AHC Challenge: Boudicca defeats Romans

How could Boudicca drive of the Roman invaders? I'm guessing she doesn't fall for Suetonius's bait, but it might be better just to replace him with a different, weaker Roman general. Also, if she does drive them off, will they stay away from Britannia? How long would they? And what kind of culture could develop in an England without Roman influence?
 
How could Boudicca drive of the Roman invaders? I'm guessing she doesn't fall for Suetonius's bait, but it might be better just to replace him with a different, weaker Roman general. Also, if she does drive them off, will they stay away from Britannia? How long would they? And what kind of culture could develop in an England without Roman influence?

It would be very hard for her tribal levies to defeat a Roman Legion in a pitched battle.

And there's a high probability that the Empire will just send more Legions to show that they will not tolerate rebellion.
 
The Iceni outnumber the legion by at least two to one. If they attacked at night or caught them off guard they might at least win a battle without losing too much men.

Also, there weren't too many roman cities in Briton at the time. The Empire could decide it was too much trouble than it was worth and focus their efforts elsewhere.
 
The Romans would just invade again. For starters, Rome always gets revenge, even on Arminius. Briton is far more profitable than Germania was as well, plus the entire roman army isn't completely exhausted like they were at the time of teutoberg (from the Illyrian revolt). Finally, the whole reason Rome invaded Britain in the first place was because their good trading relations with various southern British tribes since the time of Caesar were beginning to break up. They were content to leave Briton alone as long as they were still getting similar economic benefits from Britain that they would get with occupation.

So no matter what Boudicca does, the Romans will come back and be better prepared to fight her than they were previously.
 
Maybe. But how would it look afterwards? Would Rome just rebuild their cities and everything goes back to the way it was? Or would they try to Romanize everything as much as possible?

We could have England be the ATL equivalent of Scotland.;)
 
Well, when the Romans got their revenge for Teutoberg Forest, they didn't go back into settling Germania, though. maybe that could be the case with Brittania, too? Would the Romans be content with just leaving a weakened, splintered Britain after getting their revenge on Boudicca? That would mean a completely different Britain, and a completely Europe as a result.
 
If Boudicca beats Suetonius and forces the Romans to withdraw from the island (Nero was considering doing so before Suetonius won at Watling Street) then I can't see them bothering to come back until at least the Flavian Dynasty (assuming they aren't butterflied away).
 
Well, when the Romans got their revenge for Teutoberg Forest, they didn't go back into settling Germania, though. maybe that could be the case with Brittania, too? Would the Romans be content with just leaving a weakened, splintered Britain after getting their revenge on Boudicca? That would mean a completely different Britain, and a completely Europe as a result.
like I said, after teutoberg the roman armies were over exhausted. They had practically no reserves to call on, which is why they freaked out. Germanicus wanted to reestsblish roman control over Germania but Tiberius want about to let Germanicus become any more popular if he could help it. Plus, Britain is far more economically valuable than Germania was at the time. Adding to that the Romans did with Germania what they had been doing with Britain prior to conquest: play the tribes off each other and keep friendly connections with certain tribes to ensure thier interests were followed.

Vespasian might be a good candidate to reconsider Britain. After all, he played a critical role in the invasion of Britain by Claudius.
 
The Romans would just invade again. For starters, Rome always gets revenge, even on Arminius. Briton is far more profitable than Germania was as well, plus the entire roman army isn't completely exhausted like they were at the time of teutoberg (from the Illyrian revolt). Finally, the whole reason Rome invaded Britain in the first place was because their good trading relations with various southern British tribes since the time of Caesar were beginning to break up. They were content to leave Briton alone as long as they were still getting similar economic benefits from Britain that they would get with occupation.

So no matter what Boudicca does, the Romans will come back and be better prepared to fight her than they were previously.

I would agree that the Romans would want to punish the British, but it would have been very expensive (both in troops and materials) and we are close to the Year of the Four Emporers so unrest in Rome was on the boil. August's planning invasion in the 30's BC was put off due to weather and Claudius only suceeded with help of British inter-tribal warfare.

If Boudicca could defeat the Romans at Watling Street AND the weather favoured her it is possible that a Roman reprisal could be defeated (or just never happen) AS LONG as she could count on the Kent and Sussex tribes to remain loyal to her.

Britain would still remain a trading partner with Gaul but as long as they kept their noses out of Gaulish anti-roman activity they would propably remain unconquerer.
 
Is it possible that something could go badly pear-shaped closer to home? A slightly earlier year of four emperors or simiar successsion crisis leading to a long civil war? Plague or Persian invasion? Or such a disaster happening during a civil war?

You'd need something that severly damaged the power and reach of Rome for a long time to keep them from coming back. I'm not sure of any single event that could do that (barring massive geological events) but maybe an unfortunate combination of several things?
 
I have never really understood what the driving force for the expansion of the Roman empire was.
The Brits wanted more trade (at least initially) and the Spanish wanted the gold / other resources. What drive the Romans forward?
 
I have never really understood what the driving force for the expansion of the Roman empire was.
The Brits wanted more trade (at least initially) and the Spanish wanted the gold / other resources. What drive the Romans forward?

Various schools of thought on this. Some believe it was deliberate expansion to control the known world kind of thinking, others believe it was expansion by necessity to protect borders and citizens etc. Personally fall into the "both" category and go with desire to see what's over the next hill combined with great oppurtunities.
 
