WI: Boudica and her army won the Battle of Watling Street?

[Gloss]

If "stronger than any individual neighboring state" is "invincible" in your mind, then yes.If I were to say that even if she were to overtake Roman Britain, Boudica would definitely fail if she then attempted to conquer Gaul, would that also count as me asserting Roman invincibility?

If you are arguing it's literally impossible for a British state to invade Gaul in ANY situation before X arbitrary time period then yes. Plus there is a difference between winning a local rebellion and resisting an invasion and succeeding in a offensive war.

I believe this is what a reasonable person would call a strawman, though.

It's not a strawman, you are making comparisons between Boudicca and Hannibal or Phyrrus which shows that you think the Romans of the 3rd century BCE and 1st century CE shared something that makes this comparison worth making, despite there being 2-3 centuries between the 2 periods and a vastly different situation.
According to the logic of this analogy how do you justify Rome losing land in the 3rd century CE or during the fall of the Western Empire? Their hold on the provinces was far stronger and entrenched.

 

[TRH]

If you are arguing it's literally impossible for a British state to invade Gaul indefinitely then yes. Plus there is a difference between winning a local rebellion and resisting an invasion and succeeding in a offensive war.

I only mean in that specific time frame, since you were at least kind enough to pretend I asserted Roman incincibility for a specific period of time. So again I ask: am I asserting that Rome was invincible by saying that Boudica specifically had no chance of conquering Gaul had she attempted it?

It's not a strawman, you are making comparisons between Boudicca and Hannibal or Phyrrus which shows that you think the Romans of the 3rd century BCE and 1st century CE shared something that makes this comparison worth making, despite there being 2-3 centuries between the 2 periods and a vastly different situation.
According to the logic of this analogy how do you justify Rome losing land in the 3rd century CE or during the fall of the West? Their hold on the provinces was far stronger and entrenched.

You misunderstand the point of my comparison in that case. It's not about the Romans, as such, but about Boudica's tactical ability. Exceptional generals can punch above their weight militarily, and Hannibal and Pyrrhus were famous contemporary examples of that. I merely meant to say that Boudica's historical record doesn't really show the ability to overcome unfavorable odds. She was bested by a rather small army, after all. In general, you seem to be really overinterpreting most of what I've been saying. If you could stop inferring multiple assertions from every statement I make, I think you'd find my arguments are more grounded than you've been taking them so far.

 

[Karolus Rex]

I used that number as a ballpark because the Romans used around that many troops just to try and take Caledonia. Twice. Like I've said a few times, they committed a lot of troops to Britain. And I think the logistics are easier for a British campaign than a Parthian one because Gaul was a major recruitment source AIUI.

But in this case, give we are talking about an expedition to reconquer, Rome just lost the II Augusta, the XIV Gemina and the XX Valeria Victrix Legions plus their auxiliaries, in terms of casualties alone that represents a crippling blow in the short term, leaving only the Rhine Legions and the one Legion in northern Hispania. The Caledonian expedition of Severus, which is the one I assume you are talking about, given Agricola's expedition was done using the resources of the Roman garrison in Britannia, was done after a period of aggressive recruitment in which the number of available soldiers was far superior to in 60. I am not trying to say the Romans couldn't send that many troops, just that it will take a long time to gather the forces and that monetary considerations will be taken into account and that they might find it cheaper to just bribe chiefs to cause problems amongst Boudica's coalition, which without a clear Roman enemy to keep them united will probably tend to fragment along tribal and clan rivalries, and do a smaller expedition, especially when they are already involved in a war in Armenia against the Parthians in the east and there's growing unrest in Judea and in parts of Gaul.

 

[Gloss]

I only mean in that specific time frame, since you were at least kind enough to pretend I asserted Roman incincibility for a specific period of time. So again I ask: am I asserting that Rome was invincible by saying that Boudica specifically had no chance of conquering Gaul had she attempted it?

No but this is a completely different question, there is a massive difference between saying that is literally impossible for the Romans to not conquer Britain and saying that Boudicca specifically wasn't going to conquer all of Gaul within a few years or decades of her rebellion.

