WI no Roman Britain, knock-ons to Ireland?

The starting point is that Julius Caesar simply never sets the precedent of invading Britain, and it never becomes an obsession for his successors.

What are the prospects for Christianity spreading to Britain without imperial rule by the 4th and 5th centuries AD?

Almost certainly there is no St. Patrick to preach in Ireland.

Christianity might come to Britain, or at least to northern Britain and Ireland, only with the conversion of an Anglo-Saxon population. And the initial impetus will come from Rome and then the western parts of the Frankish empire, maybe also Spanish missionaries (from Visigothic Spain). This could slow down evangelism in northern Europe, particularly Germany and Netherlands, that was carried out by first Irish and then Anglo-Saxon missionaries.

Might Ireland and Scotland have remained pagan as long as OTL Lithuania (ie, until the 1300s)? Or as long as Scandinavia (the 900s and 1000s)?

Will Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain come earlier or later, and would they conquer a wider or smaller territory? Indeed, would more of Britain be populated by Pictish and Irish peoples?

If the lack of Roman protection for several centuries makes Britain an easier and earlier target for Germanic invaders, might a considerable number of Franks migrate along with Anglo-Saxons?

raharris1973 said:

The starting point is that Julius Caesar simply never sets the precedent of invading Britain, and it never becomes an obsession for his successors.

What are the prospects for Christianity spreading to Britain without imperial rule by the 4th and 5th centuries AD?

Almost certainly there is no St. Patrick to preach in Ireland.

Christianity might come to Britain, or at least to northern Britain and Ireland, only with the conversion of an Anglo-Saxon population. And the initial impetus will come from Rome and then the western parts of the Frankish empire, maybe also Spanish missionaries (from Visigothic Spain). This could slow down evangelism in northern Europe, particularly Germany and Netherlands, that was carried out by first Irish and then Anglo-Saxon missionaries.

Might Ireland and Scotland have remained pagan as long as OTL Lithuania (ie, until the 1300s)? Or as long as Scandinavia (the 900s and 1000s)?

Will Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain come earlier or later, and would they conquer a wider or smaller territory? Indeed, would more of Britain be populated by Pictish and Irish peoples?

If the lack of Roman protection for several centuries makes Britain an easier and earlier target for Germanic invaders, might a considerable number of Franks migrate along with Anglo-Saxons?

Click to expand...

First, if Caesar does not invade Britain, he'll have to campaign elsewhere. My bet is that part of Germania east of the Rhine might be conquered, up to the Weser in a really best case scenario, more likely only the lands of the Suebi and the nearby areas (so, parts of Germany south of the Main, but the eastward limit has to be seen).
Britain will develop more cohesive polities, and the Irish might establish some loose hegemony over the westermost parts of it earlier. My guess is that no Germanic people will be able to invade Britain while the Romans are quite strong in the area, and sparing legions in britain would likely mean they are stronger in Germany. My guess is that if the Anglo-Saxons try to go to britain, only the northern areas will be open to their expansion. And if the Romans are around, and invasion might trigger a Roman intervention anyway.
After the Roman collapse, Gaul will be more attractive to the Anglo-Saxons anyway. The barbarians were attracted by the Roman civilization most, so they might be less interested in a "barbaric" britain unless the Britons are able to improve their civilization through contact with roman gaul, which is possible.

Falecius said:

First, if Caesar does not invade Britain, he'll have to campaign elsewhere. My bet is that part of Germania east of the Rhine might be conquered, up to the Weser in a really best case scenario, more likely only the lands of the Suebi and the nearby areas (so, parts of Germany south of the Main, but the eastward limit has to be seen).
Britain will develop more cohesive polities, and the Irish might establish some loose hegemony over the westermost parts of it earlier. My guess is that no Germanic people will be able to invade Britain while the Romans are quite strong in the area, and sparing legions in britain would likely mean they are stronger in Germany. My guess is that if the Anglo-Saxons try to go to britain, only the northern areas will be open to their expansion. And if the Romans are around, and invasion might trigger a Roman intervention anyway.
After the Roman collapse, Gaul will be more attractive to the Anglo-Saxons anyway. The barbarians were attracted by the Roman civilization most, so they might be less interested in a "barbaric" britain unless the Britons are able to improve their civilization through contact with roman gaul, which is possible.

