the Germanic regions was to stop the raids that were happening to Roman territory. Geography in that era was the main limits to what Roman could do. The reason why the Roman Empire flourished around the mediterranean was due to it have great coastal trade transport. Hadrian's wall was easy to achieve in the UK but it was not a viable system in continental europe.
In Scotland there lurks a dangerous predator that nobody can escape, it attacks when you least expect, driving all that enter it's domain before it, it's called the midge, not even the might of the Roman empire could defeat it.
@@paulbeard3238 the one who has won every election since 2014 and seen every other witless leader off...all together now...ding dong the union's dead...ding dong the wicked union's dead :) xx
I never knew the Romans sailed around the Orkney islands before, makes me wonder just how far from home Roman explorers traveled. That’d make for an interesting video
I love this channel. Every time I run out of Poscum, Wine, or oil, I cry inconsolably until a new Toldinstone video comes out, Or until my errand boy arrives from the market. Whichever comes first, and it’s usually the former!
The Romans decided not to invade Scotland, because they were warned that this disruption might jeopardize the future development of Scotch whisky, and that could not be allowed!
Also they found that the scottish had a habit of coming south and lurking around the area that would one day become kings cross. They would drink excessively and act belligerent to passers by. The scottish of today continue this tradition, with every single scottish emigrant south doing at least one “tour of duty” outside Kings Cross, clutching their cans of tennants and spesh.
I love, love, love how almost every single video you drop is so refreshingly unique, and not the same old small obscure fact everyone already knows that somehow is then stretched into a 15 minute video by every other history/ random science 'fact' channel. nah...every one of your videos is so well done, from the script being able to portray both concise generalizations and intimate peeks into the personal lives of the people you so perfectly portray. from the princes to the peasants to the vast array of incredible art pieces you somehow have, to the way you create such a vivid picture with the script you have a gift my dude. you get me hyped about history. you're gonna blow up if u stay at it
Yep totally agree. No 4 minute intro about "The land of queen Elizabeth was once a very different place...blablabla". Instead he immediately dives into the subject with the assumption that the listener has more than a middle school education. Told in Stone is truly a great channel
@@sdhflkjshdfskdhfskljdhf582 spoken even better than i. Was having difficulty getting the general idea of what I was trying to say into actual words But it always ends up too wordy. I like how you put it much better. Thank you lol.
For the Romans there would have been something quite sinister about the short length of day in Winter. It's significant that they never conquered anywhere too remote from where you could cultivate wheat and grapes. And look what the barbarians did to them in 9 AD in the forests in the north of Germany. They called Ireland 'Hibernia' - land of winter, presumably thinking that being further from Rome, it was even colder than Caledonia. It must have seemed to them that the further from Rome you got in a generally north and west direction, the worse the weather, the food, and the barbarians became. Better just to build a wall and keep the buggers out .......
That’s very fair. With modern luxuries like radiators and electric lights, the winter can seem more like an annoyance or a gimmick than anything. For large fractions of the world’s current population nowadays and almost everyone just 200 years ago? The winter was hell. That was when your children died and you desperately attempted to stay warm and alive. Christmas and winter celebrations were a reminder of the good parts of life when they were all but gone. To go from the warm and temperate Italy, France and Greece to place that would be frozen over 4 months of the year if it wasn’t for rainforest levels of annual rainfall (really, look it up) would be deeply discomforting and facing people who simply lived there their whole lives would be gruelling. The difference in general moral alone would play significantly into whether both soldiers and generals would want to fight, especially when there isn’t anything to really fight for.
@@themk4982 It's why they use such grim cinematography for movies in the northern parts of Europe, while the Mediterranean is always that vibrant summer with colorful architecture.
I agree with your analysis.. Except the story about the teotoburg forest in Germania The Roman lost 3 legions because a Roman Knight of German origin, Arminius, prepared a trap in that forest So nothing to do with the cold weather.
I've often wondered what was going through the minds of ordinary foot soldiers in these campaigns, especially the ones who came from warmer climates. They must have been really hacked off!
