What it says on the title? How many legions would the Romans have to station in Britannia if they take the entirety of the island? Also, would it be better for the Romans to not take Caledonia and build a wall than to take it? Thanks.
I dare say one more legion (a fourth one) and a few auxiliary units to be dispersed across the North. The permanent location of two legions would be North of OTL's Hadrian's Wall, while a third would still be either in Eburacum or Chester.
Then, a lot depends on what happens afterwards. Would the Caledonians revolt frequently and fiercely? Then Rome would still probably decide to withdraw and "draw a line", perhaps the Antonine Wall ends up as the permanent frontier. I see this as the most probable outcome, actually.
Would the situation get quiet over time? Then Rome might feel encouraged to invade Hibernia. Or to reduce the number of legions to three or actually two, nevertheless.
So it would cost more to hold? (Assuming there are a few revolts that are put down without much effort)
So it would cost more to hold? (Assuming there are a few revolts that are put down without much effort)
If we can assume it was Agricola who achieved this, most likely by having one or two more years as governor to consolidate his conquest of 84 AD, I doubt the Roman army of occupation would have been much smaller than the army of conquest. If Hibernia was also conquered subsequently that might have allowed a troop draw-down by the end of the first century AD as there would be no place to which freedom seeking Celts could flee. If that were maintained then the Romanization of the British Isles would have had a much easier time of it.
Maybe Legions raised in Britannia might be part of Trajan's invasion of Parthia.
Perhaps by the Crisis of the Third Century it might have been a series of British Emperors that saves the Empire from complete collapse instead of Illyrians.
"Hand-on-Steel Artorius the Unconquered Restorer of the World" has a nice ring to it!
Hero of Canton
Why would the Romans want Scotland in the first place? Not much there. Don't think it would do the empire much good, going for it in the first place. A bit like Germany, more trouble than it's worth.
How much more developed was the area as compared to 130 years prior?What if Emperor Septimius Severus conquered Caledonia between 208-11. We could even say that he lives past 211 and continues the campaign if you want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus
How much more developed was the area as compared to 130 years prior?
I don't know whether they would even bother garrisoning the Highlands once they declared victory. There's not much up there that would interest Rome, though if they manage to wipe out the Picts it could serve as a place of internal exile. Rome's Siberia so to speak.
I don't know whether they would even bother garrisoning the Highlands once they declared victory. There's not much up there that would interest Rome, though if they manage to wipe out the Picts it could serve as a place of internal exile. Rome's Siberia so to speak.
Why would the Romans want Scotland in the first place? Not much there. Don't think it would do the empire much good, going for it in the first place. A bit like Germany, more trouble than it's worth.
This is probably one of the few cases where it may work out for them long term, rather than just "the romans conquer Germany just cause" it gives a clear advantage by taking away any land borders to defend on the island. Long term it costs more but afterwards its much more secure without having to deal with Scotland being a haven for celtic raiders.