What if the Roman empire never conquers England
- Thread starter alpha
- Start date
Well, the Romans never conquered England anyway since the Anglo-Saxons only really arrived once Roman control over Britannia was lost.
This could have happened if Boudica decided to sit and starve the romans to death at Watling Street instead of charging their well-defended formations.
If the romans never conquer Britain, then Romano-british culture never leaves a mark on this celticized Britain.
Perhaps Boudica could grow unchecked and unify the island, but i'm afraid that's unlikely.
If the romans never conquer Britain, then Romano-british culture never leaves a mark on this celticized Britain.
Perhaps Boudica could grow unchecked and unify the island, but i'm afraid that's unlikely.
Ye, I think most of the time tax revenue from Britain was not enough to pay the Roman troops stationed there.
So ye, it would have been better for Empire to leave Britain unconquered.
Loosing money just for imperial pride... not too wise.
Ireland was never conquered by Rome and it was OK.
The only problem was if some Germanic tribes tried to conquer Britain and make it a base for piracy against the Roman coasts. In this case the Roman would have had to interfere and get the Germanic tribes out of Britain in alliance with the local British Celts.
British historians and intellectuals aren't all that interested in the Roman Empire or the classical period as a whole?
Faeelin
Banned
The state building and centralization under Britanno-Celtic states in the Southeast continues. Contacts with Rome lead to continued economic development, and a *British kingdom emerges.
In the Third Century Crisis, the king of Britain decides to invade Gaul. He is referred to by his name Artor Rigos, the Bear King. The Romans call him . . . Artorius.
In the Third Century Crisis, the king of Britain decides to invade Gaul. He is referred to by his name Artor Rigos, the Bear King. The Romans call him . . . Artorius.
No Roman conquest, doesn't mean no Roman influence : southern Brittonic polities were more or less importantly clientelized by Rome since the Cesarian campaigns.
I'd expect a situation similar to what existed along the Rhineish limes, as in a relatively stable modus vivendi based on trade, clientelism and mercenaryship, interspersed with raids and frontier disorder. Nothing particularily earth-shattering, at one big political exception : it might make Rhineish legions more relevant than they were IOTL, altough I don't expect them to be really rivalling their Danubian counterpart in numbers or importance.
With the IIIrd century, tough, things will likely change : the absence of a strong imperial military force in the face of changes (would it be only geo-climatic with the coastal withdrawal that happened on North Sea) could make Britain looking a lot like Black Sea regions : outer-Britannic Barbarians would settle there (probably as early as IOTL, the IIIrd or IVth century) because these roman client-states would be as fragilized as it happened in pontic region IOTL. We should expect ethnogenesis of distinct, more or less romanized peoples, in Britain issued from the mix of Brittons, Gaels and Germans.
I do think these new peoples would likely use Britain as a jumpgate to raid than settle the continent as Goths did in the East (altough, due to the relative backwardness of Britain, less successfully and on tribal lines), but you'd end up with a relatively romanized Celto-German Britain from one hand, and a more damaged Gaul and Hispania in the Late Antiquity, further weakening the roman state there.
The absence of a conquest doesn't mean you'd have resources and effort being put somewhere else : the conquest of Britain obeyed to the usual geo-strategical needs with a touch of prestige necessities and mineral interests (note that Roman Britain did kept, as Ilyricum, a distinct "frontieer" feeling). Other conquests in Europe wouldn't be obvious, especially due to the lack of structural build-up (as in Germany) to really enforce a Roman rule (it was quite thin in pre-Roman Britain, but it did existed). At best, I would rather see a bigger equivalent of Agri Decumati in Germany thanks to a Weser-Main fortification system.
Roman interaction with Britain ITTL would likely prevent such build-up : they generally preferred to favour a certain disunity and even indirectly, the resources flux trough mercenariship and gifts were relativelly widespread among the various chiefdoms.
I could see, however, various complex chiefdoms and formative states as it happened in Gaul arising from this relationship.
I don't think you had this kind of cultural/political solidarity : not only historically Gaels did raided the heck out of Late and sub-Roman Britain, you didn't had much political interaction between Armorican and south-Britain chiefdoms and confederations; but this kind of solidarity is virtually unknown elsewhere in the western ancient world (look at Gallic or Persian wars).
Artaxerxes
Banned
One of the reasons Claudius invaded was to keep a couple of legions busy so perhaps more instability earlier if no invasion? Or more attempts at taking Parthia on.
