Did they know there wasn't that much land left on the island and they could have just genocided/enslaved the locals and not bother with a wall?
>>18430526they tried to and failed
>>18430542They tried and succeeded. Septimius Severus killed so many Caledonians that forests grew over their burned out settlements.
>>18430579Why did they build the walls then? I wonder if this was the Roman equivalent of Americans claiming they actually won the Vietnam war.
>>18430695It probably was. If we were to believe Roman sources every emperor was bisexual incestuous rapist and pedophile who personally raped half of Rome
>>18430695An interesting thought is that the walls weren’t built to keep the Caledonians out, but to keep the Britons in.The Brigantes were the strongest and largest tribe in pre-Roman Britain and controlled nearly all of what we would today call Northern England. They would have had allied tribes in the Scottish Lowlands. If the border defenses were weak, or the Romans had entirely occupied up to the Forth/Grampians, then they could perhaps be inviting in a huge host of barbarians who were used to the hills and moors of Britannia, already the furthest and poorest Roman province. A huge rebellion of the northern British tribes would have been a nightmare, or at least, a huge drain of men and resources. Thus Hadrian’s Wall might have been to cut off the Brigantes from their lowland allies and to stop them from coordinating a rebellion that could threaten the province.
>>18430526>that much landThere was even less good land. The highlands were not worth it.
>>18430695As is usually the case, it's a combination of reasons. One relevant one is that a wall is a source of tax revenue. Hadrian's wall is a fine example of this, as is the Great Wall in China. Both control the flow of goods pretty effectively. It's not all about warfare.
>>18431030>>18430579Italian manlet fear Britons bvll
