Different than usual Roman expansions- Africa, Arabia, Cimmeria

Rome conquers the rest of the British Isles so that they don't have to keep all those legions there. Iceland is inevitably discovered and is settled not just by wondering monks, but by a mix of Roman landowners salivating at the idea of empty land that's safe from any would-be raiders (Iceland at the time had 25% forests, as opposed to just 1% today) and veterans who either get the short end of the stick when t comes to land grants or who prefer to live out their retirement in peace and not have to worry about conflict tearing up their farms.
Iceland, even with some forests, has literally nothing of interest from a Roman POV.
Rome was generally not into the "colonizing previously unpopulated places" business (not that they really found any IOTL, at least not any they went to on a constant basis) and they'd need change something about their modes of conquest and control in order to do so. Which is conceivable, but has to be addressed.
 
OTL Nubians were actually able to beat* the Romans. And Nero did send two legions to investigate the source of the Nile, though they were forced to turn back somewhere in Sudan. So Rome definitely had some interest in expanding further south towards Ethiopia, but just following the Nile seems to be easier said than done.

*well at least fight them well enough to get a favourable peace deal
Nero considered invading the Nubians again, but by then the bulk of trade had shifted from up the Nile to instead concentrate up the Red Sea, and there was less of a need to control territory further down the Nile. So Roman conquest probably has to come under Augustus.
 
Nero considered invading the Nubians again, but by then the bulk of trade had shifted from up the Nile to instead concentrate up the Red Sea, and there was less of a need to control territory further down the Nile. So Roman conquest probably has to come under Augustus.
The legions sent by Nero were forced to turn back by unfavourable terrain IIRC, so I think regardless of when it occurs, conquering all the way down to Ethiopia is out of the question.
 
One thing about Dacia was that not only was there plenty on loot on offer, but the locals were taxable to the point being able to pay for the garrison. If a new legion needs to be raised, can Mauretania be taxed enough to pay for it? If the situation is obviously more gold out than in then when Hadrian comes to power he may rationalise the future as he did with northern Britain.

Which would probably preclude conquering past the High Atlas, but certainly there'd be taxable locals in most of the rest of the country. Mauretania was well-known for its production of purple dye since the Phoenicians, who had colonies far south of where Rome conquered.

For a legion, I don't think you need a new one, instead just grab one of the British legions to garrison the province.
 
Iceland, even with some forests, has literally nothing of interest from a Roman POV.
Rome was generally not into the "colonizing previously unpopulated places" business (not that they really found any IOTL, at least not any they went to on a constant basis) and they'd need change something about their modes of conquest and control in order to do so. Which is conceivable, but has to be addressed.
Also, it is likely that they would trash the island the way the Vikings did on OTL.
 
Also, it is likely that they would trash the island the way the Vikings did on OTL.
Would they care at first though?


Iceland, even with some forests, has literally nothing of interest from a Roman POV.
Rome was generally not into the "colonizing previously unpopulated places" business (not that they really found any IOTL, at least not any they went to on a constant basis) and they'd need change something about their modes of conquest and control in order to do so. Which is conceivable, but has to be addressed.
Well, for one thing Augustus had difficulty finding land for the veterans all of the Legions he ended up with. Empty, somewhat fertile land is always a valuable commodity. What makes Iceland even more valuable, compared to say north-eastern Gaul, is that they can promise said veterans a 100% peaceful retirement, with no risk of barbarian invasions.
 
Would they care at first though?



Well, for one thing, Augustus had difficulty finding land for the veterans all of the Legions he ended up with. Empty, somewhat fertile land is always a valuable commodity. What makes Iceland even more valuable, compared to say north-eastern Gaul, is that they can promise said veterans a 100% peaceful retirement, with no risk of barbarian invasions.
Why not just invade Hibernia and Caledonia though? You would need to prevent any raiding from them after the finding of Iceland anyway.
 
Well, for one thing Augustus had difficulty finding land for the veterans all of the Legions he ended up with. Empty, somewhat fertile land is always a valuable commodity. What makes Iceland even more valuable, compared to say north-eastern Gaul, is that they can promise said veterans a 100% peaceful retirement, with no risk of barbarian invasions.
Fair comment, but weren't veterans supposed to Romanise an area and breed the next generation of legionaries?
 
Would they care at first though?



Well, for one thing Augustus had difficulty finding land for the veterans all of the Legions he ended up with. Empty, somewhat fertile land is always a valuable commodity. What makes Iceland even more valuable, compared to say north-eastern Gaul, is that they can promise said veterans a 100% peaceful retirement, with no risk of barbarian invasions.

I am not sure of how arable Iceland would be with the average Roman veteran's know-how. They might disagree with the "somewhat fertile" assessment.
Also, it's about literally the far-ass end of the world.
Looks more a penal colony than comfortable retirement.
 
Top