You misunderstand the point of my comparison in that case. It's not about the Romans, as such, but about Boudica's tactical ability. Exceptional generals can punch above their weight militarily, and Hannibal and Pyrrhus were famous contemporary examples of that. I merely meant to say that Boudica's historical record doesn't really show the ability to overcome unfavorable odds. She was bested by a rather small army, after all. In general, you seem to be really overinterpreting most of what I've been saying. If you could stop inferring multiple assertions from every statement I make, I think you'd find my arguments are more grounded than you've been taking them so far.

Let me ask a simple question so you can clarify your view, can the British tribes successfully rebel and keep the Romans mostly out of the island in the long term?
This is not about Boudica specifically, there were more British tribes and kings/chieftains and this is not about what you think is the most probable outcome, I'm talking about what you think is possible.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Just because they decide to invade again doesn't mean they will succeed or try to conquer the island repeatedly, especially considering the political troubles that could still happen IATL, especially in the Lower Rhine area.
The Britons will also be more prepared and more hostile to Roman rule in a second invasion, plus leading Britonnic tribes will probably see a weaker resistance to centralization of political power if the alternative is Roman rule.

I see no reason why a Roman invasion would fail. The initial invasion was not a complete walk in the park but it also wasn't exactly difficult and there are now plenty of existing networks within Britain of local leadership that has tied their ship to Roman hegemony. Additionally, Boudica's grasp was rather weak, and given that all it took to end her campaign was a single legion with competent leadership, it's clear this is a different situation from what happened in Germany.

While political troubles could happen on the Rhine, the fact is that the Rhine was fairly peaceful in this era. The only real action for the Rhine legions was the internal upheaval that caused and followed Nero's ouster.

Besides, Boudica's not exactly Hannibal or even Pyrrhus. She destroyed one legion in detail and overran poorly defended Roman settlements before falling to pieces the moment she faced a well-prepared Roman defense. How is the army that was crushed by two legions supposed to defeat four plus auxiliaries?

Precisely. It does not take a large amount of resources to overrun Boudica's resistance.

I mean I'm not wrong in characterizing your opinion as "Rome is invincible from 300 BCE to 200 CE".

Nobody is saying Rome is invincible. Rome is capable of suffering significant setbacks and is not beyond abandoning ventures. It's just that Boudica's revolt has far more similarity to the smaller scale revolts that followed Roman conquest of Gaul than it resembles the major upheaval that would seriously threaten Roman control. Once it became clear of the actual scale of the revolt, Nero no longer panicked and recognized the situation could be easily handled.

 

[TRH]

But in this case, give we are talking about an expedition to reconquer, Rome just lost the II Augusta, the XIV Gemina and the XX Valeria Victrix Legions plus their auxiliaries, in terms of casualties alone that represents a crippling blow in the short term, leaving only the Rhine Legions and the one Legion in northern Hispania. The Caledonian expedition of Severus, which is the one I assume you are talking about, given Agricola's expedition was done using the resources of the Roman garrison in Britannia, was done after a period of aggressive recruitment in which the number of available soldiers was far superior to in 60. I am not trying to say the Romans couldn't send that many troops, just that it will take a long time to gather the forces and that monetary considerations will be taken into account and that they might find it cheaper to just bribe chiefs to cause problems amongst Boudica's coalition, which without a clear Roman enemy to keep them united will probably tend to fragment along tribal and clan rivalries, and do a smaller expedition, especially when they are already involved in a war in Armenia against the Parthians in the east and there's growing unrest in Judea and in parts of Gaul.

And of course I'm not saying they could or would immediately mount an overwhelming punitive expedition. I simply think they could mobilize more troops than Boudica could realistically defeat. And given their heavy level of OTL investment in Brittania, I think the precedent suggests they will make continued efforts. And given how easily Boudica crumbled IOTL, I also don't think it would take all that much force in the grand scheme of things.

No but this is a completely different question, there is a massive difference between saying that is literally impossible for the Romans to not conquer Britain and saying that Boudicca specifically wasn't going to conquer all of Gaul within a few years or decades of her rebellion.

Let me ask a simple question so you can clarify your view, can the British tribes successfully rebel and keep the Romans mostly out of the island in the long term?
This is not about Boudica specifically, there were more British tribes and kings/chieftains and this is not about what you think is the most probable outcome, I'm talking about what you think is possible.

