they were never great sailors and the very notion of sailing on the Atlantic ocean scared the soldiers

>Did they fear the Irish warrior?
Ridiculous question.
Obviously yes, they did. There's a reason Ireland is still around but the Roman Empire isn't.

They didn't think Britain was really worth it either desu, just a big waste of money because an emperor needed clay/triumphs
so the idea of adding Ireland had no appeal

>>18458701
In Tacitus' book on Agricola he mentions that as governor of Britain he was considering an invasion of Ireland and thought it could be done with 1 legion plus British auxiliaries. He was entertaining an exiled Irish chief and planned to use his exile as a pretext for the invasion and annexation or creation of a client kingdom. But this of course never happened.

Ireland was always very poor, even moreso than Britain.

The Romans never finishing the conquest of the bong islands is always triggering my autism.

>>18458701
It was at the edge of the known world and didn't offer them any immediate spoils of war except slaves, which they already had plenty of.

>>18458701
They actually did, the fact hardly anyone knows this is one of the greatest lies of the Ir*sh.
Ireland was conquered by Romans using mercenaries from Britain, the mercenaries ended up becoming the Ir*sh.
Theres buried Roman artefacts all over Ireland, and evidence of Roman forts.
For example Cashel in Ireland comes from the Roman word for fort.
Its very telling the ir*sh almost have a habit of scrubbing this information of wikipedia.

>>18458718
The actual reality is the conquest did happen and Ireland referred to as little Britain was used as dumping ground for British exiles. Who became the ir*sh.
So it cannot be claimed the Romans didnt control the island if they were dumping people on it

>>18458784
oh to highlight the bullshittery of this they claim Cashel is an old irish word.
When its fucking obvious to anyone its CASTLE from Latin Castellum

>>18458787
and castellum means ROMAN FORT

>>18458701
They could have, but the terrain was very hostile and frankly there wasn't much reason to. It's similar to why they never conquered what is now Scotland; they probably *could* have, but didn't bother. Maybe had things gone better for Rome, they would have!
>>18458718
>Ireland was always very poor, even moreso than Britain.
Also this, there really wasn't much benefit for the Romans to conquer it. While there were some pieces of very beautiful treasure in Ireland, there was even more stuff looted from raids to Britain.

They'd be throwing money and manpower at a tropical bog for basically zero return.
>>18458784
It comes from Caiseal, meaning ringfort, silly anon.

All this being said some say Rome did ultimately reach Ireland via the Catholic Church, but very ironically it was England that imposed Roman Catholic rule in Ireland-not the Romans themselves!

The Romans may have raided Ireland or sent an expedition there but they clearly realised there was nothing there worth taking.

What did Ireland have that would make the expenditure worthwhile?

Keep in mind, that even Britain itself was never a profitable colony for the empire. If it weren't for the presence of tin, which was incredibly rare in Europe, they wouldn't have bothered staying in Britain at all. Tin was so precious that it was worth operating the British colony at a staggering loss for centuries.

Part of what made Britain so expensive to maintain (to the point of unprofitability) is that it required an outsized military presence. Other, larger provinces which were more recently brought into the empire were more easily pacified and could have their garrisons reduced at a normal rate. Not britain. Military presence there never went down, at times it went up.This not only made the colony cost more money than it ever produced, but it warped the local economy of the colony so badly that it caused a total economic crash every time there was a civil war or rebellion that the governor of Britannia intervened in. The Roman soldiers were basically the heart of the British economy, most of the jobs that the local Britons had in the Roman settlements were about cooking, cleaning, and providing services to the army. When the army left, so did their livelihood.

It's one reason why Britain never "romanized" to the same extent as a lot of continental Europe.

And you want to bring Ireland into the picture? LOL

>>18458706
>they were never great sailors
Rome were at this time the preeminent sailors of the Mediterranean Sea. You are applying a stereo type of Romans that is like 300 years out of date to when they were in a position to take Ireland.

They were totally capable of invading Ireland and defeating Irish armies. But this would be an expensive and risky undertaking, for what? What treasure did Ireland hold that was worth the expense of men, ships, and the complication of maintaining a line of supply to this distant island?

>>18458919
The Mediterranean is not like the Atlantic which is more challenging to sail on and they were afraid of it.

>>18458836
>. It's similar to why they never conquered what is now Scotland; they probably *could* have, but didn't bother.
Rome actually did push north into Scotland at one time. They justified this as a final campaign to "solve the Pictish question". Britain was horrendously expensive to maintain as a colony because of the huge military presence it required to deter rebellions and fight back raids from barbarians in the north (and elsewhere). It was thought that maybe if they pushed the barbarians in the north as far from the southern Roman colonies as possible, where all the stuff they actually cared about (like the tin mines in Cornwall) was, then maybe they could start drawing down the garrison in Britannia and make Britain affordable to run.

It didn't work.

>>18458920
Regardless, the Romans were not poor sailors. They were in fact the most skilled and feared sailors in the world when they colonized Britain. There was nobody better. If you disagree, name the seafaring peoples in the 1st century AD that could have possibly showed up the Romans in seamanship.

>>18458919
The Med is a kiddie pool next to the Atlantic.
There was also a religious dimension, the Med was the domain of Neptune, the Atlantic was the domain of Oceanus, a far older, more vindictive and less easily mollified deity

>>18458925
It doesn't matter, there was nobody alive at the time better at sailing than the Romans so his characterization of the Romans as "never were good sailors" is completely false. They were the preeminent naval power in the western world at the time, perhaps the entire world. There was literally nobody better qualified for a naval invasion of Britain. And the fact that they eventually made the crossing of the Channel routine proves their worthiness at sea.