A British collection of tribes akin to the Goths might emerge if put under enough pressure from the collapse of the Roman frontier, you may also see a Romano-Gallic migration from Gaul to Britain once the borders are breached (if they are breached)
A British collection of tribes akin to the Goths might emerge if put under enough pressure from the collapse of the Roman frontier, you may also see a Romano-Gallic migration from Gaul to Britain once the borders are breached (if they are breached)
Deleted member 97083
Poles loved Latin and classicism despite never being part of the Roman Empire.
Russians liked Greek language and history because of Orthodoxy but they also liked neoclassicism along with Latin and the Roman names of Greco-Roman gods.
Also Irish monks preserved a lot of Latin texts, though Hibernia was never a province.
I would think less like Goths, and probably more like IIIrd century Saxons and Gaels. Meaning probably less structured, and more a general nuisance to be settled (sort of mirrored Saxon Shore). let's remember that Goths (as most of limes peoples in the IIIrd century) structuration comes from a direct relationship with Rome : the mix of North Sea Germans, Gaels and Brittons mixing up as new peoples could benefit much less from this : altough I could really see them being settled as laeti or proto-foedi in the IIIrd and IVth in Gaul or Spain (as to counter other Brittanian-issued raids).
Why? Gallo-Romans didn't migrated from Gaul to Upper Rhine, or Italo-Romans from Cisalpina to Pannonia.
Except in the form of slaves being held during raids (as it happened with Goths), I wouldn't see it happening, and that would be far for any significant migration demographically wise.
Artaxerxes
Banned
There won't be a direct counter part but I guess there would be a lot of Roman influence over the centuries so more structured society and more wealth affecting Britain's political structure.
The weak British elite might be why the Saxons managed to take over (though I tend to go with Francis Pryor et all in the myth of the Anglo Saxon invasion theory) or the Saxon culture do so well, it fit the local conditions better than Roman.
With a stronger elite and one more likely to adapt itself you could have a decent culture thriving by the time the Roman empire collapses.
Stability, I know the land owners tended to stay put but you might see a fair number of people bounce to Britain if the island is stable and not raiding Gaul. Completing the domino effect of tribal migration.
More so than IOTL? I really doubt it when a Roman province had imperial structures so thin and localized, ending up with tribal chiefdoms and complex chiefdoms.
Giving that ITTL, Britain is largely bound to be a jumpgate for even more raids in Gaul than IOTL...
Artaxerxes
Banned
It depends on how the island manages until the Roman collapse, the South East especially was very influenced before the invasion. If the pace keeps up you may see it able to expand its influence to other parts of the island.
It all depends on the nature of the collapse and how Rome uses the manpower saved from occupying Britain.
Then there's Britain's tendency to be a destabilising factor in Rome, a pool of bored manpower backing usurpers. Is that enough to keep the empire stable if those are taken away?
It's likely some bugger will do a Claudius or Trajan eventually if the island gets to wealthy.
It'd have interesting consequences for London regardless, I'm sure at some point a city on the Thames will emerge.
I didn't said southern Britain wouldn't be partially romanized thanks trough commercial and political influence (if not meddling) : just that arguing it would be enough to make Britain more structurated and more romanized than it was as a Roman province is a bit silly, especially in the face of evidence in the rest of historical limes.
It's not a matter of collapse : as said above, the climatic changes of the IIIrd century only would see North Sea peoples going for raiding western Atlantic as they did IOTL. But in the absence of a Roman military in Britian to at least partially stop it, the decline of Roman clients (due to the unability of Rome to support them as it happened with the Bosporan Kingdom, for exemple) would met an earlier Western Germanic (essentially Saxon and Frankish) and Gelic presence.
By the end of the crisis, instead of various more or less placid Brittonic clientelized chiefdoms, you'd have a band of more or less recently grouped peoples whom ethno-geographic regions served as jumpgate to raid western Romania deeper than IOTL. Of course, these would probably be treated as limes peoples were, and could likely participate to a potential scramble for the West.
But there's no way that a Roman Empire that decided that conquering Britain wasn't worth the trouble, would suddenly make a 180° turn and actively protect it : heck, Late Romania would have been barely aware that Britain was still a thing if not for the rare military troubles and the need to keep Germanic piracy at bay.
I'm going to be blunt, but if not for the over-blowed sense of continuity between Roman Britain and British England, the case of usurpations from Britain wouldn't be much anything than anedcotes.
