Talk:Gnaeus Julius Agricola

message: He also expanded Roman rule north into Caledonia (modern Scotland). In the summer of 80 he pushed his
 armies to the estuary of the river Taus, virtually unchallenged, and established forts there. This is often 
 interpreted as the Firth of Tay, but this would appear to be anomalous as it is further north than the Firths of 
 Clyde and Forth, which Agricola did not reach until the following year. Others suggest the Taus was the Solway  Firth
I would suggest that the assumption that Agricola did not reach the Clyde/Forth isthmus until the year following his expedition to the Taus is a misreading of Tacitus, and for these reasons:
*Tacitus 22 : "The third year of his campaigns opened up new tribes, our ravages on the native population being carried as far as the Taus". New tribes - so he's talking about a large area.
*Tacitus 23 : "The fourth summer he employed in securing what he had overrun", He then goes on to talk about Agricola defending the narrow strip of land between two estuaries "which the tides of two opposite seas carry far back into the country". This can only mean either the Solway/Tyne isthmus, or the Clyde/Forth isthmus, It cannot be the Solway/Tyne isthmus, which had been reached in the earlier 70s  - a timber fort was founded at Carlisle (Lugovalium) in 72.
*Since Agricola was securing this territory which had been overrun, his army must have explored further north than the Clyde/Forth line, and retreated to that line to build the series of forts. The northernmost point reached was the Taus, so the Taus must be to the north of the Clyde/Forth line.
*There is only one significant river to the north of the Clyde/Forth isthmus - the Tay
Rambler24 (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable Sources by academic scholars to support your assertions?  Because our personal research is valueless to the Wiki project.98.67.185.74 (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governor of Britain 

message: The introduction says Agricola was recalled from Britain in 83.  The "Later Years" section says that he was recalled in 85.  I don't have the knowledge or time for research to correct it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esobocinski (talk • contribs) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed that too!  But fortunately that has been fixed.  Also, I saw that the 84 A.D. article said that he (Agricola) was recalled  in 84!  Something is definitely wrong.  Could someone please clear this up?  Rsercher (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date conflict 

message: Editors are often callous about sourced text and sources get moved around, which is pretty dreadful but happens. The original source was the top entry here: Agricola and the conquest of the north - Page 33 W. S. Hanson - 1987.Here's another. ¬¬¬¬  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original source for family 

message: The term Gallo-Romans is used to describe Romanized Gauls. Gaius Julius Agricola was a Roman citizen from branch settled in Gaul (stirpes Agricola) of an Italic clan (gens Julia). Hence, if we want to be precise, we should call him a Roman Italo-Gallic general. Or say that he was a Roman born in Gaul from a Latin dynasty that settled there. The point is that he wasn't a Celt nor a member of the Gallic peoples. Barjimoa (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallo-Roman is a bit confusing...

message: Dates are not postfixed by AD or BC or BCE. 2601:547:C000:7850:7FC8:E2BD:DC13:9DED (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates