Were The Romans Better Off With or Without Britain?

This question has been bugging me for awhile. The Romans conquering and holding Britain seems to me to be more trouble than its worth. It did have economic value, but not enough to make a real effect on the Roman economy. It required 3 extra legions to garrison; legions that always felt discontented and neglected, and so were prone to elevate their own emperor almost on a regular basis.

But is it more useful for the Romans to control it than not? If the Romans don't hold Britain, would they ever need to station any legion (and I say legion, because I dont think they would need more than one) on the Gallic coast to prevent raids? Even if they did, 1 legion is certainly more affordable than 3, and on the plus side, they are far less likely to promote emperors on their own and more easily reigned in and controlled. Plus, those 2 legions that would be on Britain, could be of vital use elsewhere (or the lack of them a welcome relief to the treasury).


So, as the title states, were the Romans better off with or without Britain? I am starting to believe that Britain was just more trouble than it's worth.
 
I always understood that by the late Empire Britain was considered the breadbasket of the west. So the economic value was pretty real in the end. But for the first century and a half less so.
 
I don't know about Britain being a breadbasket - isn't the Mediterranean a much better place to grow crops? It's not even on the Mediterranean, so getting resources elsewhere is terribly expensive unless we're talking about northern Gaul.

Anyways, Britain was mined pretty heavily by the Romans for gold, silver, tin, etc. But when you consider the expense in maintaining three legions, it's definitely not worth it economically. I've always been a bit impressed that Britain, which had an insignificant population at the time, could be unruly enough to require constant oversight by three whole legions. And what did the Romans get out of it? Anything at all?

But the Romans are Romans. They do what they must because they can.
 
I understood that Rome obtained most of its grain from North Africa.

Britain was frequently a headache. In rebellion under Boudicca; Postumus-Tetricus; Carausius-Allectus; Magnentius; Magnus Maximus; and Marcus-Constantine III. And Constantine I was proclaimed emperor there in opposition to Galerius.

Defending against the Picts, Scots and Saxons was a continual struggle which got more difficult over time.
 
Defending against the Picts, Scots and Saxons was a continual struggle which got more difficult over time.

I thought that the Roman general Agricola declared in 83 AD that all opposition to Roman rule by the Picts and Caledonians (Broch Builders) was crushed. Though the Romans were later forced to pull back. The Roman border tended to fluctuate between the Antonine and Hadrian Walls.

Weren't "the Scots" pretty much post-Roman?

The Saxons were Germanic invaders that only started invading during the Late Empire (along with the Frisians, Angles, and Jutes).

IIRC, the first non-Britannic invaders the Romans had to deal with were the Irish. But we're not supposed to talk about the Irish raping, looting, and pillaging the Welsh, Romans, and Romanized British. Very un-PC.:p
 
I don't know about Britain being a breadbasket - isn't the Mediterranean a much better place to grow crops? It's not even on the Mediterranean, so getting resources elsewhere is terribly expensive unless we're talking about northern Gaul.

Anyways, Britain was mined pretty heavily by the Romans for gold, silver, tin, etc. But when you consider the expense in maintaining three legions, it's definitely not worth it economically. I've always been a bit impressed that Britain, which had an insignificant population at the time, could be unruly enough to require constant oversight by three whole legions. And what did the Romans get out of it? Anything at all?

But the Romans are Romans. They do what they must because they can.
Well the legions were needed to protect against the Hibernian raiders as well. His is my own personal view but it seems the Romans needed one for the Picts, one for the natives and one for the Irish.
 
Well the legions were needed to protect against the Hibernian raiders as well. His is my own personal view but it seems the Romans needed one for the Picts, one for the natives and one for the Irish.

And one for further conquest going north when they could afford it, which wasn't often past the times of Claudius, Vespacian, and Agricola.
 
Would a Non-Brittania TL be titled something along "We Leave the Wretches To the Sea" or "A Shore Too Far For Rome"?
 

Lateknight

Banned
This question has been bugging me for awhile. The Romans conquering and holding Britain seems to me to be more trouble than its worth. It did have economic value, but not enough to make a real effect on the Roman economy. It required 3 extra legions to garrison; legions that always felt discontented and neglected, and so were prone to elevate their own emperor almost on a regular basis.

But is it more useful for the Romans to control it than not? If the Romans don't hold Britain, would they ever need to station any legion (and I say legion, because I dont think they would need more than one) on the Gallic coast to prevent raids? Even if they did, 1 legion is certainly more affordable than 3, and on the plus side, they are far less likely to promote emperors on their own and more easily reigned in and controlled. Plus, those 2 legions that would be on Britain, could be of vital use elsewhere (or the lack of them a welcome relief to the treasury).


