Rome untoppled?

[Anonymous]

Strange how the names Hibernia and Scotia sort of swapped countries, isn't it?
It's no shame to have lost battles to the most effective army the world has ever known; there isn't a race in Europe who didn't, really. That we were not colonised just means I have less Roman stuff to dig up.
As for Wade, he came up here with the blessing of a large portion of the population (the Presbyterians); luckily for him, they were the portion who ran the place. It made it a lot easier to make all those nice roads to absolutely nowhere, no doubt.

 

[Anonymous]

Define your definition of the word guerilla, because I have no idea what you mean by the word. I suspect you do not either, as the manner in which you use it bears no relation to any military usage I have ever heard about.

According to the Chambers Dictionary:

Guerrilla-A member of an irregular force engaging in warfare or in the harassment of an army.

It has already been defined for you by someone else and I am sure you have a dictionary. You might want to use it in a minute!
It is baffling that you already havent and it is more baffling when you consider what is coming next.

There is no mention of Napoleon! It does not state that it is exclusive to modern warfare.

Alternatively give one source that gives any indication that the Romans wanted to add Hibernia to the Province

Sorry to do this to ya, Hibernia is Ireland. Always has been! Look it up. I dont think that I need to. However, Iwill ignore your mistake and answer accordingly.

Theodosius
Valentinian
Carausius (to a certain extent. There is evidence that picts banded with the Saxon pirates against his dominions.)
Constantius
Diocletian
Hadrian

Mining for lead, why would the Romans mine for lead in Hibernia where they had it aplenty in Derbyshire, Cornwall, Devon?

As a trained geologist I can tell you that lead is plentyful..... nowhere!

Read the Housteads finds, you will soon see how the garrison regarded duty on the wall. It was so safe you brought your wife with you.

Erm, these were written by the Romans of Conquered England.

The limitanei were the soldiers who were sationed at the frontiers. They were comprised of Barbarians and lower class Roman soldiers. These people were deliberately positioned at the frontiers because they were quite often annihilated by the likes of us. Roman soldiers did not want to be posted here because they were getting killed. Hadrian built the wall because WE WERE INVADING THEM!!! The texts that you mention are indeed fascinating in that they depict peaceful and fairly normal happenings but................people did not write down anything while they were being slaughtered. Anything that they did manage to jot down was destroyed by us.

When the Romans invade to make part of the Empire they followed a well defined method.
a) Defeat the enemy in battle
b) build permanent fortresses
c) build Colonia
d) build temples to the local gods
e) tax the locals for the privilege of being invaded

You missed the fact that they never conquered us and so therefore could not create the above.

Some Roman forts are still here. (cant get more permanent)
Evidence has it that they began a colony in Vindogar Sinus.
We did not allow your list of items to happen in our country.

Having the first option being "Defeat the enemy" means the next things could'nt happen. They did not build Temples until the enemy was defeated. They did not colonise untill the enemy was defeated. We were not defeated.

The English won a few battles and lost the war.

Remember your first post. It contradicts the next statement somewhat.

So enemy defeated in battle - done

And here is your first post:

The Romans didn't try to take the Picts....The Picts had nothing to offer the Romans so they just didn't bother.

Very good! You continue to aid my cause! You certainly have'nt dented it. Contradictions and errors are not terribly challenging for me though.

You may well find Villas, mines and ports built by the romans in unconquered territiories.

I think I said that! Yes, there is evidence of Roman existance here and they did not conquer us. Much the same statement.

Conquests of Hibernia
Well there were the Scots of course - who were Irish from about AD 260 onwards. The Vikings as proven by both linguistic and DNA studies. The Welsh and Saxons variously had control of the lowlands, check the Gododdin, the lineages of Macbeth (an excellent and long lasting king) and Duncan and the linguistic sources for places like Edinburgh, Roxburgh etc.

Holy Crap! None of these people ever conquered Scotland. (still ignoring the Hibernia error......no I'm not!)

The Scots influx was not an invasion.

The Vikings already owned the Orkneys and the Shetland isles and we were on friendly terms with them. When they tried to take the south agressively............BATTLE OF LARGS!! WE WON and they never came back!

The Welsh and Saxons were the same people as ourselves and we all got on fine. To inhabit the lowlands of Scotland, the people always had a repor with each other. No evidence of a conquest of even the area mentioned and certainly not Scotland. When studying the Borderers (people of the Border) you must realise that we both erratically controlled either side. The Borders have a seperate history in todays academia and were populated by the same people who joined in skirmishes and traded with each other irrespective of their blood or culture.

In fact these people united against the Romans for a time.

Linquistic sources are not an invasion and are certainly not a sign of a conquering. Neither is inhabitation of the said areas.

None of the people in your list CONQUERED SCOTLAND!!!

You dug a pit for yourself by heading your list: Conquests of Hibernia. They were not conquests and it was not Hibernia.
A nonsense heading then.

Oh and wasn't there someone called Wade . . .?

I regularly camp on Wades military roads. They are very comfortable and well built. He did not conquer Scotland though!!
While I would not have been happy with his presence, most people were.

A note on terminology
Ultima Thule - the whole of these islands including Ireland
Hibernia - the lands north of the Wall

A note on actual terminology
Ultima Thule - An island six days North West of Orkney. Probably Iceland, at best (for your argument anyway) Shetland and Shetland alone. This is the Romans own histories that reveal this one. You have betrayed yourself with this mistake. Ultima Thule means "Most Northern Land". Discovered by Pytheas in 4bc.
I'm afraid that cartography is one of my loves.

Hibernia - Ancient name for Ireland

Its a pity you made such glaring errors for everyone to see.
Fun for me though. I would stop if I were you. Apart from your insistance that I define "Guerrilla" for you, I have not had to refer to books or websites for my information. This is all pretty basic.

NEXT!

P.S The North of England was part of Alba. My country possessed
the North of England and you think that Hadrian and others went to all the bother of subduing the southern albans because.....

........oh, no wait. They did'nt bother according to you!

Cant wait to see your next errors!

 

[Anonymous]

A note on terminology
Ultima Thule - the whole of these islands including Ireland
Hibernia - the lands north of the Wall
Alba - the Roman province of Britain
Scotia - Ireland

Just had to set this in stone.
Its a pity that your tone here was so rightious and cheeky.
My wee boy is laughing his head off.
Funny that you are "informing me" of this guff!

Incidently, where did you find that info?
If you reveal the author it will at least allow you to be free of being responsible for it.

 

[Anonymous]

The reason noone has ever conquered Scotland is because any representative of a foreign culture that comes up here ends up speaking like an extra from Taggart and eating deep fried Mars bars inside of a week. Maybe it's always been like that?

It has to be said that permanent border fortifications on the scale of Hadrian's Wall were almost nonextant elsewhere.

 

[Anonymous]

Which reminds me of his lack of reference to the very line I kept telling him to study.

The Gask frontier is older than both Hadrians and Antonines and is now being seen as the very first prototype of all the future fortifications of its kind.

All this in a country that mattered little to the Romans.

 

[rynner2]

According to this webpage part of Scotland was under Roman rule for a while.

Lowland British Kingdoms: The land between the Roman Walls of Hadrian & Antoninus Pius inhabited by the (P-)Celtic peoples who had been under Roman jurisdiction for only twenty-four years between AD 138 & 162.

