WI:The Roman Empire never conquered Britain?

Britain was a massive drain in Roman resource.At the height of the Roman Empire,the Empire had to station nearly a tenth of it's army just defending the province.Later on,the province also happened to become a haven for usurpers.Just wondering what would be the effect on not conquering Britain.What should and could the empire have done instead with the resources it spent to conquer and maintain Britain?
 
Last edited:

GdwnsnHo

Banned
Part of me thinks they'd be spending some of the resources combating Briton piracy - but substantially fewer than they were spending holding Britannia. I do think that instead of conquest, we may see one Legion stationed in N.Gaul to assist allies in Britannia and Hibernia, in order to create one stable polity to trade with, rather than dozens of tribes, as having a friendly trade partner is much cheaper than lots of pirates.

After that, excluding Britain, there are 4 avenues of expansion where those resources would go.:-

Carpathia/Dacia,
Germania,
Arabia,
Mesopotamia.

This is the Romans, they did like to expand if they could.

The Eastern half the Empire still retains its dominance economically, and becomes even more important as all the most financially profitable expansion opportunities are nearby, with Germany a poor fourth financially, but in terms of strategic opportunities, a wiser choice for defending the west than conquering Arabia, for example.

If the Empire is divided - then the West will likely invest resources in conquering Germania, or massive army-build development programs (hopefully, maybe, probably not). The East, probably redirects resources that went to subsidizing the West to expanding south and east.

If the Empire is united - Mesopotamia, there is no bones about it, Mesopotamia, then Arabia. Arabia may well become as much of a quagmire as Britain howeverm unless they use client states/have some luck/integrate the Bedouin (yay, Bedouin light cavalry supporting the Romans, yes pls!). At a push you could see Axum/Ethiopia enter the Roman sphere of influence, and perhaps client state status - but that would be a very rosy situation indeed, unless we see the Empire survive intact.
 
In Claudius times the Rhine army would be much bigger (8 legions plus auxilia) and more capable of a rather offensive strategy.

In these times, the romans had some serious trouble with the germans. Galba defeated the Chatti, Gabinius and Corbulo the Chauci. There is also a war between Chatti and Hermunduri in the next decades and a civil war amongst the Hermunduri. And a desastrous civil war amongst the Cherusci. With diplomatic help of the Langobardi, they asked Rome in 47 AD to send Italicus as new king.

Claudius needs a military victory to increase his image. If he does not focus on Britannia, the germans deliver these times lots of good opportunities (casus belli) to search for glory in Germania. Claudius reign is perhaps the best time to attack Germania again. Of course there is still no economical reason to conquer Germania. But the ongoing german attacks and Claudius' need for glory might be enough.
 
Last edited:
According to the autobiography of Augustus and looking to the history of the next centuries, Augustus campaign against the Hyimar in todays Yemen was perhaps not a full fail.

Some historians assume, that the Hyimar as well as Axum were heavily influenced by the romans, if not even a kind of loosely coupled client state. In the early 2nd century there was even a military base on the Ferrazan Islands near the coast of Yemen. Most probably a fleet base to control the southern Red Sea.

I guess as long as trade to India works, there is no good reason for the romans to conquer Southern Arabia or Erytrea.
 
Last edited:
Assuming we are not discounting Julius Caesar's invasion and withdrawal, then we are looking at a Britain that comes heavily under the control of Catuvellaunia (sic) and if you look at the Gaul of Vercingetorix you have an indication of how that might proceed

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Assuming we are not discounting Julius Caesar's invasion and withdrawal, then we are looking at a Britain that comes heavily under the control of Catuvellaunia (sic) and if you look at the Gaul of Vercingetorix you have an indication of how that might proceed

Talented rulers come and go. There is no reason to believe that the romans could not manage Britain with their Divide at Impera approach: ongoing diplomatic actions and occasional military actions.

