Was the Occupation of Britannia worth it?

[WotWotius]

... 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?

 

As far as I am aware, the Romans left the Welsh to their devises after they were subdued; the area did not seem to be 'Romanised', and the local tribes do not seem to be mentioned in the sources. The area was most probably governed via self-autonomous civitas, or tribal centres. As mentioned earlier, the only real reason for the Roman presence there was to keep the status quo, so that local minerals could be extracted.

[Primus Pilus]

... 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?

 

As far as I am aware, the Romans left the Welsh to their devises after they were subdued; the area did not seem to be 'Romanised', and the local tribes do not seem to be mentioned in the sources. The area was most probably governed via self-autonomous civitas, or tribal centres. As mentioned earlier, the only real reason for the Roman presence there was to keep the status quo, so that local minerals could be extracted.

 

Though there was a rather disproportionate number of auxilia forts located within Welsh territory (in comparison to Romanized southern Britain but similar to the outposts of norther Britain). This could either support or disprove that claim depending on how one looks at it I suppose. More forts might indicate more direct centralized authority, but considering that they were all auxiliary, and that the actual legionary outposts only guarded the 'border' (no legionary vexillation outposts existed within the territory), it stands to reason that the Romans were happy to let local chieftans rule via auxilia authority so long as the tribes were generally quiet.

 

Roman Britain.org Fort Map

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

One of the value of the occupation was also the fact it secured the coastal side of Gaul : this was the original reason of Caesar's expedition on the island ( beside prestige ) and this might well have been one of the reasons for the romans at the time of Claudius. Also it provided access to badly needed mineral ressources which were important for the economy of the whole western half of the Empire. Thus I think the romans did not loose their money when they went inside Britain, but it's sure they would have been much better off had they been able to invade Scottland.

[Primus Pilus]

One of the value of the occupation was also the fact it secured the coastal side of Gaul : this was the original reason of Caesar's expedition on the island ( beside prestige ) and this might well have been one of the reasons for the romans at the time of Claudius.

 

Caesar certainly considered punitive and preventative measures, but I doubt the security of coastal Gaul was ever the primary objective. While I see no reason to completely disbelieve Caesar's report: "in almost all the wars with the Gauls succors had been furnished to our enemy from that country", it seems unlikely that the Romans ever faced any real crises from coastal invasion by Britannic tribes after the defeat of the Veneti. I don't mean to suggest that coastal raiding incidents would not have taken place had Britain not been occupied, but simply offer that the border security aspect was far less important a factor than the possibilities for economic gain. (and of course the all-important pretext of providing aid to an ally in both the Caesarian and Claudian cases).

 

Thus I think the romans did not loose their money when they went inside Britain, but it's sure they would have been much better off had they been able to invade Scottland

 

The Romans did invade Caledonia several times (Agricola, Urbicus, the Severans). They just weren't able to, or found the effort far too costly and without any tangible benefit, to consolidate and hold any gains north of the Antonine Wall (essentially the highlands).

[Gaius Octavius]

P.P., why not take Caesar at his word? If my memory serves, he left a fleet to guard the Gallic coast.

[Primus Pilus]

P.P., why not take Caesar at his word? If my memory serves, he left a fleet to guard the Gallic coast.

 

I am taking his word that he meant to punish Britannic allies of his Gallic enemies, I just believe that there were other motivations (admittedly unspoken) that were more (or at least equally as) prominent. Regardless, evidence is largely subjective (ie Strabo's insinuation that an expedition had long been planned, the exploratory nature of Caesar's force, limited size, baggage and lack of cavalry, Cicero's and Suetonius' implications of economic pursuits...). Since it really has no bearing on the original topic of the thread, I suppose I shouldn't put much effort into it here (since it really doesn't matter what his intentions were, I suppose) and divert an otherwise interesting thread.

 

That takes me back to the subject at hand. Let's assume for one moment that Britain itself was never occupied. Did Roman Gaul truly have anything to fear from Britannic invasion forces? I suppose it's entirely possible that a Britannic maritime tribe could've replaced the Veneti as a naval force in the Mare Britannicum, but no such threat truly developed in the century between the invasions of Caesar and Claudius. It's never been suggested in any way that the invasion of Claudius had anything to do with retaliation for raids or events on the Gallic mainland, but rather had everything to do with the politics of tribal Britain (and economics of course). I think it's safe to say that the Romans controlled the Mare Britannicum from the defeat of the Veneti onwards and would've continued to do so even if the Claudian conquest never took place.

 

However, I will concede that occasional exploratory campaigns into southern Britannia would've probably been necessary to repress the possibility coastal resistance.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

What makes me think about the usefullness of direct roman control on the area outside of purely economical elements ( metals and other products of the area ) is the late empire situation were the lack of control of the coast forced the romans to devellop a network of fortress on the gallic coast to prevent saxon raids in Gaul. Also the exemple of the much later Vikings shows us what would have happened to roman Gaul had the british coast not be under control : with both sides under control the thought of raids was put out of the ennemies mind.