(Just one site found in this Google search - haven't had time to look at the others yet, but no doubt there are a few plums for either side to pick out!)

 

[Anonymous]

It's no shame to have lost battles to the most effective army the world has ever known;

Uhm, I was under the impression that was The Mongols under Temuchin and his son Ogedei.

You know; conquered China, ran roughshod over Russia, India, Afghanistan, Persia, sacked Damascus in Syria, kicked the crap out of Poland and Hungary, and the only reason they didn't go further is they got word of Ogedei Khan's death while Mongke, Subedei and co. were on the verge of crossing the Danube and burning Buda (as they had already done with Pest) and while Hulegu's troops were on route to besiege Jerusalem, and the whole lot had to go home to (in theory) elect a new Khan.

OK, there's the argument that they didn't hold anything in the West that they had conquered in any accepted and conventional sense, but I'd argue the Mongol idea of military victory is as valid as any modern conception. After all, their enemies did surrender.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, but you cant take nearly 500 years of incredible military persuit from the Romans just because another army is capable of the same incredible ingenuity.

Both were incredible!

One armys actions are not "cancelled out" because of the actions of another. The Roman Army was ONE of the worlds most powerful armies. That point is inarguable. So were the Mongols.
That point is also inarguable.

Rynner- 'Tis true that the Romans claimed possesion of the lowlands (which, again is opposite to the claims that Intaglio made) but the area known as Galloway remained free. Indeed, it was left untouched for the next 1000 years and is seen to be one of the last strongholds of the original celtic tribes of the area. It was the Romans habit to circumnavigate the said area (over land and sea) and annex it without much interaction with the natives.
The Romans would occupy an area and convert the inhabitants and employ them. There is no evidence that the bulk of celts, who were well inland, were much affected by the illusion of partial conquest. However, it was attempted at least three times and the 24 years that the antonine wall was ran, merely represents the most successfull attempt.

While on the grand scale of things, 24 years is not a long time but quarter of a century on top of two other failed attempts does indicate a certain desire on the part of the Romans.

Posted by Intaglio

The Romans didn't try to take the Picts....The Picts had nothing to offer the Romans so they just didn't bother.

His research has clearly changed in the process of this discussion.
Either that or he visited a couple of websites and picked up the closest book to hand. He is arguing with a fella who has lived, breathed and studied the subject his entire life. His two days vs my lifetime. Either that or he is actually recalling these fantastic errors from the top of his head. I did not want this kind of escalation but he challenged my view, quite without grace or knowledge. He quoted from a book and paid no attention to any other facts. My original post was a very positive one and was based on a hypothetical question. His point was laughable and he dared laugh at mine. He continued to mock! All without the required knowledge. Not even the basics. How many times did he require a definition of the word Guerrilla. Anyone else would look it up instead of digging themselves into a deeper pit over a few days. That is why I believe that he has avoided using good history references when he refuses to even consult a dictionary.

I thought that this was a good point: The Roman Army would have disagreed with intaglio, as would several emperors.

One last thing, when I said that the North of England was actually inhabited by the Northern Albans, I did not make it clear that it was the Romans who defined the future boundry for us.
Before Hadrians Wall was built, cultural division had begun only because the Romans appeared. When the Romans left, we re-took the north of England (south of Alba) and kept it until comparatively recently.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, but you cant take nearly 500 years of incredible military persuit from the Romans just because another army is capable of the same incredible ingenuity.

I wouldn't try to take anything away from what the Romans achieved. However, I would argue that the Mongols exceeded them: after all, Rome's conquests were over a period of about 500-odd years, while the armies of The Great Khan took just over 40 years to go from a loose and actually quite fragile confederation of tribes to rulers of an empire that effectively stretched from the Pacific Ocean in the East, to Ajn Jalut in the Holy Land and Liegnitz in Silesia in the West.

One armys actions are not "cancelled out" because of the actions of another. The Roman Army was ONE of the worlds most powerful armies. That point is inarguable. So were the Mongols.
That point is also inarguable.

No argument. The successes of the Mongols don't 'cancel out' anything anyone else has ever done, least of all 'cancel out' what was achieved by the Romans. However, Inverurie's statement was that the Romans were "the most effective army the world has ever known." IMO, that specific title belongs to the Mongols after 1241 (and probably from then up to the mid-19th Cent. only), but the Romans held it for a good long time up until then. (In fact, the Romans probaby held the title longer than anyone else, but time marches on, old ways give way to new ones, and yesterday's champion is today's headline but tomorrow's landfill. And other cliches about things changing.)

I only took issue with the apparent exclusivity of the sweeping statement made by Inverurie, not with the assertion that the Romans were a damned effective army.

 

[many_angled_one]

Different time periods means facing different foes and using different tactics.

It would be interesting to see how a Roman army of that time (if it had survived) would have fared aganist the mongol armies used to fighting more disorgansied foes.

Did the mongols not make extensive use of horse archers whereas the Romans were mostly melee infantry? The location of such a battle would prove decisive I think considering the heavily wooded, swampy etc terrain of Europe unsuitable for cavalry.

 

[Breakfastologist]

For Melee combat the Romans had some of the best tactics and equipment- from what I can tell modern riot police use very similar.

I would suggest that if the romans and the mongols had come to blows the romans would have won through organisation, discipline and tower shields.

But that is something of a "what if the hardest dolphin had a fight with the hardest shark" kind of discussion, and could go on forever.

 

[intaglio]

Thanks for the correction Rynner. The term is jurisdiction during the time of the construction of the Antonine Wall. My argument is that the Antonine was abandoned as too expensive and badly sited, not for any reason of force majeur. Intriguingly I have found no reference to any burning of the Antonine Forts.

Appologies too about Hibernia both it and Scotia refer to Ireland. Alba was used to refer to Scotland at times but confusingly also to Britannia prior to the conquest. Ultima Thule described the Northernmost inhabited island in the world visited by Pytheas.

If you had bothered to look a bit further in Chambers you would have seen (Sp guerrilla dim of guerra war . . .

From the Columbia Encyclopedia

Large-scale guerrilla fighting accompanied the American Revolution, and the development of guerrilla tactics under such partisan leaders as Francis Marion, Andrew Pickens, and Thomas Sumter has been called the great contribution of the American Revolution to the development of warfare. The term guerrilla itself was coined during the Peninsular War (1808–14), when Spanish partisans, under such leaders as Francisco Mina, proved unconquerable even by the armies of Napoleon I. From Spain the use of the term spread to Latin America and then to the United States.

Incidently I required your definition once.

The Chambers definiton is rather limited but then it is a dictionary definition not a military definition.

You have lived and breathed the subject StClair. You say never conquered but there were defeats. The Romans couldn't build permanent forts or colonia but they could dig mines and construct wharves and roads.

Vindogar sinus I can find no reference. Are you refering to the settlement outside a fort on the Antonine?

Conquest involves establishing the basis for a provincial government. There was no such organisation even provisionally established. Why? Because the Romans ran their Empire as a business. A province had to bring in an income that covered the cost of garrisoning and government plus the kickbacks for the Emperor, the governers, the senate. Lead mining and Slaves would not have produced that income.