I have never really understood what the driving force for the expansion of the Roman empire was.
The Brits wanted more trade (at least initially) and the Spanish wanted the gold / other resources. What drive the Romans forward?

I think there are many reasons. Carthage was conquered out of a feeling that they were only defending themselves and Gaul probably had a similar line of thought. Dacia was definitely conquered out of a mixture of self-defence and the Romans seeking to punish the Dacians for broken treaties, while Britannia was probably conquered so Claudius could secure his rule. Overall, there was a whole host of reasons for Rome to expand, IMO.
 
Boudicca's victory in a battle combined with a year of four emperors might cause the Romans to withdraw from Britain, at least for her lifetime.
 
I have never really understood what the driving force for the expansion of the Roman empire was.
The Brits wanted more trade (at least initially) and the Spanish wanted the gold / other resources. What drive the Romans forward?

Start with the history – the city of Rome began its expansion when the last of the Etruscan Kings were overthrown and the Oligarchs in charge looked with lust towards the city of Veii. All the conditions were right for Roman expansionism – a favourable climate enhanced food production translating into a growing population which the city itself could not support therefore expansionism was inevitable. The Greeks were sailing increasingly westwards bringing their ideas and items for trade which the Republic took very quickly to heart.

After subduing their neighbours and rising to the top of the pile, the Romans effectively repeated these steps throughout history. Oh I dare say the sack of Rome by the Gauls also changed the Roman mindset incorporating a “never again” mentality which is why the Punic Wars were a vicious set of campaigns thrown in with the wars against Macedonia in support of their Carthaginian allies.

With the death of Alexander and his heirs splitting his former empire several ways, there was a large power vacuum in the Mediterranean and the Levant which the Romans were the first to take advantage of. The discovery of huge silver deposits encouraged Carthage to look west and the Romans quickly followed. The burgeoning Republic was no longer able to feed itself so grain ships from Egypt had to be secured and the path from Egypt to Rome had to be kept clear of any foreign or pirate interference hence the need for a large army and navy.

But the army and navy had to be kept occupied – an idle professional army in those days are just as likely to overthrow the rulers and the generals and admirals would take charge. The slave-based economy also required a constant and steady source of supply in order to keep the currency buoyant. Rome was in a unique position to take advantage of all these factors, of the weaknesses of her neighbours, the weaknesses of local politics by providing strong leadership and that’s why the Roman Empire was in a position to dominate events for a millennia.
 
I would agree that the Romans would want to punish the British, but it would have been very expensive (both in troops and materials) and we are close to the Year of the Four Emporers so unrest in Rome was on the boil. August's planning invasion in the 30's BC was put off due to weather and Claudius only suceeded with help of British inter-tribal warfare.

If Boudicca could defeat the Romans at Watling Street AND the weather favoured her it is possible that a Roman reprisal could be defeated (or just never happen) AS LONG as she could count on the Kent and Sussex tribes to remain loyal to her.

Britain would still remain a trading partner with Gaul but as long as they kept their noses out of Gaulish anti-roman activity they would propably remain unconquerer.

An emperor who secures his power after the year of the 4 emperors would look to Britain as a nice place to gain some military glory against foreigners and not Romans. Vespasian especially, because he was after all, involved in the initial conquest to begin with.


I think there are many reasons. Carthage was conquered out of a feeling that they were only defending themselves and Gaul probably had a similar line of thought. Dacia was definitely conquered out of a mixture of self-defence and the Romans seeking to punish the Dacians for broken treaties, while Britannia was probably conquered so Claudius could secure his rule. Overall, there was a whole host of reasons for Rome to expand, IMO.
Gaul was conquered because Caesar needed military glory and the gold that came with it or else he would stand trial upon his return, and be hounded by his moneylenders. One of the reasons for Claudius invading Britain was to secure his rule, but the major overarching reason, was the breakdown in the trading relationships between the southern british tribes and the romans in the century after Caesar.
 
Roman-Briton Nerd Here

WAY back in the mists of prehistory, during the short reign of Princeps Jimmy of the Carters the Hero of Canton wrote his MA Thesis in History on the Roman Occupation of Britain. Shocked and elated by this unexpected academic success he remained slavishly devoted to that misty and benighted island to this very day.

Which goes to say that IMCO if Queen Boudiccia's mob of barbarians had managed to overwhelm the Romans under Governor Paulinus through their overwhelming numerical superiority the surviving Romans would have tried to evacuate rather than being wiped out. How many would succeed? The Classis Britannica would obviously do its best to save soldiers and Roman citizens, but IMCO transport would be inadequate to the task. Boudicca's warbands would have enjoyed successes similar to the sacks of Colchester, London and St. Albans when they went for Glouchester, Cirenchester, and York.

Nero MIGHT have panicked and ordered the province abandoned. That would have been a HUGE blow to his credibility and legitimacy and might have brought him down prior to his 69 AD fall in OTL.

Whoever emerged from the Year of the "n" Emperors would have felt obliged to reconquer or at the very least invade to harshly punish the Britons as Tiberius and Germanicus did in Germany after the Varan Disaster. If Vespasian wins the civil war as in OTL it is my considered opinion that he would have made sure Britannia was reconquered or at the very least severely punished and reduced to client status. He would have had scant choice given how Romans historically treated defeats..."peace can only come after a Roman victory." Maybe Agricola would have been supported enough to enable the complete conquest of Britannia-Caledonia-Hibernia.

That's my 2 sestertii anyway.

Hero of Canton

P.S. Subscribed!
 
Last edited:
Top