Was the Occupation of Britannia worth it?

[Ursus]

But the question is, over the course of 400 years, did the benefits of occupying Brittania equal or exceed the costs? In so many words, was the occupation profitable? Were the resources worth the three legions stationed there?

 

I suppose it is impossible to do a detailed study where all the pennies (excuse me, sesterces) are counted and placed in debit and credit columns. But the fact that Britain was so quickly abandoned during the troubles of the fifth century is fairly telling.

 

Pure economics aside, it seems that culturally Britain was never really a secure part of the empire, not producing the empire with many Senators or Equestrians.

[caldrail]

The british were a truculent lot weren't they? I think the romans put some effort into maintining peace here and only the raw resources made that worthwhile. This was also the reason that senators or equestrians weren't rising from this region - they weren't sufficiently romanised to acceptable? The irish were probably only nuisance value, whilst the picts were more of a handful. After all, one of the reasons for hadrians wall was to control trade across the border. That way rebellions sponsored by pictish support were forestalled.

 

As for the 5th century I'm not aware of any decline in mineral extraction. The only reason therefore that britain is cast adrift is purely to concentrate on home defence given the increasing difficulty and costs of supporting the military.