History tells us that it was not uncommon for soldiers stationed at Hadrian's Wall to desert or even join in with arriving raiding parties. I imagine the pay was not worth the posting.
@@Nikolaj11 Oh dear, I'd be seriously annoyed if I was living at the border. Imagine you are being controlled by this occupying force, then they join in with raiding you as well.
I remember reading an article some years ago about letters or scraps of correspondence written on parchment found in a midden at one of the castles along the wall. So many referred to cold feet and the need of thick knitted wool socks! One, by the wife of a Roman officer was an invitation to a birthday party and she stressed bringing warm socks and cloaks. And those stone castles must have been iceboxes. I spent a week one August filming in a castle in La Mancha and although outside you could fry an egg on the pavement, inside it was dank and chill.
Interesting fact.The higher ground,cliffs etc along Hadrians wall are actually the point where two separate land masses collided millions of years ago.The same goes for Ulster and Southern Ireland.[they were originally "moored" just off Manhattan.]Same goes for Cornwall.That's why tin is only found there and nowhere else in Britain.
I am a highly intelligent crossover subscriber of General Sam. I implore you to create a video on the topic of ancient bagels. Your welcome. - Sir Bagelz the Third
You didn't mention the Roman settlements at Glasgow or the Antonine Wall. For an unimportant place there are two Emperors buried at York, Septimius Severus who is buried near the railway station but not yet found. Also Flavius Constantius, member of the Tetrachy and father of Constantine who was proclaimed Emperor by the northern legions at York. In 43AD as part of the Roman invasion a young legionary officer, Vespasian captured the Southwest of England and after the Year of the four Emperors became the sole Emperor. Many other significant figures in Roman history ended up in Britain at some point of their lives. You missed out gold, silver, lead, wheat and other exports to Rome which have left their mark on the landscape to this day. Maybe not the most significant province, but not the least for sure.
Seriously, the common thread that describes why the Romans stopped everywhere they stopped is cost/benefit. If a territory didn't promise a positive flow of wealth over cost, the Romans didn't bother with it.
Or they where just defeated. They did bother with it. When you retreat with broken armies it is easy to say it was not worth it. Remember we don't have the Scots or the Germanic tribes version of events. We just have the Roman excuses preserved in writing. And what about the Parthians? Rome fought them for hundreds of years because that was cost effective?
I drop this one everywhere i see the ad. That Established Titles thing is unconstitutional in the United States. Article 1, section 9: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
You presumably have no office of trust with the US Government so it's not unconstitutional. That only binds agents of the state, a Congressional rep or Vice President or whatever needs the consent of Congress to accept a title. The bigger issue is that established titles is a scam.
You don't understand that provision of the constitution. It means what it says. If you are a US Citizen that is not in holding governmental office, nothing stops you from getting a title from a foreign state. You don't even have to renounce citizenship.
Fun fact: Augustus also sent a naval expedition up along the coast of Jutland. From the description some guess that they made their final landfall at what is now "Harboøre Tange." -Fun- Not so funny fact: The chemical plant of "Cheminova" now occupies the location. There are depots of highly toxic waste buried in the area so it's not safe to dig aorund there. So we might never know is this is where the Romans made their camp. Additional fact: Don't go swimming in the sea in the immediate vicinity; some of those toxic depots are still leaking.
Caledonia offered very little economic benefit to the Romans. Its economy was far more backward than south of the Wall. Mineral deposits (gold, silver, lead, tin, iron etc were not available or exploited. Grain cultivation was limited for climatic reasons. So why bother?
True, the Romans decided that it was more economical to fortify the easily subjugated, submissive lands south of Caledonia. The Romans were simply not used to a people they couldn't completely dominate
Just came back from Hadrian’s wall path. The Romans had a pretty solid defence and taxation system which was probably more value for money compared to a full occupation of Caledonia.