Because a territory is not worth exploiting as a province does not exclude the locals trying to make an honest buck by hiring Roman expertise to produce marketable goods for the wealthiest market around. When I said Romans built the villas, I implied - but not clearly enough - that the local chieftens had them built with Roman expertise.

Lead, The primary source of lead for both the Greeks and the Romans was an unwanted bulk impurity from silver mining. When they wanted more in Britannia they had sources in Devon, Cornwall, Derbyshire. As you are a student of geology, StClair, check a geological survey.

You have not yet produced one piece of evidence that the inhabitants of "Scotland" were invading anyone, I provide one below. The Vindolanda correspondence indicates a frontier at peace. You have no part of this that indicates a dangerous frontier. You have your wives and children present see here. And there is more intrest in turning a quick buck than military action here.

The military graves at Housteads or Vindolanda have no indication of death in military action. Is there any evidence of burning of Roman military establishments on either wall?

There is a reference here in one of the Vindolanda documents to the "British" having many horsemen not armed with swords and not mounting (?) to cast their spears. But the assertion of Dr Ibeji that this describes frustration with "guerilla" warfare is otherwise unsupported. It could equally refer to the habits of Auxillia, the local Romano-British troops or brigands.

The Scots influx was not an invasion.

What was it then, friends outstaying their welcome? O come on, they were foreigners who took land away from the native people so efficiently that the country is now named after them.

The Welsh and Saxons were the same people as ourselves

Apart from the language and the culture. (Saxon is a Germanic tongue. Cymric, though a celtic tongue, is in the Brythonic group)

The Vikings already owned the Orkney and Shetland isles

Then the Hebrides and that bit round John o' Groats (check the etymology of the place names)

General Wade didn't conquer Scotland. Odd, he was firmly of the opinion that he had, as were the landlords who later enforced the clearances. Or was that all part of an ongoing guerilla campaign?

 

[Anonymous]

I would suggest that if the romans and the mongols had come to blows the romans would have won through organisation, discipline and tower shields.

This seems by implication to make the usual mis-assumption about the Mongols being an undisciplined horde of borderline psychotics who overcame the flower of European knighthood with brute force rather than science. The Mongols were in fact an extremely organized and highly disciplined army using techniques of warfare that we would recognize on today's battlefields. Fast mobile cavalry (the equivalent of today's mechanized infantry) equipped with missile weapons, superior artillery, biological and chemical warfare, as well as superior tactics. But enough: this is way OT.

 

[intaglio]

Good point zygon and I rather agree with you. But what of the later Eastern Empire, could their forces have resisted the Mongols?

 

[Anonymous]

The Last Ride of The Golden Horde.

Skilled horsemen, cavalry. I was always taught it was the horse cavalry, as a technological advance, that put paid to the super disciplined, but thinly stretched, Roman infantry.

Good thread. I might actually learn something.

 

[Anonymous]

Has anybody mentioned that the Roman Empire never actually fell. Not totally anyway. It may have been beaten back to the very walls of Rome itself. And been sacked, t' boot!.

It may have split into Rome and Constantine's Byzantium, but it struggled along. Sometimes, hardly more than a claim, or a boast. But, eventually Carolingus de Groot came along, Charlegmane, and gave it proper substance, ever since European countries, singly, or as alliances, have been struggling to reconstruct it.

Born Again Evangelists are fond of finding it again, as per Biblical, interpretation, or prophecy. It's the Europen Union, it's Baghdad, depending upon which interpretation you wish to believe. Philip K. Dick woke up one day to discover he was already living there and it hadn't changed since 100ad. General Patton was a firm believer. Perhaps the evangelists need to keep the parable below in mind,

If you would remove a splinter out of your neighbour's eye, first cast the beam out of your own.

 

[Anonymous]

Good point zygon and I rather agree with you. But what of the later Eastern Empire, could their forces have resisted the Mongols?

I rather doubt it myself. But I'm biased.

It is arguable that the Muslim war machine that was dominant in the same region by 1245 was formidable by any standards, but the Mongols still tore them apart in just under 8 years (1253-1261). Few people seem to realize that Jerusalem was within days of being besieged by the Mongols under Hulegu's command, when they turned around to deal with Berke, a supporter of 'false Khan' Ariq Boke who was elected by a rebel quriltai in 1260 (the title really belonged to Khubilai). In fact, consider the Crusades: European knights gave the Muslim armies a good run for their money, Muslim victories not being assured at any point, but those same knights had been quite simply massacred by Mongol tactics and weaponry in the space of just 4 years (1237-1241).

Similarly, although the northern forces never crossed the Danube and to destroy Buda after burning Pest, Hungary was totally beaten and the rest of Europe, right to the Atlantic shore -because the Europeans wouldn't unite against him, and because they were too reliant on their Knights- was at Batu's mercy by April 10, 1241. Then word got to him about Ogedei's death and he went home to take part in the qurilitai.

Can we get back on topic now? Pretty please? I know lots about the Mongols, but only little about Rome and I wanna get edjiccated too.

 

[Anonymous]

Appologies too about Hibernia both it and Scotia refer to Ireland. Alba was used to refer to Scotland at times but confusingly also to Britannia prior to the conquest. Ultima Thule described the Northernmost inhabited island in the world visited by Pytheas.

I know, it was embarassing!

Pytheas described Ultima Thule to be a land six days north west of Orkney. Sorry to be pernickety but this is what he claimed.

If you had bothered to look a bit further in Chambers you would have seen (Sp guerrilla dim of guerra war . . .

And.....?

From the Columbia Encyclopedia

Ah yes, the one we all refer too...

[Incidently I required your definition once.

Guerilla warfare. Pardon?
Define your definition of the word guerilla

That was twice! Pathetic is'nt it that I should stoop to this!

The Chambers definiton is rather limited but then it is a dictionary definition not a military definition.

Is that another joke? I will tell my kids to try that in their English class!

You have lived and breathed the subject StClair. You say never conquered but there were defeats. The Romans couldn't build permanent forts or colonia but they could dig mines and construct wharves and roads.

You "explained" to me that the Romans were able to achieve these things with out conquering a country. As Follows:

You may well find Villas, mines and ports built by the romans in unconquered territiories. Local magnates liked roman villas. They were warm, comfortable, civilised so they would ask Roman builders to come and build them. They also liked the effectiveness of Roman mines and ports. I believe you will find Roman port sites in Ireland

Ahhhh! More contradictions and rightiousness!

Vindogar sinus I can find no reference. Are you refering to the settlement outside a fort on the Antonine?

40 miles away from the Antonine. You aint gettin' nowt from me now. (actually,I have already told you the exact location)
Worrying, Intaglio!

When I said Romans built the villas, I implied - but not clearly enough - that the local chieftens had them built with Roman expertise.

Nice! Before and after the Romans, our "tribes" did not involve themselves whatsoever in the Roman Architecture. We did not even move into the vacant buildings that they left. It is one of the overlooked archaeological findings. We remained in our own homes because.........the Roman places gave such a bad impression when we chucked them out of our country. Give us some evidence that my countries leaders were employing Roman Experts to build homes.

Lead, The primary source of lead for both the Greeks and the Romans was an unwanted bulk impurity from silver mining. When they wanted more in Britannia they had sources in Devon, Cornwall, Derbyshire. As you are a student of geology, StClair, check a geological survey.

