The Celts kick out the Romans
- Thread starter wtw
- Start date
-
- Tags
- roman britannia
Thanks, I was wondering that after watching something about the revolt and people said that they doubted that the Romans would have tried again and that the Celts would have been able to hold off the Saxons and the Vikings. Some how I am doubting all of that. It was an episode of warrior women with Lucy Lawless
SwampTiger
Banned
Rome always returns. The issue will depend upon a continuing political coalition/alliance to defend the island. The Britons needed to develop a naval force based upon the Veneti ship building tradition. Without the ability to strike at the Roman naval force, Celtic defenses will rely on a mobile, allied standing army, unlikely to be acceptable to the tribes. A diplomatic/merchant/intelligence gathering presence in western Gaul would be helpful.
So sooner or later they will be under Roman heel again and honestly I don't see the Celts doing the ship building, from what I saw, I just don't see them doing it.
The Romans would return but what form it would end up being is up for debate.
They could return as punitive expeditions for prestige reasons but ultimately decide that like Germania it's easier and overall cheaper to just have it being a collection of friendly trading nations as they are going to be trading even if they don't like each other cause each side has what the other wants. Tin, luxury goods, various other metals, etc.
The Roman Empire likely ends up more stable without Britannia as the four legions and naval forces stationed there gave the Governor alot of power which was commonly used for their own gain and was the overall a net drain despite the tin, food and manpower it granted due to rebellions, Picts raiding, Irish pirates, etc.
Dunno how the Britons will do as many of the old nobility got uprooted. Possibly a collection of relatively large kingdoms that either fragment via traditional gavellkind succession or stay together in primogeniture or another form of succession. However the martial part of the culture will remain as the Romans won't be attempting to disarm and remove the militarism in an attempt at permanently ending mass rebellion by the Britions.
They could return as punitive expeditions for prestige reasons but ultimately decide that like Germania it's easier and overall cheaper to just have it being a collection of friendly trading nations as they are going to be trading even if they don't like each other cause each side has what the other wants. Tin, luxury goods, various other metals, etc.
The Roman Empire likely ends up more stable without Britannia as the four legions and naval forces stationed there gave the Governor alot of power which was commonly used for their own gain and was the overall a net drain despite the tin, food and manpower it granted due to rebellions, Picts raiding, Irish pirates, etc.
Dunno how the Britons will do as many of the old nobility got uprooted. Possibly a collection of relatively large kingdoms that either fragment via traditional gavellkind succession or stay together in primogeniture or another form of succession. However the martial part of the culture will remain as the Romans won't be attempting to disarm and remove the militarism in an attempt at permanently ending mass rebellion by the Britions.
Zen9
Banned
Britannia became one of the most profitable provinces of the Empire. It's loss would have a progressively greater impact over time.
This is part of the problem with some peoples view of the Roman Empire. They fail to grasp how it invaded the most profitable parts of Europe and how such parts were clearly so at the time.
Dacia, Gauls etc...were rich areas and Rome wanted that wealth.
Britannia had good farmland, and a variety of metals of great interest to Rome.
It was also the centre of the Druidic religion, as Caeser remarks. Making it a permanent threat of supplying potential leadership for Gauls.
So Rome was bound to risk invading it and would view being thrown out as the greatest threat to their wealth/power in the West.
They would be back.
But strictly I see a successful expungement of Rome as ASB. Various tribes and their elites saw Rome as their savour/ally and their neighbours as the enemy.
This is part of the problem with some peoples view of the Roman Empire. They fail to grasp how it invaded the most profitable parts of Europe and how such parts were clearly so at the time.
Dacia, Gauls etc...were rich areas and Rome wanted that wealth.
Britannia had good farmland, and a variety of metals of great interest to Rome.
It was also the centre of the Druidic religion, as Caeser remarks. Making it a permanent threat of supplying potential leadership for Gauls.
So Rome was bound to risk invading it and would view being thrown out as the greatest threat to their wealth/power in the West.
They would be back.
But strictly I see a successful expungement of Rome as ASB. Various tribes and their elites saw Rome as their savour/ally and their neighbours as the enemy.