@Phr34ky PHY pretty sure taxing livestock would be enough to feed the troops - and in that sense it’s logical that Antonine Wall failed since there would be little trade
Exactly in comes down to money. We see empire maps and they have huge areas covered but the truth is most are more patchy based on $$. The romans were in Iberia about 200 BC til after rome fell yet never really took the north or Pyrenees mountains. They have ports on the coast but little inland on spains northern coast so ships could port every night or every couple but they were small. When an area was To rough, no great value, going to be an expensive expedition to take and then to garrison in an area guerilla warfare is made for, many empires are smart enough to save the money. Easier to build a wall/ or come to an agreement with those tribes and just trade them for the few things worth it. In spain I'm saying good cheese and honey were the commodity worth the most in the mountains. Now the places to grow grain like the ebro valley, wine and olive oil in the south of Spain, the silver mines in the West and lets not forget fish and the Romans loved fish sauce which the best came tuna caught off Spain, that the romans did like and made $$$.
@Phr34ky PHY Most of the 'walls' in the Roman empire were used for tax purposes, Hadrian's wall was built to mark the northern boundary of the empire, but in all probability cattle were driven through it to be sold.
@@theodoresmith5272 it's absolutely true that trade was worth more than conquest, but Romans didn't think of themselves as mere merchants. Before they invaded Britain it had already been established that peaceful trade would be far more profitable than occupying a rather backward, remote and strategically insignificant country, but later on they did it. Not for profit but for the glory of their empire. Rather like countless civilisations before and since.
There's nothing of value in Scotland. Never has been. Get to Fort William and might as well go home. Can't farm it, no gold or silver, nothing. Romans weren't stupid.
@@georget5874 At a fast food joint in Yorkshire, the menu included blood pudding and kidney pie. I ordered a hamburger. When I got it, it turned out to be a really thin ground-beef patty that had been breaded and deep-fried, in a plain bun. There was ketchup on the table tho, so I added it to my sandwich, and it wasn't bad. Maybe I should have been more daring and gone with the kidney pie. A normal pub sandwich was ONE slice of bologna between two slices of white bread. No mayo, no lettuce or tomato. In London we stuck with the foreign restaurants: Indian, Chinese, Hungarian, and American, all excellent. However I did have a solidly British roast beef dinner at one restaurant that was outstanding. So, maybe you need to know where to go to find the best British food.
do you happen to know if there is any "bad blood" between the Scots and the Welsh? I am an american so my perspective is different. I have a good amount of welsh heritage and have always been drawn to other people with Irish/Scottish/English/Welsh ancestry, but i have noticed that the Scots, while they can be your best friend they can be difficult to read/understand sometimes. Is that a thing or is it just me?
@@nn-dj2nu no animosity. Until the mid 1800s you could travel from the north of Scotland down the west through Wales to amorica speaking Celtic languages the whole way.
The Antonine wall is better than Hadrian's. The Romans built it 20 years after the latter. It crosses the central belt of scotland, the narrow bit before all the mountains. My grandparents house is built right next to a section of it. Just a ruin now obviously. The wall, not the house, which is fine, but not Roman..
I think you are missing one key point, that many who havent made a study of scotland in the post-roman period usually miss. Rome did conquer almost the whole of Scotland including half of the highlands essentially the part that would become Pictland post-rome. They didn't attack Argyll and the Western Isles (old Scotland) but tried to block all land routes using the Glen Blocker Forts. The choice of the glen blocker forts is the key turning point not the fall back to the antonine wall and hadrians wall. Argyll and the Western Isles had no land access until the start of the British empire and Roads only with the arrival of the motorcar. It was an entirely sea based economy and set on the most dangerous seas on the planet. Only the Vikings and the Royal Navy have ever conquered it and the Vikings soon lost it to a local rebellion. Even medieval the scottish crown which had moved East to Old Pictland becoming land based couldn't recover their homeland from the Lord of Isles who was sea based. Rome simply didn't have the boats for the job.
Ceaser had a fleet of about ~630 ships made in less than a year, to ferry his troops across the channel. As the video suggests, the reason the Romans didn't bother conquering Scotland, is much simpler than a lack of boats. There simply wasn't enough wealth in Scotland to steel to make it worth the effort. Personally I wonder if that was a bit of a short sighted attitude - perhaps if they had pacified the Northern frontier they would have less problems later on, but who knows.
