# Talk:Scotland during the Roman Empire

"There are no tribes beyond us, nothing indeed but waves and rocks, and the yet more terrible Romans, from whose oppression escape is vainly sought by obedience and submission. Robbers of the world, having by their universal plunder exhausted the land, they rifle the deep." Calgacus, as written by Tacitus in the Agricola.
"All right ... all right ... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a fresh-water system and baths and public order... what have the Romans ever done for us?" Reg in The Life of Brian. 

For the fiction section, it might be worth looking up that novel about the broch builders. I can't remember what it's called or who wrote it, but it takes to the theory that many were built to protect against Roman pirates.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

interested to hear it roughly mirrors the current frontier; whilst that seems to be a popular view in London it may not be entirely accurate.  As I look at the map it's running at about 45 degrees to it. More seriously, the Tyne- Solway frontier was only viable with good lateral communications (and probably a lot of debauching the natives with rot-gut wine) which is why the early mediaeval border ended up somewhere different and despite a lot of excitement in between the late mediaeval one is roughly there too.  --Rjccumbria (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not continue this discussion here. It has now been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland.
The statement "Roman influence on Scottish culture was not enduring", whilst true, does raise an interesting question: why is Scots law based upon Roman law (or, more accurately, Byzantine law, see Corpus Juris Civilis)? Anyone out there know? Ought to deserve a brief mention in the article, perhaps? --Mais oui! (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question and I have no idea what the answer is off-hand. I imagine the convention, as used in Scotland is of medieval rather than Iron Age provenance, but I'll certainly have a look. Ben MacDui 11:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
It purely a guess: as a result of the wars between England and Scotland, there was an alliance (the "old alliance") between France and Scotland, so I think it possibly more due to the French link than the Roman invasion.Pyrotec (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the medieval Auld Alliance/France origin is by far the most plausible, now that you mention it. I do know that an unbelievably large amount of medieval Scots were educated (or became themselves teachers) at the University of Paris (eg. the Collegium scoticum was founded in 1325; see also: Category:University of Paris people), and other French/continental universities.
However, I have now spotted the following (totally unreferenced) section at our Scots law article:
From the 12th century the assimilation of the Celtic church into the Roman Catholic Church brought Canon law and Church courts dealing with areas of civil law, introducing Roman law based on 6th century law from the Eastern Roman empire of Justinian. This influence extended as Medieval Scots students of Civil or Canon Law mostly went abroad, to universities in Italy, France, Germany or the Netherlands. (The English universities, Oxford and Cambridge, were closed to Scots.) The University of St. Andrews (1410) included the teaching of Civil and Canon Law in its purposes, though it appears that little or no such teaching took place. The University of Glasgow (1451) was active in law teaching in its early years, one scholar there being William Elphinstone, who then studied abroad and went on to found the University of Aberdeen (1495) which taught canon law until the mid 16th century. Studying on the European mainland continued to be the norm for Scottish law students until the 18th century. In the early 16th century a costly war pushed James V of Scotland to do a deal with Pope Paul III for funds in the form of a tithe on the church in exchange for agreeing to found a College of Justice, in 1532.
So, the Catholic Church is credited with introducing Roman law into Scotland, in the 12th century (note: prior to the Auld Alliance). I note that our Auld Alliance article makes no mention of the origins of the Scottish legal system, let alone reference the topic.
I will move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland as it does not really concern this article, and point to the discussion at Talk:Corpus Juris Civilis, Talk:Roman Catholicism in Scotland, Talk:Auld Alliance, Talk:Law of France and Talk:Scots law. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Please do not continue this discussion here. It has now been moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland.

