Were The Romans Better Off With or Without Britain?

In this timeline, the urbanization of pre-Roman Britain continues, as does state building. Someone (maybe the Iceni, maybe the Catuvellauni) unites most of Britain.

Then, the third-century crisis hits. King Artouiros of Britannia invades Gaul, to "save" its people from the Germanic tribes...
 
What happens to future France and Germany when that happens?

It could be almost anything. For that matter, Rome might make a better effort at conquering Germania if they don't have a direct stake in Britain, which would really send the butterflies flapping. We could have much of post-Roman Europe be ruled by dynasties of Slavic descent, or Lithuanian, or Magyar, or some combination of the above. Or Rome could last longer before fracturing into Latinized successor states, or some combination of both, even.
 
It depends how well they can buy some of the southern British tribes.
Considering Roman control over Ireland IOTL I'd say they wouldn't have much influence there at all.
British raids on Gaul will be a constant annoyance as will their support of Gaulish uprisings for a long while. Its not just Britain they would lose but a lot of the development in Gaul too.
I guess their reasoning with conquering Britain and having so many legions there is based upon Britain being an island and rather hard to get to in those times. Not any particular British rebelliousness. Much easier to have your legions sitting on the island ready to deal with anything then to have to ship them over (painful and expensive) every time something is stirring.
Still 3 legions in Britain was overkill really. Lots of theories as to why this was so....
 
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.

This question has been bugging me as well.
But there are two aspects of this issue:
1) philosophical / metaphysical - Was the territorial expansion good or bad for the Roman republic/empire?
Some (Romans as well) believed that the Romans should have stayed in Italy only. This way they would have kept political stability, traditional republican values - no civil wars, no riots of discontented legions stationed far away from Rome - seems pretty tempting idea.
The others said that as Rome was powerful it was destined to conquer everything which was worth holding for two reasons - the territories were rich or were strategically important to protect these rich territories.

and here we come to the second aspect -

2) financial / economical - Did the Romans collect enough taxes in Britain to pay for the troops stationed on this island?
Here we do not have any solid data. Actually we just do not know.
But we might guess.
In the end of the III century Britain existed independently from the rest of the Rome Empire for about 10 years - the so called "Britannic Empire".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britannic_Empire
From what I know all these ten years Britain was able to collect enough taxes on its territory to support the troops enough to defend Britain not only against all the Barbarians but against the hostile Roman Empire which was eager to return the island. And it stayed prosperous enough. Which proves for me that at this period Britain was definitely economically self sufficient to say the least. I think the same applies for the second and fourth centuries A.D.
 

Sior

Banned
Surely it would involve a tale of the Anglo-Saxons sweeping over much earlier a much weaker Ancient Briton?

The reason that Britain was weak at the end of the Roman occupation was, able bodied men were taken for the legions to satisfy various generals’ ambitions to be emperor, native people were not allowed to be armed or trained in warfare, and the isle had suffered a plague so was depopulated! Before the invasion the Native Britons would have made mincemeat out of any Saxons with delusions of adequacy!
 
The reason that Britain was weak at the end of the Roman occupation was, able bodied men were taken for the legions to satisfy various generals’ ambitions to be emperor, native people were not allowed to be armed or trained in warfare, and the isle had suffered a plague so was depopulated! Before the invasion the Native Britons would have made mincemeat out of any Saxons with delusions of adequacy!

In a word, why?

Even if stronger than OTL, that doesn't automatically mean that they'd easily defeat the Saxons (and referring to them having "Delusions of adequacy" as a group sounds pretty awful).
 
It wouldn't be as worth it for the Saxons though I think. Late-sub Roman Britain was a poorly fortified place that had all the trappings and wealth of 300 years of Roman occupation.

EDIT: Would Rome really suffer from that many raids from Britain? I don't believe that was a problem IOTL until the conquest, and the Romans put some importance on trying to keep up the relations and trade agreements that existed since Caesar's time, with the Britons.
 
British grain

Generally supplied from the Mediterranean via the Moselle, I believe, as well as from locally grown produce.

Actually, by the 4th century Britannia had become a net exporter of grain to the Rhenish legions. My source is scholarship, not Wikipedia, though from memory I can't be certain whether it was Drummond and Nelson or Dick Whittaker. Both wrote excellent books on the frontiers. I am out sick from the office this week and so can't check.
 
No German invasion

It wouldn't be as worth it for the Saxons though I think. Late-sub Roman Britain was a poorly fortified place that had all the trappings and wealth of 300 years of Roman occupation.

Yes, I agree with this sentiment - no villae rusticae in the SE to plunder. They might still have raided, but in smaller numbers.
 