What do you mean the Romans didn't have boats? The Roman had a perfectly functional fleet and were able to support joint army-navy and amphibious landings without problem. If anything the Roman technological superiority was even greater on sea than on land. Even if we only look at the North Sea, just sea how easily Caesar dealt the nautically minded Veneti (of Armorica, not the Adriatic ones), or wiping out the druids on Mona.
Great work, Garrett! I'd like to see Robert Eggers take a shot at directing a movie about Septimius Severus' campaign in Scotland and the ensuing bloodshed. Just watched the Northman, and think he'd make it moody and brilliant.
There is another wall that is less known to people outside of Scotland Antonines wall I was lucky enough to find out that part of it actually runs parallel with my back garden in Falkirk time to get the metal detector out 😆
@@omomo202 I was beat to it by a TV crew doing a documentary about antonines wall they unearthed a roman Fort a small one but a Fort none the less no coins found though just bits of pottery etc
@@ianbrown3493 well, keep digging! When I lived in Romania a family I knew found a small clay oil lamp in perfect condition! It was tiny but very cute! You never know..
@@omomo202 hopefully they missed something that I can find then I'm fortunate enough to live in a town where the Romans built a lot of structures time will tell if I find anything of interest
@@johnstewart1590 And my other family names are, Lyons and Stewart. I'm a Canadian. My ancestors came over in 1757, first to Florida, then Boston then Nova Scotia. Expelled first by the Spanish, then by the Americans.
No large population to tax, no gold or silver mines, too cold for Romans' liking. Not worth their time. Also I don't think Septimius Severus intended on conquering Scotland - from my reading it seems he wanted to literally exterminate the tribes living in Scotland. Had he succeeded I doubt he would've colonised it afterward, for all the above reasons.
So, Romans wanted to conquer and subjugate what became England and Wales and managed it with aplomb. Fine. The Romans wanted to exterminate the northern tribes, tried repeatedly, couldn't manage it and so they withdrew and built fortified defences against those same tribes. But the takeaway is what? They didn't want to exterminate them or they simply couldn't?
@@paulbradley7410 They wanted to exterminate them (or beat them into submission) but couldn't. Both Agricola and Septimius Severus's campaigns against them are very well documented and their reasons for failing to subdue/exterminate them are really quite simple: The tribes were small and mobile, they refused to engage the legions in battle and left scorched earth behind them. The legions had to rely on long supply lines from England which were open to raiding once they crossed Hadrian's Wall. There was scant/nil foraging to be had for the legions so they inevitably became riddled with hunger and disease. Ultimately spending years campaigning there to wipe out a minor nuisance, gaining absolutely nothing in return (no loot, no fertile land, no large populations to tax, no gold or silver mines, no large amounts of slaves, absolutely nothing) just wasn't worth it for Rome. Building a wall to keep them out was much easier.
The above video states that even those parts of Britain that the Romans held for centuries were not worth the cost of maintaining large garrisons. In fact it would have saved the empire money and men if they had eradicated the northern tribes, which they certainly tried to do but ultimately failed and so they withdrew from the north and spend huge sums of money and manpower building fortified walls and keeping it manned.
@@Aethelhald That's the issue though, they wanted total dominance, be it subjugation or eradication, both of which the Romans spent many years attempting but in the end they could not do it. We can agree that the local tribes made good use of the landscape to hide and launch attacks and raids then disappear again, but that still means that the most formidable army in the ancient world could not defeat those tribes without bringing in far more soldiers than they wanted to. That is warfare. The Romans used the same tactics and warfare that had worked almost everywhere they used it. In this case they withdrew, which I've no doubt was a major blow for morale and the army's sense of Gloria Exercitus
@@paulbradley7410 Nah, they still could, they just didn't have the will to ultimately see it through because it wasn't truly worth it and the defensive mindset had already kicked in. Severus actually won his campaign in Caledonia, occupied territory and forced the tribes to surrender to his wishes, despite him losing considerable amounts of his army and the whole campaign being a clusterfuck. He was even preparing another army to invade and finish the job but he died, and his successors had much bigger things to worry about than the nuisance Caledonians for the rest of the history of the WRE.