Independent Britannia? Interesting. It is hard - as you have to fight locals as well as Romans, but not impossible.
I suppose it would entirely depend on whether or not the Britons could unite themselves. A disunited Albion (I'll use that term to distinguish the two entities) would be deeply vulnerable to Roman force. What is sad is that we're going to see Mona (Anglesey) burn with this PoD - but perhaps that is the kicker. No Romans, the remaining Druids well aware of the importance of unity against the Romans now, and the Iceni aware of the brutal losses they suffered against the Romans (in any scenario bar developing equal infantry) and you have forces less interested in regional affairs, but instead unity, at least in S.Albion. After all, it was Roman force that united Gaul against Caesar - why not the same in Albion?
We also have a few advantages left behind by the Romans - one is surviving books, potential trade to re-open, and the remnants of the Roman administrative system. We could see part of that re-engineered for Albion. Plus, the armour worn by the slain can be used to develop the equivalent.
Frankly, I think the key would be whether or not the Iceni, or some other group manages to rise to dominate S.Albion, and become its Hegemon - and opens trade with the Romans - effectively exporting all the goods the Romans wanted anyway (lots of grain, etc).
I suppose it would entirely depend on whether or not the Britons could unite themselves. A disunited Albion (I'll use that term to distinguish the two entities) would be deeply vulnerable to Roman force. What is sad is that we're going to see Mona (Anglesey) burn with this PoD - but perhaps that is the kicker. No Romans, the remaining Druids well aware of the importance of unity against the Romans now, and the Iceni aware of the brutal losses they suffered against the Romans (in any scenario bar developing equal infantry) and you have forces less interested in regional affairs, but instead unity, at least in S.Albion. After all, it was Roman force that united Gaul against Caesar - why not the same in Albion?
We also have a few advantages left behind by the Romans - one is surviving books, potential trade to re-open, and the remnants of the Roman administrative system. We could see part of that re-engineered for Albion. Plus, the armour worn by the slain can be used to develop the equivalent.
Frankly, I think the key would be whether or not the Iceni, or some other group manages to rise to dominate S.Albion, and become its Hegemon - and opens trade with the Romans - effectively exporting all the goods the Romans wanted anyway (lots of grain, etc).
Bassarion Korax
Banned
So, at this point in time, we’re about midway between Nero’s reign. He has just murdered his mother in 59, and he will murder his wife, Claudia, in 62. The Jewish Revolt is coming in 66.
If Rome is completely defeated, which is hard, but doable, I’m not sure that it really matters whether or not the Britons can maintain their unity in the immediate interim, as such a disastrous defeat is going to look very bad for an emperor that is already wildly unpopular in Rome. My understanding is that Nero was actually more popular in the provinces, particularly in Anatolia for his (his generals’) victories in Armenia, but in Rome herself, right around this time, his popularity was at an all time low. IOTL, the Pisonian Conspiracy took place in 65, but had been in the works for a couple of years. If Britain is totally lost and Nero still murders Claudia (and I think he would), I can see multiple conspiracies against him, likely involving Calpurnius Piso and even Vespasian, and I’m not entirely sure they wouldn’t be successful. Depending on how the conspiracies go, we could see prolonged civil war, a year with multiple emperors, or Nero replaced with his younger cousin, Silanus Torquatus who, at this point, I think is the last living member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Either way, Rome will be in turmoil for a little bit, with the Jewish and Batavian revolts right around the corner (maybe they kick off several years early?) and the Parthians potentially attempting to exploit the situation. Maybe not on that last one, cuz I think Vologasses was in the process of trying to put down a revolt with one of his unruly younger sons at the time.
If the Romans are going to be back, it will only be after all of the above have been dealt with, probably by the 70s at best, and by then a lot could have happened in Britain.
