A Roman Empire without Britannia?

[Agricola]

Imagine Claudius moves 10.000 men to Northern Gaul. A force of auxiliary units manning forts and watchtowers, and a solid fleet in the channel. 10.000 men is 1 legion plus auxilia.

In the year 41, when Caligula died, he had concentrated 11 legions in Germania. 8 old ones plus 2 new recruited ones by Caligula and one legion deployed from Spain. Of course all in prepararation of an invasion of Britannia. Even if Caligula did some campaigning against the Chatti with Galba in 39/40 AD.

Do you got an idea, what a competent commander like Galba, Chaucicus or Corbulo does with 11-1 = 10 legions plus auxilia ( around 100.000 men) in Germania? We are not talking about a fully overrated kid like Germanicus. We are talking about one of these real roman slaugthermen.

 

[Agricola]

I am pretty sure, that Claudius and his military advisors in the consilum principis discussed the options these days,

- invade Britannia
- conquer Germania Magna again
- deal with Dacia
- or even look for a really challenging campaign in the East (Mesopotamia)

With 50.000 men on top of the local forces ( around 100.000 men) everything was possible.

But Claudius went the easy way. Wasting forces on Britannia from a strategic point of view. So Claudius, one of the most respected military reformers of the roman empire became the first gravedigger of the roman empire. But i don't blame him. His decision was somewhat shortsighted but logical.

However, Claudius had the chance, that something like the Franks or Alemanns would never arise. I am fully convinced that the romans not insisting on a province Germania Magna, which was possible, was one of the major reasons for the later Fall of the Rome.

Severus and every later emperor had perhaps recognized: Claudius had a personal central field army of about 50.000 men. And he wasted it on Britannia.

 

[Faeelin]

Why would this conquest be more successful than the last one?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Who knows. Maybe by conquering Britannia instead of Germania, the Romans prevented the rise of an enemy bigger and badder than Alaric, Attila, and Gaiseric combined.

Probably not, but imagine if the Celtic Britons launched Viking raids of their own, 300 years in advance of the Scandinavian Vikings.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Why would this conquest be more successful than the last one?

I imagine having up to 11 legions, your best commander, and no other distractions would help a lot. Rather than the situation Rome found themselves in in 6AD, which was 3 legions, their best commanders fighting in Illyria, and their manpower completely exhausted.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Who knows. Maybe by conquering Britannia instead of Germania, the Romans prevented the rise of an enemy bigger and badder than Alaric, Attila, and Gaiseric combined.

Probably not, but imagine if the Celtic Britons launched Viking raids of their own, 300 years in advance of the Scandinavian Vikings.

Somewhere, @LSCatilina senses a strange disturbance. He doesn't know why, but he suddenly feels the urge to go off about the unique conditions that led to the rise of the Vikings.

 

[Faeelin]

I imagine having up to 11 legions, your best commander, and no other distractions would help a lot. Rather than the situation Rome found themselves in in 6AD, which was 3 legions, their best commanders fighting in Illyria, and their manpower completely exhausted.

Where did these Legions come from?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Where did these Legions come from?

Admittedly I haven't looked it up atm, but am referring to Agricola's statement that there were 11 legions concentrated in Germany at the ascension of Claudius.

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Somewhere, @LSCatilina senses a strange disturbance. He doesn't know why, but he suddenly feels the urge to go off about the unique conditions that led to the rise of the Vikings.

Of course, Scandinavian Vikings couldn't have appeared until Britain was worth raiding. But if Celtic vikings appeared in Britain, they would have plenty of Gallo-Roman settlements to pillage across the English Channel.

With a Roman Germania, concentration of wealth in the north is also likely to happen earlier, and Roman raids across the English Channel could fulfill the role of the Saxon wars.

 

[Avrorrange]

Why would this conquest be more successful than the last one?

Experience?

 

[Agricola]

Where did these Legions come from?

