Why did the Romans fail in Caledonia ?

Roman expansion was halted by the Picts, though most pro-Roman historians have glossed over that fact and concentrated on interpreting the events in favour of the Romans. The truth however remains - the Roman military conquest of Caledonia failed. It failed for five main reasons:

• Firstly, because of trouble elsewhere, particularly the massive opposition of the Germanic tribes on the Rhine front. This meant that the number of Roman troops that could be employed against the Picts was limited - though they were the kind of numbers that had easily conquered the larger tribes in modern England. The need for troops in Germany, which is almost always given as the reason for the Romans pulling out of Caledonia is overstated and inaccurate. Retreating from Caledonia did not allow Rome to lessen the number of Legions facing the Picts and send them to Germany, a force the size of Agricola's original invading army ( about 20,000 men ), had the constant task of defending the boundary and its wall - for 300 years. The trouble in Germany simply prevented the Romans from bringing excessive amounts of Legions into Caledonia.
• 
  

• Secondly, because it appears that none of the leaders in Caledonia had sold out to the Romans. Those who did not resist the invasion seemed to have considered that discretion was the better part of valour. It seems they hated the Romans but bided their time - rather than risk the lives of their people. South of the border some leaders betrayed their people and gladly sold out wholesale to the new culture to preserve and entrench their privileges.
  
• 
  

• Thirdly, because of the geography of the country. Caledonia is a very hilly country and mountainous regions can hide and act as a support for a guerrilla army - as was proven even in modern times by Marshal Tito when fighting the Nazis in Yugoslavia.
  
• 
  

• Fourthly, because the Picts seem to have had a clearer sense of their related identity and a better inter tribal organised unity than the tribes further south. The Picts had the ability and adaptability to make treaties between their various tribes, forget their differences and organise a united resistance to the Romans, something that did not happen in southern Britain to the same extent - or for as long.
  
• 
  

• Fifthly, because the Picts were great warriors: proud, fierce, organised, determined, manoeuvrable and independent. The Picts were a small nation in Britain, barely able to put half the men in the field that only three of the southern British tribes could muster - yet their fighting methods and strategies were equalled only by their adaptability and cunning. Roman writers certainly thought that the Picts were a noble and worthy advisory for the Imperial Roman Army. Perhaps Tacitus put into the mouth of Calgacus, the Roman belief, when he quoted him as saying that the Picts were 'the most renowned nation in Britain'. The Romans generally had little respect for the tribes that capitulated to them easily, witness their treatment of the Iceni. There was only one way to win Roman respect - fight them successfully. Of all the tribes of Britain at that time, the Picts were the nation that the Romans most feared and respected - because they offered the greatest and most successful resistance. A successful resistance against the Roman army never equalled anywhere in the ancient world - by any tribe of similar size.
•