The Roman weapons such as Pilum and Gladius (originally of Spanish origin) were no objects of art, but were well-suited for Roman warfare, which gradually evolved from a Greek-style phalanx into manipular tactics and then cohort tactics.
In contrast, Picts and Scots largely fought as tribal warbands, neither unified nor independent in a coordinated sense. Such warbands were no match for a phalanx in a pitched battle, let alone armies using manipular or cohort tactics. After the Romans withered the initial shock of a Pictish (Celtic or Germanic) charge, they usually isolated and overwhelmed the warbands in turn.
As with the Germans of the Teutoberg Forest, what these tribal warbands instead excelled in were ambushes on their own territories. Being small and locally mobile, they made very good bushwackers. Unfortunately, when such bushwackings occurred too often, the Romans had a habit of coming back in force, annihilating the warbands, enslaving the women and children and burning the villages - a prospect that often swayed the would-be bushwackers.
Even then, the Roman legions always dug in when on unfriendly territory at the end of a day's march. Such entrenching served as a fortress at nights and a place of refuge during a retreat. Matter of fact, it can be said correctly that the Roman legions conquered an empire with their entrenching tools, not their swords or spears. One exception where this was not done was in Teutoberg Forest when Varus thought all that digging was "unnecessary."
During the Augustan period, the Romans largely relied on barbarian client kingdoms to provide "outer perimeter security" while the Roman legions were held back for punitive expeditions over rebellious or unruly client states.
As for the Scottish boast that the Romans never conquered Scotland/Caledonia, what did Caledonia have in the way of things the Romans were interested in? A bunch of sheep and a few screaming naked warriors on poor and remote mountains were not very interesting to conquerors who were used to the wines of Italy, grains of the Nile Delta, dyes of Phoenicia, rugs of Cappadocia and other riches.
BTW, an odd historical fact about the name "Scotland": it comes from, obviously, the "land of the Scots." The word "Scot" comes from the tribe of Scotii, which originally inhabited Hibernia/Ireland during Roman times. So, in a bizzare historical twist, Picts, who were original inhabitants of Scotland were conquered by a people from Ireland called "Scots." Then later, Scots, now from Scotland (along with the English), colonized Ulster/Northern Ireland and became Ulster Irish. Odd, isn't it?
Bahadur, formerly known as Skorzeny
In contrast, Picts and Scots largely fought as tribal warbands, neither unified nor independent in a coordinated sense. Such warbands were no match for a phalanx in a pitched battle, let alone armies using manipular or cohort tactics. After the Romans withered the initial shock of a Pictish (Celtic or Germanic) charge, they usually isolated and overwhelmed the warbands in turn.
As with the Germans of the Teutoberg Forest, what these tribal warbands instead excelled in were ambushes on their own territories. Being small and locally mobile, they made very good bushwackers. Unfortunately, when such bushwackings occurred too often, the Romans had a habit of coming back in force, annihilating the warbands, enslaving the women and children and burning the villages - a prospect that often swayed the would-be bushwackers.
Even then, the Roman legions always dug in when on unfriendly territory at the end of a day's march. Such entrenching served as a fortress at nights and a place of refuge during a retreat. Matter of fact, it can be said correctly that the Roman legions conquered an empire with their entrenching tools, not their swords or spears. One exception where this was not done was in Teutoberg Forest when Varus thought all that digging was "unnecessary."
During the Augustan period, the Romans largely relied on barbarian client kingdoms to provide "outer perimeter security" while the Roman legions were held back for punitive expeditions over rebellious or unruly client states.
As for the Scottish boast that the Romans never conquered Scotland/Caledonia, what did Caledonia have in the way of things the Romans were interested in? A bunch of sheep and a few screaming naked warriors on poor and remote mountains were not very interesting to conquerors who were used to the wines of Italy, grains of the Nile Delta, dyes of Phoenicia, rugs of Cappadocia and other riches.
BTW, an odd historical fact about the name "Scotland": it comes from, obviously, the "land of the Scots." The word "Scot" comes from the tribe of Scotii, which originally inhabited Hibernia/Ireland during Roman times. So, in a bizzare historical twist, Picts, who were original inhabitants of Scotland were conquered by a people from Ireland called "Scots." Then later, Scots, now from Scotland (along with the English), colonized Ulster/Northern Ireland and became Ulster Irish. Odd, isn't it?
Bahadur, formerly known as Skorzeny
@ Bahadur.