The point there being that there's a difference between the saying the Romans cannot be defeated in one context and that they cannot be defeated in any context. Honestly, your continued insistence on telling me that I'm saying they cannot be defeated in any context despite me saying otherwise is rather rude and I'd appreciate if you stopped.

In answer to your simple question: they could force the Romans off the island, but whether they could keep them off in the long run depends as much on the Romans as on them. The Romans simply have the ability to muster more manpower than can be realistically overcome, but it isn't guaranteed that they could or would deploy it. I personally think they overinvested on Britain if I'm honest, but the fact that they did so suggests that we'd need a deliberate change in long-term Roman policy for them to reconsider. And as Sly as pointed out, such a choice would be politically unpopular for Nero especially.

 

[Gloss]

I see no reason why a Roman invasion would fail. The initial invasion was not a complete walk in the park but it also wasn't exactly difficult and there are now plenty of existing networks within Britain of local leadership that has tied their ship to Roman hegemony. Additionally, Boudica's grasp was rather weak, and given that all it took to end her campaign was a single legion with competent leadership, it's clear this is a different situation from what happened in Germany.

If Roman hegemony was this strong explain why Caledonia was out of the grasp of Roman control, explanations like climate or geography are quite shallow considering that there is no huge difference between Northern England and the Scottish belt.

While political troubles could happen on the Rhine, the fact is that the Rhine was fairly peaceful in this era. The only real action for the Rhine legions was the internal upheaval that caused and followed Nero's ouster.

The Batavi revolt ended up involving larger tribes such as the Treveri.

Nobody is saying Rome is invincible. Rome is capable of suffering significant setbacks and is not beyond abandoning ventures. It's just that Boudica's revolt has far more similarity to the smaller scale revolts that followed Roman conquest of Gaul than it resembles the major upheaval that would seriously threaten Roman control. Once it became clear of the actual scale of the revolt, Nero no longer panicked and recognized the situation could be easily handled.

Situations can snowball out of control, a small rebellion can end up with most of the island rebelling or could end up with Rome having to many local rebellions and internal problem to deal properly, we know this happened at times so why can't it happen here?
Also if you think Rome it's not invincible then why in the world can't they fail, in your own words if Rome can suffer setbacks there is no reason to believe this can't happen here, it seems like you think we have perfect knowledge of the political situation in Britan and Gaul and that things cannot deviate from what happened IOTL when there is no reason to assume so.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

And as Sly as pointed out, such a choice would be politically unpopular for Nero especially.

Indeed. It sure would be politically inconvenient for Nero if, right as he made this decision, there was also a very popular Roman commander with tenuous ties to the Julio-Claudian dynasty that just so happened to be presently earning military acclaim for success against a implaccable Roman enemy.

And it just so happens that that man did exist.

 

[Gloss]

The point there being that there's a difference between the saying the Romans cannot be defeated in one context and that they cannot be defeated in any context. Honestly, your continued insistence on telling me that I'm saying they cannot be defeated in any context despite me saying otherwise is rather rude and I'd appreciate if you stopped.

But we aretalking about "any context", the period between 66 and 70 CE with the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty can really end up creating a vastly different situation by the end of it, now of course if we assume that Rome is relatively stable, if we assume that the defeat of the 2 legions will have 0 little to no effect on the rest of the Roman clients in the region and that Boudicca can't capitalize on her victory even in the short term then of course nothing will happen, but those are all assumptions.

In answer to your simple question: they could force the Romans off the island, but whether they could keep them off in the long run depends as much on the Romans as on them. The Romans simply have the ability to muster more manpower than can be realistically overcome, but it isn't guaranteed that they could or would deploy it. I personally think they overinvested on Britain if I'm honest, but the fact that they did so suggests that we'd need a deliberate change in long-term Roman policy for them to reconsider. And as Sly as pointed out, such a choice would be politically unpopular for Nero especially.

There is nothing unrealistic about large invasions being repelled even multiple times, using your logic the Persians invasions of Greece couldn't possibly fail either or heck even if the failed the Greeks clearly didn't have enough strength/people and were too divided to counter-attack and yet all of that did happen.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

If Roman hegemony was this strong explain why Caledonia was out of the grasp of Roman control, explanations like climate or geography are quite shallow considering that there is no huge difference between Northern England and the Scottish belt.

