History Ireland Published in Features , Issue 2 (Summer 1996) , Pre-history / Archaeology , Pre-Norman History , Volume 4 Emperor Claudius – invaded Britain in AD43. A number of areas are worth exploring in this regard: not only the possibility of a Roman invasion of Ireland but also Roman geographical knowledge and perceptions of Ireland and Roman attitudes to their empire generally. Whilst debates about an invasion of Ireland, however fascinating, may always be inconclusive, it is ironic—Roman perceptions of space and power being what they were—that Rome did not need to set foot in Ireland in order to claim imperium over it. Greek geographers First we must establish Ireland’s place in the Roman world in geographical terms. The first known geographer to mention Ireland is the Greek Pytheas of Massilia, who, according to a later historian Polybius, made a journey in which he at least visited Britain. Whether he landed in Ireland we do not know, but we can be confident that he learned of its existence. It is possible that later authors, principally Strabo and Diodorus Siculus, used the work of Pytheas as a source for their writings.

Diodorus Siculus, a first-century author writing in Greek, mentions an island in the north on which there was a magnificent spherical shrine to the god Apollo, adorned with many votive offerings. It has been suggested that this may have been Navan, which had been visited in the second century BC by a Greek or Phoenician traveller. This individual brought a gift of a barbary ape, the remains of which have been found at the site. It is not until the works of Latin authors mention Ireland that we receive a clearer picture. There is no doubt that the Romans knew of the existence of ‘Hibernia’, long before any direct contact, as the Greeks did of ‘Ierne’, their name for Ireland. Better knowledge was prompted by better communication, mainly as a result of trade. The later, and probably most famous of early geographers, Claudius Ptolemy, also notes that the ports and coasts of Ireland were well-known by traders. Fig 1.

Strabo’s view of Western Europe – claimed that Ireland was ‘barely habitable on account of the cold’ Caesar The first Roman writer to refer to Ireland is Julius Caesar, in his account of his campaigns in Gaul, which was probably published around 50 BC. Caesar considered Ireland to be two-thirds the size of Britain, from which it was separated by a strait of equal width to that between Britain and Gaul. Pliny the Elder merely tells us that it was the same breadth as Britain, but two hundred miles shorter, adding that the shortest route by sea to Ireland was thirty miles. In the period between these two authors, Strabo wrote a vast work of geography on more ethnographical lines concerning the ‘inhabited world’. He placed Ireland north of Britain, on the limits of the known world, and claimed that it was ‘barely habitable on account of the cold’.

(See fig.1) He generously considered the inhabitants more savage than the Britons, since they are man-eaters as well as heavy-eaters, and since they count it an honourable thing when their fathers die to devour them, and openly to have intercourse not only with other women, but with their mothers and sisters as well; but I say this only with the understanding that I have no trustworthy witnesses for it. Another author, Pomponius Mela, echoed the theme that the Irish were more savage than any other race. He also notes that Ireland was unsuitable for growing wheat, but was so rich in grass that cattle would burst from eating too much if unrestrained. The lack of arable farming seems to be borne out by pollen records which suggest a decrease in agricultural activity between 100 BC and AD 200. Solinus, who wrote in the third century AD and who may have depended on the work of Pliny and Mela, claimed that the Irish were an inhospitable race, but incidentally is the first to refer to the lack of snakes before the arrival of Patrick. The fifth century writer Orosius describes Ireland as being inhabited by the Scoti, and indeed surpassing Britain in climate and fertility.

Tacitus Despite this miscellany of references, by far the best evidence for Ireland remains the work of Tacitus, and it is certainly the most important for our purposes. Ireland…is small in comparison with Britain, but larger than the islands of the Mediterranean. In soil and climate, and in the character and civilisation of its inhabitants, it is much like Britain; and its approaches and harbours have now become better known from merchants who trade there. With the advent of the Romans, geographical knowledge continued to be important, though for different reasons. Provinces and other regions were explored from a military point of view. Indeed, we could claim that Roman geographical knowledge advanced hand-in-hand with the development of military professionalism. Intelligence became important and was chiefly gained from merchants and traders. It is interesting to note that Tacitus specifically mentions these individuals in his description of Ireland. One good example of the gathering of intelligence is recorded by Julius Caesar, who sent a soldier named Volusenus to collect information on British inhabitants, harbours, and landing places and to produce a report. We know also that Caesar commissioned the first known world map.

His adoptive son, who became Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, developed this attention to maps further, highly interested as he was in surveying for fiscal purposes. With him also grew the symbolism of empire manifest in Augustan literature, of which more later. Claudius From these rather colourful, but incomplete, geographical accounts of Ireland and its inhabitants by Greeks and Romans, we now must turn to the evidence for an invasion. Any such attack would have come in the aftermath of the Roman invasion of Britain in AD 43. Bede, relying largely on the accounts of the Latin historians, Orosius and Eutropius, states in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, that the emperor Claudius attacked Britain ‘wishing to prove that he was a benefactor to the state, (and) sought to make war everywhere and to gain victories on every hand’. This is a surprisingly accurate appraisal of Claudius’s motives. He was certainly no soldier, having come to power rather ingloriously as the candidate of the Praetorian Guard (the bodyguard of the emperor), the murderers of the previous emperor, Caligula.

Claudius had to assert his position with a clear-cut victory and travelled to Britain himself for the final campaign in AD 46. He returned to Rome after six months to hold a magnificent triumph, the traditional medium for the celebration of victories by those Roman generals who had participated personally in a victory. Claudius had thereby satisfied the army whose support he desperately needed. Agricola We must return to Tacitus as our starting point in deciding whether or not there was a subsequent Roman invasion of Ireland. He states that Agricola started his fifth campaign (AD 83) by crossing the river Annan; and in a series of successful actions subdued nations hitherto unknown. The side of Britain that faced Ireland was lined with his forces. His motive was hope rather than fear. Ireland, lying between Britain and Spain, and easily accessible also from the Gallic sea, might serve as a very valuable link between the provinces forming the strongest part of the empire. This is significant both because it shows an awareness of strategy, and because Tacitus goes on to note that, on several occasions, Agricola claimed that he would need only one legion to conquer Ireland.

