AHC- Roman British Empire

[Joshuapooleanox]

For your challenge, should you choose to accept it, make it so that the Roman Empire collapses, but the Romans are able to survive in Britain as an Imperial state, similar to the Byzantines in the East. It's capital and core centered in Britain. For additional points, even have them reconquer some of the former empire e.g. Northern France.

POD is... let's go with anything as long as its after 350 AD.
Good luck!

 

[Mental_Wizard]

A little late for the POD, but in 383 OTL Magnus Maximus seizes Britannia and other lands. Causing the remaining Roman lands under Theodosian control to fall to barbarians, but have Magnus' empire survive would result in something like this.

 

[LSCatilina]

The Eastern Roman state managed to survive because most of its provinces were untouched, as well as their fiscal revenues.
Britain on the other hand, Britain wasn't only underdevelloped structurally compared to other roman provinces, but suffered from damaging raids since the IIIrd century, and was economically not comparable to most of other roman provinces.

Not that some Romano-Brittanic entity couldn't have survived the fall of the western Roman state, tough. But Late Roman Britain was still relativelt backward even compared to western Romania, where local romanization was more a creolization than a structural assimilation and development, on which pre-Roman tribal features largely maintained themselves and reappeared in the IVth century : apart from the South-Eastern part of Britain, roman civilization, even partially, wasn't that present.
After the gradual roman withdrawal, and 407 being the proverbial last drop , you didn't have a roman army to speak of in Britain, no imperial-sanctioned general or governor; which is problematic giving that Roman Britain main identity was being a sort of military march, and what eventually maintained its political continuity : soon after, Britain shattered in a multitude of local (tribal, urban sometimes both) post-imperial entities.

You simply didn't have enough ground for a strong post-imperial Roman state (which is why the Saxon takeover took the form of a puzzle, contrary to the rest of western Romania) would it be political, institutional or economical.

It doesn't mean you couldn't end up with post-imperial Roman roughly unified ensemble tough.

We know that they were uifying features in sub-Roman Britain IOTL, while more regional and contextual than something out of a provincial identity (which, again, largely came from imperial and military continuity), at least military-wise : Riothamus/Ambrosius Aurelianus, possibly being the same person; and Coel Hen in the North are good exemples on a more or less romanized British potential high-kingship.

The problem, as such, isn't to have an overlording figure but to allow it to blossom out of it.
I think it's possible to maintain these high-kingship as they did in Ireland, Wales and Pictland in post-imperial Britain, forming roughly three or two ensemble in Northern, South-Eastern and Western post-Roman Britain.

At this point, Saxons were present in Britain, but on the Saxon Shore (southern shore of Britain) as former foedi and probably more or less mixed already with the local population. While I could see them being jumpgates for later Germanic settlement as IOTL, as it happened with a non insignificant part of Anglic and more particularily Jutic groups were formed from various western Germanic peoples as some Franks (probably accompanying Juti/Eucii as they branched out and rebranched in) while being pushed by Danes; stronger Romano-Brittons able to deal with the Gaelic and Pictic raids (possibly as well northern Brittonic raids), could lead to a lesser western Germanic presence in eastern Britain.

But still having a significant Germanic presence in post-Roman Britain is not only not that problematic, it could actually help things, turning to support and reinforce one of these high-kings on the long run.

Cerdic of Wessex may (altough the jury is still out) be the most obvious exemple of a mix of Britto-Romans and Barbarian elements in the Vth century IOTL. It wouldn't surprise me if you could have a Britto-Roman high-king, supported by the Saxons of the southern shores (or newcomers) managing to use the mobilised ressources to enforce its regional rule.

But while I could see reasonably romanized (as in largely creolized) Romano-Brittonic high-kingship, the idea of a Brittanic Empire can't really hold.

 

[Indicus]

But while I could see reasonably romanized (as in largely creolized) Romano-Brittonic high-kingship

Is it also possible that the king call himself Imperator?