It would have required additional investment that Rome was not willing to give, and would have achieved relatively little. There were no perceived benefits to the effort required, which was definitively not the case with the rest of Britain. Furthermore, there was little downside. The Caledonians were not a significant threat-most of Rome's military presence on the island was to deal with internal threats, not outside threat from Caledonia.

The Batavi revolt ended up involving larger tribes such as the Treveri.

The Batavian revolt is almost 10 years after Boudicca's Revolt and cannot be separated from the context of the civil war caused by the Year of the Four Emperors. Actually, that revolt presents similar parallels to Boudicca-Roman armies were initially humiliated in a string of defeats, but Rome organized immense resources to retaliate and crush the Batavians, even during an existing civil war. I imagine they are willing to spare fewer resources for Britain than for Germany, but it does provide a good window into how the empire of this era handled such revolts on their frontiers.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

But we aretalking about "any context", the period between 66 and 70 CE with the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty can really end up creating a vastly different situation by the end of it, now of course if we assume that Rome is relatively stable, if we assume that the defeat of the 2 legions will have 0 little to no effect on the rest of the Roman clients in the region and that Boudicca can't capitalize on her victory even in the short term then of course nothing will happen, but those are all assumptions.

We are not talking about the period of 66-70 CE, we are talking about 60-61 CE which had a different and more stable political climate than existed in the latter years of Nero's reign. Other than the limited and soon to be wrapped up Armenian War, there is no other major military threat Rome is dealing with for the next several years.

 

[Gloss]

It would have required additional investment that Rome was not willing to give, and would have achieved relatively little. There were no perceived benefits to the effort required, which was definitively not the case with the rest of Britain. Furthermore, there was little downside. The Caledonians were not a significant threat-most of Rome's military presence on the island was to deal with internal threats, not outside threat from Caledonia.

Topographically southern Scotland is not very different from Wales or North-West England.

The Batavian revolt is almost 10 years after Boudicca's Revolt and cannot be separated from the context of the civil war caused by the Year of the Four Emperors. Actually, that revolt presents similar parallels to Boudicca-Roman armies were initially humiliated in a string of defeats, but Rome organized immense resources to retaliate and crush the Batavians, even during an existing civil war. I imagine they are willing to spare fewer resources for Britain than for Germany, but it does provide a good window into how the empire of this era handled such revolts on their frontiers.

My point about the Batavi revolt is to show that the area could end up being unstable in the short term, I hope you are not going to argue that it's literally impossible to have similar political crisis happening earlier.

We are not talking about the period of 66-70 CE, we are talking about 60-61 CE which had a different and more stable political climate than existed in the latter years of Nero's reign. Other than the limited and soon to be wrapped up Armenian War, there is no other major military threat Rome is dealing with for the next several years.

So the Romans can just relocate 2-4 legions on the fly with 0 repercussions? Why did they even keep costly legions on the limes if their presence was trivial?
At the very least wouldn't this relocation of existing resources mean that the Romans wouldn't expand in south-West Germany like they did OTL?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Topographically southern Scotland is not very different from Wales or North-West England.

Where did I mention topography?

My point about the Batavi revolt is to show that the area could end up being unstable in the short term, I hope you are not going to argue that it's literally impossible to have similar political crisis happening earlier.

It's not impossible, obviously. But political crises don't materialize out of thin air and Nero's reign did not seriously begin to come under threat until the Pisonian Conspiracy and the resulting fallout. If your POD is during Boudicca's revolt, Nero's regime is likely to be stable for at least a few more years, and the one thing that might trigger an early destabilization would be if he were unwilling to address military humiliation in Britain.

So the Romans can just relocate 2-4 legions on the fly with 0 repercussions? Why did they even keep costly legions on the limes if their presence was trivial?

Are you saying it will take 6 years for the Romans to muster the resources to respond to the crisis? For comparison, in the Jewish Revolt, the Romans deployed 5 full legions in Judea between 67 -69 CE. In the Batavian Revolt you mentioned, while still fighting and then recovering from the civil war eight Roman legions eventually put down the revolt (a revolt that had originally destroyed 2 Roman legions at its outset). These legions would take time to deploy and prepare an expedition, but Rome's ability to rapidly replace and redeploy entire armies in this period was unparalleled.