Tacitus also records that Agricola befriended an Irish prince, possibly with the intention of using him as a bargaining tool or collaborator in a conquest. This has been taken by some scholars to indicate that there was an invasion, and they also quote Juvenal, who wrote that ‘we have advanced our armies to Ireland, and the recently conquered Orkneys, and Northern Britain with its short clear nights’. But Juvenal was a satirist, and as such, using his work as evidence is problematical; he may be referring to invasions, but equally, he may refer to failures! It should also be pointed out that the Orkneys and Northern Britain were never fully invaded or organised, and advancing armies to a region is quite different from invading it. Finally, the later Chronicle of Tysilio, which is corroborated by the Norman propagandist Geoffrey of Monmouth, mentions a Romano-British expedition to conquer Ireland during the reign of Claudius, but the details of this are unclear. Fig.2. Roman coins such as these of Augustus and Trajan depict emperors holding the earth in such ways as to suggest power over it.

Drumanagh Until very recently there has been little archaeological evidence for a Roman invasion. The astonishing find of a ‘Roman fort’ at Drumanagh fifteen miles north of Dublin would seem at first sight to show that there was an invasion. This need not be the case, and at any rate we cannot be sure that the final results will be conclusive. The site has not been excavated, so any conclusions drawn now could be dangerously premature. A proper scepticism should also be maintained because the site is unique and no other ‘forts’ are known or evidenced. It is also entirely probable that, because of trading links with Britain, many Roman and British merchants travelled to Ireland with their goods, and the idea that this ‘fort’ was a trading outpost should not be discounted. Gold coins have already been found near Dublin and at Bray; silver and bronze coins at Newgrange; brooches at Knockawlin and Cashel; occasional finds of grave goods have included Roman or Romano-British items. Richard Warner of the Ulster Museum has noted what he claims to be ‘a Roman grave’ at Kilkenny with a cremation in an urn.

He is surely wrong to claim that this evidence implies ‘a strong and secure Roman community’ when he himself admits that the number of Roman artefacts found in Ireland is small and that literary evidence is absent. We do not have to accept that there was an invasion simply because there was some Roman influence in the area. Romans often traded with regions that they did not invade. Only after a full excavation of the site can we examine with any confidence the question of a Roman military presence in Ireland. This is not much to go on but the possibility of an invasion remains. Claudius’s intentions when he invaded Britain were almost certainly to conquer the whole archipelago, and he was not affected by any notion of frontiers or controlling only part of the islands. He knew of Ireland, and that it was close to Britain. It is possible that Agricola, in AD 83, tried to invade Ireland but was unsuccessful, or that he had one legion on standby for such an expedition, supported by Irish allies, but permission was not forthcoming from Rome. Some suggest that he was called home in disgrace which prompted his son-in-law Tacitus to write his biography.

Perhaps the tone of Tacitus’ account implies an old man who still rankled in his retirement about his recall before he could launch his final conquest. The evidence against an invasion is quite strong: no ancient source known specifically mentions one. But if there was no invasion or if there was an unsuccessful foray which was not followed up, why was this the case? Around this time there is a loss of impetus generally in the Roman conquest of Britain, possibly caused by military problems elsewhere in the empire, in the Rhine and Danube regions. The Roman army was not large enough to fight on many fronts, and thus soldiers may have been withdrawn from Britain to conflicts elsewhere. The drive to expand in Britain never really returned, which may explain why there was no subsequent invasion of Ireland. After the mid-second century, Roman frontiers were always under pressure from some direction. By this stage they certainly knew what Ireland was like and that it probably was not worth the trouble of invasion. Additionally, Solinus notes that the Irish were an unfriendly, warlike people who smear the blood of slain enemies on their faces and so do not distinguish from right and wrong. Ergo, Ireland had not been ‘romanised’, let alone conquered by AD 200.

Fig.3. The Hereford Map(c. AD 1300),in which Augustus is shown issuing orders to three surveyors(mensores). Ireland,above the heads of the mensores, is depicted as being part of the Roman world. Frontiers Instead of speculating on the Roman invasion theory let us consider Roman attitudes towards their empire and the wider world and their conceptions of space and power. Frontiers as we understand them did not exist before the seventeenth century, and certainly not in Roman times. Two main reasons for this have been identified. First, poor geographical knowledge meant that the Romans tended to underestimate the distance between the centre of their empire and its periphery; second, regions beyond the centre were perceived in terms of power rather than territory. Having power over, influence over, or even connections with a region was enough for the Romans to claim it as part of their empire, regardless of whether they had good geographical knowledge of it. Thus the emperor Augustus could claim that he had forced the mighty Middle-Eastern empire of Parthia ‘to seek as suppliants for the friendship of the Roman people’, even though there was no direct conflict.

Contemporary poets expressed the belief that he could bring the whole world under Roman rule; indeed, the poet Virgil, in his epic poem the Aeneid, promises that the Romans will enjoy ‘power without end’ and that the Roman empire will rule over the whole world. These sentiments were not without parallel. The historian Dio paints a colourful picture of the triumph celebrated by Julius Caesar in 46 BC in celebration of his victories in Gaul, Egypt, Pontus, and Africa: this occasion he climbed the steps of the Capitolium on his knees, neither casting his eyes upon the chariot dedicated to Jupiter in his honour, nor upon the image of the oikoumene [literally ‘the inhabited world’] lying beneath his feet, nor upon the inscription which it bore; but later he had the word ‘demi-god’ erased from the inscription. Despite this magnanimous gesture, the implication is that Rome enjoyed power over the whole world. Other poets and writers follow suit: Livy, the great historian, stated that Rome was at the ‘head of the world’, and Horace boasted that ‘the fame and majesty of the empire had been extended to the rising of the sun from its western couch’.

Additionally, Roman coins depict emperors holding the earth in such ways as to suggest power over it. (See fig. 2) Of course, whatever the boasts of the literary fraternity, or any other symbol, this was not really the case. Augustus was a great conqueror, but was painfully aware of how the empire could be over-extended, especially after a disaster in Germany in AD 9, when three whole legions fell to German tribes. His advice to his successor Tiberius, reported in a famous passage of Tacitus, was ‘not to extend the empire beyond its limits’. The Latin is ambiguous, and what this phrase actually means has been the subject of dispute. It may mean beyond the empire’s present limits, but it could equally mean beyond its potential limits, perhaps the coastlines of the empire. 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 oikoumene 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 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 and 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 is featured on maps of the Roman empire is not important. (See fig. 3) 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.

