Would it have been more worthwhile for Rome to simply conquer Caledonia?

I mean, instead of building a wall, and forts, and towns, and keeping three legions on the border, and their families, and feeding them, while having to fight barbarians, could it have been more worthwhile to simply conquer Caledonia entirely and keep those legions there temporarily until it is pacified, and then not having to worry about defending Britannia from without again?
 
I mean, instead of building a wall, and forts, and towns, and keeping three legions on the border, and their families, and feeding them, while having to fight barbarians, could it have been more worthwhile to simply conquer Caledonia entirely and keep those legions there temporarily until it is pacified, and then not having to worry about defending Britannia from without again?

Firstly there were still Irish Raiders to worry about. Secondly It is prime bandit country and you will need more legions Aka More cost to keep the Scots down. Then you still have to keep legions to stop the natives from uprising.

However if you see a more aggressive Rome then they might be tempted to go for Germany, Ireland and push Further outwards. Which could have consequences that might not be in Romes favor.
 
It wasn't worthwhile to conquer Caledonia. Too much effort for no benefit at all. That was why the Antonine wall spanning the Scottish lowlands was abandoned in favor of Hadrian's wall (even though the former was more defensible) - the Votadini/Selgovae/Brigantes were simply causing too much trouble behind the lines.

A conquest of Caledonia, given its rugged terrain, would need significantly more than three legions to pacify, and even then legionary presence will still be permanent. And that would create additional problems, like fostering potential usurpers.

One way the Romans could have gotten over it is full-on extermination of the Caledonians, I suppose (and the Romans were certainly capable of doing that). That would need an intensive effort on the part of an Emperor, though, drawing away forces that might be better served in the constant wars against Persia.
 
I mean, instead of building a wall, and forts, and towns, and keeping three legions on the border, and their families, and feeding them, while having to fight barbarians, could it have been more worthwhile to simply conquer Caledonia entirely and keep those legions there temporarily until it is pacified, and then not having to worry about defending Britannia from without again?


I thought that wall was more political than military. It says, behind this wall is Rome beyond it is not. That being the case, then I don't think it would be worth their effort to invade Caledonia. But that's just my opinion.

As for conquering Scotland; what did it have to offer Rome? You don't just conquer somebody for kicks, there's always a goal. Yes, eliminating barbarian raiders is one goal, but then Rome might as well invade Ireland as well.
 
One way the Romans could have gotten over it is full-on extermination of the Caledonians, I suppose (and the Romans were certainly capable of doing that). That would need an intensive effort on the part of an Emperor, though, drawing away forces that might be better served in the constant wars against Persia.

The Romans were doing just this under Septimius Severus. Make him live a few years longer, and he might be able to complete it.
 

katchen

Banned
If Rome conquers Hibernia early on, all of a sudden, Caledonia sticks out like a sore thumb and the Pictii are worth the effort to conquer as the inhabitants of Galicia in Spain were. Especially since once past the Orkney Islands and the Hebrides, there's nothing but open water all around.
 
I mean, instead of building a wall, and forts, and towns, and keeping three legions on the border, and their families, and feeding them, while having to fight barbarians, could it have been more worthwhile to simply conquer Caledonia entirely and keep those legions there temporarily until it is pacified, and then not having to worry about defending Britannia from without again?

You see it is not that simple as it seems from the first sight.
There is always a problem with such mountainous regions with warlike population.
Let us take Isauria for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isauria
After six centuries of the Roman domination over this rugged terrain the Romans still considered the Isaurians as barbarians, and emperors had to fight frequent wars against Isaurian rebels and raiders.
And you cannot just exterminate all populations in all mountainous regions. That would be too much even for the Romans. And that is not that easy.
 
You see it is not that simple as it seems from the first sight.
There is always a problem with such mountainous regions with warlike population.
Let us take Isauria for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isauria
After six centuries of the Roman domination over this rugged terrain the Romans still considered the Isaurians as barbarians, and emperors had to fight frequent wars against Isaurian rebels and raiders.
And you cannot just exterminate all populations in all mountainous regions. That would be too much even for the Romans. And that is not that easy.

And now I'm picturing Caledonians as Isaurians in some kind of alt-Western Empire.
 
What about propping up a native ruler as a client king and helping/financing his consolidation of the whole country?
 
What about propping up a native ruler as a client king and helping/financing his consolidation of the whole country?

Not sure if that's beneficial to the Romans really. They were fond of having their barbarian client kingdoms played off each other methinks.
 
Scenario 1: Agricola is not called back to Rome after Mons Graupius.

Scenario 2: Septimius Severus lives a few years longer.
 
Top