As far as I could research the situation in 41 AD in preparation of Caligula's campaign was:

Germania Inferior (5) - Aulus Gabinius Secundus (later known as Chaucicus)

Legio I Germanica
Legio V Alaudae
Legio XX Valeria Victrix
Legio XXI Rapax
Legio XXII Primigenia (newly recruited by Caligula)

Germania Superior (6) - Lucius Livius Ocella Servius Sulpicius Galba (later emperor)

Legio II Augusta
Legio IIII Macedonica (moved from Hispania)
Legio XIV Gemina
Legio XV Primigenia (newly recruited by Caligula)
Legio XVI Gallica
Legio XIII Gemina

 

[James XI]

4 legions shouldn't be accounted as pure cost, though. That's the difference between 4 and w/e would have been needed to hold the nw front dealing with British/naval threats. Now some of that could be redundant by holding the Batavian limes, but you're going to need depth with an unconquered British isles across the Channel.

Another option might be just occupying the Welsh/Cornish mine area, use client states for the rest. You could probably do that with 2 legions, though you're really increasing naval vulnerability.

 

[Gaargod]

As everyone has said, use the overwhelming military force to punch into and through Germania Magna. Start the very long Romanization process there. In the long term, have a much shorter 'vertical' border than a 'horizontal' border. You also have a safe Danube to transport goods relatively quickly.

If the British are still being a pain 50+ years later, conquer them then, if you can. Failing that, occasional punitive raids will work. Britain simply doesn't have the potential for population pressure-based movement that Germany does - it's an island, after all.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I am pretty sure, that Claudius and his military advisors in the consilum principis discussed the options these days,

- invade Britannia
- conquer Germania Magna again
- deal with Dacia
- or even look for a really challenging campaign in the East (Mesopotamia)

With 50.000 men on top of the local forces ( around 100.000 men) everything was possible.

But Claudius went the easy way. Wasting forces on Britannia from a strategic point of view. So Claudius, one of the most respected military reformers of the roman empire became the first gravedigger of the roman empire. But i don't blame him. His decision was somewhat shortsighted but logical.

However, Claudius had the chance, that something like the Franks or Alemanns would never arise. I am fully convinced that the romans not insisting on a province Germania Magna, which was possible, was one of the major reasons for the later Fall of the Rome.

Severus and every later emperor had perhaps recognized: Claudius had a personal central field army of about 50.000 men. And he wasted it on Britannia.

I agree with you about Britain, but I think you're overestimating both the importance and desirability of conquering Germany. As of the 1st century AD, Germany was sparsely-populated, underdeveloped, and likely to bring little in the way of profit to the Imperial coffers. As for the fall of the Western Empire, that had more to do with internal instability than the Germans. Even as the poorer half of the Empire, the West was still vastly more populous, wealthy and sophisticated than Germany at the time; and as for defensible frontiers, the Alps and the Mediterranean are both eminently defensible, but that didn't stop the Goths from sacking Rome, or the Vandals from sailing across to Carthage. A Roman Empire that included Germany might have taken longer to fall simply because there was more land to occupy before it became unviable, but I still think it would have fallen at approximately the same time and in approximately the same way.

 

[Booster Gold]

As everyone has said, use the overwhelming military force to punch into and through Germania Magna. Start the very long Romanization process there. In the long term, have a much shorter 'vertical' border than a 'horizontal' border. You also have a safe Danube to transport goods relatively quickly.

If the British are still being a pain 50+ years later, conquer them then, if you can. Failing that, occasional punitive raids will work. Britain simply doesn't have the potential for population pressure-based movement that Germany does - it's an island, after all.

Yes, but the problem with that is that Germania is objectively poorer and less populated than Britain and there's literally no way the great migrations or the Antonine and Cyprian Plagues can be forseen. It'd be like asking 18th century Britain to exchange India for Siberia because of the resources we know are in Siberia now. Germania is just a money/resource sink from the perspective of the first century. It makes zero sense to go there instead of Britain.

 

[Skallagrim]

I agree with you about Britain, but I think you're overestimating both the importance and desirability of conquering Germany. As of the 1st century AD, Germany was sparsely-populated, underdeveloped, and likely to bring little in the way of profit to the Imperial coffers. As for the fall of the Western Empire, that had more to do with internal instability than the Germans. Even as the poorer half of the Empire, the West was still vastly more populous, wealthy and sophisticated than Germany at the time; and as for defensible frontiers, the Alps and the Mediterranean are both eminently defensible, but that didn't stop the Goths from sacking Rome, or the Vandals from sailing across to Carthage. A Roman Empire that included Germany might have taken longer to fall simply because there was more land to occupy before it became unviable, but I still think it would have fallen at approximately the same time and in approximately the same way.

