AHC: Britannia abandoned by legions prior to AD 370?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
How could the Legions have been induced to abandon Brittania by 370, without simply moving forward events like the Barbarian victories at Adrianople (378) and the Rhine (405-406).

Would an Anglo-Saxon England emerge earlier? Might they be joined by other Germanic tribes?
 
How could the Legions have been induced to abandon Brittania by 370, without simply moving forward events like the Barbarian victories at Adrianople (378) and the Rhine (405-406).
It's going to be hard to have an terminal abandonment being totally unrelated : Barbarians caused most of geopolitical changes, even if indirectly (as in 407).

And for 370's, the problem would be that the imperial rule was strong enough to endure raids, even if weakened. You'd need a PoD really crushing the imperium, not only as the power in the continent but as well as the concept whom Brittons usurpers abided by, to be seen as obsolete.

It would probably pass trough a much more troubled Dominate period going downhill after Diocletian for some reason (I've some troubles finding what, to be honest), allowing usurpers as Carausius to flourish and try their chance in the continent against others claimants. Basically having a similar scenario than what happened a century later.

Personally, I'd see an abandonment happening in the 380's or 390's a bit more likely.

Maximus leaves Britain with more troops than IOTL in 383 (or rather, having lost more troops, have to takes more) in order to affirm his claim to imperium.
Eventually with a more troubled and hard attempt to get imperium over western part of the Empire (an earlier death of Theodosius? It could work, although we need a reason for Maximus to have an harder time earlier, in Gaul), preventing part of Northern Britain troops to return in the province...

Eventually, with fewer troops in the wake of a renew of Pict, Gaelic and Germanic raids, you could have the province being abandoned earlier, in the 390's.


Would an Anglo-Saxon England emerge earlier?
Hard to say. It depends from the PoD : one in the IIIrd century may favour as well Gaels and Picts than Western Germanic peoples (that you'd certainly see popping around)

Might they be joined by other Germanic tribes?
Well, they did IOTL.

Frisians, Franks certainly banded together with Angles, Saxons, Jutes; these being less unified tribes than groups sharing a more or less close kingships (as Euthiones in the continent, and their kin coming from North Sea's shores) still working around during their ethnogenesis.

The question is more, how much this ethnogenesis would be changed, depending of the PoD.
One set in the late IVth would see little of it, would it be only because Germanic presence on Channel coasts (Britain and Gaul) was already a thing.
One set earlier, though...while it's really hard to say how this ethnogenesis would be changed, it would certainly be : maybe more about south-western Germanic groups (as, for exemple, Franks ending as one of the leading ones?)
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
thanks- this was an interesting response-

regarding the alternative of a predominantly Irish or Pictish conquest, I wonder why that was not much of a thing ultimately, at least in places like Wales and Cornwall (for the Irish) and Northumbria (for the Picts).

Of course, on the Picts, I have been starting to hear that possibly they may not have been either very distinctive or highly Gaelic, rather they were ethnically and linguistically pretty much the same people as pre-Romanized Brythons.
 
regarding the alternative of a predominantly Irish or Pictish conquest, I wonder why that was not much of a thing ultimately, at least in places like Wales and Cornwall (for the Irish) and Northumbria (for the Picts).
Well, Gaelic influence in Britain was quite important historically : in Scotland, obviously, but as well in Wales (Dyfed seems to have been importantly gaelicized) or even beyond. The capacity of Irish missions to go deep enough around Irish Sea may have been related to Gaelic presence on both sides of it.

Lack of historical sources (and relative closeness you pointed out between insular peoples) makes it hard to fully appreciate their influence, but I think it shouldn't be underestimated.

Now what would be needed to make it obvious? Maybe a deeper differenciation between Brythonic and Gaelic people, preventing a quick fusion of populations (unchristianized Gaels, maybe?)

Eventually, Germanic presence may have been more organized since Roman times (as settling them on Saxon Shore, in more important and prosperous regions), and then maybe more inclusive of native elements (as in Wessex?)
Federated Scoti in Late Roman Britain may lead to a more important Gaelic "England" prosperity.

Of course, on the Picts, I have been starting to hear that possibly they may not have been either very distinctive or highly Gaelic, rather they were ethnically and linguistically pretty much the same people as pre-Romanized Brythons.
Well, we have too few informations about Picts to be certain of anything.
That said, I'd think Picts were enough distinct as a group of people in Early MA : Bede specifically mentions Pictish, Gaelic and Brythonic as different languages, after all.

That said, it could be the result of the "bastardisation" of a (already distinct?) "Northern Brythonic" trough contact with Gaelic speeches, as toponimy have a fair shere of likeness for what exist in Northern Britain.

Between the IVth and IXth centuries, you may had a fair deal of "creolisation", making it both distinct from Cymric and Gaelic alike, making it some sort of weird middle form between Q and P insular Celtic. Again, lack of important sources makes the solution uncertain.

Eventually, I'd lean to think that Gaels weren't outsiders for Picts, trough centuries of trade and political contact, making them (while distinct from Gaels) more inclined to be politically inclusive (that said, we know that Gaels of Dal Riata loathed Pictish kingship even when they submitted to it)
 
Top