The Romans were not as intimidated by the ocean as you are trying to make people believe. They had been a mighty seafaring empire built on maritime trade and had become experts in naval battles and even amphibious assaults. They'd been doing all this for centuries by the time they tested themselves in the Atlantic. Even despite early setbacks due to the stormier weather, they did not give up.

>>18458965
Of course size is irrelevant retard, I'm taking about the waves and storms, etc. same with naval experience, sailing on the Atlantic requires a different kind of ship and thus training all together. The conditions of the Atlantic are completely different to the Med and your attempts to ignore this are bizarre.
>And the fact that they eventually made the crossing
Across the straight of Dover, a passage so narrow you can see the other side when the weather is clear.
>The Romans were not as intimidated by the ocean
Its interesting how you're completely ignoring my whole point about the religious viewpoint they took about the fear of the ocean. Almost like you have no actual argument against it.
>>18458922
>If you disagree, name the seafaring peoples in the 1st century AD that could have possibly showed up the Romans in seamanship.
The Polynesians (obviously) and the Tamil of southern India (whose seafaring ability was so great they could travel to and trade directly with Rome in Egypt)
And it's not like the Roman invasion of Britain was unprecedented, the Belgae of northern Gaul had carried out their own invasion a century or so prior.

>>18458701
Caesar had a dispute with pompeii to end instead

>>18458701
Even the Roman conquest of Britain was a financial net negative for the Empire. The value of taxes from that island never exceeded the cost of legions necessary to police it. Claudius only wanted to conquer it because he needed a victory to boost his popularity. Romans could have easily traded for British tin instead and the state would have made more money from customs that way than by incorporating Britain into the Empire. This is also why they abandoned it in the end, there was simply nothing there to justify continued occupation.

I think now it becomes obvious why conquering Ireland was a very dumb idea.

Britain on its own was already a white elephant that cost the Romans more to garrison than they made from mining lead and tin and the meagre amount of farming they could do there compared to the Mediterranean provinces. Ireland would have been even more useless

>>18458836
no it doesn't come from caiseal thats an irish lie, the etymology is literally latin because there was literally a Roman fort there.
The irish denying they were conquered by Rome is classic paddy nationalist delusion about never being conquered by anyone but they have in fact been conquered multiple times in their history.
The Romans did in fact conqueror them with a mercenary army from the tribe called the Brigantes from north England. Coincidentally at this time they pop up as a tribe by the same name in Ireland and are one of the founding tribes of the Irish

>>18459898
also if you are dumb im being sarcastic, its not a coincidence, they are the same tribe.

>>18458701
>fear the Irish warrior?
No one ever said this in all history lmao.

>>18458701
because the women are ugly

>>18458706
>the very notion of sailing on the Atlantic ocean scared the soldiers
Doesn't look so much like "sailing the Atlantic," more like following the British coast then crossing the Irish Sea.

>>18458701
>Britania is poor
Why dont the Romans teach the Britons how to farm and trade and get taxes from that? Are they stupid?
Also Bongs are based for leeching Italian money

>>18458701
>Why didn't the Roman Empire just conquer Ireland?

There was nothing there worth conquering, it was a howling wilderness and the people were one step above cavemen.

>>18460074
Still are

>>18459898
>there was literally a Roman fort there
May I see it?

File: 960px-C3-89amon_de_Valera(...).png (1.84 MB, 960x1440)

1.84 MB PNG

>>18459898
kekked
but also
>brigantes
The only historian I've ever really read anything of regarding the Brigantes in Ireland was a yank claiming that the ones in Ireland were a branch of those descended from Cathair Mór.

But also
>irish claim rome never conquered them
Because they didn't.
>irish claim nobody ever conquered them
Of course, the opposite of this being true was a huge influence on Irish historiography.
>>18459920
>no one has ever said this in history
Forces of Sigurd & Brodir at Clontarf 1066, English armies basically anytime between 1593 and 1601 (particularly at Yellow Ford and Curlew Pass), British Troops facing the Irish Legion in the Walcheren Campaign, British soldiers during both the Irish War of Independence and the Provisional IRA's campaign 1969-1998.

Ireland was a smaller+less populated+less developed and completely decentralised island of Kingdoms, petty Kingdoms and tribes. That they failed to completely repel England is not surprising-not as surprising as the fact that it took England over 430 years to actually conquer the island despite the fact that it was on their doorstep and the fact that many powerful lords at various stages were completely happy to welcome England as an overlord. Whether it be the Irish across the Spanish Empire, in France, in Austria or elsewhere, generally they punched well above their weight.

They where planning an invasion of Ireland. but in the late stages of planning a Roman ship blown off course by a storm accidentally circumnavigated Scotland.
Proving that Britain was a small island. Before
That the Romans thought Britain was a huge lan mass and it's north extended into the frozen wastes. The Romans then decided to try and conquer all of Scotland instead.

>>18458921
Depopulating everything north of Antonine wall would've been a solution, Romans had the guts to do it and the means, if they were little bit less retarded they'd do it and brittania would turn a profit for once

>>18459206
>This is also why they abandoned it in the end, there was simply nothing there to justify continued occupation.
No it was abandoned because of the collapse of the WRE state administration in the West, the Romans definitely weren't thinking in terms of cutting losses as if they were a modern state. Around the time that Britannia was lost most of Northern Gaul was overrun with Barbarians and Rome itself was being besieged. When Honorius told the Romano-Britons to fend for themselves it was because a usurper had taken the British Legions to Gaul to fight a civil war and Honorius was too powerless to actually do anything to help the Romano-Britons so he told them to look for themselves.