How can the Romans maintain control of Southern Scotland below the Antonine Wall until the evacuation of the Island of Great Britain?
How can the Romans maintain control of Southern Scotland below the Antonine Wall right up until the evacuation of the Island of Great Britain?
If they maintain control of southern Scotland and keep the Picts et. al. at bay, why should they need to evacuate GB anyway? I suggest that if they'd played their cards right, they could have shifted the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Londinium after 410 AD, and used Britain as a base for the conquest of the Atlantic and the eastern seaboard of the Americas and/or the reconquest of their old empire on continental Europe.
Now there's a couple of timelines for you...![]()
If they maintain control of southern Scotland and keep the Picts et. al. at bay, why should they need to evacuate GB anyway? I suggest that if they'd played their cards right, they could have shifted the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Londinium after 410 AD, and used Britain as a base for the conquest of the Atlantic and the eastern seaboard of the Americas and/or the reconquest of their old empire on continental Europe.
Now there's a couple of timelines for you...![]()
Because it isn't worth it? The romans tried to pacify Scotland a few times, but it never worked in the long term, because it was too expensive and drew resources from other, more pressing concerns. The Romans maintained three legions in Britain (1 in York, 2 in Wales), as many as were deployed in all of northern africa, a far more vital region; that these resources were required to hold a relative backwater is telling, and would help decide britain's fate once those legions were needed elsewhere. And, during the later centuries, the british garrisons had a habit of mutinying in favor of their own claimant to the imperial throne, so weakening the forces there made more sense. Fact is, sooner or later the romans have to make some hard choices about where their soldiers go, and Britain is too isolated, to worthless (relative to the core imperial territories), and requires too much investment to hold.
Why Wales? The Irish?
Why Wales? The Irish?
It's widely thought that the strong military presence in the West of the island was due to the fact that people there were not happy with Roman rule for a long time. Basically, they stayed more tribal for longer and thus held potential for trouble that the locals in themore prosperous, urbanised parts lost. The North very likely looked similar. Holding down the extra territory would probably have needed extra troops most of all.
.
If they maintain control of southern Scotland and keep the Picts et. al. at bay, why should they need to evacuate GB anyway? I suggest that if they'd played their cards right, they could have shifted the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Londinium after 410 AD, and used Britain as a base for the conquest of the Atlantic and the eastern seaboard of the Americas and/or the reconquest of their old empire on continental Europe.
Now there's a couple of timelines for you...![]()
And when do you expect the North Welsh to stop?
Really strange though there'd be two legions there.
Even given the terrain of Wales being worse.
I always thought the main Roman concentration in Britain was at Hadrian's Wall and of course the important cities.