 

[Gloss]

Where did I mention topography?

Why exactly was Southern Scotland not worth it while Northern England was? There is no huge climatic difference between the 2 regions.

It's not impossible, obviously. But political crises don't materialize out of thin air and Nero's reign did not seriously begin to come under threat until the Pisonian Conspiracy and the resulting fallout.

Stable governments also don't materialize out of thin air, periods of complete peace and stability was also created by specific situations and weren't a given, this goes beyond the central government, stability in the provinces and in the limes was also caused by Roman successes deterring further invasions.
What would be the impact of the successful revolt among the Northern Germanic tribes? How would provincial Gaulish tribes think differently of Roman power in this case?
It doesn't make sense to only focus on Nero and the central government, plus like I said I find bizzarre the idea that we cannot deviate from OTL timeline, we have the power to imagine a lot of specific scenarios which could end up with Nero being ousted earlier, history is far more stochastic than people give it credit for.

Are you saying it will take 6 years for the Romans to muster the resources to respond to the crisis? For comparison, in the Jewish Revolt, the Romans deployed 5 full legions in Judea between 67 -69 CE. In the Batavian Revolt you mentioned, while still fighting and then recovering from the civil war eight Roman legions eventuall put down the revolt (a revolt that had originally destroyed 2 Roman legions at its outset).

No I'm saying that it's very plausible that whatever response the Roman can muster in 6 years won't inevitably succeed and that later political crises can give breathing room to the rebelling Britons to organize their armies and territories to resist in the long term. We also know that the process of relocating legions caused invasions in the undefended territories in other periods, so why would it be different here? There is clearly a opportunity cost associated with moving armies around.
Rome might have been lucky at some poins that the invasions were spaced out enough to give them the option of moving troops around but we know this is not always the case and frankly I strongly challenge the notion that we can use OTL pattern of invasions and peacetime to predict exactly how Germanic tribes and local revolts will play out, this seems very flawed AH reasoning to me.

About Judea, from what I know most/all of those legions were in the Levant or Anatolia already.

These legions would take time to deploy and prepare an expedition, but Rome's ability to rapidly replace and redeploy entire armies in this period was unparalleled.

The Achaemenids pretty flexible and were able to launch multiple invasions against Greece and other enemies, yet that didn't mean they were to succeeded just because of their own system.

 

[Elfwine]

We could theoretically have Nero die earlier (its always plausible to catch a fatal illness at the wrong time), have an early Year of Four Emperors, and have it also happen at a time that there are earlier/more severe revolts other than just in Britannia. That doesn't seem in and of itself implausible.

But it feels kind of "Well yes, if enough goes wrong for Rome elsewhere then it would probably fail to reconquer the area."

So for me, to misquote a later quote on invasions - I do not say that the Britons cannot become independent, I only say that they (probably) cannot become independent simply by "because Boudicca won at Watling Street" and what she could do with her resources.

 

[alexmilman]

Except...why? Britain was a lot less powerful and offered little benefit to Rome.

Britain exported lead, woollen products and tin and even at the age of conquest various goods had been imported from Gaul. Plus, it looks like it provided a good agricultural land for the settlements for the discharged soldiers. Unlike Germany, it was not a huge forest with a sparse population and it looks like the British Celts were easier opponents than the German tribes.

After burning three cities to the ground, they'd get the hint and back off at least during Boudica's lifetime

IIRC, before Suetonius’s victory Nero did consider withdrawing all Roman forces from Britain but he had only 7 more years to rule, probably less if withdrawal from Britain (and leaving murdered veterans unavenged) produces an additional pissing off effect. So probably when Vespansian is in, he finds few legions to send to Britain (which he helped to conquer in 43). By which time Boudica’s coalition was going to fell apart and, anyway, while we can assume that it could defeat 1.5 Roman legions ( Legio XIV Gemina, parts of the XX Valeria Victrix and auxiliaries, a total of 10,000 men) with the alleged 20:1 advantage (probably less), what is known about the British tactics of the time would probably lead to its defeat with the less favorable odds.

 

[Gloss]

But it feels kind of "Well yes, if enough goes wrong for Rome elsewhere then it would probably fail to reconquer the area."

