Boudicca's Revolt Succeeds

Suetonius (the historian, author of The 12 Caesars) wasn't exactly an unbiased source. His stuff compares to Tacitus like the National Enquirer to the New York Times; a grain of truth pumped up for the sake of scandal. As far as he was concerned anyone who wasn't Trajan and conquering everything in sight or Augustus was a washout and Nero was far from Suetonius' favorite.
Suetonius is heavily suspect, especially when talking about Nero and (even moreso) Caligula, but we shouldn't write him off completely. He did have access to imperial records from his time as an insider.
Roman manpower was less of an issue than you might think. Augustus used some slaves for the Illyrian revolt, yes, but that was because Roman manpower had not fully recovered from all of the civil wars yet.

I agree that Roman manpower wasn't much of a problem after this time. But Dio should not be overlooked when he says Augustus had little to no ability to replace the lost legions. I also agree that Teutoburg is held to be more important than it actually was. If you want to point to an event that caused Rome to withdrawal from Germania, it's the Great Illyrian Revolt (which was what led Ariminius to return to Germania and contemplate his own revolt in the first place) rather than Teutoburg.
 
well none of the ancient historians are exactly unbiased but its a source saying X. Discounting it is heroic.


There is an earthquake damaging Campanian towns in 62, not an eruption.

Vindex revolts in 68 AD.

While the year of 4 emperors is a catchy name the fighting continues for two years and until 70 AD 4 legions are occupied in the Siege of Jerusalem.

There is really only a gap from 62 - 67 before Rome has major crises in the east, in Germany and a civil war precluding much by way of a force, not mention enough trouble along the Danube to get a governor killed. And then you have Nero in charge who seems to have had other spending priorities.

And after that a lot of the trouble is adjacent to Britain which will complicate things.

After that maybe. Depends on roman state finances and willingness not just having manpower.

The force needed will be large and that big an army under his command could tempt someone to have a go for the purple himself, who gets command? Cerialis is probably dead in the revolt TTL.

Also worht recalling that the Roman army had shown itself to be both revolt prone and not terribly efficient. Its Vespasian's work in reorganising the army and the command structures that rejuvenate it.

Again, none of this is preventing Rome from raising a few more legions (they are going to need to replace them regardless) and going at it again. The year of the 4 emperors wasn't particularly devastating either. The siege of Jerusalem is really irrelevant to the point (since it was about to end anyway shortly after the year of the 4 emperors) since the eastern legions would not be transferred anyway. Earthquakes damaging a couple Campanian towns isn't going to banktrupt the treasury.

And again, I'll reiterate: Nero's not going to be the one to retake it. It doesn't matter at all what Nero thinks about going back into Britannia. He's not going to be the emperor very long. If we assume that it's Vespasian (or any of the 4 really), he has a more personal investment in retaking Britannia, since he was a key component in Claudius' invasion. The others of course would want to get a victory under their belt that's not against their fellow countrymen-and what better way than to reconquer a recently lost province that has some tribes willing to support your re-conquest?
 

Redhand

Banned
Suetonius is heavily suspect, especially when talking about Nero and (even moreso) Caligula, but we shouldn't write him off completely. He did have access to imperial records from his time as an insider.


I agree that Roman manpower wasn't much of a problem after this time. But Dio should not be overlooked when he says Augustus had little to no ability to replace the lost legions. I also agree that Teutoburg is held to be more important than it actually was. If you want to point to an event that caused Rome to withdrawal from Germania, it's the Great Illyrian Revolt (which was what led Ariminius to return to Germania and contemplate his own revolt in the first place) rather than Teutoburg.

Suetonius had a clear political agenda in his writing, and this is why it gets discounted, especially when he is talking about the atrocities of mad emperors. Fact wise, in terms of military campaigns and imperial bureaucracy and public records, his accounts seem to be fine.

Augustus totally could have replaced the legions, but the disgrace of losing the eagles caused this not to happen. Legions were later raised and you may forget that military recruits were ALWAYS being raised, just not always specifically for a new legion, but rather to be assigned to existing legions or to serve in vexillationes associated with a legion.
 
Augustus totally could have replaced the legions, but the disgrace of losing the eagles caused this not to happen. Legions were later raised and you may forget that military recruits were ALWAYS being raised, just not always specifically for a new legion, but rather to be assigned to existing legions or to serve in vexillationes associated with a legion.

Legion with a number as big as XXX Victrix are levied during the first century when needed. I get it that Rome probably won't have a legion using the same name as an old, destroyed one, but I don't see a taboo in creating brand new ones.

Anyway, IV Macedonia and X Gemina looks like suitable candidates to send to Britannia at that time.
 
Suetonius is heavily suspect, especially when talking about Nero and (even moreso) Caligula, but we shouldn't write him off completely. He did have access to imperial records from his time as an insider.

True but given his biases the whole "Nero was going to abandon Britain" bit might have been something taken out of context or exaggerated. Nero was feckless, lazy, tone-deaf, self-absorbed, completely disinterested in government, and incredibly unreliable but I don't think even he was so stupid as to realize how bad it would look for the princeps to let some hairy barbarians on some insignificant wet island on the fringes of Rome's domain humiliate the Eternal City's pride by letting their victory go unpunished.

Of course this is the same Nero whose reign finally ended when he decided to commit social and political suicide by running off to Greece to be an actor so that is always possible.

I agree that Roman manpower wasn't much of a problem after this time. But Dio should not be overlooked when he says Augustus had little to no ability to replace the lost legions. I also agree that Teutoburg is held to be more important than it actually was. If you want to point to an event that caused Rome to withdrawal from Germania, it's the Great Illyrian Revolt (which was what led Ariminius to return to Germania and contemplate his own revolt in the first place) rather than Teutoburg.

That was probably more an issue of time, commitments, and logistics. I don't know the exact figures (probably in Vegetius somewhere) but it would have taken at least a couple of years to get two whole legions plus auxilia and baggage train together and fit to fight. It squares with the famous, "Varus give me back my legions!" quote and may have been more a question of that one more thing that was more than Rome could take at the moment.
 
Top