Yeah, what is it you want to know? I said that lead is plentyful nowhere. Please refute that.

You have not yet produced one piece of evidence that the inhabitants of "Scotland" were invading anyone,

Hadrians wall was built because the northern tribes were invading the developing Roman culture to the south. This is the famous reason for its existance and therefore am at a loss to point you anywhere.

The military graves at Housteads or Vindolanda have no indication of death in military action.

I used to live round the corner from Camp Hill in the south side of Glasgow. This was the final battle ground for Mary Queen of Scots and her army. An army of men fell on that hill and none of their remains have ever been found. Do you think we would kill thousands of Roman fascists and then leave their decaying corpses littering our own country, that we had just defended.

O come on, they were foreigners who took land away from the native people so efficiently that the country is now named after them.

If you say so! They did not conquer Scotland.

Apart from the language and the culture. (Saxon is a Germanic tongue. Cymric, though a celtic tongue, is in the Brythonic group)

Yes, apart from the language but not so much, the culture.
We all got on famously. We had tussles but we also had them with ourselves. We were all very similar people. They did not Conquer Scotland.

General Wade didn't conquer Scotland. Odd, he was firmly of the opinion that he had,

Do you really think that is odd? I think it is normal that he would feel that way. General Wade did not invade and conquer Scotland.

Here is your first post once again:

The Romans didn't try to take the Picts....The Picts had nothing to offer the Romans so they just didn't bother.

This is what you thought at the beginning and yet you have managed to talk and talk about a non-existing event. You have given me and everyone else, evidence that opposes the above quote. I still like the Ultima Thule and Hibernia stuff!
I have been posting your remarks to the Roman Archaeology department of one of Scotland leading universities. We are deriving much entertainment from your views. It is nice being attached to a department of archaeology for occasions such as this.

P.S You have raised nothing new in this post. You have said it all in previous posts. Your questions had already been aswered in previous posts. You handled the errors situation well but I am now left thinking to myself "this was part of his rightious contribution" rather than a quote from a book. A quote could be forgivable but as part of your own bank of knowledge its a bit....

My problem was that I made a very positive remark about the world and Intaglio jumped in with "the Romans did'nt bother"
This is guff and I made my case which was sound. He came back with more errors and contradictions. I would like very much to be accused of the same on this thread. I have'nt been plagued by the historical faux pas that have hindered you. My theories have not changed nor has my overall knowledge. But, it is clear that through quickly checking out your facts, you have gained a little knowledge. So it has been benificial! No longer will you refer to the land, north of the wall as "Hibernia" nor will you "explain" to others what Ultima Thule means. This is a development.

Intaglio- Do you believe that they did try to take us or do you think that they just did'nt bother? If you think that they just did'nt bother, then you have been wasting your time for the past few days.

Go have a think, because it is impossible to ascertain the answer to this question when we read your posts.

 

[intaglio]

The Celts had nothing to do with the Romans prior to their incursions. Go and talk to an archaeologist of the period before making such unsupported and sweeping statements. There was no celtic mist. The trade routes were well established.

The various tribes north of the wall all got on famously. Well, you can believe it if you like. But the Gododdin although the battle described is at Catraeth (possibly Catterick but that has never been proven, there have been attributions placing it much further north) describes the conquest of Northumberland (north of the wall)

As you have not grasped it yet There was no Scotland any more than there was a unified Ireland or a unified Britannia. There were three tribes whose names I know and I believe there was a forth. Caledonians, Picts, Dalriada. There is a reference to a Duncan who was king of the scots in one timeline website but as they use the word Scot, I am very doubtful as to their sources.

 

[Anonymous]

The Celts had nothing to do with the Romans prior to their incursions. Go and talk to an archaeologist of the period before making such unsupported and sweeping statements. There was no celtic mist. The trade routes were well established.

What a weird statement. It is like saying "the Romans had nothing to do with the celts until they actually met each other" The people of my country were Celtic, before and after the Roman occupation of Britain, so what on earth do you mean?
Hadrians wall was built solely for the division of Roman citizens and the barbarians of the north. The reason: we were attacking the citizens of Roman Britain. Hadrians wall is evidence that we invaded them. The antonine wall is evidence that they invaded us.
You said that they never even bothered.

The various tribes north of the wall all got on famously. Well, you can believe it if you like. But the Gododdin although the battle described is at Catraeth (possibly Catterick but that has never been proven, there have been attributions placing it much further north) describes the conquest of Northumberland (north of the wall)

In the grand scale of things the people you are refering to got on well.
I did say that they were as divisive as everybody else and they did tussle with each other. They united against the common enemies and saw themselves as being quite different from people from the mediteranian and eventually those who defected to the Roman army.

As you have not grasped it yet There was no Scotland any more than there was a unified Ireland or a unified Britannia.

It is the other way round. You have not grasped that I have known it all my life as I am partly descended from the Scotts of Ireland. This topic is quite frequently used by people who believe that they know a special secret about Scotland. It is not 1965 any more intaglio and the country that I live in now is called Scotland. It is to my country that I refer.

There were three tribes whose names I know and I believe there was a forth. Caledonians, Picts, Dalriada.

I do not believe that you know any of the names. Pict was merely the name for the Painted People that the Romans encountered and Dalriada is simply a Geographical area that I grew up in. Caledonians was the name for the whole collection of tribes (according to Tacitus) while Calidonii was the name of just one of the many tribes.
So, after announcing that none in your list is an actual tribe, without further ado here is a slightly more comprahensive list:

The land north of the Antonine wall was comprised of:

Cornovii
Caereni
Smertae
Carnonacae
Decantae
Lugi
Taexali
Creones
Caledonii
Epidii
Venicones

the land south of the Antonine was comprised of the:

Damnonii
Novantae
Selgovae
Votadini

If you still claim to know the name of only three and you suspect that there might be a fourth. Bravo! You know lots and lots! Actually, the three whose names you knew.......were all wrong!

There is a reference to a Duncan who was king of the scots in one timeline website but as they use the word Scot, I am very doubtful as to their sources.

Oh, dear! Duncan was descended from the Scots of Ireland. Duncan the 1st is one of the worlds most famous monarchs. It seems a pity that you had to look him up but it is more shamefull that you found one reference and not only was it vague but you did not even know if it was true.

Here is your first post again:

The Romans didn't try to take the Picts. The Picts had nothing to offer the Romans so they just didn't bother.

I say again, do you believe this statement even though you know that the Romans tried to complete their conquest of Britain numerous times. The Antonine wall was what exactly? Hadrians wall was built to keep people that they did'nt bother about out of their land? I will ask you this again....what is it, you think now?

Did they bother enough to include us in their histories, their boundries and frontiers or their own army assignments? Did they bother enough to refer to us as dangerous barbarians and were they concerned that we kept invading their "claimed" land south of the future wall boundry. You said that none of this happened and then you refered to the events yourself. Are you kidding on that the history is not there. Ah, you know better than Agricola, Hadrian and Pytheas.

You are now reaching and you are still failing to match most historians knowledge. yet, you try..........

Every one of your points was a mistake by the way. Must do a lot for your confidence though because you keep jumping back with some exciting new errors and you consistantly deliver them in a very rightious manner. Its so funny! Cant wait till the next set.