That's probably accurate. to be fair, I'm inclined to agree with such analyses on account of being a bit of a Spenglerian (although in moderation, to be sure). Still, since gaining Germania Magna by itself does not fundamentally change the fortunes of Rome in a significant way, the internal weaknesses will indeed likely still develop, so even someone who denies certain recurring patterns in history completely will still have to consider that an internally weakened empire will ultimately fall pray to those same barbarian migrations/incursions.

On the other hand: gaining Germania Magna and establishing the Elbe as a border gets you an area that is generally considered to have been the more agriculturally useful and more populated section of the Germanic world. Further to the east, there was a lot of thick(er) forest and swampland, which seems to have been more thinly populated. Directly accumulating a sizable invasion force from across the Elbe border is more difficult for potential invading barbarians than it if from across a Rhine border. And that's not even considering the fact that the Elbe border would be shorter.

Really, regardless of other factors, is Rome had managed to establish a border running along the Elbe, then along the mountains that currently form the northern border of the Czech Republic, and then along the Dniester to the Black Sea... that would have been the ideal border to defend yourself from invasions from that direction, in my view. But that's a lot to conquer.

And as I always stress: if they had additionally managed to gain and keep Mesopotamia, that would've completed the picture. Unlike the more northern European areas, Mesopotamia was a source of vast wealth, which would have done wonders for the socio-economic development of Rome. And just as importantly: a significant part of Rome's OTL weakness derived from the fact that Persia persisted to threaten the east, while the barbarian problem also increased. Gaining Mesopotamia would significantly hinder Persia, and strengthen Rome.

Bringing this back to the actual topic of the thread: all the above factors serve to illustrate the there were a lot of places that were worthier targets of Rome's resources and ambitions that Britannia ever was.

Yes, but the problem with that is that Germania is objectively poorer and less populated than Britain and there's literally no way the great migrations or the Antonine and Cyprian Plagues can be forseen. It'd be like asking 18th century Britain to exchange India for Siberia because of the resources we know are in Siberia now. Germania is just a money/resource sink from the perspective of the first century. It makes zero sense to go there instead of Britain.

You don't need to be able to predict the future to understand what a strategically sound border looks like. Throughout their history, the Romans repeatedly demonstrated that they understood this. A conquest of Germania up to the Elbe is not something that made "zero sense". Indeed, clear-thinking military minds repeatedly argued in favour of it.

 

[Mikestone8]

You don't need to be able to predict the future to understand what a strategically sound border looks like. Throughout their history, the Romans repeatedly demonstrated that they understood this. A conquest of Germania up to the Elbe is not something that made "zero sense". Indeed, clear-thinking military minds repeatedly argued in favour of it.

But the crucial Barbarian "breakthrough" was not on the Rhine but on the Danube, when the Goths got across. If Stilicho hadn't been fucsed on watching Alaric, the invasion of Gaul could have een reversed without too much difficulty. And once the Goths were across the Danube and on the loose, they can turn the flank of a limes on the Elbe probably more easily than one on the Rhine.

If anyone made a crucial mistake, it was Valens, not Claudius.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

That's probably accurate. to be fair, I'm inclined to agree with such analyses on account of being a bit of a Spenglerian (although in moderation, to be sure). Still, since gaining Germania Magna by itself does not fundamentally change the fortunes of Rome in a significant way, the internal weaknesses will indeed likely still develop, so even someone who denies certain recurring patterns in history completely will still have to consider that an internally weakened empire will ultimately fall pray to those same barbarian migrations/incursions.

On the other hand: gaining Germania Magna and establishing the Elbe as a border gets you an area that is generally considered to have been the more agriculturally useful and more populated section of the Germanic world. Further to the east, there was a lot of thick(er) forest and swampland, which seems to have been more thinly populated. Directly accumulating a sizable invasion force from across the Elbe border is more difficult for potential invading barbarians than it if from across a Rhine border. And that's not even considering the fact that the Elbe border would be shorter.

Really, regardless of other factors, is Rome had managed to establish a border running along the Elbe, then along the mountains that currently form the northern border of the Czech Republic, and then along the Dniester to the Black Sea... that would have been the ideal border to defend yourself from invasions from that direction, in my view. But that's a lot to conquer.

