For sure, though it would be an interesting pod.Sure. But as you've said, there's no value to it, and no point.
A greater latin influence on the wider area as a whole, the potential for territorial butterflies once Rome inevitably starts to crumble, plenty of options such as thatAssuming they did, what would have been the consequences.
A greater latin influence on the wider area as a whole, the potential for territorial butterflies once Rome inevitably starts to crumble, plenty of options such as that
Obviously there was no real value in taking Hibernia and what parts of Caledonia they didn't, but say an emperor in the 1st-2nd century decides the idea sounds cool, could Rome pull it off?
Uh uh. Can't let you get away with that.
So the Romans get all the way to the tip of Scotland.... and then what? Going by the rest of England, they leave after a couple of generations. The Scotts go back to being Scotts. So what?
The Romans occupied the greater part of Britain for some 350 years. If the POD is that the invading Roman forces keep conquering instead of settling for the OTL borders, they'll likely conquer Scotland around AD 100 (maybe a decade or so later if we include stamping out the last vestiges of rebellion), leaving about three centuries (assuming they leave Britain at around the same time as IOTL) for Roman influence to reshape things.So the Romans get all the way to the tip of Scotland.... and then what? Going by the rest of England, they leave after a couple of generations. The Scotts go back to being Scotts. So what?
One potentially huge butterfly: IOTL, the first Saxons were invited into Britain to help defend against Pictish and Irish raids. If the Picts and Irish have spent three hundred years under the same government as the rest of Britain, it's quite possible their raiding is butterflied away, and with it the whole Saxon settlement of England, with potentially huge (or not, depending on how big a believer you are in geographical determinism) effects on the islands' subsequent development.The most likely consequence alt-world has, there cannot be The Wall imagery in their Game of Thrones equivalent because the Legions would instead be housed in 3-4 Forts and deployed where tribal raids yet occur.
TBH I think the Empire of this period could have maintained two or three extra legions without much effort. Sure the rewards of conquering Britain might not be worth the cost, but I don't think the cost would be so great, or that the Empire's resources were stretched so thin, that it would require denuding other sectors of troops.With the resources the Empire had at its disposal in the first and second centuries AD, yes, it could have pushed into the whole of Caledonia and even Hibernia if it had wanted to. But those resources would have had to come from somewhere else.
It kinda was that bad, even during just normal operations Britain maintained three legions at minimum. Which might not sound like a lot, but was a tenth the total legions Rome usually operated with. It was also barely enough to keep order in the province, and the only times the Romans ever really pushed the borders forward was when a fourth legion was lent to operations in the region. However this extra fourth legion rarely stayed for long, usually being borrowed from the Rhine forces and thus was needed elsewhere if nothing urgent was occurring in Britain itself. Agricola's great push for example was only feasible due to having four legions available to both hold the Britains down and push back the Picts.TBH I think the Empire of this period could have maintained two or three extra legions without much effort. Sure the rewards of conquering Britain might not be worth the cost, but I don't think the cost would be so great, or that the Empire's resources were stretched so thin, that it would require denuding other sectors of troops.
It kinda was that bad, even during just normal operations Britain maintained three legions at minimum. Which might not sound like a lot, but was a tenth the total legions Rome usually operated with. It was also barely enough to keep order in the province, and the only times the Romans ever really pushed the borders forward was when a fourth legion was lent to operations in the region. However this extra fourth legion rarely stayed for long, usually being borrowed from the Rhine forces and thus was needed elsewhere if nothing urgent was occurring in Britain itself. Agricola's great push for example was only feasible due to having four legions available to both hold the Britains down and push back the Picts.
Would Roman roads make Scotland and Ireland different?Uh uh. Can't let you get away with that.
So the Romans get all the way to the tip of Scotland.... and then what? Going by the rest of England, they leave after a couple of generations. The Scotts go back to being Scotts. So what?
Err, what Scots? Do you mean the Irish raiders ( at this point in time )? A Roman Britain that is the entire island will have a more uniform culture and identity. The Irish raids would be less successful and the entire colonisation of the far North might be avoided.Uh uh. Can't let you get away with that.
So the Romans get all the way to the tip of Scotland.... and then what? Going by the rest of England, they leave after a couple of generations. The Scotts go back to being Scotts. So what?
Uniform as in Roman towns and Celtic countryside? As for the Irish raids they would have a field day with Roman Scotland with their ships outmanaeuvring any land patrols.Err, what Scots? Do you mean the Irish raiders ( at this point in time )? A Roman Britain that is the entire island will have a more uniform culture and identity. The Irish raids would be less successful and the entire colonisation of the far North might be avoided.