Colin Adams is a postgraduate student in ancient history at the University of Oxford. Further reading: Ireland and the Roman Empire Ireland and the Roman Empire Updated on April 23, 2016 Ireland Ireland Did the Romans Occupy Ireland? The Romans occupied Britain as far north as Scotland and they were aware of the large island to the west of their domains, which they called Hibernia ( Ireland ). The Romans never subjugated the island, but there is evidence of extensive trade and other links between the Roman Empire and Ireland, lasting until the Roman withdrawal from Britain in the 4th century B.C. There is also some evidence that the Romans may have interfered in local Irish affairs by supporting the claims of local leaders to the throne, by furnishing them with weapons. It is also possible that the Roman general Agricola (who was responsible for the Roman conquest of Britain) may have led a military expedition to Ireland, and established a fortified base on the site of the present city of Tipperary. Irish and Roman Trade Links Photograph of an Ancient Roman Lamp Roman Influence on Ireland Although Ireland was never a province of the Roman Empire, the Empire had considerable political, economic and cultural influence in the area.

The relationship between Ireland and Rome was mainly commercial. The historian Richard Warner believes that trade routes between Roman Britain and the Mediterranean also included the island of Hibernia and that there was considerable trade between not only Ireland and Britain but between Ireland and the center of the Roman world. For example, the geographer Ptolemy in his famous map drawn in the First Century after Christ, depicts perfectly the coasts of Ireland and its tribes, demonstrating an understanding that could only have been achieved through close contact between the two regions. There is also evidence or religious and cultural ties between the Roman Empire and Ireland, as evidenced by the rapid spread of Christianity to the country. In fact the during the 5th century A.D., when the western Roman Empire was crumbling, Saint Patrick was sent to Ireland to strengthen the local Christian community, which presupposes that there was an earlier, ancient, Christian church already established in Ireland for some time, possibly since the 2nd century A.D. In addition to religious ties, the Irish aristocracy adopted Roman culture and manners. This was not unusual since many peoples in the Roman sphere of influence tended to adopt Roman manners, as this was seen as sign of good breeding and superiority.

A similar phenomenon would be observed during the British and French colonial eras. A Roman Standard Bearer Leads Troops Ashore Roman Military Intervention in Ireland Ireland and the Roman Empire also had military contact, though the extent of this contact is the subject of debate. It seems very likely, in light of archeological discoveries at Drumanagh and elsewhere, that there was an exploratory invasion of Hibernia by the Emperor Julius Agricola (or his deputy), which however did not lead to a permanent Roman occupation of the island. Some historians believe that Ireland may have been invaded by a force composed of exiled Irish and British adventurers with the support of Roman weapons, training and organization. This possible invasion and attempted colonization may have been led by a prominent historical figure called Tuathal Techmar. This possible attempted invasion and colonization may have been led by a prominent historical figure called Tuathal Techmar. Evidence of this expedition comes from a number of sources including the discovery of a large, presumably Roman fort at Drumanagh . The fort suggests that the Romans attempted to control internal Irish politics during this period with a series of military campaigns designed to carve out kingdoms in the country for exiled Irish nobility.

Irish History; The Romans in Ireland Some Archeological Finds The name of the fortified promontory itself holds clues as to its Roman origin: Drumanagh has as its root the word (D)ruman, a clear reference to the ancient Romans. Other historical references have emerged which suggest the presence of Roman legionnaires in Ireland during the first century after Christ. Another fort, located near present day Dublin, may also have Roman origins and according the historians Raftery and Cooney, this fort may have been a base camp used by Agricola on an exploratory/military expedition to Ireland around the year 82 A.D. The historians who support the theory of a Roman military expedition to Ireland point out that Caesar's expedition to Britain would itself be unknown if not for his writings in "De Bello Gallico" (The Gallic Wars) in which he documents his brief invasion of the island (a permanent Roman occupation would not occur until much later). Thus it is possible that other expeditions may have gone unrecorded and have been lost to history.

At the Drumanagh site, archaeologists have found artifacts and jewelry that are clearly of Roman manufacture, as well as Roman coins bearing the images of the Emperors Titus, Trajan and Hadrian. These findings suggest a Roman presence (or participation) in Ireland from Roman 79 to 138 A.D. Moreover, recent archaeological excavations in Ireland have uncovered numerous artifacts and Roman and Romano-British artifacts in the southern and eastern coast of ancient Hibernia in historic sites such as Cashel, and Tara. Roman artifacts have also been found near the Lia Fáil (Stone of Destiny). Recommended The Evidence from Roman Writers In his De vita et moribus Iulii Agricolae (The Life and Death of Julius Agricola), the Roman writer Tacitus says that his while he was governor of Britain (78 - 84 AD), Agricola welcomed an Irish prince exiled from Ireland (perhaps Tuathal Techtmar) and took this as an excuse to plan the conquest of Ireland, which however never happened. Archaeological excavations have unearthed Roman and Romano-British artefacts in many sites associated with Tuathal, as Tara and Clogher [11].

The historian Vittorio Di Martino has suggested that the Romans might have helped Tuathal, or someone like him to regain the throne, so as to have a powerful ally of the Irish who were able to put an end to Irish pirate raids against Roman Britannia. For example, the Roman poet Juvenal (second century A.D.), who may have served in Britain under the command of Agricola, wrote that "the weapons were brought over the Irish coast." Moreover, Tacitus says that in 82 A.D. Agricola crossed the sea and defeated people hitherto unknown to the Romans, though he does not specify what which sea they crossed (many scholars think that Tacitus refers to the Clyde or the Forth). But it should be noted that after this statement in the text of Tacitus, Tacitus writes about Ireland, which suggests that the people he was referring to were the Irish. Indeed Agricola fortified the coast of Roman Britain which faced towards Ireland.