Elbe-Carpathians-Dneister would indeed be a good border... but then again, the Alps were a pretty good border too, and that didn't stop various barbarian tribes and usurpers entering Italy essentially at will. Ultimately, good borders are worth very little if civil war and infighting leads to paralysis in the central government.

And as I always stress: if they had additionally managed to gain and keep Mesopotamia, that would've completed the picture. Unlike the more northern European areas, Mesopotamia was a source of vast wealth, which would have done wonders for the socio-economic development of Rome. And just as importantly: a significant part of Rome's OTL weakness derived from the fact that Persia persisted to threaten the east, while the barbarian problem also increased. Gaining Mesopotamia would significantly hinder Persia, and strengthen Rome.

Mesopotamia is indeed wealthy, although I'm not sure how defensible it would be -- there'd be a long frontier with whomever controlled Iran, meaning that the province would always be vulnerable to enemy incursions.

Bringing this back to the actual topic of the thread: all the above factors serve to illustrate the there were a lot of places that were worthier targets of Rome's resources and ambitions that Britannia ever was.

That is certainly true. Even just distributing those eleven legions to strengthen the defences of Rome's major frontiers would probably be a better strategy than using them to conquer Britain.

Then again, on reflection I'm not sure how obvious that would have been to someone of Claudius' time: whilst with hindsight we know Britain never really Romanised and kept rebelling, Rome had had a pretty good track record up till that point. If the Romans had succeeded in assimilating Britain to the same degree as Gaul, it would probably have been a valuable province.

 

[Skallagrim]

Elbe-Carpathians-Dneister would indeed be a good border... but then again, the Alps were a pretty good border too, and that didn't stop various barbarian tribes and usurpers entering Italy essentially at will. Ultimately, good borders are worth very little if civil war and infighting leads to paralysis in the central government.

Agreed.

Mesopotamia is indeed wealthy, although I'm not sure how defensible it would be -- there'd be a long frontier with whomever controlled Iran, meaning that the province would always be vulnerable to enemy incursions.

I am fairly confident that if Rome had adopted - as Trajan desired - the ambition to keep Mesopotamia, the next strategic goal in that general plan would have been to turn Susiana and Media into autonomous buffer states. At that point, Persia would no longer be a real threat.

That is certainly true. Even just distributing those eleven legions to strengthen the defences of Rome's major frontiers would probably be a better strategy than using them to conquer Britain.

Then again, on reflection I'm not sure how obvious that would have been to someone of Claudius' time: whilst with hindsight we know Britain never really Romanised and kept rebelling, Rome had had a pretty good track record up till that point. If the Romans had succeeded in assimilating Britain to the same degree as Gaul, it would probably have been a valuable province.

Very true, and it does not do to blame Claudius for not having that foresight. Understanding, in hindsight, that capturing Britannia was not the best option is not (or should not be) the same as blaming Claudius for not knowing that in his day.

That said, I do blame Hadrian. He kept Britannia and ditched Mesopotamia and that was the wrong choice. It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to keep both. He chose the easy path, and in so doing failed to pursue the strategy that could have permanently removed the Persian threat.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

You don't need to be able to predict the future to understand what a strategically sound border looks like. Throughout their history, the Romans repeatedly demonstrated that they understood this. A conquest of Germania up to the Elbe is not something that made "zero sense". Indeed, clear-thinking military minds repeatedly argued in favour of it.

This was arguably the reason Augustus expanded in that direction in the first place. Augustus's conquests revolved around consolidation forst, and secondly, on completely insulating Italy from any outside threats. Hence you have the conquest of Raetia, campaigns in Illyria and the Balkans, and an invasion of Germany and then a planned invasion of Marcomania. There was a clear grand strategy in all of this, and it was not really economic but based on creating the most defensible frontier possible that insulated the most valuable Roman provinces from outside threat. This is the value Augustus saw in expanding to the Elbe and Danube. Greece, Italy, Gaul, and Spain would all be at a comfortable distance from the frontiers of the empire, which would also be conveniently shortened to boot. As long as Rome didn't have some freak scenario like, say, having their manpower exhausted in a devastating war in Illyria and them having 3 of their finest legions obliterated with no ability to replace the losses anytime soon...they were there to stay in germania for the long haul.