Was the Occupation of Britannia worth it?

[DecimusCaesar]

I personally think it might not have been worth it for most parts of the isle. Very little areas in Britain (other than some parts of southern England) were Romanised. Yet these areas, which didn't yeild much resources need much protection, especially during the later period. Consider parts of northern England or north Wales. These areas never recieved much benefits of Roman civilisation (bathouses, amphitheatres etc) yet a lot of resources went to defend these areas, either from Picts in the north or the Irish in Wales. New forts were constructed in these places during the fourth century AD to defend from attackers, yet neither area was weilding any substantial resources. Neither were they heavily populated. Most of the population in these places were scattered rural homes, not large towns. So the amount of military strength placed there must have been wasted. It would have been much better to have those soldiers guarding the Danube.

[Gaius Octavius]

Gold and silver mines in Old Blighty?

 

The reason the Romans visited Albion in the first instance was to prevent the local tribes from raiding the coast of Gaul; inciting the Gaulish tribes into rebellion; and interfering with coastal trade there. There was profit in that. To some extent the employment of Batavians, Syrians, etc., as legionaries relieved pressures in other provinces. There was profit in that. Trading with the Pictish confederacy via the two Walls provided a profit. The Villa Economy and the enhanced tin mining operations provided profits. The Romans didn't bother with Hibernia because its predations weren't a big thing. The Romans weren't complete fools.

 

It is true that the Romans could have purchased the excess goods of Britain, but those goods could not have been produced in the quantities that they later were without the Roman conquest.

[Andrew Dalby]

Gold and silver mines in Old Blighty?

 

I never said silver! Gold, yes, at Dolaucothi in south Wales. Needless to say there was a Roman road nearby and Roman mineworkings. If you Google on gold and Wales, or maybe Dolaucothi, you will find that the mine is just about to close down, probably for the very last time -- recently thay have been picking over the 'slagheaps' (as coalminers call them) and still finding useful quantities.

 

Tin, too, of course: Cornish tin was a draw for long distance trade well before Roman times.

[Gaius Octavius]

Dr. Dalby:

 

You didn't say 'gold and silver'; another poster did.

Thanks for the info on the gold mine.

[WotWotius]

Gold and silver mines in Old Blighty?

 

I never said silver! Gold, yes, at Dolaucothi in south Wales. Needless to say there was a Roman road nearby and Roman mineworkings. If you Google on gold and Wales, or maybe Dolaucothi, you will find that the mine is just about to close down, probably for the very last time -- recently thay have been picking over the 'slagheaps' (as coalminers call them) and still finding useful quantities.

 

Tin, too, of course: Cornish tin was a draw for long distance trade well before Roman times.

 

Although there was in fact a gold mine at Dolaucothi, Wales at this point was not as a prolific place as it once was. For instance, the vast majority of Gold artefacts found in Wales date to the Bronze Age and came from all over the region:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/3328443.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/4289914.stm

 

By the time the Romans came, Welsh Gold was confined to just a single mine; this, in my view, hardly justifies the occupation of Wales. The conquest of Wales was more of an organic process rather than a preset planned operation

[votadini]

Gold and silver mines in Old Blighty?

Trading with the Pictish confederacy via the two Walls provided a profit.

 

What was traded with the Picti?

[Primus Pilus]

Gold and silver mines in Old Blighty?

Trading with the Pictish confederacy via the two Walls provided a profit.

 

What was traded with the Picti?

 

The Picts didn't seem to have access to the sort of raw materials or goods in any great quantity that would interest the Romans, but it would seem likely that small scale foodstuffs/cereal crops were traded regularly on local levels. Flax and wool (sheep of course) were also abundant in the area.

[votadini]

Flax and wool (sheep of course) were also abundant in the area.

 

That was all I could think of, plus maybe cattle.

[Gaius Octavius]

Hold your horses! Wasn't it profitable for the Brits? Got them started on the road to civilization, didn't it? They'll get there - one day in the future.

 

I'm dead! :giljotiini: :nopity:

 

[Andrew Dalby]

 

... Gold, yes, at Dolaucothi in south Wales. Needless to say there was a Roman road nearby and Roman mineworkings ...

Tin, too, of course: Cornish tin was a draw for long distance trade well before Roman times.

 

... this, in my view, hardly justifies the occupation of Wales. The conquest of Wales was more of an organic process rather than a preset planned operation

[WotWotius]

As to why the Romans occupied Wales, what were the "threats" you mention? Raids on already-occupied areas? Encouragement to revolt? How much evidence do we have on this?

 

What I meant was that Wales was most probably invaded to 'neutralise' the region; before Wales was conquered, most of Britain's Roman governors had to deal with Welsh tribes in some way or another:

 

1) Ostorius Scapula (47-52 AD) invaded South Wales to quell resistance lead by Caratacus; he later invaded North Wales but was distracted by a Brigantian revolt.

 

2) His successor, Didius Gallus, had to defend against his province against the Silures' contestant raids.

 

3) When the Boudican revolt occurred, Suetonius Paulinus, the current governor, was out campaigning in Anglesey dealing with the islands druidic influence.

 

4) The region was finally incorporated into the Roman Empire under the governorship of Frontinus (71-74 AD).

 

Because the tribes of Wales were not material cultures (and therefore could not offer commerce) and were too 'warlike' to become client kingdoms, the only logical explanation for Rome's conquest of Wales was to 'defuse' the area to relive pressure on Britain's frontiers.

 

For further discussion on the Welsh issue, go to this topic.

Edited January 1, 2007 by WotWotius

[Gaius Octavius]

Dr. A.D.:

 

After 2,000 years you Brits are finally getting into trampling on grapes. That's Roman, and should prove profitable. Do you approve?

 

Perhaps, the Romans visited Wales because of their language.

The Black Adder wouldn't pass water on the Scots. Lack of Roman civilization?

 

Need I repeat? :nopity: :hang:

 

:shutup:

 

[Andrew Dalby]

Dr. A.D.:

 

After 2,000 years you Brits are finally getting into trampling on grapes. That's Roman, and should prove profitable. Do you approve?

 

Just as long as we remember to wash our feet first ...

[Andrew Dalby]

... Because the tribes of Wales were not material cultures (and therefore could not offer commerce) and were too 'warlike' to become client kingdoms, the only logical explanation for Rome's conquest of Wales was to 'defuse' the area to relive pressure on Britain's frontiers.

 

For further discussion on the Welsh issue, go to this topic.

 

Thanks very much for the link -- I missed that earlier thread. How were the Welsh tribes governed? I got the impression, when researching for "Language in Danger", that there was some very slight evidence (towards the end of the Roman period) of Welsh tribal rulers being responsible to the Roman governor of the province. Can you confirm that, or am I imagining it?

[caldrail]

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?

 

To some extent I think decisions were taken without considering the local economic fallout. Again taking my area as an example, we have a fort being left abandoned. Since it was a staging post and not a barracks as such, then its clear that troops were not using it, so its probably safe to assume they were sent elsewhere. The vicus attached to Durocornovium vanished quite quickly too I'd imagine, since the market for their pottery and ironwork had gone. But also two villas are abandoned too. Now its easy to assume that these houses were the residents of officers or other people connected with the military but I doubt that. What I think happened is that without the vicus at Durocornovium these people lost income, and could no longer afford their grand houses (although they weren't particularly grand to begin with). All the empire wanted was troops here and there. The local effect of their business wasn't considered.

Edited January 2, 2007 by caldrail