Was the Occupation of Britannia worth it?

[votadini]

I

[Gaius Octavius]

Wouldn't it be much the same for most every province where legions were stationed?

[Northern Neil]

I think it became more worth while as time went on. By the late fourth century the level of civilisation in Britain was at the highest level it would reach (until the tudor period). The Army, on the other hand, had been drastically reduced in numbers and quality. Therefore, if one looks at things from a wider perspective than that of the immediate post-Claudian and high empire periods, the tax benefits to the state must have been immense in later centuries.

[Primus Pilus]

The initial gains in access to raw metals certainly made immediate contributions to the Roman economy. However as time passed, the cost of maintaining this access may have outweighed the benefit (as materials became less accessible due to ground depth). Like Neil says, the "profitability" of Britain may have been more valid in later periods, but Rome may have benefited more throughout if it had simply traded for access to the metals. Clearly Roman technology aided the mining industry and increased the output exponentially, but the locals had been mining long before the Romans came.

 

I suppose there are a few important questions: Would the locals have been able to provide enough raw material to help the empire at a time when new sources of metal was a dire need (and would this trading over several centuries have been any less expensive than the Roman invasion/occupational period anyway?)

 

Also when and if did the provincial tax revenue, coupled with local industry, surpass the military occupation and civilian needs such as grain imports?

[ModernMarvel]

Aww shucks, I'm sure that the Romans took advantage of that awesome English Oak for their ships

 

Marvel

[votadini]

Wouldn't it be much the same for most every province where legions were stationed?

 

To certain degrees, but Spain, for instance, provided the Empire with vast amounts of gold.

I just tend to think that the 'British', despite being occupied (initially) gained more than the Empire as a whole did; relative peace (compared to earlier periods of Catuvellauni expansion, &c) and economic benefits from the proto-EU.

[caldrail]

I think it became more worth while as time went on. By the late fourth century the level of civilisation in Britain was at the highest level it would reach (until the tudor period). The Army, on the other hand, had been drastically reduced in numbers and quality. Therefore, if one looks at things from a wider perspective than that of the immediate post-Claudian and high empire periods, the tax benefits to the state must have been immense in later centuries.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. If britain became more and more worth while then why the gradual retreat from the 3rd century ad onward? I'm thinking of my local area. It was on the road between Corinium (the second largest roman town) and the south coast. A legionary staging post at Durocornovium establish a small settlement which produced pottery and iron working. There were plently of landed families around. Villas have been found at Groundwell, Chiseldon, and Badbury. The last two, as well as durocornovium itself, are abandoned at the end of the 3rd century as the withdrawal of legions begins. It wasn't just the military withdrawal - there definitely seems to be a fundamental breakup (not collapse) of romanised society beginning. The british were reverting to a simpler less roman lifestyle whilst still living in roman towns and villa. I notice that the archaeological remains of villas around england show the same process. That occupied villas fall into neglect and become used as makeshift farm houses.

[Northern Neil]

Despite the local decline you refer to in and around Cirencester, in general civilisation peaked in Britain round about 375. This is not my theory, but that of Sheppard Frere (Britannia), who notes that villas and towns thrived in this period. Quote: 'In 370 Britain was once more enjoying firm government and effective defences: Forty years later she ceased to be part of the Roman Empire. The civilisation and prosperity of the Island had never been higher...' Again, Wacher (Towns in Roman Britain) suggests that many of the Romano British towns prospered at this time and peaked in population. I think that the troop withdrawels had more to do with the personal ambitions of Postumus, Carausius etc, and although this would have had an impact on the local economies where they were based, it didn't impact on the province as a whole.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Northern Neil

[WotWotius]

Despite the local decline you refer to in and around Cirencester, in general civilisation peaked in Britain round about 375.

 

Many moder archaeologists (i.e. D. Mattingly) are of the view that there was very little so-called 'Roman civilization' in Britainia under her Roman occupation. When Rome invaded Britain in 43AD, the indigenous Britons were subject to years of oppression. Military governments, financial swindles and burdensome taxation were all imposed in the region; the province would have to wait at least forty years until any sort

[Andrew Dalby]

Very interesting discussion. Am I right in thinking that Britannia and Dacia are the only large regions that the Romans simply decided to abandon -- i.e. without being conclusively defeated militarily? This in spite of the fact there was some gold and other mineral wealth in Britain, and a lot of it in Dacia too.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Very interesting discussion. Am I right in thinking that Britannia and Dacia are the only large regions that the Romans simply decided to abandon -- i.e. without being conclusively defeated militarily? This in spite of the fact there was some gold and other mineral wealth in Britain, and a lot of it in Dacia too.

Wasn't Dacia abandoned because of the migration of the Goths into the region and subsequently the Huns?

[Gaius Octavius]

I thought that when the pay-wagons ceased to go to Britain from Rome, in the 400's, the legionaries simply melded into the local population.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If the gold and silver in Britain were sufficient to pay the soldiers there, why didn't they just mint the soldier's pay in Britain itself?

 

Also, to judge the value of the occupation, it isn't right to simply subtract the value of all the goods coming out of Britain from the costs of the occupation. With virtually no occupying force, goods from Britain could have been purchased from the natives for less than they could have been sold in Rome. The critical question is whether this difference in value is more or less than the cost of occupation. My guess is that the 'marginal utility' of the occupation was less than the cost of the occupation itself, which is why the Romans abandoned Britain without a fight.

[Northern Neil]

I thought that when the pay-wagons ceased to go to Britain from Rome, in the 400's, the legionaries simply melded into the local population.

That is indeed the case, for the troops that remained. In 407 Magnus Maximus or ConstantineIII (I forget which one) withdrew most British troops to carve out his own mini empire. Once that had been dealt with, Rome then had more need of troops close at hand than to replenish dwindling Garrisons in Britain.

 

I believe that the Rhine/Danube angle was abandoned about the same time as Dacia, and the frontier of Egypt was brought back to the first cataract also. These withdrawels were, of course, some 150 years before the abandonment of Britain.

Edited December 30, 2006 by Northern Neil

[Andrew Dalby]

I thought that when the pay-wagons ceased to go to Britain from Rome, in the 400's, the legionaries simply melded into the local population.

That is indeed the case, for the troops that remained. In 407 Magnus Maximus or ConstantineIII (I forget which one) withdrew most British troops to carve out his own mini empire. Once that had been dealt with, Rome then had more need of troops close at hand than to replenish dwindling Garrisons in Britain.

 

I believe that the Rhine/Danube angle was abandoned about the same time as Dacia, and the frontier of Egypt was brought back to the first cataract also. These withdrawels were, of course, some 150 years before the abandonment of Britain.

 

Yes, there were several smaller regions abandoned in that way -- southern Scotland, between the Antonine and Hadrian's walls, is another example. But I think Britain and Dacia are the two big ones. The frontiers of both were under constant threat (which must have contributed to the decision) but in neither case were the Romans driven out by a conqueror. As Neil says, "Rome then had more need of troops close at hand". But we never know enough about whether ancient peoples did economic and political calculations. Did someone in Italy work out mathematically that it would be more cost-effective to run an empire that didn't have Britain (or Dacia) in it? Or did it just, sort of, happen?