Quote Originally Posted by Constantius III View Post
Thing is, Hadrianus couldn't have conquered Persia. He had to deal with Hatra in his rear (Traianus forgot about that minor little city, and as the story goes it cost him his life) and the Jewish revolt of Bar-Kochba was just getting started, making logistical support for any army in Mesopotamia or Persia completely impossible. Mesopotamia isn't really a viable conquest for the Romani anyway until after Christianity spreads there in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries BC, so they have a reasonable portion of the population supporting them. (And then the financial circumstances of the Empire twice prevented them from taking advantage of it - when Maurikios had put Khosrau II back on the throne for one, and when Herakleios had won the Last Persian War for another.)

As for Britannia; who really wants a rocky, useless peninsula like Caledonia? There's no money in it, and the barbarians there are awfully annoying and insist that people differentiate between a burr and a brogue. It's sort of like the reason the Romani never expanded into the old Jastorf cultural zone: it's not cost-effective, and the new territories would take forever to be properly Romanized and start making money. Look how long it took with Gallia.

OK I understand persia but with Britain he could have counquered and subjugated it so resistance would not be large and organized but small and scattered, giving the empire safetey in the long run because to attack Britain you'd have to cross the sea