Yeah, the "Scots" -- name invading Romans to Britain called the people to the north and west -- were "fierce" to the Romans and so they stopped their occupation at a Southern-to-Mid point in England.
Thus, their land was called, "Scotland." Which, originally, was both Northern England and Ireland to the West...all those unconquerable, fierce folks to the Romans called "Scots," the origination of that name and (part of) the land itself.
Interesting history.
And the Welsh? Were there no people in Wales? Were they
not Celtic? Do they not count?
The Romans knew of the Picts, which is what they called some of the inhabitants of Caledonia. The Romans didn't call it Scotland.
The Scot tribe didn't enter Scotland from Ireland until after the Romans abandoned Britain, as the Empire disintegrated. Rome needed the three legions more than it needed the province of Britain. The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes began to arrive in Britain, and eventually took over all of the islands, withdrawing from most of Ireland after 800 years or so.
see also:
The Romans in Ireland
Archaeology Today | 2000? | L.A. Curchin
Posted on 07/18/2004 8:54:58 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1173950/posts
***Yeah, the "Scots" -- name invading Romans to Britain called the people to the north and west -- were "fierce" to the Romans and so they stopped their occupation at a Southern-to-Mid point in England. **
What was it Edward Gibbon said about Scotland? Something about being a wasteland of moors and wind and not worth loosing a Roman soldier to conquer. (Sarcasm off)