Tacitus also mentions that Agricola often said that Ireland could be conquered with a single legion and a few auxiliary troops, which suggests (unless it was mere wishful thinking) that the Romans knew about the local strength and disposition of the forces that they would face if they invaded Ireland. Such knowledge might have been gained as a result of an earlier military incursion. So there are those who think that the crossing and the clash with people unknown to the Romans, mentioned by Tacitus refer to any exploratory or punitive expedition by Agricola in Ireland. Roman Invasion of Ireland The View of Modern Historians The historians Warner and Hughes believe that there was another Roman military campaign in Hibernia, led by the governor of Britain, Maximus, in 225. This invasion began with the occupation of Leinster (the region in Ireland where Drumanagh is located) and led to the creation of the castle of Cashel (Cashel comes from the Latin "castrum" meaning military camp or "castellum" meaning castle ). Of course, some of the Romanized place names might also derive from the fact that Ireland was within the Roman cultural sphere of influence and therefore it is possible that the Irish themselves had adopted some Latin loan-words.

There is not much evidence of Roman occupation or presence in Hibernia (Ireland), but the following have traces have been found: * In the south-east of the island there are many graves containing Romano-British artefacts, probably belonging to the tribe of the Brigantes. It should be noted that there are few archaeological finds of artifacts belonging to non-romanized natives. * On the Isle of Lambay, off the coast of Dublin, were found about a dozen graves with Romanized ornaments (Roman brooches) from the first century, demonstrating the existence of an active trade with the neighboring British coastline. * Three archaeological sites in Ireland have produced Roman artefacts (jewelry and coins) dating to the first centuries after Christ: the military-religious complex of Tara near Dublin, the northern fort of Clogher, and the fortified citadel of Cashel, whose name derives from the Roman word "casetllum". In the Middle Ages each of these places became the seats of local petty kingdoms and their traditions and legends referred back to Romanized Britain.

* Drumanagh, 20 km north of Dublin, is a fortified promontory defended by three rows of parallel trenches similar to trenches of Roman Britain (such as the Wall of Wat). Scholars such as Di Martino and Warner consider it a possible Roman fort. * British-Roman and Roman artifacts were found in Leinster, and many Roman coins were discovered in the famous Celtic site of Newgrange. * According to historian Phillip Rance, tribes called Attacotti (in Celtic Aithechthúatha) in the area of Leinster were Foederati (allies) of the Roman Empire, and fought alongside the Roman legionaries in Britain and Gaul after 350. * Christianity, (imported from the Roman Mediterranean) was present in southern and eastern areas of Ireland when St. Patrick and St. Palladio began their first missions. One of the first churches in Ireland, founded by St. Palladio around 420, had the name "House of the Romans" (Teach-na-Roman, current Tigroney).

Roman Ireland Conclusion Although so far no one has discovered traces of Roman buildings or roads, and the archaeological evidence uncovered so far may indicate merely an active trade between Ireland and the Empire, the idea of a temporary Roman occupation has gained credence among academics. The historian Barry Rafter has even claimed that the the possible Roman fort at Drumanagh was probably a Roman military and commercial base populated (apart from legionnaires) by Romanized Britons and Irish, and some local merchants and Romans citizens. However the fact that Roman civilization reached westward on the Atlantic raises some interesting possibilities and questions. There are many hoards of Roman coins that have been discovered in North America. These have been explained as modern caches or fraudulent plants. But what if the Roman Empire of the west looked out across the western sea and saw not only the Emerald Island but probed the New World centuries before the Vikings and Columbus? The fact that the Romans may have crossed the sea to Ireland suggests that perhaps the Atlantic was not completely off limits to them. More by this Author What are mummies? How were they made? How do mummies allow us to learn about Ancient Egypt? Mummies are synonymous with the great civilization of Ancient Egypt: indeed much of Egyptian culture, architecture and...

5 London at the end of Victorian era was the most important city in the world. Take a tour of this city and era with these beautiful pictures of a bygone era. 10 History Ireland Published in Features , Issue 2(March/April 2012) , Pre-history / Archaeology , Pre-Norman History , Volume 20 Irish archaeologists are currently engaged in major new investigations into the remains of ancient Ireland and its connections with the Roman world (NUI Galway, ‘Ireland and the Roman World’; Discovery Programme, ‘Late Iron Age and Roman Ireland’; University College Dublin, ‘Iron Age Ireland: Finding an Invisible People’). These projects will provide a new framework for understanding early Irish history. Ancient Greek geographers depicted the Irish as a savage population living in miserable surroundings and as a result many historians maintain that Ireland was ‘too poor’ to warrant conquest by Rome, but this may not have been the case. Roman map images of Ireland A second-century Greek geographer named Claudius Ptolemy used Roman military charts to construct an outline map of the British Isles, including Ireland. Ancient tribal locations are revealed when Ptolemy’s plans are orientated over a modern map.

Ancient Emain Macha (Navan) appears marked as a ‘regia’ or ‘royal centre’ and Ulster tribes such as the ‘Voluntii’ (Ulaid) are correctly positioned behind their border earthwork defences, now known as the Dorsey and Black Pig’s Dyke. According to Ptolemy, the western isles of Scotland—Arran (Epidion), Islay (Aibuda), Jura (Aibuda Orien) and Mull (Malaius)—were considered Irish territory (see maps overleaf). This same ancient association is mentioned in the Ulster Cycle and attested by political developments in late antiquity, including the formation of the sea-linked kingdom of Dál Riata.The situation in southern Ireland was more complex and several communities listed by Ptolemy share names with British tribes. Agricola and Tacitus (fifth and sixth from left) as depicted in a detail of William Brassey Hole’s 1898 Processional Frieze. (Scottish National Portrait Gallery) These include the Gangani from northern Wales, near Anglesey, and the Brigantes from a powerful Celtic kingdom in central Britain.

