If the Romans Take Caledonia How many legions stationed on Briton?

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.
 
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)

In the short run, certainly. Over the centuries, it depends on the course of events (also if we extend the lifespan of the Imperium as a whole). But look at a map. "Scotland" is a large place, and its terrain doesn't make control any easier. Ask the English.

It will take a long time until conquest of Caledonia pays off. I would actually suggest, that a slow and paced expansion into Germania Magna would still be a better use of Roman ressources.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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

Now that would be interesting.
 
There were already three legions in Britain, I'd say that you could probably maintain the peace with that number, without any need for a fourth. After Boudicca's revolt, the Britons were a little less disobedient.
 
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.
 
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.

To have the entire island so they don't need to worry about those pesky Picts to the north? If you give Agricola a few more years, they would have control over Scotland.
 
Severus just needs to life one or two years extra and Caledonia will be occupied. Caracalla(Severus Son) lead the assault from antonine wall. He planned to exterminate the tribes of Caledonia north of the Wall of Antonine. Caledonia could be easily repopulated, maybe Caledonia will me more romanised than most of britannia. Atleast if romans settlers are used.
 
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.

The Roman Province of Caledonia.
Where disgraced senators and generals are send.:p
 
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.

Hmm. That makes sense.
 
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.
 
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.

That is true. It also denies uppity tribes from having a place to seek refuge beyond Rome's borders.
 
It would almost certainly cost more to hold.
The Scottish/Northumbrian natives weren't much of a concern to the Romans as far as basing legions goes. The wall was more of a customs barrier than anything else, having a land border there just didn't bother them. The southernmost tribes of the north tended to be Roman clients anyway so they acted as a buffer against any more hostile presence in the north.
The bigger concern for Roman legions in Britain was keeping down the locals and defending against sea raiders from Ireland and the North Sea coast of Europe.
 
A final solution would be to incorporate both Caledonia and Hibernia into the empire as provinces. That might in the long run change the course of history (relations between the English/Scottish/Irish).
 
Top