State building

In this timeline, the urbanization of pre-Roman Britain continues, as does state building. Someone (maybe the Iceni, maybe the Catuvellauni) unites most of Britain.

Then, the third-century crisis hits. King Artouiros of Britannia invades Gaul, to "save" its people from the Germanic tribes...


I think that you overestimate the ability to unite for any but a short period of time in this period. It was generally undertaken because of external danger. So, Late Antique German tribes had become larger confederations, e.g. the Franks, because of the centuries of defeats to the Romans whose treatment of tribal enemies was often near genocidal in the Early and High Empire. Similarly, later Anglia was possible because of the Danish invasions of AD 865 which destroyed the other kingdoms of the heptarchy and forced Alfred the Great of Wessex to engage in significant state formation in order to survive - reform of political institutions, fortified towns and a strengthened army. Without the pressure of Roman invasion, would unification have happened inevitably in Britannia. Probably not. The individualism of Celtic culture, want of transport infrastructure without Roman roads and variability of terrain, particularly in the west and north, are all factors which would have discouraged it mea opinione. Consider the history of Ireland prior to the 16th century.
 
In a word, why?

Even if stronger than OTL, that doesn't automatically mean that they'd easily defeat the Saxons (and referring to them having "Delusions of adequacy" as a group sounds pretty awful).
Magnus Maximus, who I think was the last commander of the Roman garrison in Britain, was with his British auxiliaries able to briefly retake Gaul from the Germans and conquer Italy to make himself Emperor, before being defeated by the Eastern Empire, leaving Britain unguarded and letting it fall in the process. I think them having that much success on the offensive is evidence they could have held out.
The Saxons presumably would have still wanted copper and tin.
On the OP itself, probably it was a net loss for Rome, just as most of Britain's Empire later was for it. It was conquered more for prestige than anything else. I can't really see how Rome would be worse off without it.
 
Magnus Maximus, who I think was the last commander of the Roman garrison in Britain, was with his British auxiliaries able to briefly retake Gaul from the Germans and conquer Italy to make himself Emperor, before being defeated by the Eastern Empire, leaving Britain unguarded and letting it fall in the process. I think them having that much success on the offensive is evidence they could have held out.
The Saxons presumably would have still wanted copper and tin.
On the OP itself, probably it was a net loss for Rome, just as most of Britain's Empire later was for it. It was conquered more for prestige than anything else. I can't really see how Rome would be worse off without it.

The last one was actually Constantine III who basically took every soldier he could gather in Britain to the continent.
 
Magnus Maximus, who I think was the last commander of the Roman garrison in Britain, was with his British auxiliaries able to briefly retake Gaul from the Germans and conquer Italy to make himself Emperor, before being defeated by the Eastern Empire, leaving Britain unguarded and letting it fall in the process. I think them having that much success on the offensive is evidence they could have held out.
The Saxons presumably would have still wanted copper and tin.
But that was with Roman training and professionalism involved and a united island, not just the native aristocracy and ways of war.

And "could have held out" is not the same as "would have swatted the Saxons like bugs", which is what made me comment. I'm not saying they'd inevitably lose or even probably lose (don't know enough about pre-Roman Britain and how it might change) - it just felt too strongly stated to me.

On the OP itself, probably it was a net loss for Rome, just as most of Britain's Empire later was for it. It was conquered more for prestige than anything else. I can't really see how Rome would be worse off without it.

Maybe slightly, but it seems like the overall balance is between using a lot of military manpower and gaining some valuable resources. Not worth the conquest, even if not valueless.
 
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

Picts, Saxons and Scots all attacked during the crisis in the 360s. They were repelled, but came again. Ammianus Marcellinus is the most detailed source. The Scots were still based in Ireland then. Part of the East coast was called the Saxon Shore during the later Empire, I assume because of the Saxons' frequent raiding there.

Britain needed more effort in the later Empire than before 300, but there were earlier problems. Whatever was the case under Agricola (who left Britain in 85 A.D.), Hadrian and Antoninus Pius later felt the need to build walls to keep raiders out, and Septimius Severus was in Britain leading a campaign against the Caledonians when he died.
 
Picts, Saxons and Scots all attacked during the crisis in the 360s. They were repelled, but came again. Ammianus Marcellinus is the most detailed source. The Scots were still based in Ireland then. Part of the East coast was called the Saxon Shore during the later Empire, I assume because of the Saxons' frequent raiding there.