Ptolemy positions these Irish Brigantes opposite their British counterparts, suggesting a strong kinship connection. Romano-British artefacts have been found at the promontory fort of Drumanagh, north of Dublin. The graves of British Brigantes, including their distinctive weaponry, have also been unearthed at nearby Lambay Island. Julius Caesar mentions a similar situation where Celtic tribes from Gaul occupied lands on either side of the English Channel. Caesar suggested that these cross-channel tribal alliances hampered Roman efforts to subjugate Gaul and used this claim to legitimise his incursions into southern Britain in 55 and 54 BC. Transmarine tribal links between Britain and Ireland may have been just as troublesome a century later when Rome considered invading Hibernia. Why invade Ireland? One of the problems the Romans experienced in securing western Britain was that its sea frontier included hundreds of miles of rugged coastline stretching from Cornwall to the Scottish Borders. As long as Ireland remained unconquered, renegades from Britain would always find a safe haven a short sea journey away. As Tacitus ( Agricola , 24) explains: ‘More of Britain would be prosperous if Roman forces were everywhere and freedom was taken out of view’.

Another argument used by Romans in favour of annexing Ireland was to strengthen the connections between the Celtic territories that bordered the Atlantic Ocean. The Irish Sea was recognised as an important thoroughfare for the movement of people and goods and, as Tacitus (Agricola, 24) elaborates, ‘Ireland is positioned between Britain and Spain and is easily accessible from the seas around Gaul. It would unite the strongest parts of our Empire with great mutual advantage.’ The conquest of Ireland would therefore create greater prosperity and security for the empire. Agricola’s planned invasion In AD 81, after an impressive four-year campaign to conquer and secure central Britain, the Roman general Gnaeus Julius Agricola gathered an invasion force on the Clyde–Forth line. He stood on the shores of western Scotland with an exiled Irish chieftain by his side and gazed across the narrow North Channel to the Antrim hills. He then prepared his army, including the fabled Ninth Legion, for a western crossing.From their positions near the Firth of Clyde, the Romans knew that the islands surrounding this coast were Irish territory, so Agricola’s next step was to secure the channel that separates Scotland from Ireland.

He brought the Roman fleet to Galloway to act as transport for a seaborne operation and launched his assault. As Tacitus (Agricola, 24) reports: ‘Agricola crossed over in the leading ship to conquer peoples who were up to that time unknown to us and he subdued them in a series of successful actions’. The reference to unknown ‘peoples’ would indicate a sustained campaign, so Agricola must have attacked the outlying territories of Arran or the Mull of Kintyre. Clearly this event was well known in Rome, as the satirist Juvenal (Satire, 2.159–63) commented: ‘arma quidem ultra litora Iuvernae promovimus et modo captas Orcadas’ (‘indeed we have now promoted our arms beyond the shorelines of Ireland and in that manner captured the Orkneys’). Ahead of their planned campaign, there is evidence that the Roman military collected information by questioning traders and dispatching scout ships to explore crossings near the Scottish coastline. One of the operatives involved in these missions was a Greek named Demetrius, who is attested in two separate ancient records.

Bronze tablets discovered at the Roman headquarters in York record a dedication made by Demetrius to the maritime gods Oceanus and Tethys. Further evidence comes from a Greek writer named Plutarch, who encountered a man also named Demetrius at Delphi. This man was returning from active service to his home at Tarsus. As Plutarch (On the failure of oracles, 18) reports: ‘Demetrius said there are many isolated islands lying near Britain that are remote and have few, or no, inhabitants. Some of these islands are named after divinities or heroes. On the Emperor’s order he made a voyage for enquiry and observation to the nearest of these islands.’ The Roman invasion plans also involved detailed information provided by an exiled Irish chieftain. Tacitus (Agricola, 24) writes: ‘Agricola received a prince of these people who had been forced out by an internal dispute. The general retained him with the appearance of an alliance for the occasion when he could be used.’ Agricola probably planned to install this Irish chief at Emain Macha, the nearest regia.

Tacitus concludes his description of military operations in AD 81 with the comment, ‘Agricola posted troops on that part of Britain which faces Ireland, in hope of [an assault?], rather than fear of an attack’. This was confirmed by the discovery in the 1980s of large legionary encampments at Girvan Mains on the coast overlooking the navigational landmark of Ailsa Craig. The site would have accommodated 5,000 troops, including auxiliary support, a sufficient force to conquer Ireland. Marching forts have been found in Galloway at Gatehouse of Fleet, Newton Stewart and Glenluce, along a Roman road that leads to the shores of Loch Ryan. This is a natural harbour sheltered by the Stranraer hills that lies only sixteen miles from the Antrim coast. Here the Roman fleet would have assembled to make the final preparations for invasion. Invasion postponed indefinitely During that winter, the clans of northern Caledonia staged an uprising that threatened the Clyde–Forth frontier. Agricola suspended his Irish campaign to deal with this new threat and the Roman military began a war of attrition.

It took two years to defeat the Highlanders in the decisive battle of Mons Graupius. By this time Agricola had exceeded his term of office and was recalled to Rome by the Emperor Domitian. Domitian needed troops for his German wars and veteran units were withdrawn from Britain to serve on other frontiers. As Rome’s Continental conflicts escalated, the invasion of Ireland was suspended indefinitely. Commerce, not conquest Comments by a first-century Greek geographer named Strabo might explain why the Roman Empire made no further attempt to conquer Ireland. The Romans imposed high customs taxes on trade goods crossing their imperial frontiers and Strabo argued that the British Isles were more profitable to the Empire as free-trading partners than as subject territories. He wrote: ‘There is no advantage to be gained by taking and garrisoning Britain. More revenue is derived from duty on their commerce than tribute could bring in; especially when we deduct the expense involved in maintaining an army to guard the island and collect taxes. The un-profitability involved in occupying the islands near Britain would be even greater’ (Strabo, Geography, 2.5.8). These comments do not imply that Ireland was impoverished.

