0401C

Beyond the frontiers
At any rate, we have established that the Romans, or at least their poets, aspired to conquering and controlling 'the inhabited world'. But to what lengths were they prepared to go? Were the words of the poets simply imperialist rhetoric? Augustus, we saw, was careful; his diplomatic rather than military victory over Parthia is testament to that. Tiberius consolidated rather than expanded. His successor Gaius Caligula was at best incompetent, at worst insane. Claudius needed the military victory, but chose the victim carefully. After Claudius, there was some expansion in Britain, but this eventually came to a standstill. We have to turn to Strabo to understand our problem. He stated that the people beyond the empire were treated as part of it. Clemency and friendship were extended to them, but in most cases these realms were considered unsuitable for occupation owing to weak internal infrastructures. Only those parts of the oikumene which were considered worthy were to be occupied and organised, although the rest could certainly be exploited. This is also stated by the earlier historian Polybius, who notes that only the known parts of the inhabited world were to be ruled by Rome.

The arguments and views are complex, and in a sense contradictory; most Romans surely knew that they did not control the whole world, otherwise how could any imperial expansion take place. However, we must now try to fit Ireland into this picture. It is clear that Roman geographical knowledge of Ireland was not good, with its climate considered by Strabo to be uninhabitable, at least for Romans in their togas! It probably lacked the infrastructure, either economic or administrative, that would have appealed to the Romans. Too much initial organisation would have been necessary in order to exploit the new province to the limit. Why would the Romans invade Ireland if there was little to interest them ? Rome only took over economically viable territories, she did not conquer indiscriminately. The Panegyric on Constantine Augustus, the first Christian emperor of Rome, states that Ireland was not thought worthy of conquest; the effort was probably not worth the gain.

Conclusion
Taking into consideration that the claims and hopes of Roman poets did not always reflect the true picture, and that Ireland had little to offer in terms of wealth to the Romans, is there really a case for a Roman invasion of Ireland? The fact that it featured on maps of the Roman Empire is not important. These were not representations of regions directly controlled by the Romans, but rather maps of all areas over which the Romans claimed to have influence. This is an important distinction as communication or trade with Ireland was not a precursor to or a result of invasion. Conquest was not a necessary prerequisite of 'rule' in a Roman sense. ENDS