 

[intaglio]

I say again the Romans ran empire as a business. If there was no profit they did not occupy. Jurisdiction is a very diferent concept to conquest. The Romans claimed jurisdiction over Egypt before the bequest of Ptolemy. They claimed jurisdiction over Romania and eventually went on to occupy. They claimed Jurisdiction over Arabia Felix but never occupied.

Jurisdiction was the right of judgement. The Romans reserved the right to overturn the decisions of the local ruler(s)

There was no Scotland. There were many tribes, at least 3 different races. The Britons, The Pictoi and the Gael although my belief is that Briton and Gael may well have been the same race. The Pictoi were not Gael they were not even Celtic. There was no unification until Kenneth MacAlpine

The Scotia were Erse

My points remain the same
There was no attempt to conquer "Scotland" by the Romans, there was no profit in such an enterprise. Military actions were limited to the exercise of Jurisdictional powers

The Romans could march their forces in and out of the territory at will with few if any losses.

There is no evidence of successful or persistent attacks upon either wall.

There is no evidence of "guerrilla" warfare. The concept not even being thought of in the West until the American war of Independence and not given it's name until the Peninsular War.

The territory now called Scotland has been conquered several times. The first instance we are aware of is the Celtic conquest of the Picts. The second is the conquest of the Gaelic Celts by the Scotia. During the time up to Macalpine the Scotia, Gaels and Picts ceded land to Welsh, Saxon and Norse incursions (Caithness, Sunderland, Western Isles in the last case). The Saxons' were successful enough that one of their number could claim to be King of Scotland. There is a long break until Cromwell

Duncan the 1st was a famous monarch, agreed but I was not refering to Duncan the first. I was refering to an obscure reference I found refering to a very early king of the Scots on this timeline but it was Donald not Duncan. I was a bit rushed at 6, family commitments. I have found no other reference to such a person.

The only references on CANMORE to Vindogar Sinus were some very limited notes on minor excavations of Craigmillar Castle. where some roman coins were found but nothing indicating a town. Neither google nor lycos nor jeeves found any reference.

If the RCAHMS has no record under the name you have of such a township how do they index it? I am truly interested, if you have evidence for a permanent civilian roman township in Scotland I would like to find out about it. Do you have a mapsheet number or a parish name or an NMRS site number? Who carried out the excavation of such an important site, where is it published?

 

[Anonymous]

O.K Intaglio. This is a long one. Read it carefully though as I bet it will be the last!

Jurisdiction was the right of judgement. The Romans reserved the right to overturn the decisions of the local ruler(s)

Granted, but our local rulers kicked their arse. That is the point!

There was no Scotland. There were many tribes, at least 3 different races. The Britons, The Pictoi and the Gael although my belief is that Briton and Gael may well have been the same race. The Pictoi were not Gael they were not even Celtic. There was no unification until Kenneth MacAlpine

All these people were celts. What do you think the Picts were? The people that you have listed are not and never have been "different races". Could we have an explaination of this please. there is hardly any evidence for an aggresive conquest from the Scots of Ireland. In fact the best information comes from Iona in the form of religeous chronicles which describe a settlement structure rather than a forced entry. We were already allied and though there was fighting it was not a "nationalist" issue.

There was no attempt to conquer "Scotland" by the Romans

What books do you read? read the following carefully please. I have had to resort to my notes and I hate the fact that my own view was so unacceptable to someone who kept posting errors. Below is the whole bloomin' story, intaglio. In it you will find all your quandries answered and errors corrected. You may also be able to discern no less than 10 attempts to conquer Scotland. Even if you fail, my actual point is re-stated far below.

The Start

The original conquest attempt of the WHOLE OF BRITAIN was in AD43. It took till AD82-90 for them to advance to the Forth Clyde line. Agricola established a series of forts before continuing his conquest up north. he marched north and defeated us in a battle called Mons Graupius. Agricola built marching camps on Strathmore and what were to be PERMANENT forts at Strathcathro and Inchtuthill, Perthshire. the hopes were that Inchtuthill was to be a PERMANENT LEGIONARY BASE. This collapsed because of problems with the Danube. Untill AD142 this area was free of Romans. But then Antonine pushed the boundry again to the Forth Clyde line and he built a wall. It had to shut down because of local warrior problems and Antonines death in AD161. It moved back once again to Hadrians wall. The Antonine was briefly re-used as needs dictated at least one more time in the second century.

In around AD180, Northern tribes "crossed the wall that seperated them from the Roman forts. They did a great deal of damage and destroyed the general and all his troops".
Cassius Dio

At the end of the century the uprising of the Caledonians and the Maeatae took place. At that time the northern tribes were baught off for a great sum but it was not enough! In AD208, the governer of Britannia was forced to appeal to the emperor for help. Septimus Severus decided to come in person with his sons, Caracalla and Geta and a suitably large army. the actual campaign began in AD209 and the northern tribes were brought to order.......for less than a year!! In AD210 there was a revolt and Severus who was ill in york, sent Caracalla to "kill everyone his army met" Severus died in 211 and his son backed out and hurried back to rome to claim his right as emperor. The rest of this century we lived in peace.

The forth century however, had it all flood back.
In 305-6, Constantius Chlorus campaigned against the "Caledonians and other picts".

In 315, Constantines son Constans engaged in a campaign against the picts and ariani (who may have been spies)

A peace treaty was now formed......then broken in 360 when Picts who were now ALLIED WITH SCOTS FROM IRELAND pestered the frontier area and were promtly driven back.

The aggression was building up till the Roman historian, Ammianus Marcellinus had identified the following tribes:

Diaclydones
Verturiones
Scots
Attacotti
Saxons.

All of which were colluding and conspiring to rid britain of the Romans. In 367-9, the picts who were allied with the Scots and the Attacotti, got involved with the "Barbarian Conspiricy" (Conspiratio Barbarica). Count Theodosius was sent to britain and managed to make things right again........for only a decade!

In 382, the picts and scotts INVADED britannica but were driven back by Magnus Maximus. chronicled by the "Gallic Chronicler"

In 396-8, it happened again and we were driven back by General Stilicho.

The Monk Gildas who was writing in c. 540 wrote accounts af all three of the "Pictish Wars". Two are mentioned above and the third occured in the 450s when the Britons had to appeal, this time, to Agitus Thrice Consul.(likely to be Aetius, third time consul)

The End

All your problems should have been answered in the above information. I have given you dates, sources and academic orthodoxies. I have shown the relationships between the different people involved including the Saxons and the Scotts.
I have had to refer to my notes for this information because you were obviously not accepting my own expertise. You will find that this merely details the things that I have already pointed out. Above you will find historical references to permanent structuring and financial commitments. The whole enterprise cost the Roman Empire a hell of a lot of money and men. In the above we have the words: Campaign, Rebellion, Pictish Wars, Barbarian Conspiracy, Appeals, Invasions, all spoken by Roman Historians.
In it you will find original sources depicting Invasions of Roman Britain as well as the walls being taken.

You wanted evidence!!

Surely you dont still think that they just did'nt bother...

There is no evidence of successful or persistent attacks upon either wall.