There is also no reason to believe, that the alleged raids of the Brits in Gallia were more than minor piracy and not pure imperial propaganda to get a casus belli in order to invade Britannia legally.

Think about it for a moment. Why should the Brits do that? Why should they attack Gallia and initiate a revolt of the gallic tribes? There is enough trouble on this island keeping every talented and ambitious ruler more than happy.

I am convinced, that Claudius just needed a glorious victory. And he thought, that Britain is more wealthy and easier to conquer and pacify than Germania. At least about the 2nd part of this assumption he was fully wrong.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Probably at the height of the Roman Empire,the Empire had to station nearly a tenth of it's army just defending the Rhine and Channel frontiers of the Lugdenensis, Germania and Belgica provinces within Gaul. Later on,the three northern and eastern Gaulish provinces also happened to become a haven for usurpers.

And he thought, that Britain is more wealthy and easier to conquer and pacify than Germania. At least about the 2nd part of this assumption he was fully wrong.

Really? Doesn't the proof in the pudding argue otherwise? Certainly Germania was harder to conquer and pacify than Britain, because it never was.
 
Really? Doesn't the proof in the pudding argue otherwise? Certainly Germania was harder to conquer and pacify than Britain, because it never was.

Something feels wrong, if you look at Britannia. Look at this small island and the disproportional big army. It was bigger than the african army, with a much longer border. Rather comparable in size with the big and strategically important german, pannonian or moesian army.

Why?

The northern border was rather short. German piracy was no major issue until the 3rd century. And I can't believe that irish piracy was heavy enough to justify such a huge army. I can just imagine 2 reasons, why the romans kept that many soldiers on the island:

1. They never gave up their offensive strategy against Caledonia. Even not after Hadrian has buidlt the wall? Sounds weird.

2. The Brits themselves have been much more dangerous, than the sources tell us. So Britannia was a nightmare to govern, always ready to revolt again.

So no. I am afraid Germania up to the Weser or Elbe was pretty comparable to Britannia, if it comes to pacification and difficulties.
 
Something feels wrong, if you look at Britannia. Look at this small island and the disproportional big army. It was bigger than the african army, with a much longer border. Rather comparable in size with the big and strategically important german, pannonian or moesian army.

Why?

The northern border was rather short. German piracy was no major issue until the 3rd century. And I can't believe that irish piracy was heavy enough to justify such a huge army. I can just imagine 2 reasons, why the romans kept that many soldiers on the island:

1. They never gave up their offensive strategy against Caledonia. Even not after Hadrian has buidlt the wall? Sounds weird.

2. The Brits themselves have been much more dangerous, than the sources tell us. So Britannia was a nightmare to govern, always ready to revolt again.

So no. I am afraid Germania up to the Weser or Elbe was pretty comparable to Britannia, if it comes to pacification and difficulties.
At the very least,you would lessen a frontier to defend.The Elbe would also make a shorter border.Essentially,you are concentrating legions sent to Britain to instead help defend a shorter frontline.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Something feels wrong, if you look at Britannia. Look at this small island and the disproportional big army. It was bigger than the african army, with a much longer border. Rather comparable in size with the big and strategically important german, pannonian or moesian army.

Why?

The northern border was rather short. German piracy was no major issue until the 3rd century. And I can't believe that irish piracy was heavy enough to justify such a huge army. I can just imagine 2 reasons, why the romans kept that many soldiers on the island:

1. They never gave up their offensive strategy against Caledonia. Even not after Hadrian has buidlt the wall? Sounds weird.

2. The Brits themselves have been much more dangerous, than the sources tell us. So Britannia was a nightmare to govern, always ready to revolt again.

So no. I am afraid Germania up to the Weser or Elbe was pretty comparable to Britannia, if it comes to pacification and difficulties.

Now that you lay it out like that, very good points. touche monsieur!
 
Well we all know this ends with European Napoleonic victory, japanese mechas and a global british-american super-empire.
 
Top