"Scotland" didn't exist during the time of the Roman Empire, nor was the term "Scotland" used to refer to the area, so its a complete contradiction. Its like having an article called "iPod in the Middle Ages". This appears to be POV forking for nationalism. The term Caledonia was used at the time to refer to the area, so that is what should be used to avoid anachronism.  - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the external links and references. How often do the words Scotland or Scottish crop up there? Answer: an awful lot.
Wikipedia MUST reflect real life academic topics and sources. It is not optional. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
"Scotland" still didn't exist during the Roman Empire (and no reference claims it did) and thus having a title like this for an article is extremely POV. It might actually be better to simply merge this with the article Caledonia. The use of the term Caledonia and Caledonians in academic sources when refering to this period is in abundance. Applying a term which was only used by invaders from Ulster to refer to a sovereign entity centuries later in the Middle Ages is a complete anachronism in this context. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
So, in 1875, when John Hill Burton wrote The history of Scotland from Agricola's invasion to the extinction of the last Jacobite insurrection he was perpetuating a gross breach of WP:POV, was he?
Just have a look at the ext links and refs here too: Prehistoric Scotland. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I assume that wou will shortly begin lobbying for the deletion of these preposterous articles too?
Prehistoric France
Prehistory and protohistory of Poland
Prehistoric Sweden
West Virginia Prehistory
I also note that your objection did not bother the Good Article reviewers. --Mais oui! (talk) 10:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
...And it still doesn't (that was me). A moment's thought should indicate for what title a lay reader would search and what nomenclature would be more readily understood by that same lay reader. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is about the area now occupied by the country of Scotland during the period of time that the Romans were around parts of it, so the title is perfectly valid in my opinion. It is a period of time of the history of Scotland, after all.  What it was called by the Romans then is entirely irrelevant. Lianachan (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be three issues here.
1) Should the article be moved to “Caledonia and the Roman Empire”. There is no reason not have such an article, but it would be quite different. “Caledonia" may today be a synonym for Scotland but the Roman province had undetermined and doubtless moving boundaries, and would probably exclude the southern half of modern Scotland and a sizeable chunk of the period covered by the current article.
2) Is the current title or subject matter POV?  Hardly – as is pointed out above there are numerous articles with similar titles on Wikipedia and a significant number of the source references refer to “Scotland” in this context. Scotland is  a convenient label with a clear set of boundaries, especially given that Hadrian’s Wall approximates the modern border.
3) Is the title the best one? Possibly not and various alternatives have been suggested. “Iron Age Scotland” is an option, but the Iron Age began before the legions and continued after they departed and has no clearly defined beginning or end. The "Roman" period is essentially an intrusion of semi-history into this longer prehistoric/protohistoric period. It has a quite different flavour to the earlier and later times. Nor is the article just about “Roman Scotland” or even the “Roman Empire in Scotland”. Ben MacDui 12:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing unusual about Roman Scotland as part of the title of a book or academic article, eg James Fraser's Roman Conquest of Scotland published last year. The title complies with our guidelines, thinks this anti-nationalist. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Hadrian's Wall does not approximate the modern border of Scotland, every single inch of the wall itself is located in England and even beyond it some territories which are part of England today such as a big part of Northumberland. The use of the political term "Scotland" to refer to this area during such a period is an anachronism and a controversial one at that. Such things as Scotland and England didn't exist then, if such terms can be avoided when writing about such a period then they should. There seems no good reason presented not to have this at Caledonia (undeniably used contemporarily to designate the area) and any information regarding territories which were part of Britannia province of the Roman Empire being located at said article there. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a particular view on this, but to call it a 'controversial' use of the language is unsupported by the facts presented by other editors. Some scholars may refer to Caledonia; others to Scotland. Almost all popular literature will use Scotland as a label that will trigger immediate and clear understanding of the geographical subject in question. Such a trigger is precisely what should be used in an encyclopedia. Further, this is not an argument you have addressed, and it is quite untrue to suggest that there is 'no good reason presented not to have this at Caledonia'. The article should remain where it is. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Did Scotland exist in the Roman era? No. Was Scotland called Caledonia in the Roman era? Some of it was. Does it matter? No. That the political concept of Scotland didn't exist c. 100 AD is not relevant. The article is about the territory which became Scotland in the Roman Era. There's no implication that the term Scotland existed then. The term "Caledonia" doesn't mean Scotland, an important point. The Caledones were a people living in the Tay valley, and the Romans used the term occasionally for the territory north of the Antonine Wall "frontier". It became a Romantic term for Scotland in the modern era. So just moving its name and maintaining the topic as it is would not improve the level of anachronism.  Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