Click to expand...

well, the more "Uncivilised", the harder to conquer. that was the rule of dark age europa. I dont think the Saxons could conquer lands at all, iff they would let their attention be drawn to brittain.

The British Isles might very well be Arian, rather than Catholic, when they convert to Christianity.

If the Romans arent in Britain its likely that the populace would have its own indigenous armies to defend it. So instead of the Romans leaving and the brits scrambling for soldiers, hiring lots of anglosaxon mercenaries, that the anglosaxons wont get the idea or opportunity to invade.

Is it not likely that, given the POD, that in a couple of generations (or possibly a couple of hundred years, or whatever) when the Roman Empire is relatively peaceful and not on the defensive or offensive in Germania, eventually an Emperor will look at Britannia and say "no-one has ever tried to conquer that". I mean, there weren't many borders that the Romans tried not even once to cross, but the POD given here seems to be convincing people that the Romans would simply never again consider Britain (unless a German invasion prompted them to intervene), even though the POD pretty much is the butterflying of any reason to believe that Britannia is tough nut to crack.

Just to make my case clear here: I'm not suggesting that 50 or 100 years down the line the Romans will suddenly on a whim decide to attack Britain and steamroller it. A rebuffing of the Romans is quite possible, and given the ripples from the POD perhaps Britannia would never be conquered and would resist more than once. Nor am I suggesting that it was Britain's destiny to be attacked by Rome. I just find it unlikely that Julius Caesar not deciding to attack for some reason means no Emperor will ever again fancy Britannia as a nice place to invade - it seems illogical for the Empire to have an independent swathe of land so close to their borders that at *Calais they can see Britannia, and yet not once think it would make a nice addition to the Empire's territories.

Necro-ing it

So the overwhelming consensus when this question was first asked was that a Britain never ruled by Rome would never have been an easy (or even desirable) target for conquest by the Anglo-Saxons.

Falastur challenges the sheer unlikeliness of the Romans never invading Britain. I suppose his point is well taken. The Romans didn't conquer Germany, but they tried. On the other hand, I don't know if the Romans ever attacked Bohemia or Ukraine or Nubia, or Arabia or the peoples of the Sahel either.

The Romans ha the bosporan kingdom in the crimea and sent an expedition to Arabia in Augustus' time. Around the same time I believe small campaigning was done against Nubian incursions into Egypt.

Also Augustus had a plan to invade marcomannia (Bohemia) but the Illyrian revolt and teutoburg stopped those plans. Aurelius though campaigned extensively in the area and was planning on making it a province before he died.

There were a lot of Christians in Ireland before saint Patrick.
Christianity came to Ireland first along trade routes from North Africa.
"There is little doubt that the Coptic missionaries reached as far as the British Isles on the fringe of mediaeval Europe. long before the coming of Saint Augustine of Canterbury in 597 A.D., Christianity had been introduced among the Britons. the eminent historian Stanley Lane-Poole says: "We do not yet know how much we in the British Isles owe to these remote hermits. It is more than probable that to them we are indebted for the first preaching of the Gospel in England, where, till the coming of Augustine, the Egyptian monastic rule prevailed. But more important is the belief that Irish Christianity, the great civilizing agent of the early Middle Ages among the northern nations, was the child of the Egyptian Church. Seven Egyptian monks are buried at Disert Uldith, and there is much in the ceremonies and architecture of Ireland in the earliest time that reminds one of still earlier Christian remains in Egypt. Everyone knows that the handicraft of the Irish monks in the ninth and tenth centuries far excelled anything that could be found elsewhere in Europe; and if the Byzantine-looking decoration of their splendid gold and silver work, and their unrivalled illuminations, can be traced to the influence of Egyptian missionaries, we have more to thank the Copts for than had been imagined" [45]. "
http://www.coptic.net/articles/coptsandchristendom.txt

Mr Qwerty said:

The British Isles might very well be Arian, rather than Catholic, when they convert to Christianity.

Click to expand...

Why? The germanic tribes converted to Arianism because they were converted by Arian missionaries, sent during the reigns of Emperors that were sympathetic to Arianism. In other words, the Germans just converted to the branch of Christianity that was popular in Rome at the time. There isn't any inherent 'hey, this is the cool denomination for barbarians that want to be Christian' aspect of Arianism.

