alternatehistory.com

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.
Top