Also, the forts had much more comforts than any military castles or barracks before the 19th century. Solid masonry walls , tiled roofs, glass windows, heating in the baths outside the castles and access to the goods provided by the largest free trade area the world had ever seen
@@robertosans5250 No need to be so snarky. If they did use glass then I am happy to know that. I assumed it was probably something much cheaper like horn or even vellum. Or nothing other than a wooden shutter.
@@cerberus6654 they did have glass windows. Romans had the most advanced glass technology till modern era and because they invented the glass blowing technique, for the first time in history glass was cheap to mass produce and easily available for (almost) everyone. ps they also invented colorless glass
at that time Scotland was covered in forests, mountains etc ( the highlands were deforested centuries later to allow pastural farming) and its people were in many smaller tribes, the Romans would have to defeat and then police hundreds of clans and tribes continuously from then on with little of value coming in to pay for the cost of garrison. Britannia was ruled by Rome for near 400 years. the parts now making up England and Wales were much more fertile and settled already. there were also mineral resources like gold and tin * the latter being surprisingly rare in those days with few mines within the empire. the Roman legions left Britain in 410AD
They didn't conquer Scotland, Germania or Parthia because they couldn't. The argument that it was not worth is, is only valid if they hadn't tried. But they did try and they failed. After you retreat with broken armies it is easy to say it was not worth it. Remember we don't have the Scots version of events. We just have the Roman sources.
Established titles does not let you call yourself anything. As someone from Scotland, this Hong Kong based company is selling Scotland with no claim at all. I own a house and land in Scotland and can't call myself anything XD The Antonine Wall was also a real thing as pointed out by others.
The Romans invaded Scotland on no less than 4 occasions. 2 of these were led by the emperor himself. There is a higher concentration of Roman fortifications in Scotland than there is anywhere else in the world. Agricola claimed to have subjugated the Orkney Islands in 80ad and another province named Valeria was noted after the campaign's of Theodosius.
1:20 Watching Geta's face being erased from the "Severan Tondo" is actually pretty sad. Not only Caracalla dared to kill his own brother, but also tried to destroy his legacy. Sure even Cain would find him disgusting... P.S.: The fact they haven't made a single movie or tv show about the Severan dinasty is simply a crime
Well Romans built a wall because there was nothing of value up north and to ward off raids. I do remember in the beginning Romans and Scots had an open terrain conventional battle which the Scots lost and from there on the scots only went guerilla mode.
Good video and I understand money needs to be made in order to keep uploads consistent, but please do not enable scammers to sponsor videos. Established Titles is the definition of fraudulent company.
As someone who's been passionate about history in general and Roman history specifically for as long as I can remember (to the point I'm now working on a PhD in Roman history), this channel is consistently amazing and hugely informative, as well as fun! Keep up the fantastic work :)
It is not only the Roman’s, well yes in exploring with many men, but Scotland was also known by the ancient greeks, I guess. I think the Greeks even know to some extent about scandinavia, and if it was just by name with vague knowledge.
Leaving aside Scotland, for a moment, Rome didn't bother to invade Britain because it had no real need to. The southern part of the British Isles was already pretty Romanised and had been trading successfully with the Roman world for a considerable time. Britain presented no threat to Rome and conquering it would offer no return for the expense. Your picture of it as an inhospitable place, who's only worth was iron and tin is far from the mark. Leaving aside the fact that there would have been no Roman Empire if the Romans had balked at attacking "inhospitable" places, Britain was well known to the Romans and a source of much trade beyond just iron and tin (it was known as an exporter of quality wheat, for a start - hardly a product of a cold and damp, inhospitable, place!). But invading Britain was pointless (it didn't even count as much of a 'trophy', being so far away and so unknown). And it was also a prime example of the big problem that the Roman Empire had, post-Augustus - borders. Or rather the lack of them. Where the Roman Empire met natural borders (desert, sea, large river, etc) it had an easily defendable border (or one that didn't need defending) and, perhaps more importantly, a fixed border - there was no option of expanding the empire further at that point. This was even true where the Empire met other empires - treaties could be agreed or battles fought and a reasonably stable border established. Where the Romans had problems was the non-geographic borders, such as Germany, where there was both no physical limit to potential expansion (and therefore future political problems) and the constant threat of raids (and therefore military problems). And ultimately, these non-geographic borders were destined to be one of the reasons for the Empire's slow collapse. For most of the Empire's borders, there wasn't much Rome could do about this - for instance the German 'border' could never be fixed, and would always need heavy military expenditure to defend it. But the 'British' border HAD been easily defendable (ie as just a part of the Gaulish coast). But, once Britain had been invaded, that physical, geographic border had gone and been replaced by much the same thing as the German 'border' - undefinable and (ultimately) undefendable . Invading Britain goes down in history as one of the stupidest things the Romans did.
