When we talk about Roman Britain, the language is often one-directional: conquest, control, Romanisation. But that framing can hide something more interesting. Rome did not simply impose itself on Britain. It had to adapt to local landscapes, existing power structures, belief systems, and resistance in ways that differed markedly from province to province. Wales is a good example. The terrain alone forced Rome into different strategies: hill forts instead of open towns, military roads that followed valleys rather than grids, prolonged campaigns against groups like the Silures rather than swift absorption. Even after conquest, Roman presence in Wales remained heavily military, suggesting negotiation and containment rather than full cultural replacement. Across Britain more broadly, we see a similar pattern. Local elites adopted Roman material culture selectively. Indigenous traditions persisted alongside Roman ones. In many places, “Roman Britain” looks less like Rome transplanted and more like a hybrid culture shaped by compromise. This raises a wider question: - Should Roman Britain be understood less as a finished imperial product and more as an ongoing experiment in adaptation? I am interested in whether others see Roman rule as primarily transformative, or whether it is better understood as layered on top of existing societies in uneven and sometimes fragile ways.

Imagine waking up tomorrow in another world. You have exactly twenty-four hours before you return to the present. Where would you go • Egypt during the New Kingdom• Sumer before writing spread across Mesopotamia• The Indus Valley in its perfectly planned cities• The Maya at their astronomical peak• Rome at full imperial power• The Nabataeans during Petra’s golden age• One of the lost Arabian kingdoms we have barely uncovered• Somewhere still hidden beneath sand or jungle Choose one and tell me why. There is no right or wrong answer. Your choice reveals something about the way you see the world.