Well of course the roads, that goes without saying.

And Bath. Don't forget Bath.

"People's Front of Britannia"? Splitter!

My week for being contrary, I guess. I seem to recall that other than physical plant and monuments, there is a strong argument that the Roman occupation of Britain produced very little in the way of long lasting effects. If you compare other areas of Europe to Britain, I think you could say that the Brits resisted the best. Other areas were left with the Roman legal system and social organizations while the Brits pretty much rejected that legal system. I admit to not having given this much thought since senior year of high school, when I took a tutorial on British history, but that much still remains with me.

I really meant benefits in terms of while the Romans occupied the place, not long term.

Nonetheless, I was reading somewhere or other fairly recently that there's been some new archeological evidence to refute the old notion of Roman villas standing vacant while the locals reverted to their roots.

True, the lower strata in Britain never really changed much, but the upper classes were thoroughly Romanized and tried, I believe, to maintain the systems of civil administration and local defenses put in place once the Romans pulled out. (Consider, for example, the number of Latin "castra" (camp) place-names preserved over time.)

And of course, the Romans never formally withdrew from any other part of the Western Empire. Rather, their administrations simply got taken over (and of course modified) by the various waves of invaders moving in. Byzantium became especially adept at playing on local barbarian kings who yearned for Imperial recognition.

I'd guess that whatever remnant of Romanization left in Britain was simply too small and weak (and too unsupported) to avoid being swept away by the Saxon invasion.

Sure, but all of that really goes to my argument that the Roman occupation of Britain left primarily physical traces -- place names, buildings, etc. And not social institutions like they did elsewhere. I guess in part it goes to the Romans getting beat up more in Britain than elsewhere. Still, I always thought the greatest contribution the Romans made anywhere was the system of laws. And that didn't really survive in Britain.