Read above! Cassius Dio [sigh]

There is no evidence of "guerrilla" warfare. The concept not even being thought of in the West until the American war of Independence and not given it's name until the Peninsular War.

You are on your own on this one.

The territory now called Scotland has been conquered several times. The first instance we are aware of is the Celtic conquest of the Picts. The second is the conquest of the Gaelic Celts by the Scotia. During the time up to Macalpine the Scotia, Gaels and Picts ceded land to Welsh, Saxon and Norse incursions (Caithness, Sunderland, Western Isles in the last case). The Saxons' were successful enough that one of their number could claim to be King of Scotland. There is a long break until Cromwell

Erm, all these people occupied certain areas of the country now known as Scotland but none managed to conquer the majority of my land. Some of the occupations were peaceful to the point that history actually calls them "settlements". Cromwell attacked but did not conquer Scotland. Silly!

The only references on CANMORE to Vindogar Sinus were some very limited notes on minor excavations of Craigmillar Castle. where some roman coins were found but nothing indicating a town.

While it is true that the physical evidence is scant (for climatological reasons) I'm afraid it is to Ptolemy and his cartography skills that you must look.

Please remember that whether we won or lost individual battles, whether we were pushed back umpteen times, whether the Romans built temples or whether they pummled us into the ground........you stated catagorically in your first and last post that the Romans did not bother. It is this point and this point alone that I objected to. You had the chance to depict the entire version of events as an aid to your view but you could'nt because I have them here, in the form of a miniature library while you were quite clearly using the internet. The internet is limited as you can see. If you had the books we might not have heard another peep from you other than agreements. However, now you have names dates and sources that you can google on. (or go to your library or buy some books) You wrote a hell of a lot and got quite emotional and it was all pretty futile. At least if you had facts at your fingertips you could have given me a good challenge but at the end of the day your "opinion" was disproved over 1500 years before we were born.

Enjoy!

 

[intaglio]

Thanks for the evidence on permanent legionary bases. Because of that I now have the evidence that there may have been an intent to conquer.

Picts. The history I was taught decribed the Picts as a separate race from the Celts. This may well have been in error but understandable as it is an error perpetuated on the following sites amongst others -
http://www.perthshire-scotland.co.uk/about1.htm last paragraph;
http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/scottish/medievalscot.html third paragraph;
http://www.gunnclan.net/inform.htm first paragraph;
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/cmgs/britpop.htm last line of the Discussion, Spatial Autocorrolation, indicates a Basque (!) origin for the Picts as being one possibilty.

A last point on race, you quote Cassius Dio but don't mention it is he who uses the terms Caledonians and Meaetae to describe 2 groups of natives. By 313 the Verona list amends this to Picts and Caledonians

Guerrilla Warfare, on what evidence? The campaigns described are very similar to the campaigns waged by the Gauls against the Romans prior to Julius Caesar. Successfully raid in force then try to defeat the Roman revenge attack. This is the source of confusion. You regard the raid as diagnostic of guerrilla warfare. I regard the battle as diagnostic of normal practise. In guerrilla warfare you avoid contact with your enemys main force at all costs. If this does not happen you get defeats like Mons Graupinus.

Regarding Hadrians, I still see no evidence of it being overrun. You say that the evidence of battle will be lost. My point is that if a guerrilla raid or tribal raid happens the bodies of the slain can be recovered by the losers. Deaths are then recorded on grave markers. Where are the gravemarkers of those slain when Hadrians was overrun?

Cassius Dio does state that the enemy crossed the wall that separated them from the Roman Legions not forts. Unfortunately he doesn't say which wall.

It is this passage that notes ". . . crossing the wall that separated them from the Roman legions, proceeded to do much mischief and cut down a general together with his troops". Note no Legion is mentioned, no name of general and no mention of where it happened. These are unusual omissions. Was it a Roman at all and which side of Hadrians wall was it?

It might have been Priscus, he is noted on his gravestone as "THRAC MOES SVP RAET GERM SVP ET BRITT . . ." (conqueror in Thracia and Moesia; conqueror in Raetia and Germania; and Britannia . . .) The grave marker does not give a date for his death and unfortunately it is in the Ager Nervii not Britain. Certainly if it was Priscus the implication from the gravestone is that he was conducting a military expedition which failed. But Dio does not mention a legion punished for loosing a governor nor a battle. I don't know about you but I wonder where Priscus was.

Various Celtic tribes and the Saxons uniting. Yes they also fought each other. Both societies were warrior dominated even if int the case of the Picts they were matrilinear. Tribe fought tribe, princedom fought princedom. There is a good argument that one source of the Arthurian legends lies in Scotland and depicts warfare between the Saxons and that war leader.

The interesting thing about Ammianus Marcellus is that only 6 tribes are in the plot. How many tribes did you point out to me? There is also the problem that he says they united to drive the Romans from Britain. Remembering that after the withdrawal the northern tribes raided as far south as London and then withdrew and as Ammianus would not have been in on the discussions I wonder how he knew that was the plan?

Peace and war seem unbalanced for a continuing campaign. Essentially peace apart from putative raids from AD 90 through to the building of the Antonine. 25 years during which the Antonine was garrisoned but no recorded breakouts of tribesmen and certainly no revenge raids. Then the Cassius Dio report around 180 around 1 year of war. Then the Septimus Severus incident - 3 years. 305-6 Constantinius Clorus. 315 Constans. 360 then 367 -9, 382 then magnus takes the legions from Britain after declaring himself Imperator. 396-8 then the withdrawal of the Legions in 404. I make that a total of between 20 and 50 years of war in 300. Compare that with the record of Britain in South Africa and there the Boer, the Matabele and the Zulu never allied.

 

[Anonymous]

Picts. The history I was taught decribed the Picts as a separate race from the Celts...
...http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/cmgs/britpop.htm last line of the Discussion, Spatial Autocorrolation, indicates a Basque (!) origin for the Picts as being one possibilty.

Uhm, even I know that the modern Basques identify themselves as having a Celtic heritage. You really hadn't heard about this? No wonder they're so massively PO'd if everyone thinks they're just another bunch of Spaniards... (Not that being miffed is any excuse for blowing people up of course.)

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the evidence on permanent legionary bases. Because of that I now have the evidence that there may have been an intent to conquer.

That is all I wanted for you!

The history I was taught decribed the Picts as a separate race from the Celts. This may well have been in error but understandable as it is an error perpetuated on the following sites amongst others -
http://www.perthshire-scotland.co.uk/about1.htm last paragraph;
http://www.reconstructinghistory.com/scottish/medievalscot.html third paragraph;
http://www.gunnclan.net/inform.htm first paragraph;
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/cmgs/britpop.htm last line of the Discussion, Spatial Autocorrolation, indicates a Basque (!) origin for the Picts as being one possibilty.

An error, it will remain, though.

A last point on race, you quote Cassius Dio but don't mention it is he who uses the terms Caledonians and Meaetae to describe 2 groups of natives.

It was yourself that refered to them as seperate races though. This is a mistake.

Guerrilla Warfare, on what evidence? The campaigns described are very similar to the campaigns waged by the Gauls against the Romans prior to Julius Caesar. Successfully raid in force then try to defeat the Roman revenge attack. This is the source of confusion. You regard the raid as diagnostic of guerrilla warfare. I regard the battle as diagnostic of normal practise. In guerrilla warfare you avoid contact with your enemys main force at all costs. If this does not happen you get defeats like Mons Graupinus.

