WI: Caledonians win at Mons Graupius

[Berserker]

like the title says, is there anny way for the Caledonians to win the Battle against the Romans.

Maybe iff they didnt attack them head on, but ambushed them in hit and run tactics?

and what sort of effect could it have on northern brittian? would the Romans want revenge (considering Domintian had more pressing matters at hand)

 

[Cináed]

It probably wouldn't make just a huge difference. The Romans would continue throwing soldiers at Caledonia, and it would continue to be horrendously unprofitable for them.

The only thing more vehemently against a Roman occupation of Caledonia than the screaming blue psychopaths in the woods, are the military accountants in Rome who shake their heads sadly every time someone announces an expedition to Lossiemouth.

Caledonia simply doesn't make any money. It doesn't even pay for the army that occupies it. It's a giant, cold, misty, wet sink for men and gold. The only things coming out of it are bears and wolves for the Colosseum.

Tactitus certainly won't be writing glowingly about his father-in-law's antics.

A Caledonian victory might prompt a few more punitive expeditions, but I doubt any will be more successful than those going before. It's genuinely easier for the Romans to wall the place off and forget about it. However the unity needed to fight off the Romans might *possibly* prompt the earlier development of a more centralised kingdom - or kingdoms - north of the Forth centuries before they transpired in reality.

 

[Berserker]

It probably wouldn't make just a huge difference. The Romans would continue throwing soldiers at Caledonia, and it would continue to be horrendously unprofitable for them.

The only thing more vehemently against a Roman occupation of Caledonia than the screaming blue psychopaths in the woods, are the military accountants in Rome who shake their heads sadly every time someone announces an expedition to Lossiemouth.

Caledonia simply doesn't make any money. It doesn't even pay for the army that occupies it. It's a giant, cold, misty, wet sink for men and gold. The only things coming out of it are bears and wolves for the Colosseum.

Tactitus certainly won't be writing glowingly about his father-in-law's antics.

A Caledonian victory might prompt a few more punitive expeditions, but I doubt any will be more successful than those going before. It's genuinely easier for the Romans to wall the place off and forget about it. However the unity needed to fight off the Romans might *possibly* prompt the earlier development of a more centralised kingdom - or kingdoms - north of the Forth centuries before they transpired in reality.

then iff it would be that difficult and the profitless (I started looking up information), then why does Caledonia get conquered so effortless and simple in most TL's I read??

 

[Cináed]

Most people who post on AH.com don't think like Roman bankers.

Everywhere else in Europe the Romans went, they found dense, sedentary populations producing valuable goods, with vaguely comparable social stratification to themselves. In the towns of Gaul and Britannia, the Romans found people they could do business with. They also found the sort of fertile land that it's handy to pay off retiring legionaires with.

Caledonia was a howling wilderness by comparison. Cold, wet, misty. No grapes, no olives, no roads. Far away from Roman centres of power. Nothing but mountains, bogs, forest and - as I mentioned - screaming blue psychopaths hurtling themselves out of the woods reminiscent of an iron age 28 Days Later.

There are no farms, no meaningful crops, no notable precious metal deposits, no major population centres.

Really, the only way to make any occupation of Caledonia profitable would be to occupy one or two coastal towns and not bother with the littoral. Anything else is going to cost far more than it will ever make.

 

[Georgie Porgie]

Do remember that the Romans had to invent a Calidonian leader as such a thing didn't exist when they had their war against the Picts.

 

[Cináed]

Do remember that the Romans had to invent a Calidonian leader as such a thing didn't exist when they had their war against the Picts.

Well, it's probably safe to assume that there was a leader of some description. Though it's interesting to note that he isn't labelled as a 'king' anywhere. Assuming, of course, that we accept a battle even remotely resembling Tacitus' Mons Graupius actually happened...

Whoever Calgacus was based on, he was probably more a temporary generalissimo of the Caledonian forces than anything else.

 

[MerryPrankster]

I've read Tacitus's account of Mons Graupius and the actual Roman troops didn't engage--it was their auxiliaries who did all the fighting and whupping up on the Picts.

Unless the Picts brought much, much larger numbers to the party or the Romans retreat after a defeat of their auxiliaries rather than deploy the legions (unlikely), the Picts aren't likely to win this one.