I am currently quite interested in this historical topic and was wondering if there are any (recorded/reliable) estimations on how many Brits from back in the days had died as a result of the Romans’ murderous campaigns during the invasion and control of Britain? Thanks in advance =)
Sorry I don’t have the info you seek (I’m sure someone will be along to help with that), but I can’t help but wonder why you included the word “murderous.” Have you already decided, apparently while still lacking information, that the Romans were evil villains in this matter? Was this invasion significantly different from virtually every other invasion by virtually every other group throughout all of history to warrant such a label?
Romans didn’t invade Britain; they colonized it
I don’t think the local inhabitants welcomed them with open arms…
Could you clarify the difference in meanings you’ve marked? Didn’t they intrusively enter the island in large numbers, hence invade?
Those terms are not inconsistent.
Tacitus gives the number of Britons killed by Suetonius’s forces at Watling Street (the climactic battle of the Iceni uprising) as 80,000. That was by far the largest battle of the Roman conquest. Bear in mind that all such numbers tend to be inflated, however.
Any number of good texts but you don’t say at what level you are working. This PDF is aimed at High School students - https://www.britishmuseum.org/PDF/british_museum_roman_britain.pdf
You also refer to the “invasion”. In fact it was probably not all that murderous at all and the disciplined Roman Army simply picked off the British tribes one at a time.
Most scholarly works are more about the actual occupation, since it is this that had the big impact.
Here is one such book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Roman-Britain-A-New-History/dp/0500291144/ref=dp_ob_title_bk
OK. I said “murderous” as those campaigns were effectively murderous, that’s all. Does it answer your question?
That book looks interesting. On a level where thorough information can be found I suppose?
I think you’re right.
As is the usual way of these things. The general population was just swapping one lot of rulers for another and probably didn’t really care all that much. Of course the current rulers were keen to hang onto their jobs. Remember that there was no nation state called “Great” or otherwise “Britain” - just a load of loosely defined tribal regions.
For a great many, the arrival of the Romans meant increased opportunity for trade. The Romans were masters of “Shock and Awe” so the raggle taggle armies they came up against mostly just melted away or became guerrilla groups.
The Romans, in the matter of invasion or conquest, were usually at least somewhat scrupulous. Even in the later eras they generally managed to have at least a nod towards decency or honor in wartime, reserving their full fury or brutality for especially desperate enemies. The invasion of Britain was likely one of the less bloody conquests. The casus belli, at least, was the restoration of a client king to power. In an era when political dominions were unsettled, most powers tried to have a comfy ring of smaller allied powers, and Rome was no different. The disruption or loss of one or more of these allies was a threat to one’s power and prestige.
The Romans were different in two ways: they tended to be very careful not to let their clients get toppled, and they tended to integrate allies over time, often on surprisingly favorable terms. This is essentially what happened in Britain, or at least what was happening until Nero’s soldiers sparked Boudicca’s rebellion.
I don’t have a good number (my best guess is “a lot”). But concerning whether or not the Romans behaved especially murderously in Britain, I suppose that it’s worth noting that the famous quote from Tacitus that the Romans “make a desert and call it a peace” was put into the mouth of a Caledonian chieftain who fought Agricola.
Remember that these were Celtic tribes, on whose asses the Roman’s built their empire. It wasn’t some random direction or odd leap that they would continue their centuries long conquest of the Celts by invading Britain.
Take this with large grain of sand:
That was probably as ‘murderous’ as it got, aside from other minor revolts and the attempt to conquer further north. Still, it sets a ballpark, though as others have noted battle deaths during this period were often inflated big time to make the conquest look more impressive. I remember reading somewhere or other that the initial invasion of the British Isles by the Romans was something like 12,000 men in reality, so you have to ask yourself how much damage you think 12k troops (or even 20k), even Roman soldiers could really do.
Wiki lists and names four legions as Claudius’ initial force, plus about the same number of auxiliaries (though I’m not sure about the source for it). A legion would be about 5,000 men, and with the auxiliaries added, that gives you about 40,000 men total. That’ll pack a punch, and it was certainly enough to fight some battles against Togodumnus and Caratacus at the start of the invasion. Add in some naval support, and you have yourself a pretty decent-sized army for the time.
I must be dis-remembering then…or I’m only thinking about the Roman troops, not the auxiliaries. Certainly 40k+ men could do a lot of destruction. Thanks for the cite! 
It may have been the natural resources they were after as well. Lots of valuable tin in Cornwall.
Maybe everything else as well. I recall a documentary that said the Romans introduced taxation, they took a piece of everything bought and sold.
There were some of the natives who did welcome the Romans with open arms. Like most of Europe at the time Britain was divided into various tribes who had been feuding and quarreling long before Rome turned up and saw in their arrival an opportunity to gain an advantage over their rivals. Much like the Tlaxcalans centuries later welcoming the Spanish against the Aztecs - not realising that the newcomers were a far greater threat than their traditional enemies.
Rome thus employed client states in Britain, of which the Iceni were the most famous. When their pro-Roman king Prasutagus died not realising that the small print in his Roman alliance included leaving his kingdom to the Romans rather than his daughter the resulting rebellion and battle resulted in 230,000 (!) native casualties according to Cassius Dio.