According to precedent, Wikipedia has such articles as Roman Britain and Roman Gaul, not Roman England and Roman France, although I would not object either.  A Merry Old Soul (talk) 12:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
This page reminds me of the the page on Napoleon_complex. It's OK Scotsmen, your perceived ancestors weren't even living there then, there's no need to be defensive! 84.92.131.50 (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is remarkable that you choose to link to a page that implies that perceptions of this kind are usually projection biases. Ben MacDui 14:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
While I would not contest that there are published works which refer to "Roman Scotland" this does not automatically imply that the term should be favoured over "Caledonia." I would recommend that this article be renamed to Caledonia during the Roman Empire with both a redirect from Scotland during the Roman Empire and an explanatory note in the lead to the effect that Caledonia is approximately the same but not identically the same as the geographical boundaries of modern Scotland.  While it is true that some Roman writers may not always have been referring the the entire portion of Britain north of their control when they used the term, it modern formal English (the language of this Wikipedia) it is correct and unambiguous to refer to northern ungoverned Britain in the Roman period as Caledonia.  The use of the term Scotland in the context of the Roman period does have a tendancy to suggest that Scotland as a cultural or political entity existed during the Roman period.  In sum I am arguing that the change would be an improvement on the current title and I am not arguing that the current title is unjustifiable. Greenshed (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See above - "Caledonia" and "Scotland" are not equivalent in this context, even if they are today (unlike say Hibernia). "Caledonia during the Roman Empire" would be a quite different article, as well as being an obscure title to many readers. By all means start it. Ben MacDui 08:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ben MacDui, using Caledonia in this era would be a different article, since it has a different specific meaning in this context. I think that the intro makes the issues clear. Of course that is not to say that these things could never be improved.--SabreBD (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors might like to look at this recent edit. It looks to contain some useful archaeological info and locations, and the map, while a little rough, appears potentially valuable, but it all needs to be integrated into the main text, i think, rather than tacked on at the end. This isn't really my field, and i wondered if Ben Macdui or other active editors might take a shot at it? Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this later this week. Ben MacDui 08:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at a webpage "Roman Scotland" introduced as a source by 207.69.137.43 and it does not look to meet WP's standards for a reliable source, particularly not in an article at GA standard, as it appears to be essentially individually-authored material and not be peer reviewed. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes - thanks for your watchfulness. It's listed as an external link - I found the analysis of Mons Graupius locations interesting but it is certainly a source to be used with care at the very least. There's certainly a way to include a brief mention of Dere Street without recourse to it. Ben MacDui 08:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would propose to create two separate articles:

Ancient Scotland (or Ancient history of Scotland)
Scotland and the Roman Empire Roman presence in Scotland
Rationale: the ancient history of Scotland is not just about the relationship with the Roman Empire, and even less about Scotland under Roman occupation, while the current article name and setup suggests so. The relationship with the Roman Empire is just one special topic within the ancient history of Scotland. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that this article is No 2 and that versions of No 1 already exist. See:
Prehistoric Scotland
Timeline of prehistoric Scotland
Picts
Dal Riata etc.
You will see that the title of the article is discussed above. The article name is not intended to imply any of the things you suggest but (I think) rather what you say you want - the relationship with the Roman Empire as just one topic within a broader prehistoric or protohistoric period. It's about the geographical area now called Scotland during the time of the Roman empire, which is pretty much what the article title is. It is unusual period of time for this geographical region insofar as it is 'historic' but sandwiched between two periods of Iron Age life about which the written record is weak. In other words, what you are calling the 'Ancient history of Scotland' is really 'Prehistoric Scotland'.  Having said that we could certainly do with an article focusing in the broad sweep of Iron Age Scotland, which would include the Roman interlude and which could draw on all of the above. Ben MacDui 18:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer. To further clarify, it seems to me that section 2, 5 and 9 of this article are a sort of "ongoing" history of Scotland, in quite fluent succession of Prehistoric Scotland, while the remaining sections aren't really about Scotland but rather about the Romans who happened to enter Scotland for a brief while. The title Scotland during the Roman Empire doesn't really cover these two very different aspects of the article. That's why I thought splitting the article might be a better alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs.
Moffat (2025) has been tagged with an "unreliable source" tags throughout the article. Is this tag still valid?
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 03:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)