This discussion has been closed.
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 2nd March 2009
They stayed a long time, settled, farmed and so on - why? What did they get out of it? Colonists are reckoned to be exploiters?
Was it the weather, the land, the scenary - to be among nice folk? What was the attraction? Off shore Tax avoidance?
Regards, P.
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
Hi P,
The same as the exploiter/ colonists of today: valuble minerals & cheap labour.
eg:
Tin & clay from Cornwall,
Lead & poor silver from Somerset,
Gold & coal from Wales,
Lead from Derbyshire,
timber & wool from everywhere.
I'm sure I've missed a few out including possibly Beer.
The hunting would have been good & they didn't have to put up with that pesky little * & his tribe!
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
Just an idea to add to Mendipp Tim's list but I could be way off base.
I remember reading somewhere that Romans used large quantities of chalk to whiten their togas and cloth. Is their any evidence of chalk mining in Britain?
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
Resources and a technologically advanced agriculture (in terms of tools & techniques) made Brittania into a province of considerable economical importance.
Resources included:
*lead
*copper
*salt
*iron
*gold
*wool
*hides
Personal prestige of conquerors (including Claudius himself) might have had something to do with it, but that is a guess.
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
Surely there was plenty of all that stuff in Gaul without needing the drag and cost of carting it too far?
On the other hand, awarding tracts of land to reward favoured supporters/retiring militia may have been of importance. I guess empire building has always been much the same.
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
but is it not true that the garrison of britain must have been more expensive than the benefits
received
4 legions were not cheap
why did they bother
st
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
Maybe they wanted to make an invasion of the continent impossible. However I still believe that brittania as a province left them with at least a bit of profit.
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
No doubt a combination of Politics, falling Revenue due to internal strife in Britain and to limit support for Gaul.
There were two invasions by Julius Caser, three attempted invasions by Augustus, one by Caligula, and the final one by Claudius.
Considering they were here for 350 years they didn't conquer the whole country, they fought for 40 years to subjugate the rest of the country with many men (as has been said at least 4 legions plus Auxilliery Forces) had many incursions and were constantly defending the borders, lost 50,000 men in one Scottish Campaign, launched claims for Emperors a number of times so what was the point for the Romans?
You can only surmise that there must have been a huge profits from lead, silver, iron and gold mining (greater production than Spain) and from slaves, hunting dogs and food.
I suppose you could take it that much further in that the Scots, Picts, Franks, Germans all wanted a slice of the action as well.
Kind Regards - TA
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
Well, TheodericAur asked something on another thread that might address what we did for the Romans -- did we supply them with gladiators?
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
I have thought of something that the Romans repressed - the right of the Female line to inherit, which was supported by Brythonic (Druid?)law.
This is why Boudicca led a an uprising that killed 75,000 Romans or Anglo Romans and destroyed 3 cities.
Beware a woman scorned.
Kind Regards - TA
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
, in reply to message 10.
Posted by LavenderBlueSky (U13842100) on Tuesday, 10th March 2009
Very true, TA. The Celtic matriarchal system died a fairly quick death.
It puts me in mind of an old saying: You can only be sure of your mother. Father might have had a bike.
Not as flippant as it sounds. I don't think Romans were allowed to marry women of a conquered race but they weren't celibate during the centuries of occupation. From what I've read, bastards weren't frowned upon in Celtic society, so perhaps they changed the law so the son of a Roman could inherit.
Link to this forum: So what did Britain do for the Romans then?
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.