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

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).

Only if you butterfly the English settlement. The incoming German tribes are still going to be a different group to the previous population.
 
But hopefully (from a Roman point of view) an incorporated Caledonia and Hibernia would make things easier for the Romans on the British Isles.
 
But hopefully (from a Roman point of view) an incorporated Caledonia and Hibernia would make things easier for the Romans on the British Isles.

At what cost? One or the other is bad enough, but both might be more expensive than any damage to Britain would mean to the larger empire.
 
To go back to the original question: maybe three legions with auxiliaries would be enough for the whole island (with one of them located in Caledonia, in modern day Edinburgh?).

For Hibernia it might be enough with one legion plus auxiliaries (in modern day Dublin?).
 
At what cost? One or the other is bad enough, but both might be more expensive than any damage to Britain would mean to the larger empire.


Maybe an emperor can rationalize the decision as

1. giving the legions something to do
2. achieving victories on the battlefield which boost his standing amongst everybody
3. a new source of slaves

It wouldn't really be the 'best' decision, but I don't think it would ruin the empire at its height either.
 
Maybe an emperor can rationalize the decision as

1. giving the legions something to do
2. achieving victories on the battlefield which boost his standing amongst everybody
3. a new source of slaves

It wouldn't really be the 'best' decision, but I don't think it would ruin the empire at its height either.

"Wouldn't ruin" and "would be advisible" are two different things. Rome does not need to take more worthless territory.

#1 and #2 can be done in Mesopotamia. #3 isn't really helped by trying to hold on to these places.
 
#1 and #2 can be done in Mesopotamia.

Of course it can. However, Mesopotamia also brings with it a bigger risk of failure, something an emperor with a risk-adverse personality would definetly take into consideration

#3 isn't really helped by trying to hold on to these places.

I don't quite follow. By taking these places, you are enslaving the local population, hence more slaves.
 
Of course it can. However, Mesopotamia also brings with it a bigger risk of failure, something an emperor with a risk-adverse personality would definetly take into consideration

True. Although I'm not sure such an emperor would see this as worthwhile either - too easy to come up with ways anything would be dangerous.

I don't quite follow. By taking these places, you are enslaving the local population, hence more slaves.
Unless you turn them into slave camps, you get the initial haul of slaves while conquering it and then have a province to rule and govern.
 
Last edited:
Top