Who Needs Roman Britannia?

This may have been thought of before, I'm pretty new to the forums, but here's the POD:

Emperor Claudius, rather than invading Britain, reoccupies Germania up to the Elbe.
imo, Britannia's cost to occupy weighed in considerably more than any gain the Empire had from it, and the cost of fighting the Picts was apparently phenomenal, with no real way to finish them off, and no plunder to gain from conquering Pictish lands.

From what I've read, Claudius largely occupied Britannia for reasons of propaganda, "Oh, we've conquered the most remote and mysterious barbarian land of them all, etc."
Would it have been as effective to recapture Germania? It would be a decent political move, I feel, due to the fact that Claudius would be outdoing the exploits of his brother, but that's arguable. Is it still possible so many years after Teutoburg Forest?

Or, What would be better, strategically and politically to capture other than Germania or Britannia?
 
Would it have been as effective to recapture Germania? It would be a decent political move, I feel, due to the fact that Claudius would be outdoing the exploits of his brother, but that's arguable. Is it still possible so many years after Teutoburg Forest?

Or, What would be better, strategically and politically to capture other than Germania or Britannia?

Germania, definitely, in both the short and long terms. But politics often doesn't work that way, alas...

Both Britain and Germania are pretty useless in terms of short term benefit. Britain, though, is both less useless (it has tin), and much easier to administer in that it has a reasonably hierarchical society than is conducive to "Romanisation". 1st century Germania lacks anything remotely approaching this, and so it's going to be pretty much impossible for the Principate to "work" east of the Rhine.

In any case, it's best, if Rome wants to conquer anywhere, to look East. The Arabian coastline, the Crimea, Dacia (done IOTL of course) and a general advancing of the position in northern Mesopotamia all bring more benefits for less effort to the Empire.
 
Occupying Germania will be pretty hard. Especially after Arminius's decimation of the last great Roman Army in Germany. It would also need a far bigger effort to establish a civilian government in the colony.
 
Both Britain and Germania are pretty useless in terms of short term benefit. Britain, though, is both less useless (it has tin), and much easier to administer in that it has a reasonably hierarchical society than is conducive to "Romanisation". 1st century Germania lacks anything remotely approaching this, and so it's going to be pretty much impossible for the Principate to "work" east of the Rhine.

In any case, it's best, if Rome wants to conquer anywhere, to look East. The Arabian coastline, the Crimea, Dacia (done IOTL of course) and a general advancing of the position in northern Mesopotamia all bring more benefits for less effort to the Empire.

Regarding Germania, a side effect of the contact with the Romans was that it lead or at least accelerated a development towards larger tribal states. Although your right that other territories are more profitable conquest targets.
 
Regarding Germania, a side effect of the contact with the Romans was that it lead or at least accelerated a development towards larger tribal states. Although your right that other territories are more profitable conquest targets.

Yes, I quite agree- proximity to the Roman Empire was a massive spur to economic and political development in Germania. But it took centuries to "filter" through, and was not really bearing full fruit until after about 250. Until then, Germania is near impossible for Rome to really be able to conquer and assimilate in the way it could Gaul.
 

Thande

Donor
Britain was thought of as a rich colonial possession, mainly because of its tin (as BG says) and partly because of its wool wealth. The only reason the Romans wouldn't invade is if they thought it would cost more than it was worth and if they could get the same wealth by trade with British states. But given the temperament of Roman Emperors wanting easy victories to make themselves look good, and the fact that Britain was a fairly easy target, means that Roman Britannia is almost inevitable.

Germania on the other hand, not particularly.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Britain was thought of as a rich colonial possession, mainly because of its tin (as BG says) and partly because of its wool wealth. The only reason the Romans wouldn't invade is if they thought it would cost more than it was worth and if they could get the same wealth by trade with British states. But given the temperament of Roman Emperors wanting easy victories to make themselves look good, and the fact that Britain was a fairly easy target, means that Roman Britannia is almost inevitable.

Germania on the other hand, not particularly.

It's also worth mentioning that Britain held many important centers of the Celtic religion, the conquest of which helped settle things across the Channel in Celtic Gaul. Without holding Britannia, the occasional druid inspired rebellion is going to keep happening in occupied Gaul for a while yet.
 
It's best, if Rome wants to conquer anywhere, to look East. A general advancing of the position in northern Mesopotamia brings more benefits for less effort to the Empire.

Wasn't the biggest benefit for the Empire in advancing into all of Mesopotamia down to present day Kuwait the introduction of smallpox (again)?:eek:
 
Top