The Irish were culturally very similar to the Celtic tribes of mainland Britain and Tacitus (Agricola, 24) writes of them: ‘In soil and climate, in the disposition and habits of its population, Ireland differs little from Britain. The routes of approach and the harbours are known to us through trade and merchants.’ Other Latin writers stress the pastoral prosperity of the ancient Irish. Writing around AD 43, Pomponius Mela (Geography, 3.53) reports: ‘Ireland is so luxuriant with grass—abundant and sweet—that the livestock fill themselves in a fraction of a day’. The classical name Iuverna (Hibernia) is probably derived from the Celtic Iweriu, meaning the ‘fat’ or ‘fertile’ land.The Irish epic Táin Bó Cuailnge, one of the oldest oral traditions in western Europe, confirms this view of an Irish population dependent on cattle for their wealth. The Táin tells how Queen Maeve of Connacht goes to war to obtain the coveted stud bull of Ulster. Cattle were an important commodity in the ancient world and leather was a priority resource.

It has been calculated that every campaigning Roman soldier required the equivalent of five cattle hides to provide his tent materials and provision sacks. Leather was also used for Roman sandals, belts, straps, water-skins and harnesses for animals. Evidence from the German frontier reveals that in some places the Roman military gathered tribal taxes in ox hides rather than cash payments. Juvenal (Satire, 14.203–4) confirms that merchants made ‘no distinction between hides and unguents: the smell of profit is good whatever it comes from’. Celtic Britain exported grain, cattle, animal hides, gold, silver, iron, slaves and hunting dogs to the Roman provinces. Sources from late antiquity, such as St Patrick’s Confession, confirm that ancient Ireland exported similar trade goods. In return, Celtic Britain received Roman wine and decorative craft goods, including bracelets, necklaces, glassware, amber and ivory.

Roman artefacts found in Ireland include similar decorative items, supporting the view that a prosperous Hibernia engaged in commerce was a better economic prospect for the Romans than an island to be conquered, garrisoned and taxed.Over time, Britain was pacified by Roman occupation and subsequent governors seemed to show little interest in Hibernia, provided the Irish posed no threat. Yet, until the end of his days, the aging General Agricola never forgot his triumphs in Britain and the lost opportunity to bring Ireland into the Empire. His son-in-law Tacitus remarked, ‘I have often heard him say that Hibernia could be taken and held by a single legion and a small number of auxiliaries’. The Roman Ireland that Agricola would have created by his imperial conquest remains a fascinating possibility. HI Raoul McLaughlin is a tutor in ancient history at Queen’s University, Belfast. Further reading: C. Adams, ‘Hibernia Romana’, History Ireland 4 (2) (1996), 21–5.P. Freeman, Ireland and the Classical world (Austin, 2000).R.

McLaughlin, Ancient Ireland and the Roman world: commerce and conflict in the first century AD (forthcoming). ' Celtic Ireland in the Iron Age: the Celts Everyday life in Celtic Ireland The Arrival of the Celts: As the Bronze Age in Ireland drew to a close, there appeared in Ireland a new cultural influence. Developing in the Alps of central Europe, the Celts spread their culture across modern-day Germany and France and into the Balkans as far as Turkey. They arrived in Britain and Ireland around 500BC and within a few hundred years, Ireland's Bronze Age culture had all but disappeared, and Celtic culture was in place across the entire island. The map on the left [3] shows how Europe looked around 400BC. Celtic influences (for it was a culture, not an empire) had spread across much of central Europe and spread into Iberia and the British Isles. The Celts called Britain and Ireland the "Pretanic Islands" which evolved into the modern word "Britain". The word "Celt" comes from the Greeks, who called the tribes to their north the "Keltoi", but there is no evidence that the Celts ever referred to themselves by that name.

To the south a small upstart republic, with its capital at Rome, was minding its own business. However it was these Romans who, a few centuries later , would supercede Celtic culture across most of Europe when they built their huge Roman Empire, which stretched from Palestine to England. The Celts had one major advantage - they had discovered Iron. Iron had been introduced to the Celtic peoples in Europe around 1000 to 700BC, thus giving them the technological edge to spread as they did. Iron was a far superior metal to bronze, being stronger and more durable. On the other hand, it required much hotter fires to extract it from its ore and so it took a fair degree of skill to use iron. None of this is to be taken to mean that bronze fell out of use. Rather, iron simply became an alternative metal and many bronze objects have been found that were made in the Iron Age. The Ireland Story "Pagan Celtic Ireland" Whether or not the arrival of the Celts in Ireland was an actual invasion, or a more gradual assimilation, is an open question [1].

On the one hand, the Celts - who were by no means pacifists - must have arrived in sufficiently large numbers to obliterate the existing culture in Ireland within a few hundred years. On the other hand, other better documented invasions of Ireland - such as the Viking invasions of the 7th and 8th centuries AD - failed to have the effect of changing the culture on an islandwide scale. Current academic opinion favours the theory that the Celts arrived in Ireland over the course of several centuries, beginning in the late Bronze Age with Celts of the early iron-using Hallstatt group of people, to be followed after 300BC by Celts of the La T�ne cultural group which formed within the Hallstatt group. Some have postulated that, as the Romans invaded and took control of the continental Celtic territories of Gaul [France] and Iberia [Spain and Portugal], some of the displaced Celts travelled to unconquered Celtic lands such as Britain and Ireland. The medieval "Book of Invasions" talks about Milesians and F�r Bolg arriving in Ireland. These have been identified with displaced Celts from Spain and Belgium, respectively, although this is conjecture [1].

Early Accounts: The earliest pseudo-historical information that we have about Iron Age Celtic Ireland is from Carthaginian, Roman and Greek writers, who probably got their information from sailors who had been to the British Isles. There are writings from the 4th century AD by the Roman Avienus which are thought to be based on accounts from an early Greek voyage in the 6th century BC. These describe Celts in France and in the North Sea, where the British Isles are. He calls Ireland Insula Sacra (Holy Island) and its inhabitants gens hiernorum, thought to be a Latinisation of the Greek word for Ireland, Ierne. This, in all likelihood, is a modification of the word �riu, which may be an original Celtic word for Ireland and a root of the later Irish word Eire and eventually the English word Ireland. The Greek Pytheas refers to the British Isles as the Pretanic Islands, which is derived from Priteni - definitely a Celtic word. In 52BC, the Romans were referring to Ireland as Hibernia, possibly extracted again from the Greek word Ierne. By far the most interesting historical account of these early times is that of the Greek Ptolemy.