Pictish WARS by definition have to be more than a raid. Tactics are Tactics and the employs of the tribes of Alba do conform to that defined in the dictionary.

Regarding Hadrians, I still see no evidence of it being overrun. You say that the evidence of battle will be lost. My point is that if a guerrilla raid or tribal raid happens the bodies of the slain can be recovered by the losers. Deaths are then recorded on grave markers. Where are the gravemarkers of those slain when Hadrians was overrun?

It matters not. Your fundamental point has been dis-proved. That is all that fuelled me.
However, the boundry that was to become hadrians wall was crossed agressively many times.

It is this passage that notes ". . . crossing the wall that separated them from the Roman legions, proceeded to do much mischief and cut down a general together with his troops". Note no Legion is mentioned, no name of general and no mention of where it happened. These are unusual omissions. Was it a Roman at all and which side of Hadrians wall was it?

Unfortunately, this is one of the problems studying a subject that has scant evidence for events. These are, I'm afraid, the verbatum, translation (as best as will allow) of words logged by Cassius Dio.

It might have been Priscus, he is noted on his gravestone as "THRAC MOES SVP RAET GERM SVP ET BRITT . . ." (conqueror in Thracia and Moesia; conqueror in Raetia and Germania; and Britannia . . .) The grave marker does not give a date for his death and unfortunately it is in the Ager Nervii not Britain. Certainly if it was Priscus the implication from the gravestone is that he was conducting a military expedition which failed. But Dio does not mention a legion punished for loosing a governor nor a battle. I don't know about you but I wonder where Priscus was.

Could have been and yes its a puzzle.

Various Celtic tribes and the Saxons uniting. Yes they also fought each other. Both societies were warrior dominated even if int the case of the Picts they were matrilinear. Tribe fought tribe, princedom fought princedom. There is a good argument that one source of the Arthurian legends lies in Scotland and depicts warfare between the Saxons and that war leader.

Unfortunately, you have desribed a human condition rather than a celtic one. Friends fight! The Scots who SETTLED in Scotland liked a good tussle like every other nation. And like any other nation, they had it in them to unite against a common enemy. There is good evidence indeed for Arthur in South Scotland. Possibility is that he was king of Strathclyde. Strathclyde having stretched down to southern Britain.

The interesting thing about Ammianus Marcellus is that only 6 tribes are in the plot. How many tribes did you point out to me? There is also the problem that he says they united to drive the Romans from Britain. Remembering that after the withdrawal the northern tribes raided as far south as London and then withdrew and as Ammianus would not have been in on the discussions I wonder how he knew that was the plan?

The problem with the multiple tribes is that they were catagorised by people who continualy failed to conquer them. They will be grossly in-accurate. If the tribes of Britain all united to drive the Romans away (which they done during the occupation as well as at the end) then Hadrians wall must have been over-run. It is all rather difficult to come up with answers for these problems.

I am glad we sorted out the initial problem though. That one is certain.

Peace and war seem unbalanced for a continuing campaign. Essentially peace apart from putative raids from AD 90 through to the building of the Antonine. 25 years during which the Antonine was garrisoned but no recorded breakouts of tribesmen and certainly no revenge raids. Then the Cassius Dio report around 180 around 1 year of war. Then the Septimus Severus incident - 3 years. 305-6 Constantinius Clorus. 315 Constans. 360 then 367 -9, 382 then magnus takes the legions from Britain after declaring himself Imperator. 396-8 then the withdrawal of the Legions in 404. I make that a total of between 20 and 50 years of war in 300. Compare that with the record of Britain in South Africa and there the Boer, the Matabele and the Zulu never allied.

Problem is though, we never got to the stage where an all out, long term war was established. We kept defending our country successfully unlike the above people that you mention. And i mean preventing their mere presence in this land. Also, you say 20-50 years out of 300 years of what exactly......think about it! Not occupation, not constant attempts at invasion. 300 years of English Occupation! 300 years of presence in another land. Where does Scotland come into it? They were on the other side of the wall and we were okay until each time they tried to take us. We just kicked them out. No need for an all out war.

Anyhoo, even if it did apply, 20-50 years of war is serious.
20 years is one fifteenth of the 300 years of presence in England and 50 years is only one sixth of the 300 years. This is a long time but not only is your maths impossible (because working that out is impossible not because you cant count) but commendable in your attempt, the evidence is too scant to really persue this line much further.

You now know that there were many attempts to conquer us.
You now know that the wall was over-run and permanent structures were built. You now know that the Romans felt more than "aw, lets just not bother" and you know that a hell of a lot of money was spent on the whole project. it is good that you now know these things.

Have you looked at the Gask frontier yet? It is the oldest known defensive structure in the form of a wall ever built by the Romans.
It is now thought to be a prototype for all future types.

It is in the heart of Scotland and north of the Antonine.

You clearly have some sort of interest/knowledge of the subject but from where it is derived, I cannot fathom! What was with all the errors, Intaglio? You are able to ponder the existance of Priscus and Ammianus while believing that none of the tribes were celts or that Hibernia was north of the wall. Ultima Thule being the entire Britiah isles was contradicting Roman Cartographers. You did believe that the Romans did not bother, even once, to conquer Scotland. You informed me that neither wall was ever taken. You were then informing me of "facts" that really were beyond the pail. Where did all that come from, mate.
Now you are able to speak of events and tussles and cultural norms such as grave markers and military technique. It is a great turnaround from the original post all the way through to this one.

Are you merely learning it as you go (if so that is fine, but rather than argue using errors you should just ask) are you checking a few isolated facts on the net as they come up in our discussion.
Are you picking up good books but only checking those facts that are relevant to your view at the given moment. If you are doing all this, then the information in these areas is erronious. If you are taking it from the top of your napper then.....dont! It does'nt work. This could have been a pleasant discussion for the both of us. I am sitting here believing and knowing what I have always known and you have had a fundamental change in thinking.

Why did you decide to do this in this fashion , Intaglio, mate?

If I were you, I would have searched some verification of my own view and that of the other guy. When you made your first blunt post, I knew it to be nonsense and I did not check to see what could support your view. You could not have been at all sure because you kept posting glaring errors and having them pointed out to you. Maybe, you just dont have the books. But then, why take the stance that you did?

When I did refer to some books, all that I already knew, was there in black and white. I wish you had done the same rather than continue to post bad errors. Sincerely.......why did you do it this way and are you two different folk.

Either you have genuinely enlightened yourself, in these areas (which would be great) or you are now another person having a proper discussion about historical things. Polar opposites is what the posts exude. My own stance has never changed (proud, proud)

I know what it could have been, you were interested in the Romans but had never been attracted to the Picts..........I feel this might be the answer. Am I wrong? While you could genuinly speak of Roman History as far as your own interests were concerned, you could not shed much light on these areas because of a lack of interest. I feel the same. Because I feel the same, I would not attempt to argue with my poor knowledge.
if this is the answer, that is! Why did you conduct it this way?