It's always the same story: conquest stops when it's too much work for too little gain. Mesopotamia meant huge riches, but conquering it was very troublesome and ruling it would have been even worse. Germania was rather poor, and moderately well defended. Caledonia might have been an easy conquest, but it was too poor for anything more than a minimal effort to be worth it.
@@nodruj8681 Well I'm so glad that you took the time to engage constructively, rather than adopting a mocking tone while not even being able to spell "nope" correctly. That would have made you look like a moron.
It didn’t seem like a particularly easy conquest either. They never managed to win the war against the lowlanders and then that’s the lowlanders, never mind the people in the highlands who were very spread out and in even colder, rugged, cave-filled and mountainous terrain. As someone else mentioned, large portions of the highlands just couldn’t be accessed by land for people in large groups and certainly not armies. Especially back then when there was far more forest, it would basically be like the Romans trying to take over a more populated Sweden. Of course they could have done it, but diminishing returns would be the least of their worries. They were smart to cut things off below the already rather hilly borders.
Why would the Romans bother to conquer Scotland? There's nothing there. Wales and Cornwall had lots of minerals and England had a fair climate and geography suited for agriculture but Scotland was named Caledonia for a reason. Calad (Goidelic Old Irish) and caladh (Brittonic Welsh) both mean 'hard' or 'stingy'. In short it was a difficult place to live, with few material resources, hard winters and a lot of wolves. Hence "The Hard Land". The Romans couldn't get much tax or anything from the place so, in cost-benefit terms, it simply wasn't worth the effort. They didn't bother with Ireland either.
I’m not depressed & I don’t live in Scotland, but I’ve visited. It is a revolting place in innumerable ways, not least in scenery. You would not leave the Mediterranean for it.
A rough and ready measurement of how wealthy or sophisticated a particular society is is whether or not they can produce coinage. Coins were first minted in Asia Minor around 600 BC and the concept rapidly spread throughout the Mediterranean world and as far as India. Coinage made the practise of administration and trade much more efficient. Coins were being minted by the inhabitants of Gaul by 300 BC and coins were being produced in what is now southern England by 200 BC, around 40,000 examples of such early British coinage are in museums today. Societies capable of producing coinage were prime targets for Roman aggression. The societies were capable of generating large surpluses which the Romans could confiscate and used to pay for their administration and military occupation. In this context is worth noting that the earliest Irish coins date from around the year 1000 AD and the earliest coinage to be minted in Scotland did not occur until 1100 AD.
I still use coins. In fact, I will probably use coins at least a couple times today, as I prefer to use cash instead of cards or other digital payments.
Fantastic video! I learned a lot, as others have said. I went to Hadrian’s Wall with my father about 15 years ago. Housesteads Fort, I believe? A truly beautiful and awe inspiring sight.
All these "why didn't rome conquer X" videos are titled in a way that implies the Romans could conquer wherever they wanted which definitely isn't the case.
