Claudius

WI: He had never married his niece Aggrippina? She either dies or he remains married to Messalina. Could his son by her have succeeded him and what kind of emperor would he have made?
 
WI: He had never married his niece Aggrippina? She either dies or he remains married to Messalina. Could his son by her have succeeded him and what kind of emperor would he have made?

That question is a bit impossible to answer, given that it's about a theoretical person...
 

HeWhoIsMe

Banned
Still, considering what little info we have on Britannicus it would be hard to say what he'd be like. Hell, even if we had sufficient info on him as a young heir it would be very hard indeed to theorize how he'd turn out as an emperor!

WAY BETTER THAN NERO...would be a a safe answer though!
 
On a slightly different note, could Claudius -being the glory hound and wanting to leave an imprint of his rule on the Empire- have made it his mission to permanently conquer Germania (up to the Elbe) instead of Celtic Britain?
 
On a slightly different note, could Claudius -being the glory hound and wanting to leave an imprint of his rule on the Empire- have made it his mission to permanently conquer Germania (up to the Elbe) instead of Celtic Britain?

Well, Germania at that point had been fought for by his brother, Germanicus who had many famous victories there, and perhaps he might want to try his luck. But it was less of a glory hound thing, and more of a cementing his power with a successful war. Britain would do more for him there, as rather than competing with his brother, he'd be competing, and beating Julius Caesar himself, who failed to conquer Britain. And Britain, as fundamentally valueless as it was, was still more valuable to the Empire than Germania would be.
 

OS fan

Banned
Britain wasn't completely worthless for the Romans - there was still the population which could be enslaved. Given the fact that slaves at this time often meant an investment, so rich people would buy them even without urgent need, just as they might buy derivatives today, you see why the Romans were interested in Britain.
 
Britain wasn't completely worthless for the Romans - there was still the population which could be enslaved. Given the fact that slaves at this time often meant an investment, so rich people would buy them even without urgent need, just as they might buy derivatives today, you see why the Romans were interested in Britain.

But still, consistently throughout the Empire's history, Britain cost more to occupy than its resources and slaves gave to the Empire. Slaves themselves weren't particularly hard to get- slaves produce slaves, and war produces slaves as well. Britain was originally a prestige province, and later became a land that the Empire was too stubborn to give up.
 
Top