Was the Occupation of Britannia worth it?

[Pertinax]

The problem in the later phases of occupation was that all eyes were looking Eastward (with a distinct re-modelling and ref ocus of built defences), and any low level raiding into the West of the province would be an almighty nuisance , especially if it was waterborne interdiction.

[Gaius Octavius]

By the end of the empire the Irish were indeed troublesome -- Gildas fingers them, if I'm not mistaken.

 

the Irish were coastal raiders. St. Patrick was taken to Ireland as a slave at first.

In one of Viggen's archaeological posts there is reference made to Roman artifacts being discovered in Ireland.

[votadini]

the Irish were coastal raiders. St. Patrick was taken to Ireland as a slave at first.

In one of Viggen's archaeological posts there is reference made to Roman artifacts being discovered in Ireland.

 

Do you have a link to that post, or if not, were such artifacts attributed to trade or raiding?

[Kosmo]

Thank you! This is quite a lot of soldiers and I doubt that the province produced enough to cover for so many soldiers and other occupation expanses.

I believe that Gaul could be much easier defended on her coastline that on Hadrian's wall. A force deployed on the coasts when the threat arouses would reinforce and be reinforced by the garrisons on the Rhine.

The reason for conquest was political and the reason to keep it occupied it's political.

[Gaius Octavius]

the Irish were coastal raiders. St. Patrick was taken to Ireland as a slave at first.

In one of Viggen's archaeological posts there is reference made to Roman artifacts being discovered in Ireland.

 

Do you have a link to that post, or if not, were such artifacts attributed to trade or raiding?

 

No, I don't have the link. Sorry.

The question is: were the artifacts from trade, raids or some Roman outpost.

[caldrail]

That depends on whether a 'roman' fort is discovered. If not, then trade or raiding. From an article I read the author pours scorn on the idea that romans were trading consistently with ireland so that leaves raiding. Since the romans did not launch punitive expeditions we can therefore assume the raids were nuisance value and limited in scope. Given that historians do not recount tales of rampaging irishwarriors this kind of agrees.

[Ursus]

While not being an expert on the subject, everything I have read suggests Britannia simply tied up three legions that could have been put to better use elsewhere. The possibility of naughty British chieftans trying to aid subversive Gauls seems to pale in comparison to the benefits of having three more legions stationed on the Germanic frontier and Persian border.

[votadini]

While not being an expert on the subject, everything I have read suggests Britannia simply tied up three legions that could have been put to better use elsewhere. The possibility of naughty British chieftans trying to aid subversive Gauls seems to pale in comparison to the benefits of having three more legions stationed on the Germanic frontier and Persian border.

 

I tend to agree (although not complaining about Roman remains being visible in the UK) that those 3 legions and countless numbers of auxilia could have been deployed in Gallia if the occupation's intention had been to prevent aid to discontented Gauls. But then Claudius wouldn't have won himself a triumph for that.

[caldrail]

Nonetheless those legions were posted to britain. Therefore the romans considered it worthwhile. Britain was part of the empire but it was potentially troublesome, plus the picts and possibly the irish were sources of conflict that needed warding off.

[votadini]

Nonetheless those legions were posted to britain. Therefore the romans considered it worthwhile. Britain was part of the empire but it was potentially troublesome, plus the picts and possibly the irish were sources of conflict that needed warding off.

 

But the issue is whether the Picts, Scottis, et alia, would have been so troublesome had the Romans not invaded in the first place.

[Ursus]

Indeed.

 

I am not an expert on military strategy, but it is common enough sense to suggest that a bigger empire means longer supply lines, a larger perimeter to defend, etc. The concept of "imperial overstretch" is apt here - at what point do the costs of expanding an empire outweigh the benefits?

 

While there were obviously some economic and strategic reasons included with the invasion of Britannia, as votadini suggests the main reason was cultural - the need of Roman leaders to gain social capital through perceived military victories. In other words, Claudius needed to parade around as a triumphant general to cement his rule.

 

Even with three legions, Brittania was so lightly Romanized that a few generations of Anglo-Saxon occupation exterminated all traces of Roman culturalization. The Roman military towns evolved into the great towns of Medieval England, but aside from this what came of it? I am happy (and jealous) our UK members can visit Roman ruins in their back yard, but with the benefit of hindset I don't see other practical results to the occupation.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

A question I ask myself is this : what if the main role of Britain was to provide a strategic intervention force for the Rhine border while not using too much of the gallic grain ? Indeed we saw interventions from Britain to Gaul in very short time and with rather good efficiency so it might have been a reason if not of the invasion at least of the keeping of the land. It would allow for grain storage in Gaul for offensive operations without living too much on the reserves.

[caldrail]

Nonetheless those legions were posted to britain. Therefore the romans considered it worthwhile. Britain was part of the empire but it was potentially troublesome, plus the picts and possibly the irish were sources of conflict that needed warding off.

 

But the issue is whether the Picts, Scottis, et alia, would have been so troublesome had the Romans not invaded in the first place.

 

The picts and irish weren't any reason to invade at all, and I doubt the romans were aware of their presence until they started moving northwards. Caesar after all was only concerned with cementing relations inside britain, the southern half particularly, besides the glory of being there first. A total conquest as such wasn't the point. How long was he there? Two weeks? Caesar had invaded gaul and it was known the inhabitants had strong links across the channel - he mentions this if I remember right. By dividing the britons Caesar made it easier to hold gaul, who had taken quite a pasting from him.

 

Claudius invaded because it was seen by him as an easy victory to be had for military credibility. Caesar had already softened the place up as well as the various traders and agents at work there, so a disunited population wasn't going to present too difficult a challenge. Claudius after all could not risk a failure in foreign ventures without a possible death sentence at the hand of his detractors. Lets not forget the resources available in britain such as tin, lead, iron etc.

[caldrail]

Reading up on this I find that the Durotriges, the british tribe in the west of england, were trading throughthe port of Hengistbury Head with Gaul, and doing well out of it until the middle of the first century BC. They were also rabidly anti-roman.

 

After this period roman traders had basically taken the rug from under them and the Durotriges's prosperity failed.

[caldrail]

Aha! According to Neil Faulkner "Decline and Fall of Roman Britain", what made britain worthwhile was the supply of metals such as gold, silver, lead, tin, and particularly iron. These resources are important in roman times for obvious reasons.