But they did for a lot of countries! The Romans could have conquered all of Britain aswell as Ireland and even most of Germany if they had wanted. Parthians and Felix arabia is different story
@@aka99 No way on earth they could have conquered Germany lmao they couldn't fight a guerilla war against more than 100k soldiers, especially when they don't have their rear side blocked off like in the Hispanian campaigns. Tacitus even admits the Germanic tribes were more dangerous than the Parthians. As for Ireland and Scotland, it would have been the same story as the Hispanian campaigns, many armies over many years. Which means weaker frontiers. Hadrian pulled back the borders for good reason.
@@EresirThe1st of course, the romans would had needed many legions. But if they wanted, they could. Actuall they had, but gave it up after the Teutoburg slaughter. They did apunishment expedition into Germania in the year 235, succesfully. The problem the Romans had, if we believe their sources, is the way they treated the germanics. Oh, i know that statemnent of Tacitus. Written in his Germania. I guess, because of the Teutoburg forest. Tactitus did not mention the campagins of Germanicus.
@@aka99 That campaign went into a tiny portion of Germania, the locals naturally just fell back into the forests and swamps beyond his reach. Not even Trajan at his full power could have conquered the whole of Germania.
Basically 3 main reasons: 1. It was really far from London and cold/wet so it cost more to send and maintain troops there. 2. The Scots/Gaelic people of that region were known as 'highlanders' and were a very raucous bunch. 80% of white people in the American south are largely descended from these people and it shows up still as what we'd call 'cracker culture' or 'rednecks'. 3. They didn't have enough troops to maintain order. They could conquer it, but they would never be able to subjugate Scotland entirely because they needed troops in other parts of the empire.
" Because Emperor Domitian was very jealous, and suspicious of General Agricola, and had him removed, after Domitian got his butt handed to him by the Dacians"
I hope Toldinstone can do some episodes about Alexander the Great's empire and how he made it. I know his videos are almost exclusively about Ancient Rome but the story of Alexander the Great carving out one of the biggest empires in history in just over a decade is fascinating to me and doesn't get enough attention.
Your narration skills with images are great. I wonder if youd consider doing a proper fullon series of roman history from the beginning to end like Mommsen for example
Rome being a slave society perhaps had something to do with it. The slave-holding and hunting aspect of the empire always seems to be lacking in histories of Rome. If one looks at the US today, and can fully appreciate the after-effects of slavery on culture and politics, one can come to suspect that there is much missing in the narratives dealing with the Roman empire. I wonder whether there are extant Roman documents that discuss the relative biddability of the various barbarian cultures on the borders of empire.
Like, for instance, a theory on why the romans never adopted the mechanized gaulic reaper is their surplus of slave labor. We in the West tend to (pardon the pun) romanticize Rome, and so there are aspects of their culture that we glance over because it isn't convenient.
they wanted to annex Scotland, it's just that they already rejected the annexation referendum once and it's supposed to be a once-in-a-generation thing, and by the time a second referendum could be held the emperor at the time was worse than the one before, it's just poor timing really
Arthur's O'on was an impressive Roman structure in Stenhousemuir, probably visible from the Antonine Wall, until an 18th century landowner decided to demolish it to build a dam with the stones.
Bosphorum Kingdom in Parthian empire? you should review better your sources, it was a Roman Colony. Also, Romans controlled land north of Adrian's wall in several times, e.g. with lines pushed to Antoninus' lines.
Which is totally why they didn't have to rely on guerilla tactics instead of getting massacred every time in open battle. Even when Roman rule in Britain collapsed they made nearly no territorial gains and where a sideshow to raiders from Hibernia and migrating groups of Germanics.
it is ridiculous not to include the Antonine Wall. it was the last linear roman frontier. the image at 8.18 is one half of a distance slab from the wall found at bridgeness on the east. The original is in the museum of scotland in edinburgh. Nothing to do with severus at all .... poor research here
The lack of commitment in Scotland, Northern Germany, Dacia, etc. teaches us that the Romans cared more about the prospect of implanting a stable civilization and economy (if there wasn't one already) in the conquered territory, rather than exploiting its natural resources or merely adding land.
I have read that they werent that bothered with Scotland as there wasnt really anything they needed and the effort would have far outweighed any gain. The Romans were quite pragmatic with those kind of things.