Britain needed more effort in the later Empire than before 300, but there were earlier problems. Whatever was the case under Agricola (who left Britain in 85 A.D.), Hadrian and Antoninus Pius later felt the need to build walls to keep raiders out, and Septimius Severus was in Britain leading a campaign against the Caledonians when he died.

The walls were not necessarily to keep invaders out, similarly to how the Limes in Germany were not to keep invaders out. It was more of a way to more easily control trade and movement of peoples (and to split the Brigantes(?)).
 
It depends how well they can buy some of the southern British tribes.
Considering Roman control over Ireland IOTL I'd say they wouldn't have much influence there at all.
British raids on Gaul will be a constant annoyance as will their support of Gaulish uprisings for a long while. Its not just Britain they would lose but a lot of the development in Gaul too.
I guess their reasoning with conquering Britain and having so many legions there is based upon Britain being an island and rather hard to get to in those times. Not any particular British rebelliousness. Much easier to have your legions sitting on the island ready to deal with anything then to have to ship them over (painful and expensive) every time something is stirring.
Still 3 legions in Britain was overkill really. Lots of theories as to why this was so....

Claudius' political needs for an easy and bloodless enough victory to qualify for a Roman Triumph? And did the initial invasion constitute four legions?:confused:

Magnus Maximus, who I think was the last commander of the Roman garrison in Britain, was with his British auxiliaries able to briefly retake Gaul from the Germans and conquer Italy to make himself Emperor, before being defeated by the Eastern Empire, leaving Britain unguarded and letting it fall in the process. I think them having that much success on the offensive is evidence they could have held out.
The Saxons presumably would have still wanted copper and tin.
On the OP itself, probably it was a net loss for Rome, just as most of Britain's Empire later was for it. It was conquered more for prestige than anything else. I can't really see how Rome would be worse off without it.

If Magnus Maximus was the last commander of the Roman garrison of Britain, there where does Ambrosius Aurelianus fit into the scheme of things?:confused:

But that was with Roman training and professionalism involved and a united island, not just the native aristocracy and ways of war.

Roman withdrawal also meant political fragmentation in Britain, yes. See the effects of people like Vortigern inviting Saxons in as foederati, rather than trying to resist them.

Elfwine said:
And "could have held out" is not the same as "would have swatted the Saxons like bugs", which is what made me comment. I'm not saying they'd inevitably lose or even probably lose (don't know enough about pre-Roman Britain and how it might change) - it just felt too strongly stated to me.

Agreed. Vastly overstated. The Germanic tribes may have been technologically inferior in terms of military hardware, but the various raids and later invasions launched by them were as much forced as representing greedy avarice. The Saxons were being forced out of their native lands by other tribes coming in from the east, so it was move or die. So they were going to keep coming. Also, between the plagues devastating Britain seemingly mostly passing the Saxons by, and Roman withdrawal, they had the numbers over the Romano-British.

Though I feel that as long as the Romans were in Britain the country was going to hold out. Roman withdrawal, with the loss of those critical engineers, meant the fortification system would collapse without the experts needed to keep them under repair.

Elfwine said:
Maybe slightly, but it seems like the overall balance is between using a lot of military manpower and gaining some valuable resources. Not worth the conquest, even if not valueless.

Maybe we can never know, as the arguments of whether the military forces used in Britain could have been better spent on the Near East or Germania? Or in fact would Mesopotamia and Germania continued to have been the money and manpower pits they were OTL regardless of tossing in a few more legions into the mix?

Picts, Saxons and Scots all attacked during the crisis in the 360s. They were repelled, but came again. Ammianus Marcellinus is the most detailed source. The Scots were still based in Ireland then. Part of the East coast was called the Saxon Shore during the later Empire, I assume because of the Saxons' frequent raiding there.

Britain needed more effort in the later Empire than before 300, but there were earlier problems. Whatever was the case under Agricola (who left Britain in 85 A.D.), Hadrian and Antoninus Pius later felt the need to build walls to keep raiders out, and Septimius Severus was in Britain leading a campaign against the Caledonians when he died.

Yeah, I always thought Agricola's claims seemed overstated. The Caledonians' territory included lands where no Roman soldier ever tread (Hebrides & Shetlands). Though Roman terminology tended IIRC to overlap what was defined as Pictish and Caledonian.

The walls were not necessarily to keep invaders out, similarly to how the Limes in Germany were not to keep invaders out. It was more of a way to more easily control trade and movement of peoples (and to split the Brigantes(?)).

The Great Wall of China was more of an Early Warning System than anything else. The Antonine and Hadrian Walls were even less than that. Agreed about the Brigantes. Do you classify the Strathclyders and Brigantes as separate tribes?:confused:
 
Top