 

[James XI]

Struggling with 'centered on'. Kinda either/or, imo. If you have the resources to sustain cross channel control, why would you stay centered in Britain with all the inherent extra cost necessary for any projection? If you don't have that kind of resources, how are you going to sustain much beyond Britain? I could see a real enclave in Britain alone...nobody say Arthur...or I could see Britain as part of a bigger rump state with considerable resources, like say an expanded Soissons, but anything in between seems to me unwieldy.

 

[LSCatilina]

Is it also possible that the king call himself Imperator?

I don't really think so, but my opinion is set there less on a limitation in post-imperial society, than nobody in Western Romania claimed the imperial title after the fall of its roman state : after all, you did have an emperor, and he was in Constantinople without anyone really disputing this evidence.
We could maybe see one of the high-king, being more or less successful at unifying and mobilising its ressources and territories, claiming to be imperator or basileus in order to stress their independence and technical overlordship as it happened with Kings of Scots IOTL (Edgar and Malcom IV) just before the Davidian Revolution, but even that was particularily late (the XIth century) so I don't expect it to happen any time soon ITTL.

To assert their overlordship and (relatively debatable) romanity, I'd really rather see the king/high-king using cognonem such as Flavius, which was used as a kingship/sovereign marker in Gothic Spain and Lombard Italy, or praenomen as Constantinus.

I could see a real enclave in Britain alone...nobody say Arthur...

The thing is, you didn't have the structures or ressources to back any unified imperial (or post-imperial for that matter) state in Britain : it was overmilitarized, in the sense that what maintained the Roman army in Britain were in large part the imperial ressources as a whole, Britain itself being seen as expendable.

I could possibly see a Northern Gaul/southern Britain imperial ensemble for a short while (it would ask massive changes to see this happening, tough), but for what it's worth, it would be more of an expension of Northern Gaul into southern Britain (not unlike IOTL Frankish influence in Britain in the VIth and VIIth centuries, incidentally) than a Britto-Gallic Empire.

I could see Britain as part of a bigger rump state with considerable resources, like say an expanded Soissons, but anything in between seems to me unwieldy.

The problem with percieved remnants such as Soissons or Mauretania is that they didn't really existed as such, being more carthographical convenience with little or none litterary evidence to back them up, than post-imperial Roman states (at the difference of various foedi, for instance).

Syragrius (from the famous Late Antiquity and Early Medieval Gallo-Roman family of Syagrii) as some local Gallo/Hispano-Roman rulers was probably more or less independent, but essentially locally so : in clear, Syagrius may have ruled only around Soissons, or at best up to Seine, with blurry borders with Franks (it's even possible that Soissons was held at some point by Chilperic), but nothing like an unified demesne betwen Somme and Loire. We know of at least one other comes in the region, the Franko-Roman Arbogast, and you probably had more that weren't named by Grégoire.

It's not as luch unwieldly (I kinda like this word, BTW) than not reflecting the reality of Vth century Gaul as much it would seems.

 

[darthfanta]

SNIP

I've seen an argument by a group of people once who claimed that Theodoric the Great was in fact an emperor and acknowledged as such by the Eastern Emperor,the group used the sending of Western Imperial Regalia to Theodoric as evidence to that.What's your take on that?

 

[LSCatilina]

I've seen an argument by a group of people once who claimed that Theodoric the Great was in fact an emperor and acknowledged as such by the Eastern Emperor,the group used the sending of Western Imperial Regalia to Theodoric as evidence to that.What's your take on that?

I think it's a bad interpretation of what was at stake. A Barbarian couldn't be considered as a Roman emperor, because it opposed two kind of political identity and citizenship.
Theodoric himself recieved a lot of roman titles (Consul, Patrician, Ausustus, Comes, Magister Militiae, etc.) that were (diversely) used by other Barbarian kings, such as Gundobad or Clovis, whom subservience to Constantinople was theoritical but more or less accepted*, but the imperial title was really out of question and it was never contested for centuries.