It is interesting that Ireland was so connected to

trade with North Africa. What would the major items of exchange have been Ireland and the Med? I also wonder if the Roman trading connections with Ireland were any denser than trade connections with the Baltic shores or Scandinavia, and, if so, what made Christianity succeed so much faster among the Irish than among the Scandinavians, Balts and Slavs.

Taking Irish monasticism is going to have some very profound impact on the development of Christianity and Western Europe. There's a lot of documents that were preserved thanks to Irish and Irish-inspired monks from all over Europe that might otherwise be lost without a similar institution to fill the void.

Another important thing to consider is the Irish monastic model was key to Latin Christianity successfully transitioning in the 6th and 7th centuries in Gaul from a predominantly urban religion to having a much stronger rural base. If that process is slowed that could complicate the question of missionary efforts after the fall of the Empire. There's also the issue of a dearth of trained civil servants. No monks means no readily available clerics for Frankish and Visigothic warlords to use as bureaucrats. That's going to put a serious crimp in the development of the Franks, possibly even butterflying Charlemagne and his policies of forced conversion and vassalization of central Europe.

If you get all that then many of the lands beyond what once was the Empire might stay Pagan into the modern day. With less of an administrative advantage the non-Christian polities are going to have time to develop, get a sense of themselves, and develop in a direction where their native spirituality is more likely to be a bigger part of the socio-political arrangement. Remember the conversion of Europe in that period was driven as much, if not more, by political and economic concerns as it was by spiritual ones.

Remember, Caesar did not conquer Britain. It was more a kind of statement to Rome regarding his dignitas. Same with his bridge over the Rhine. I doubt, that Caesar would have invaded Germany, if he does not waste time with Britain; not neccessarily.

Claudius invaded Britain. Most probably not because the Britains were dangerous to Gallia and als not because the british ressources have been that appealing. He did it for fame. Actually this was a clear violation of Augustus' Rule, to not extend the empire further anymore.

During late Caligulas / early Claudius' reign there was also ongoing trouble with the germans. The Legates of Germania Sulpicius Galba and Gabinius Secundus fought against the Chatti and others and probably had already crossed the Rhine. But Claudius called them off. What if Claudius decides to come to fame in Germany instead of Britannia? If he is succesful and conquers Germania up to the Elbe, all the 8 german legions will be very busy. No way to take legions away from that front now, in order to invade Britannia.

In the next centuries I expect enough trouble at this new border to keep the romans busy. This offers every emperor a good chance for honor & glory without invading Britannia. Perhaps the romans will decide, that controlling the southeast british tribes with diplomacy is sufficient in order to avoid piracy and such.

Detractors say, that th romans invaded Britannia because they had not the balls to invade Germania. But what, if they had ....?
I can imagine a free Britannia. The still free british tribes would be better prepared to defend against any invader than they were after the romans gave up Britannia around AD 400. But who should invade the british isles, if the romans conquer Germania?

PS: Don't get me wrong. The romans were wrong. The Britains were at least as powerful and dangerous as the Germans. 3-4 Legions and the biggest contingent of auxilia of the empire for such a small island? What a waste of manpower! I can't believe, that you need such a big force, just to secure the northern border against the Picts. German piracy was not that heavy in the first two centuries. So obviously the Britains themselves were an ongoing threat for a very long time. Unfortunatley I never dived deep into the history of Britannia. So how do historians explain that huge army? It seems, the romans never reached a point, where they could reduce the forces in Britain significantly.

Agricola - interesting alternative.....

...could Claudius have worked up the guts to fight in Germania with the memory of Teutoborg?

Regardless, I think we could characterize what you propose as the "Charlemagne" alternative. Charlemagne dug into Germany (and to be fair, already had Franconian and Swabian beacheads to start) and never once considered invading England (a shoe that did not drop that I posted a thread about awhile back). So in that one, the Franks take the "Claudine" alternative.

Regardless of whether Brittania and Germania are equally hard to subdue, is one meaningfully more taxable than the other given the technology and economics of the time?

Teutoburg was not what was keepin re from conquering Germania. For starters they still contulinually made forays across the Rhine since germanicus. They even had a few forts there. It was just simpler and better economically for them to maintain client states on the other side of the Rhine that looked out fort their interests than to subdue it themselves.

Exit: Britannia also just had more economic resources useful to the Romans at the time and was more sophisticated politically, making it much easier to romanize. All that said though a roman conquest up to the wesser or Elbe is certainly possible though preferably with a pod before the great Illyrian revolt.