So, as the title states, were the Romans better off with or without Britain? I am starting to believe that Britain was just more trouble than it's worth.
I have read that Britain was not profitable until centuries after it's conquest and it never was a rich province so Rome probably would have been better off without it.
 
Surely it would involve a tale of the Anglo-Saxons sweeping over much earlier a much weaker Ancient Briton?

Doubtful. Prydein wouldn't have had its native warrior aristocracy wiped out, replaced by more mobile legions which left Britain pretty well defenseless. Remember, sub-Roman Britain wasn't a healthy or stable culture, it was very much weakened by a succession of claimants to the purple draining out the garrisons. Even if the island remained divided, that still means eight to twelve relatively healthy tribes, each with their own defense culture and system with centuries of experience behind it. OTL the Britons essentially had to start from whole cloth with whatever soldiers and material they could scrape up.

Even disregarding that factor, we're still talking about four hundred years of butterflies. Instead of Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, it could be Franks, Allemanes, Bavarians and Goths who decide to take to sea to try to seize new lands and make new enemies.
 
the conquest is probably not done out of economic reasons

an Emperor who wanted to be remembered as someone who added to the empire.

Military reasons (Britons supporting unruly Gauls)
later the idea of letting something go that belongs to you is not considered (just the same with my son- did not use some toys for years, but suggesting to donate them to his little cousin was turned down immediately ;))
 
I guess Rome could stay out, but so long as they sit along the north Atlantic coast of Gaul etc, then they are going to be intensely interested, by necessity, as to what happens in southern Britain. The south coast of such is so very close to Gaul that trade, people movement and the actions of the polities there are likely to regularly impact the Roman coast. Let alone say the tin trade or other issues.

I could imagine that the Romans will regularly be sending forces to Britain to support various allies, when needed, to shore them up, or advance Roman interests.
 
I guess Rome could stay out, but so long as they sit along the north Atlantic coast of Gaul etc, then they are going to be intensely interested, by necessity, as to what happens in southern Britain. The south coast of such is so very close to Gaul that trade, people movement and the actions of the polities there are likely to regularly impact the Roman coast. Let alone say the tin trade or other issues.

I could imagine that the Romans will regularly be sending forces to Britain to support various allies, when needed, to shore them up, or advance Roman interests.

Which will then snowball under one of the Emperors to "take the whole lot and be done with it" :D
 
Even disregarding that factor, we're still talking about four hundred years of butterflies. Instead of Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisians, it could be Franks, Allemanes, Bavarians and Goths who decide to take to sea to try to seize new lands and make new enemies.

What happens to future France and Germany when that happens?

I could imagine that the Romans will regularly be sending forces to Britain to support various allies, when needed, to shore them up, or advance Roman interests.

The tribes of the Belgae in particular kept up close ties with their ancestral homeland in today's Low Countries, and were pretty pissed over the Romans overrunning and eventually Romanizing those lands left the Belgae very upset. But when Augustus died, Tiberius showed no interest in Imperial expansion, Gaius Caligula's threats of invasion were exposed as lunacy, and Claudius was seen to be an incompetent fool, the Belgae got a little too big for their britches. Never get snarky with a smart man who has a big army.:mad::eek::p Just Manuel Noreiga.

Which will then snowball under one of the Emperors to "take the whole lot and be done with it" :D

Oh, hello Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus:cool: I didn't google that, I saw "I, Claudius" a zillion times.

I'd be interested in seeing a TL with the Romans going hogwild to conquer the whole of the British Isles including Hibernia. We're assuming lots of easy victories previously in Roman history ITTL.
 
So, now the question is, how do we keep the Romans from conquering Britain? I don't think Boudicca forcing them out is enough, because by that point they would probably come right back. So I think it has to be at or before the OTL conquest.

Anyway, how do you guys think a non-Roman Britain would develop? It would definitely have heavy influence and be subject to frequent intervention like Germania was, by the Romans. I like the idea that Dereck Pullemen wrote, about it being held sorta like the Crimea.
 
I don't know about Britain being a breadbasket - isn't the Mediterranean a much better place to grow crops? It's not even on the Mediterranean, so getting resources elsewhere is terribly expensive unless we're talking about northern Gaul.
and the Rhineland, with its extensive garrisons...
 
Top