This was my turf while Germany and other european countries are not. Please tell me that this is the reason for the apparent shift in polarity and that you are not just an error filled argumentative historian (or two)

Why intaglio, did you not take a hint when you were informed of your errors? I would have taken as much literature to bed as I could, if I had been posting errors like them. Like you I would have admitted to my errors but would have avoided posting more...........why did you take the stance that you did mate?

It could have been a lovely relationship!

P.S You are still on your own with the Guerrilla concept. I dont know quite why you feel the way you do but as it is just another "label" for something I would prefer to leave it alone.
I dont feel that the names that we give things are as important as the things themselves.

 

[Anonymous]

I feel quite bad just now.

We could have covered all this stuff as a conversation. And it could have included the other board members.

I think that we were getting up each others noses to the point that we were blinkered regarding other posters.

This could have been pleasant and informative instead of being rightious, opinionated, boorish and rude.......oh and a tad long!

I dont know you, intaglio but your first posts directed at me left a bad taste in my mouth. You kept telling me that I was wrong and then.......I compensated for that unpleasant feeling by telling you that YOU were wrong in all of my posts. It was not fair that we were both telling each other that we were wrong all the time. It certainly was not fortean.

I wish we could have just got over the problem early on and acted a bit more responsible and adult. Instead we continued to rant.

Can we start again and if not can we agree not to do it again.

For the benifit of any mods out there.....
It takes two to tango!

I, for one, am Guilty as charged, M'Lud!

 

[TheOriginalCujo]

A few points.

I'd like to make a few points about the Roman's and Scottish history which most of you seem to have missed.

I'm a little surprised at the way some of you have described the Roman Empire. I'm particularly suprised at St Clair likening them to the Nazis. While the Roman's did things which were by our moral standards wrong these things were comonplace at the time. I'm not saying that the Roman's were benevolent conquerors or defending thier methods, I'm just making the point that at the time no-one would have expected any better.

Not all of the Roman Empire was conquered territory. Some groups joined the Empire of their own free will. After all the Romans had plumbing and central heating and who wouldn't want that.

Yes the Roman's probably did try to conquer all of the British mainland, but they obviously didn't want the North of Scotland much. I seriously doubt that my Pictish ancestors could have defeated the might of Rome if the Romans had been serious about conquest. At best they would have just made the Romans angry, and we know what happens to people who make the Romans angry. Boudica (Bodicea) and Sparticus spring imediately to mind.

If the Romans had really wanted the North of Scotland they would have poured men and resources into the area till they outnumbered the local population ten to one. But why would they have wanted it? The weather sucks, the land is not particularly fertile, there were few natural resourses and the people were obviously not going to make good slaves.

According to Simon Schama's History of Britain, Hadrian's wall was not built as a defensive emplacement but as a political statement. The Emperor Hadrian consolidated and defined the Empire and built many walls, they marked the edge of the empire. On one side you were under the protection of Rome, on the other you were on your own.

Interestingly, Simon Schama feels that the idea of Scotland did not exist until the building of Hadrian's wall. The people of Britain on both sides of the wall were Celts, they spoke similar languages and had similar cultures until the peoples to the south of the walls were extensively Romanised.

Scotland has never been successfully conquered though. The Vikings tried but never held the whole country, the Normans ended up in charge by marrying into the royal family. Edward I, 'The Hammer of the Scots' virtually bankrupted England in the attempt but he never really subdued the people and his son, Edward II was eventually defeated at Bannockburn [see Fortean note]. Wade cannot be described as having conqured Scotland as he went north after the Union of the Crowns - by then Scotland, England and Wales were parts of a greater country called 'Great Britain' or 'The United Kingdom'. And I don't care what the national anthem says about 'Rebelious Scots to crush'.

All this may come as a surprise to some of the more Southerly members of the board. I don't want to come accross as Anti-English but I'm aware that there are some widely held missconceptions south of the boarder. For the record, England never conquered Scotland, England was never supposed to be running Scotland.

The two counties were united when Elizabeth I of England died without issue. Her nearest relative was King James VI of Scotland. He went south to become James VI and I. Initially the two countries maintained their separate parliaments. About 300 years ago the Govenment in London paid a massive bribe to the Scottish Parliament to vote through the act of Union which unified the two parliaments into a single Westminster based parliament. The Scottish MPs reallised it was a mistake almost imediately but they were outnumbered in the new parliament and could not rectify it.

Fortean Note:
There is a theory that states that after they were expelled from mainland Europe the Templars fled to Scotland. At the time the entire country had been excomunicated by the Pope and it would have been one of the few safe places. The price of their saftey may have been a military one and there are some who say the last military action the Templars fought was the Battle of Bannockburn

Cujo

 

[Anonymous]

Scotland was indeed excommunicated along with its King, Robert the Bruce. The Templars, being excommunicates, are thought to have fled to Scotland (where a lot of them already lived anyway) and supported our cause in Bannockburn. A contingent of Templars may have been the people described as "the Little folk". This name signifies the last run of scots who came out of the trees at the end. They were described as being the cooks and the washerwomen and older kids. The point that the templars already lived here means that they were probably part of the main army and that their techniques and personel were not borrowed but belonged. They were part of our army!

The interesting "dimensional tangent" that could have taken place was that because Scotland was excommunicated, any christian country could have launched a crusade on ours.

Many of the Templars already lived here and for some it must have been just "going back home". A home that was now excommunicated but one that was suffering personal persecution at the hands of the English. Not only were the Templars prepared to fight for money (no matter who the enemy was) but this time it was the home for some of them.

It is a nice fact therefore, that Bruce held his first masonic meeting in Kilwinning shortly after the victory of 1314.

It is all conjecture for the most part but there is some nice evidence to be found that support my own fancies.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: A few points.

I'm particularly suprised at St Clair likening them to the Nazis. While the Roman's did things which were by our moral standards wrong these things were comonplace at the time. I'm not saying that the Roman's were benevolent conquerors or defending thier methods, I'm just making the point that at the time no-one would have expected any better

What about Jesus? Or the people whose mums and dads were killed.

P.S Remember that Adolf Hitler himself was trying to emulate the Roman empire and derived much inspiration from there methods.

Oh, and the English Empire!

P.P.S Simon Schama was slated for excluding the Scots history to a very large extent and is therefor not a worthy source.
It should not have been called History of Britain. This is an old problem that still slips by people. The amount of Historic Britain books that I have picked up that are blatently English is a joke in my family. Occasionaly you get a map of England with the words "Map of Britain" below it. Likewise, only the monarchs of England get a history while we have to wait till England gets James the Sixth and even then it is told through gritting teeth and every effort is employed to cut the Stewart implications.

 

[TheOriginalCujo]

Re: Re: A few points.

What about Jesus? Or the people whose mums and dads were killed.

P.S Remember that Adolf Hitler himself was trying to emulate the Roman empire and derived much inspiration from there methods.

Oh, and the English Empire!

The Roman's didn't kill Jesus, they were just carrying out the demands of the Jewish heirarchy and the crowd.

Who's Mums and Dads?

I didn't say that they didn't comit what would now be called war crimes. But at the time that was standard behaviour, everybody was doing it.

What the Nazi's did could not be described as standard. Their crimes seem to be unique in history.

Hitler also admired and attempted to emulate the British Empire. And you have to call it British as most of the army that built it was Scottish or Welsh.

Cujo