His map of Ireland, published in Geographia, was compiled in the second century AD, but based on an account from around 100AD. No surviving originals exist, but we do have a copy dating from 1490AD. To see the map [1], click on the thumbnail on the left [56kB]. Historians have been able to use this fascinating map to identify some of the Celtic tribes living in Ireland at the time. Many of the names cannot be identified with known tribes (particularly those in the west), and the names have been badly corrupted by being passed word-of-mouth. However, others are readily identifiable. Also on the map are the names of rivers and islands which can be identified with existing features. All this information has allowed historians to create a picture of the probable Celtic tribes living in Ireland at the time (100AD). Our map is given below. Note that Ireland was by no means isolated. Some of the tribes straddled both sides of the Irish Sea, while others had relations in Gaul (France). Roman Influences and Irish Colonies: In the last centuries BC, the rest of Celtic Europe fell to the expanding Roman Empire.

The Celts of southern Britain were conquered in 43AD. Stopping short of the Picts of modern-day Scotland, the Roman emperor Hadrian built his famous wall between the Celts of the north and Roman Britain. Did the Roman armies invade Ireland? The answer is no, but we know they did consider it. During a foray into southern Scotland, the Roman General Agricola looked across the North Channel towards the Irish coast. The writer Tacitus reports that Agricola "saw that Ireland... conveniently situated for the ports of Gaul might prove a valuable acquisition" and that "I have often heard Agricola declare that a single legion, with a moderate band of auxilaries, would be enough to finish the conquest of Ireland" [2]. However an invasion never took place - not because the Irish would be too hard to defeat, but simply because the Romans decided it wouldn't be worth the effort. However, Ireland did come under heavy Roman influence, even if not under its rule. In the first and second centuries AD, there is evidence that there was sporadic trading between the Irish and the Romans of Britain.

Tacitus, writing in the first century AD, says of Ireland "the interior parts are little known, but through commerical intercourse and the merchants there is better knowledge of the harbours and approaches" [5]. Evidence of a Roman trading post has been found near Dublin. However, it was not until the fourth and fifth centuries AD that there is evidence of prolonged Roman influences in Ireland. Roman coins and other implements have been found in Ireland. There is evidence that the language spoken by the E�ganacht of Munster, who arrived at the end of the Iron Age, had been heavily influenced by Latin. Finally, it is certain that Ogham, the first written scripts in the Irish language, was based on the Latin alphabet (see language , below). Towards the end of the pre-Christian period, as the Roman Empire and its colony in Britain declined, the Irish took advantage and began raiding western Britain. Picts from Scotland and Saxons from Germany raided other parts of the colony. As their raids got ever more successful, the Irish began to colonise western Britain. The �rainn of Munster settled in Cornwall, the Laigin of Leinster settled in south Wales while the D�isi of south-east Ireland settled in north Wales.

Cormac of Cashel (writing much later, in 908AD) records that "The power of the Irish over the Britons was great, and they had divided Britain between them into estates... and the Irish lived as much east of the sea as they did in Ireland" [2]. These colonies were all defeated by the Britons within the next century or so, although Irish kings seemed to be still ruling in south Wales as late as the tenth century. The map on the left shows these colonies. But by far the most successful colony was that of the D�l Riata in western Scotland. Their colony thrived and, in fact, it seems that most or all D�l Riatans ultimately left northern Ireland for the new colony. Probably founding the colony around 400-500AD, D�l Riata was well established by 563AD and in the ninth century it took control of Pictland, to the east, and founding the united kingdom of Scotland. Celtic Constructions: Royal Sites [1] During the Iron Age, there was a general consolidation of territories and kingdoms. Most of these territories had a defended hilltop fort as their centre of power.

However, a number of very large-scale works were undertaken. Referred to as the 'royal sites', these consisted of earthworks of various kinds, burial mounds and enclosures. Most of these were constructed around the 2nd century BC. E main Macha - Now called Navan Fort, in county Armagh, today consists of a circular enclosure with a mound in the centre. In the late Iron Age it was the royal seat of the Ulaid during their rise to power in Ulster, making it certainly the most important such site in Ulster. The most famous king of the Ulaid was Connor and the legendary warrior C� Chulainn. However, the events that took place at the construction of Navan Fort are remarkable. Around 100BC, a huge circular building was constructed: 43 metres (143 feet) in diameter. It was made from a series of circles of progressively taller wooden poles, and the entire cone-shaped building was thatched. This was a huge building in Iron Age standards. However, even more remarkable was the fact that the building seems to have been partially burned and partially demolished shortly after its completion, and covered over with a mound of limestone and earth.

This all suggests that the building was part of some large-scale ritual and was not used for any domestic purpose. To compound the mystery, the remains of a Barbary Ape was also found on the site - an animal native to north Africa which was probably an exotic gift. Navan today boasts an extensive visitors' centre. (The reconstruction above is by D Wilkinson of the Environment Service, DOENI.) The Ireland Story "Pre-Christian Ireland" D�n Ailinne - D�n Ailinne, in county Kildare, appears to have been the royal site of south Lenister. It underwent several transformations, but at its height it seems to have included a circular enclosure 29 metres (96 feet) in diameter with several tiers of benches around it. Around the time of Christ, a circle of timbers was built, then burned and buried in a mound. Like Emain Macha, D�n Ailinne seems to have served a ritual purpose. Tara - The Hill of Tara in county Meath is home to a large number of monuments. There is a Neolithic passage tomb called the Mound of the Hostages as well as some post-Iron Age ringforts.

Around the main part of the site is a large earthen enclosure. Tara was an important site throughout the Celtic period where it was a royal centre and, ultimately, the seat of the High King of Ireland. Celtic Constructions: Decorated Stones [1] A large number of carved stones were created in the last centuries BC. Probably serving a ritual purpose, they were stones up to 2 metres (7 feet) in height and feature complex swirling patterns of a style common with central European Celtic cultures. We can only speculate on what kind of ritualistic purpose it may have served. Some have argued that these are the most durable of a variety of materials used for these objects, such as wood. The most famouse example is the Turoe Stone, in county Galway, which is pictured on the left (Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland). Celtic Constructions: Hilltop and Promontory Forts [1] Most kingdoms, or Tuath, in Ireland had a hilltop fort which was used either as a permanent residence for the king or as a temporary refuge in times of conflict. They are typically built on the top of a hill and surrounded by a stone wall.

