AHC/PC: British defeat Roman invaders

Trajan conquered Dacia because he needed gold and silver to the fiscal mismanagement under Domitian and Nerva. Dacia conveniently had plenty of both.,
 
Last edited:
Did I ever mention I hate my phone? Anyway it was supposed to be that map of Rome in 125 on Wikipedia that also conveniently shows the gold and silver mines of the empire. Ill exit it tomorrow though since it will be too much of a pain on my phone.

Edit: I lied, got rid of it.
 
Last edited:
Another reason for the Romans to conquer Britain, at least in the early days, was the potential risk -- or at least perceived potential risk -- of British support for native uprisings in Gaul.
 
In short YES. However Britannia and Dacia at least more denuded of their forests so easier to traverse and maintain control. Also 3 eagles lost in Germany, 1 lost in Scotland too much hassle apart from punitive raids UNLESS there is something easily exploitable which is not available in the empire. There's not much on the North German Plain except agricultural land and the empire has plenty of that and it doesn't need clearing.

Sad to say, modern scholars aren't totally sure that the Ninth was lost in Northern Britannia after all - there's a theory that it was destroyed in the Middle East instead. Which annoys me because I adored The Eagle of the Ninth as a kid. Still do.
 
So we're saying that Germany, east of the Rhine and north of the Danube at least, was much less taxable. What was the difference in material culture between central & north Germany on the one hand and say, Brittania and Dacia on the other.

I see 3 differences:

1. a minor reason might have been the availability of ressources in Britannia. Well, the roman simply didn't know enough about the rich ressources in Germany, but the plumbum.

2. Britannia looked like it would be of manageable size geographically. Like Spain, where the romans never stopped to fight until they won the last battle in the far northeast near the Atlantic around 100 AD.

But Germany, looked like a never ending story. Behind the Elbe you had the Elbgermans, which the romans accounted more dangerous than the Cherusci and others. And the territory behind the Elbe was even more swampy and the woods darker.

3. The main reason was perhaps the favourable social structure of the british tribes, especially in the Southeast of Britain. Similar to Gallia, the tribes were good organized with already semi-urban centres and a developed aristocracy, which both the romans could instrumentalize to rule and administrate. Things became much harder, when the romans had to conquer Wales and Mid-England.

Such a favourable social structure was not available in Germany and one major reason why the provincialization by Varus failed. Even if Tacitus talks about british nobles, like he talks about german nobles, the german nobles were much weaker, if it comes to civil administrative rights & power. This was probably also one reason, why the romans did not try to provincialize Caledonia and Hibernia. The roman model of provincialization and romanization did not work here. At least not without a major effort and investment by the romans.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, thats not going to work. Rome was still operating under Republican foreign policy at the time. Their flow chart looked something like this:

- Are there any foreigners threatening Rome?
- Attack.
- Insulting Rome?
- Attack.
- Looking at Rome the wrong way?
- Attack.
- Breathing good Roman air?
- Attack.
- Rude enough to win a battle against Rome?
- Attack.
- Are they still there?
- Attack.
- Are they really still there?
- Attack.
- Are there any Romans left alive?
- Attack.
- Seriously? We still haven't won?
- Attack.

The problem with that sort of argument is that it's true right up until the point it isn't. The Germans were not wiped out after Teutoberger Wald and the Persians were not wiped out after Carrhae - the Romans were just people, not the Borg. They had other settings than "assimilate or exterminate" - it's perfectly likely they'd decide to respond to a disaster in Britannia by fortifying some of the harbours on the southern Channel coast and ensuring there was a decent fleet in the Channel. As a defensive goes it'd probably be cheaper and more rational than garrisonning a 400 mile long northward salient anyway.

"Occupation was horrible. The Romans burst into our...nothing, leaving behind cities, roads, and industries."

"Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." You don't need to conduct genocide on a scale capable of shocking even Tacitus in order to build a few roads (though the roads do make genocide easier).
 
The problem with that sort of argument is that it's true right up until the point it isn't. The Germans were not wiped out after Teutoberger Wald and the Persians were not wiped out after Carrhae - the Romans were just people, not the Borg. They had other settings than "assimilate or exterminate" - it's perfectly likely they'd decide to respond to a disaster in Britannia by fortifying some of the harbours on the southern Channel coast and ensuring there was a decent fleet in the Channel. As a defensive goes it'd probably be cheaper and more rational than garrisonning a 400 mile long northward salient anyway.

Correct, the roman stubborness became weaker with the princeps, who thought about the big picture and had talented guys calculating the costs. A roman princeps was also not that interested in succesful, beloved and powerful army generals, if it is not he himself. Augustus is one exeception. But he had a lot of loyal generals often familymembers and a very good reason for most of his conquests.

In the republic most generals tried to raise their fame by all means. Often they even started a war without the permission of the senate and the comitia or constructed a flimsy casus belli. Also remember the different military organisation after Augustus. The loss of 20.000 soldiers was nothing during the punic wars, but a big desaster after Teutoburg.
 
Last edited:
As Agricola says, the Principate weakened the Republican singular foreign policy of Rome until it was something more pragmatic (which is why I specifically stated that it was a Republican policy, rather than Imperial). However, the notions of national pride and indomitability were still there. When the Germans destroyed the legions, the Romans didn't leave, they just took awhile to regroup and re-invade. Rome continued to campaign and periodically invade Germany for two centuries after their defeat; even Marcus Aurelius planned on annexing Marcomannia as a province (that would've been interesting, logistically).
 

gaijin

Banned
Sigged.
Perhaps not as great as the average sigged post, but the best I've seen yet...

I like this. It's like being complimented on being the best mediocre shag ever. :D
 
Sad to say, modern scholars aren't totally sure that the Ninth was lost in Northern Britannia after all - there's a theory that it was destroyed in the Middle East instead. Which annoys me because I adored The Eagle of the Ninth as a kid. Still do.
That line from who shot Liberty Valance "When the legend becomes fact print the legend" definitely applies here! Wonderful book, awful film.
Paradoxically if the Romans hadn't conquered Britannia perhaps Wales would be bigger. Four more centuries of warring amongst themselves might have made the Britons more resistant to the Saxons et alia!
 

tuareg109

Banned
"Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant." You don't need to conduct genocide on a scale capable of shocking even Tacitus in order to build a few roads (though the roads do make genocide easier).

Exactly. I was poking fun at the fact that some regard the Romans as so oppressive and abusive, and yet their improvements and industry raised the quality of life and increased social mobility everywhere they went.
 
That line from who shot Liberty Valance "When the legend becomes fact print the legend" definitely applies here! Wonderful book, awful film.
Paradoxically if the Romans hadn't conquered Britannia perhaps Wales would be bigger. Four more centuries of warring amongst themselves might have made the Britons more resistant to the Saxons et alia!

I was actually quite cross to hear that the Ninth might not have been lost in Caledonia. I had a specific scene in mind for Cato's Cavalry that involved a lot of dead Picts and the discovery of their tribal idol...
 
Top