Historically, the rare case of usurpation from generals or leader of Roman armies in Britain wasn't much relevant : we have Carausius and Allectus, Albinus (less claiming than forced to fight out Severus), Marcus and Gratianus (which was aimed at resisting another withdrawal of troops) and...that's all. All the other so-called British usurpers more took their importance from the fact they managed a military force in western provinces which include Britain, but as well Gaul and Spain, which made them more relevant for the Roman matters.
It's hardly coming out of boredom : the really rebellious armies are from Danube and eastern provinces, where more of the conflicts and battles took place, from a sense to not being awarded and acknowledged fairly for their military and political importance. Not that Rhineish, Brittanian or African armies didn't rebelled, but it was much more (as in much much more) in periods where they felt being deprived of enough resources (if not deprived of these at the benefit of other fronts) for what mattered their own provinces (as it happened with Postumus or Marcus).
Potentially, altough it's my no means certain : Thames was more important as an inner artera for Romans that it was for Brittons, whom dynamic centers before the conquests were more south-eastern based.
I could see a locality as Callaeva being an important territorial capitol, arguably (while it's not litterally on Thames) as well as Colchester, possibly as dynamic centers.
Economically, tough, I'd rather see distinct emporiae to these complex chiefdoms : Chichester, Hengistbury, or probably minor places or non-existent IOTL.
Artaxerxes
Banned
I'm not saying it would be romanised better than otl but like the Goths it would develop its own stronger structures as a result of its contact.
The Thames is great for giving you deep access in to a large chunk of England, it just wasn't particularly plugged into international trade like the other settlements. It was also a pain in the arse to settle south of it and cross. Sooner or later someone will do it but Chichester or Cornwall will do well until it happens, probably a northern or Welsh settlement as well.
Faeelin
Banned
Two thoughts:
1) Way to ruin my attempt to make the tale of Arthur's invasion of Gaul accurate.
2) I wouldn't presume the Romans will always succeed. Certainly the formative states did arise, as you note. But just because the Romans want disunity doesn't mean they'd get it; witness the centralization of pre-Islamic Arabia, where the Lhakmids and Gassanids ended up as the only power centers.
I don't disagree with the fact south Brittain chiefdoms and complex chiefdoms will evolve stronger out of it (you already had a south and eastern, in south Britain, polarizations IOTL). But the nature of roman influence and clientelism favour a certain division of territorial centers, indirectly and directly (unification of frontier peoples, would it be as a confederation is generally seen as a potential threat, as Dacians were).
What would really help Ist to IIIrd century southern Brittonic chiefdoms would be existing and maintained flux with Roman Gaul : the south and the eastern ocast (roughly from Redcliff to Chichester being importantly involved with trade (particularily grain, iron and slaves) making the region a regional trade partner of the Roman trade with Germania (especially for grain and metals).
Rather than Goths (that didn't really evolved strong structures on the limes, but were rather dependent from their frontieer relationship : I think that a comparison with what existed before the IIIrd century in Pontic shores (Bosporic Kingdom) and the Rheinish peoples for what would happen in south and eastern Britain. We might see south-western and northern Britain beingh treated as Ireland was IOTL : as a further interlocutor.
It seems the IOTL polarisation treated the Thames basin a little more as a vague border than an exchange road. It doesn't mean you won't have flux in this region, but I expect most of agglomerations there to be less a crossroads, and more of a fringe, and most of emporiae to be rather maritime.
Rather than Corwnall, Kent, East-Anglia; Wessex and Linclolnshire less importantly to play a major role.
I entierly agree that Romans wouldn't be bound to have their political interests systematically being reality.
For what matter the Ist to IIIrd century, that said, they'll have the strength to at least attempt this. I'd use the comparison I already made with Dacians, as how Romans reacted in face of regional formative state-build-up : both because of the build-up, than the conflicts that created it and shattered the Roman network in Britain : without Catuvellani campaigns, maybe you wouldn't have this much of a reaction.
Of course, we could entierly see that a Ist century crisis in Romania would prevent Rome to really focus on Britain matters : it partially happened IOTL. But the biggest threat to the OP would be that Brittonic chiefdoms evolve too strongly to be ignored, making a set of Roman campaigns likely to happen. Maintaining a stable enough south Britain would be really helpful in this regard (arguably, you might see Roman expeditions in Britain as you had in Ireland or Scotland IOTL until the IInd century).
From what matter the IIIrd century, Rome would probably be significantly busy elsewhere, too much to matter what happen in Britain : namely, IMO, a likely set of Western Germanic, Gaelic and Northern Brittonic raids and takeover in the region which wouldn't benefit from being under roman umbrella.