The misinterpretation over the return of regalia comes, IMO, to this essential part of Roman-Barbarian states relationship.
Now, what the sending of Roman regalia in 497 meant, because it certainly meant something, is a good question.

It's to be put in the context of why Odoacer was considered rebellious by Constantinople : having chased off emperors seen as usurpers by Constantinople, Odoacer generally recieved a similar treatment from the imperial court (Patricius and Rex) and concieved his mandate over Italy as similarily to how Theodoric did, the rightful maintain of the Roman state in Italy, under mroe or less technical suzerainty from Constantinople.
But, he eventually bet on the wrong horse supporting Leontius, Zeno's legitimacy being disputed, and the support of a still wealthy Italy against his rule (the accusation of mistreatment of Italo-Romans are essentially bogus) was not something the emperor was going to accept.

So, what was at core was the replacement of an independent subservient king in Italy, by another subservient and hopefully less meddling king in Italy. You'd note that between 493 and 497, Theodoric ruled over Italy without regalia of the western Roman state : the replacement of Odoacer by Theodoric didn't undermined the potential threat of a not-that-controlled Italy to ERE, and Theodoric supporting the pope against the emperor in the 490's, on the matter of the Henotikon, certainly didn't help.

Eventually, it was a complex three-sided exchange in the 490, with Gelasius, Theodoric and Anastasius being dependent on each other for what mattered their respective influence on Italy, and giving the regalia back in Italy in 497 was a way to satisfy everyone : Anastatius' overlordship was confirmed, Theodoric's legitimacy as well, and Gelasius found the pontifical power strengthened.

These regalia certainly didn't conferred an imperial title to Theodoric (it simply doesn't appear anywhere), but does highlight the "imperiality" of the Italian patricianship and kingship, both in suzerainty and structures (due to the Roman Senate, and being in the core of the former western Roman state), that wasn't as present elsewhere in western Romania (safe, maybe, in Africa, but that's another discussion). As such, it's rather a marker of the right of Ostrogoths to consider themselves rightful rulers of Italy under Constantinople : it's likely that Ostrogoths interpreted it as giving them the control of Illyricum (that was given to the eastern Roman state but occupied by minor Barbarian kingdoms at this point) and (maybe more rightfully, in a first time) a sign being primus inter pares among the Barbarian kingdoms as well.

The acknowledgement of Clovis as Consul, Patricius and generally rightful ruler of Gaul by Constantinople is eventually one of the consequences of the fall-out between Ravenna and Constantinople, in a way to show to Theodoric that giving the regalia didn't meant that Ostrogoths could meddle in Illyricum as they pleased, and that Anastasus didn't considered Theodoric as his second in western Romania but in Italy proper (which while it didn't really prevented Theodoric to pull a de facto protectorate on the Gothic kingdom of Spain as well a tight relationship with Burgundians, possibly helped to force the decline of Ostrogoths).

Long story short : this conception is IMO, altough the transmission of regalia is not anedcotical, a misunderstanding on how Romano-Barbarian relations worked, on the nature of the imperial function, and a tendency to construct arguments from assumptions and pseudo self-evidents truths by ignoring litterary sources.

*Basically, they entierly accepted to be considered as lieutnants of the emperors on the West, as long the emperor didn't tried to make them effective subservients lieutnants.

 

[darthfanta]

SNIP

So basically,giving the regalia to Theodoric is an attempt to appease the man by giving him an honorable but otherwise politically insignificant title(e.g. like how someone could be appointed Keeper of the Seal of Scotland by the absentee British monarch),but it ended up making the Ostrogoths think that Theodoric has been promoted to be the Viceroy of the entirety of what used to be the WRE?

 

[LSCatilina]

So basically,giving the regalia to Theodoric is an attempt to appease the man by giving him an honorable but otherwise politically insignificant title

That's the whole point of it : it wasn't insignificant as it clearly strengthened Theodoric's position in Italy and western Romania as a whole , and it wasn't an imperial title.

but it ended up making the Ostrogoths think that Theodoric has been promoted to be the Viceroy of the entirety of what used to be the WRE?

