They also failed to take parts of modern-day England, most notably Cornwall.
Just like I heard....Scotts are tough bunch
The Trajan campaign against Dacia begs otherwisethey had problems with conquering primitive areas.
Their operation needed to be worthy (from monetary or border security or prestige gain pov)
If it was not worthy the Romans had the habit to build up retaliation expeditions that could wipe out entire regions of their inhabitants even if dispersed in thousands of tiny villages (look at the campaign vs the Quades and Marcomanni)
They could have conquered the area but it meant overstreching a little bit more their forces for something that was not worthy from a gain/expenditure balance
Again not reallyThey also failed to take parts of modern-day England, most notably Cornwall.
2 of the 3 Brittany legions were settled there (and not on defensive positions, one in Chester and one in Caerleon IIRC, the last one being based at York)
You call 1 full legion sitting on Cornwall border and associated auxiliarii units established in Exeter and area one or two forts ?? OkayyyyyThey managed one or two forts
Half of Cornwall (the worthy part, the rest being mud fields and limestone cliffs) under strict control (down to Exeter and Devon) is not an invaded and taken Cornwall ? The grip of your Empire on India was less strict and tight
Yep the Empire didn't moved further but they had what they needed, the rest being deemed not interesting.
I spoke also about Exeter, am i wrong or is it in Cornwall ?
I talked also about Caerleon. Am i wrong or it it close of Cornwall ? Even if situated in Wales ?
Now i apologize (really) if we misunderstood as i have the feeling that you took my words too literaly, meaning that i wasn't clear enough and too prompt to use hyperboles when writting on an internet board (when i meant sitting on the border i meant able to control the Cornwall border by its strategic presence, not like some strict border guard unit)
That doesn't remove the fact that Exeter and area was roman and roman presence was identified down to Plymouth and down to Bodmin
As i said half of Cornwall was under Roman control
Anyway, that doesn't remove the fact that you are partly right and the other half was never seized
As were not the Highlands
But it has certainly more to do with the thing that i called balance of cost/benefits rather than anything else
Exeter is not in Cornwall. It's in east Devon, quite a long way from Cornwall.
There was very little presence of Rome in Cornwall, in fact until a couple of years ago there was barely any evidence of any presence. They've since found the remains of a couple of small forts, in which they excavated some roman coins.
If you've ever been to that part of the world, you'll know what tough terrain it is for a mainly infantry force (hence so many of our modern-day infantry train there). The romans failed to gain effective control of the area, and worse still, failed to build an effective road network. The topography significantly evens out through the central Devon/Somerset valley, which allowed them to push that far west. Beyond that, and it was bandit country.
Then i really need a mapExeter is not in Cornwall. It's in east Devon, quite a long way from Cornwall.
Never had that pleasure. However, you'll pardon me if i don't buy the rough terrain thing. The Romans have encoutered enough of rough terrains to know how to deal with. After all they managed to carry military campaigns in the Balkans as well an in Central Europe, where some areas are pretty difficult too.If you've ever been to that part of the world, you'll know what tough terrain it is
It is very possible that the rough terrain slowed down the operations. After all a grunt is a grunt and is easier to defeat both militarily and moraly if exhausted by harsh conditions. However, the romans showed also stubborness when they needed to, no matter how the terrain was hard and difficult.
I stand my opinion (but it is my opinion so of course i could be wrong) but if the area was never controled it is not because of the terrain and the tribes (such combined situations were already encountered many times by the legions) but rather because as you say it was a bandit country i.e scattered settlements not worthy to monopolize the manpower of a full legion.
Moreover i don't remember that the natives were more than a local nuisance (meaning that they weren't able to carry middle to large scale unrests or invasions of the close romanized provinces). If it was the case either they would have been smashed or contained. It is not to diminish the value of the locals but the retaliatory expeditions against the Quades and Marcomanni in Moravia or the Septimus Severus campaign against the Picts as well as the building of 2 walls (Hadrian and Antonin) are clear examples of what happens to considered as pesty tribes
Dacia wasnt primitive at all, have lots of fortresses, a partial professional army that uses "field artilery" (balistae and catapults) just like Roman army, and invaded few times Roman provinces, defeated couple Roman armies before, killing a governor and the general in charge of Pretorian Guard who comanded the retaliation expedition.
Domitian kinda paid them some tribute to stop their attacks, before Trajan decided to invade them.
In fact that invasion of Moesia by Dacian army may saved Scotland of occupation, as Agricola (if i am not mistake) just inflicted a crushing defeat to Caledonian tribes in Battle of Mons Graupius and sailed in north of Scotland too. He was however called back by Domitian, as a more important front was just opened at Danube.
Scots still exists nowadays (despite they don't fight naked), Romans don't. Scottish wins.