Often these sites coincide with previous Bronze Age burials, and frequently they showed a lack of respect for these previous monuments, sometimes re-using their stones. Unlike the royal sites, which were made from earthen banks, they had very well constructed stone walls made from close-fitting cut stones. Some of the most well defended hillforts were built with one edge at the top of a cliff. So-called promontory forts were built both on inland mountains and coastal cliffs. Everyday Life in Celtic Ireland: Although very like the Celtic cultures of the rest of Europe, that of Ireland had been influenced in part be the preceding Bronze Age culture. So Ireland's culture was not totally like that of mainland Europe. However, in many regards it was very similar. Much of what we know about specifically Irish culture has come down through the years in the form of Heroic Tales, such as the Ulster Cycle which tells of the exploits of C� Chullain, the Hound of Ulster. Once thought to be historicaly unreliable, these Heroic Tales describe a way of life that fits well with what we now know about the Celts of mainland Europe.

Thus it seems that, while the events described may have been embelished over the years, the underlying themes and props in the stories may be accurate descriptions of life in Iron Age Ireland. The Ireland Story Art and Society" It was, in many ways, a culture based around war. Ireland was divided into dozens - possibly hundreds - of petty kingdoms. Within the kingdoms, it was the blacksmiths, druids and poets who were held in high esteem: the blacksmiths for making the weapons of war, the druids for making prophesies and soothsaying, and the poets for putting the exploits of warriors to verse, to be sung around the cooking fires. The aristocracy in this culture was made up of the warriors, who sought fame and recognition by doing battle with their enemies. The young warrior would be initiated by mounting his chariot (a two wheeled wooden cart pulled by two horses), before proceeding to battle and cutting off the heads of his enemies to bring them home as trophies [1]. At the celebratory banquet afterwards, the warriors would compete for the "hero's portion" of the food being served. The weapons brandished by these warriors consisted of round wooden, bronze or iron shields, with iron spears or swords.

The spear seems to have been more common than the sword. Political Structure By the later Celtic period, Ireland was ruled by a series of perhaps 100 to 200 kings, each ruling a small kingdom or tuath. The kings came in three recognised grades, depending on how powerful they were. A r� t�aithe was the ruler of a single kingdom. A 'great king', or ruiri, was a king who had gained the allegiance of, or become overlord of, a number of local kings. A 'king of overkings', or r� ruirech, was a king of a province. Ireland had between 4 and 10 provinces at any one time, because they were always in a state of flux as their kings' power waxed and waned. Today's 4 provinces (Ulster, Munster, Leinster and Connaught) represent only the final state of these borders. Each province had a royal site, a place where important events took place.

In 100AD there were royal sites at Emain Macha, near Armagh; Tara, county Meath and D�n Ailinne, county Kildare as well as other locations (see Celtic constructions above). For most of the civilian population, however, life was spent in small farming units consisting of a wooden or wattle-and-daub house within a circular enclosure. Most would have had access to common land on higher ground on which to graze animals. Dairying was common, but almost everyone grew grain crops such as corn, oats, barley, wheat and rye. The land was ploughed using wooden ploughs pulled by oxen. Almost all farming was subsistence-based, and there was very little trade in food. The only interruption to the daily ritual of grazing animals and growing crops would have been cattle-raids from neighbouring warriors, who may have pillaged and burned on their way to battle, although in general warfare seems to have been a highly formalised affair in which the peasants were usually not involved. By 400AD there were probably between half a million and 1 million people living in Ireland.

This number would have fluctuated due to the recurrent plague and famine which affected all prehistoric cultures in Europe. Brehon Law [7] The law that the Celts of Ireland used has been called Brehon law. Forms of Brehon Law were used in Ireland for hundreds of years. A full treatment of Brehon Law is beyond the scope of this article, but the idea was that a person's identity was defined by the kingdom in which they lived. A peasant had no legal status outside the tuath, with the exception of men of art and learning. Those who were tied to their tuath were unfree and worked for the king. All land was owned by families, not by individuals. Wealth was measured in cattle, and each individual had a status measured in terms of wealth. Almost any crime committed against an individual could be recompensed by paying a fine equal to the status of the individual. For example, a 50 cows for an important person, 3 cows for a peasant. There was no death penalty; but, an individual could be ostracised from the tuath in certain circumstances. Language The language spoken by the Celts in Ireland was Celtic, a variant of the Celtic languages which were used across Europe.

In the British Isles, there were at least two dialects in use: Brittonic (P-Celtic) which was spoken in southern Britain and France, and Goidelic (Q-Celtic) which was spoken in Ireland and northern Britain. Brittonic is the root of modern Welsh, Cornish and Breton. Goidelic is the root of modern Irish and Scots-Gaelic. Brittonic and Goidelic must have been heavily influenced by the Bronze Age languages of Ireland. The first written Irish appeared in the fifth century, around the same time as the initial Christianisation of Ireland. Called Ogham script, it consists of a series of grooves on the corner of a stone. Each combination of grooves represents a different letter of the Latin alphabet, and a number of Ogham stones have been found in Ireland and in Wales. Those in Ireland are mostly along the south coast. Usually they give the name of a person or ancestor and were probably commemorative. The picture on the left shows the Ogham stone at Coolmagort, county Kerry [4]. .

References / Sources: [1] P Harbinson: "Pre-Christian Ireland, from the First Settlers to the Early Celts", Thames and Hudson, 1994 [2] RF Foster: "The Oxford History of Ireland", Oxford University Press, 1989 [3] "The Times Atlas of World History", Times Books, 1994 [4] Sean Duffy, "Atlas of Irish History", Gill and Macmillan, 2000 [5] G. Stout and M. Stout, writing in the "Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape", Cork University Press, 1997, pp31-63 [6] Various authors, "The Oxford Companion to Irish History", Oxford University Press, 1998 [7] M�ire and Conor Cruise O'Brien, "A Concise History of Ireland", Thames and Hudson, 1972 .

Question: What was the Roman name for Ireland ?
Answer: HIBERNIA