If Rome is completely defeated, which is hard, but doable, I’m not sure that it really matters whether or not the Britons can maintain their unity in the immediate interim, as such a disastrous defeat is going to look very bad for an emperor that is already wildly unpopular in Rome. My understanding is that Nero was actually more popular in the provinces, particularly in Anatolia for his (his generals’) victories in Armenia, but in Rome herself, right around this time, his popularity was at an all time low. IOTL, the Pisonian Conspiracy took place in 65, but had been in the works for a couple of years. If Britain is totally lost and Nero still murders Claudia (and I think he would), I can see multiple conspiracies against him, likely involving Calpurnius Piso and even Vespasian, and I’m not entirely sure they wouldn’t be successful. Depending on how the conspiracies go, we could see prolonged civil war, a year with multiple emperors, or Nero replaced with his younger cousin, Silanus Torquatus who, at this point, I think is the last living member of the Julio-Claudian dynasty.
Either way, Rome will be in turmoil for a little bit, with the Jewish and Batavian revolts right around the corner (maybe they kick off several years early?) and the Parthians potentially attempting to exploit the situation. Maybe not on that last one, cuz I think Vologasses was in the process of trying to put down a revolt with one of his unruly younger sons at the time.
If the Romans are going to be back, it will only be after all of the above have been dealt with, probably by the 70s at best, and by then a lot could have happened in Britain.
Do we know they would have all remained loyal? They had just seen Rome screw over the Iceni re succession, and if Boudicca manages to expel Roman power joining her or declaring independence might start to look a lot more attractive...
Well the Pictish migrations are now going to stretch will into *Cumberland at least without Roman intervention if those aren't butterflied.
Also the Ychen/Iceni are now the paramount tribe in the Isles. They can project power as far as the Bucks and maybe even over the Thames, the Katuwallon/Catevaullani's power being smashed after Caratacus' lost to Claudius' legions. Boudicca's line could very much lay the foundations for a power that could unit Southern Britain sometime along the way.
Though the question remains if the Britons adopt Roman custom such as a more Manipular army or a modified Latin script to write down Druidic customs as the Brahmins eventually did in India.
Also the Ychen/Iceni are now the paramount tribe in the Isles. They can project power as far as the Bucks and maybe even over the Thames, the Katuwallon/Catevaullani's power being smashed after Caratacus' lost to Claudius' legions. Boudicca's line could very much lay the foundations for a power that could unit Southern Britain sometime along the way.
Though the question remains if the Britons adopt Roman custom such as a more Manipular army or a modified Latin script to write down Druidic customs as the Brahmins eventually did in India.
Last edited:
Bassarion Korax
Banned
If I recall correctly, the Druids were against writing down their traditions because they thought that it would hinder the apprentice's ability to memorize important concepts, although I'm sure at some point a number of spiritual traditions had this kind of a visceral initial reaction to writing, so maybe that doesn't matter.
Whether or not the Britons adopt Roman military tactics I think depends heavily on how the defeat goes. If the Britons are able to swamp the Romans using their stereotypical frenzied battle charges, I don't see any reason why they'd stop. But if it's more of a Boudicca and her generals pulling rabbits out of their hats kind of situation, I could see everyone coming to the table to discuss how they can improve, even though they won.
Similar reasons to why the other major Indo-European hierarchical priesthood eventually adopted writing.
I more meant the adoption of heavier armour such as a segmented cuirass in the lorica segmentata vein. Surely the organisational aspects will follow soon after a larger segment of Briton armies are heavily armoured and a massed charge can be used in tandem with other innovations in warfare.
To be honest, to "successfully rebel" I think defeating the Pro-Roman clients is part of the deal, meaning whatever force/coalition that exists to defeat all of that now has control, or has already subjugated most of the region. There might be a switch or two, but I think the ruling Iceni might very well have a LOT of new servants/subjects/members in their new lands, so the Iceni could be incredibly powerful, at least in terms of agricultural capacity.
Yes, but they were not using it fully, kinda like the Vikings were making rune inscriptions but not keeping track of how much grain they had.
On the other hand the Druids are an organized force with intertribal ties, and an independent training center could be a much more serious challenge than Religio Roma to any other religious movements that wanted to establish themselves.
I think you're being too pessimistic here. The Germans didn't have any of those things and managed to avoid conquest, and they didn't even have the advantage of being separated from Roman territory by a sea.