On this part specifically, it might not have been entierly an abusive interpretation by Theodoric (or rather not something coming out of blue) : Anastatus, by giving the regalia, did implied that Theodoric had some "specialness" in western Romania which was more or less acknowledged by Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths; altough by no mean an effective influence on their kingdoms, safe the protectorate over Spain. It backfired a bit for what mattered Illyricum (which was already an issue between Ravenna and Constantinople since the IVth century), and led Romans to promote Franks (or rather acknowledge their growth in power and influence) to counter Theodoric's ambitions.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

Honestly, I think you'd need a more sudden collapse in the West rather than a steady decline. Which retaining Britain could well lead to. (Oh, for ones homeland to be a liability). I do like the idea of Magnus Maximus taking control, but with less support in Gaul than IOTL - and retreating to Northern Gaul and Britannia - with Theodosius having to wrangle assertive Foederati who ally with Magnus, but don't serve him - essentially leading to Gaul being independent of both Rome and Britannia. I'm unsure as to the plausibility of this.

-----

My preference however, would be to see a Coel Hen Britannia. If we believe the story of the Battle of Coilsfield then a victory for Coel there could be a major boon. Lets be conservative and suggest that it leads to Coels territory also including Ayshire as well as a significant part of the Hen Oggled, a living Coel could choose, rather than have his lands divided on his death, mimic the Gaelic practice of Tanistry. Having the 'Coeling' (his progeny) electing the sole ruler after his death could work to set them up as the main military power, with the Hen Oggled coming to control Valentia and Maxima Caesarensis (basically an early Northumbria), before slowly (or rapidly in unusual circumstances, in a Alfred the Great and Sons way) uniting Britannia under a Romano-British dynasty that still holds onto the title of Dux Brittanniarum.

If we (for the sake of discussion) assume that most of the rest of the history of Western Europe goes as it did IOTL with Britannia being at most a wealthier place with little impact on continental affairs until Justinian (I struggle to see why this would change, other than butterflies erase everything), then between Coel Hen and Justinian I could see communication and a form of nominal loyalty of Britannia to the Emperor in Constantinople. I do like the idea of a Coeling 'Exarch of Britannia', or a general in his service being a counterpart to Belisarius - perhaps even leading a smaller invasion of Africa from the West, and involving Britannia in the Restoration - and even being involved in suppressing the Berber revolts, and later taking over from Belisarius in Italy/preventing the whole "I'll totes be WRE bro" thing and nipping Totila in the bud.

The only problem (besides some of the logistical ones in my Coeling Justiniana) is that we don't know a vast amount about Coel Hen, or the Hen Oggled - at least compared to a lot of other periods in history. That can lend itself to some great stories, but leaves me at a bit of a loss as to say what else, besides a potential disastrous battle, went wrong. But a Coel-Hen Britannia, where the Antonine Wall is [rebuilt/built/fortified/insert-accurate-term-here/cross-out-as-appropriate] could have the joint culture of S.Scotland and N.England at the time (I think it was called Middle Britain in a documentary a while back, but I forget which, Mea Culpa) dominate a united Roman Britain. We could have a capital in York (Eboracum), or my personal preference for a Britannia of the North - a new capital on the Mersey - perhaps rebuilt on the site of Portus Setantii (or where we think it might have been).

So yeah, TL;DR - Coeling Tanistry, and a measure of good luck and loyalty. Antonine Wall to limit issues with the Picts, and invasions of Ireland to deal with the Irish Sea pirate problem, and the Hen Oggled could well lead a unification of Roman Britain, and then the islands. The idea of a more Romano-Cumbric North, a Welsh 'West' and a Britanno-Saxon 'South' warms my heart. I still think it'd be all in the writing, rather than the evidence, that would 'sell' the plausibility. (A bit like Catos Cavalry in that respect).