[Andrew Dalby]

What makes me think about the usefullness of direct roman control on the area outside of purely economical elements ( metals and other products of the area ) is the late empire situation were the lack of control of the coast forced the romans to devellop a network of fortress on the gallic coast to prevent saxon raids in Gaul. Also the exemple of the much later Vikings shows us what would have happened to roman Gaul had the british coast not be under control : with both sides under control the thought of raids was put out of the ennemies mind.

 

That's a very interesting point. I'm not sure how well it's borne out by experience, though, because what actually happened was that the Vikings (and their forerunners) eventually attacked Romano-British, Gallic and Celtic coasts, and eventually made settlements on all of them (not to mention Iceland and beyond!). Whether Britain was partly Roman or not seems to have made little difference to their activities.

[caldrail]

I get the impression that Britain was regraded as a potential target, but that the romans were not hugely impressed with what they found there. The land and climate really didn't suit them. Besides the obvious glory in conquest it should be remembered that brittania and gaul had close links. Having put gaul under roman rule, Caesar would have been aware that their friends across the channel could support rebellions in gaul with almost impunity. It was also a matter of security that the potential threat of britons becoming troublesome ad to be addressed.

 

The vikings would later later attack coastlines of europe because there wasn't anyone to stop them. Roman rule by then had virtually vanished in favour of local kings who simply hadn't the resources to stop committed warriors sailing up the estuary and doing viking things. Remember what happened with Alfred the Great. After he inflicted defeats on the vikings in britain and got a surrender from Guthrum, they settled peaceably. No more raids in britain at least.

[Andrew Dalby]

I get the impression that Britain was regraded as a potential target, but that the romans were not hugely impressed with what they found there. The land and climate really didn't suit them. Besides the obvious glory in conquest it should be remembered that brittania and gaul had close links. Having put gaul under roman rule, Caesar would have been aware that their friends across the channel could support rebellions in gaul with almost impunity. It was also a matter of security that the potential threat of britons becoming troublesome ad to be addressed.

 

The vikings would later later attack coastlines of europe because there wasn't anyone to stop them. Roman rule by then had virtually vanished in favour of local kings who simply hadn't the resources to stop committed warriors sailing up the estuary and doing viking things. Remember what happened with Alfred the Great. After he inflicted defeats on the vikings in britain and got a surrender from Guthrum, they settled peaceably. No more raids in britain at least.

Till Ethelred the Unready. Whereafter Canute. But, yes, your point is valid!

[Kosmo]

How large was the roman garrison in Britain? Of course, it varried but are there some estimations for different moments?

[Primus Pilus]

How large was the roman garrison in Britain? Of course, it varried but are there some estimations for different moments?

 

There were at least 3 imperial legions throughout the occupation (so roughly 15,000 to 18,000 men):

II Augusta and XX Valeria Victrix were there from the Claudian invasion onward and the third legion was split between VIIII Hispana (through the Boudiccan revolt) and VI Victrix (after). There was a 4th legion (II Adiutrix) that was present during Agricola's campaigns but it was relocated after his recall by Domitian.

 

It would be fair to assume that there was at least an equal number of auxilia present and active, and perhaps as much as twice as many auxilia to legionaries. These extensive lists of auxilia cavalry, auxilia infantry and irregulars should offer some insight.

 

Assuming an equal number of auxilia for the sake of argument, there was roughly around 30,000 active military in Britain at any given time.

[Gaius Octavius]

I believe that at one time, during the Pax Romana, the Romans had an army of about 125,000 troopers, the largest minority of whom were stationed in Britain.

[caldrail]

I get the impression that britain was seen as potentially troublesome. The picts were a possible threat hence the need for the military/commercial barrier of hadrians wall. The irish? I wonder if there was any possible threat from them back then. Certainly toward the latter part of the empire saxons needed fending off. The thing is, I know from researching my local area that troops were being recalled as early as the end of the third century. Some of that was due to romes internal disputes as much as northern barbarian incursions on the mainland. However - once they left they never returned did they? Britain was no longer important? Too far away to keep secure? Too expensive to keep secure?

[Andrew Dalby]

I get the impression that britain was seen as potentially troublesome. The picts were a possible threat hence the need for the military/commercial barrier of hadrians wall. The irish? I wonder if there was any possible threat from them back then. Certainly toward the latter part of the empire saxons needed fending off. The thing is, I know from researching my local area that troops were being recalled as early as the end of the third century. Some of that was due to romes internal disputes as much as northern barbarian incursions on the mainland. However - once they left they never returned did they? Britain was no longer important? Too far away to keep secure? Too expensive to keep secure?

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