That's how history sometimes works, "Well yes, if the Persians fail to conquer Greece 2 times, if the Greeks somehow manage to set their differences aside and create a pan-hellenic league and if they somehow alos manage to win offensive naval engagements the Persians will be kicked out of Europe and most of the Aegean"
"Enough going wrong" is ultimately what happened a couple of times and the consequences were disastrous as it is and could have been even worse for the Romans, plus that's what could be expected to happen in such a large empire anyway.

So for me, to misquote a later quote on invasions - I do not say that the Britons cannot become independent, I only say that they (probably) cannot become independent simply by "because Boudicca won at Watling Street" and what she could do with her resources.

Right, there is a range of events that could happen after such an event and not all of them end up with major changes but the problem for me is the argument that nothing particularly bad for the Romans could happen which is based on the assumption that Rome during the period was inherently internally stable enough which to me seems to stem from a surface-level reading of what transpired OTL.
We know how more fragile the limes and the army became within the course of a few decades in the 3rd century CE(Romans went from campaigning deep in Germania to have Alemans invade Northern Italy) and I think people don't really internalize those facts while focusing only on the chain of successes in the republican and early imperial period(trying to handwave it as the late antique institutions being worse seems also a weak explanation to me and it's not what historians seem to think anyway).
Plus the relative advancement of England which makes people think it was more open to conquest also should make it more open to internal unification or larger coalition among Britons.

 

[Evil Crusader]

I honestly don't understand how some people view Roman history, it seems that it's simplified down to "Rome is invincible and will never lose any long term conflict from 300 BCE to 200 CE or 300 CE and if they retreat from a region it means that region is objectively not worth it anyway, thus they made the right strategic choice and are still in practice undefeated"
It's not really helpful to discuss things within this framework.

Don't really see that. It's just, anybody can lose long term conflicts, but it needs proper context; expecting Rome to just lose especially considering it'll always be politically expedient to attempt a counter-invasion seems a bit on the unlikely side.
At which point sure, it can happen, but that isn't really helpful either.

 

[Elfwine]

That's how history sometimes works, "Well yes, if the Persians fail to conquer Greece 2 times, if the Greeks somehow manage to set their differences aside and create a pan-hellenic league and if they somehow alos manage to win offensive naval engagements the Persians will be kicked out of Europe and most of the Aegean"
"Enough going wrong" is ultimately what happened a couple of times and the consequences were disastrous as it is and could have been even worse for the Romans, plus that's what could be expected to happen in such a large empire anyway.

Sometimes being a crucial word here. I would not argue that a timeline where what I presented "couldn't happen", but I do think it's a stretch that such a timeline being possible is the same as establishing that Boudicca would probably have maintained Briton independence if she'd won at Watling Street.

Since one could also suggest its entirely possible that she dies of illness shortly after winning and thus can't do any of the things the first one suggests she'd do, and so on indefinitely.

Right, there is a range of events that could happen after such an event and not all of them end up with major changes but the problem for me is the argument that nothing particularly bad for the Romans could happen which is based on the assumption that Rome during the period was inherently internally stable enough which to me seems to stem from a surface-level reading of what transpired OTL.

OTL in Nero's time, or OTL in other periods?

What might have been a more than adequate system for what it was grappling with in one era might be inadequate for another even if it's not say, collecting less money in taxes or paying less soldiers in absolute terms - judging by the periods of Roman history I am most familiar with (post-sixth century) and of every other empire I've studied anything on - so I'm not exactly convinced that this helps the Britons in the first century.

 

[Gloss]

Sometimes being a crucial word here. I would not argue that a timeline where what I presented "couldn't happen", but I do think it's a stretch that such a timeline being possible is the same as establishing that Boudicca would probably have maintained Briton independence if she'd won at Watling Street.

Since one could also suggest its entirely possible that she dies of illness shortly after winning and thus can't do any of the things the first one suggests she'd do, and so on indefinitely.

In this case establishing what's probable here seems hard to do exactly for the reasons you mentioned. That applies in either direction.

OTL in Nero's time, or OTL in other periods?

Both.

What might have been a more than adequate system for what it was grappling with in one era might be inadequate for another even if it's not say, collecting less money in taxes or paying less soldiers in absolute terms, judging by the periods of Roman history I am most familiar with (post-sixth century) and of every other empire I've studied anything on.

What do you mean?