AHC: Roman Legions Remain in Britain

What would it take for Roman legions to remain in Britain after the empire itself pulls out? A civil war where the pretender is stranded in Britannia and Rome simply doesn't bother to invade it?
 
What would it take for Roman legions to remain in Britain after the empire itself pulls out? A civil war where the pretender is stranded in Britannia and Rome simply doesn't bother to invade it?
For them to realize that leaving Britain wouldn't improve the situation a bit,only to make it worse.IOTL,the Roman garrison left Britain not because the Empire pulled out,but because they felt they were neglected by the empire for not doing enough to help defend Britannia,and decided to make one of their own emperor.It exascerbated the already chaotic situation in Gaul where the barbarians have just crossed the Rhine and hindered Rome's effort to fight the barbarians.By the time the Empire was finished with destroying the British armies,the empire decided not to bother with Britain anymore,and didn't bother invading it.
 
Last edited:

jahenders

Banned
For them to realize that leaving Britain wouldn't improve the situation a bit,only to make it worse.IOTL,the Roman garrison left Britain not because the Empire pulled out,but because they felt they were neglected by the empire for not doing enough to help defend Britannia,and decided to make one of their own emperor.It exascerbated the already chaotic situation in Gaul where the barbarians have just crossed the Rhine and hindered Rome's effort to fight the rebellions.By the time the Empire was finished with destroying the British armies,the empire decided not to bother with Britain anymore,and didn't bother invading it.

Agreed. Way too many cases of that in Roman history -- someone leading several legions into an area, NOT to quell the chaos, but to take advantage of it.
 
The challenge is pretty simple, either have a leader emerge who has the foresight to see that the Empire is exposed and doomed and so stays on his island - or one of his officers kill him for rebelling against the Empire, and takes his place to lead a Roman Successor State. (The irony being he might be the ancestor of a WRE if all goes well).

The issue would be that he'd need to establish a fully local logistic network for the troops - which would be great, and likely support a cheaper army that could unite the islands.

I'd love to see the Britannic Legions, less metal, more leather, more sailing skills. More N.Atlantic Marines than Italian H.Infantry.
 
The challenge is pretty simple, either have a leader emerge who has the foresight to see that the Empire is exposed and doomed and so stays on his island - or one of his officers kill him for rebelling against the Empire, and takes his place to lead a Roman Successor State. (The irony being he might be the ancestor of a WRE if all goes well).

The issue would be that he'd need to establish a fully local logistic network for the troops - which would be great, and likely support a cheaper army that could unite the islands.

I'd love to see the Britannic Legions, less metal, more leather, more sailing skills. More N.Atlantic Marines than Italian H.Infantry.
Why?Plenty of metal in Britannia.
 
Why?Plenty of metal in Britannia.

Safer when sailing? Some metal is practical, too much leads to being unable to swim and drowning.

Plus non-metal armor is cheaper, which in the early transformation from Roman to Britannic Legion is a major concern. I'm not saying no metal at all, but probably leather with thin metal strips to prevent slashing injuries and soften thrusts - rather than a full suit in metal that causes a Barbarossa.
 
Last edited:
Safer when sailing? Some metal is practical, too much leads to being unable to swim and drowning.

Plus non-metal armor is cheaper, which in the early transformation from Roman to Britannic Legion is a major concern. I'm not saying no metal at all, but probably leather with thin metal strips to prevent slashing injuries and soften thrusts - rather than a full suit in metal that causes a Barbarossa.
How effective are navies supposed to be?I have heard plenty of arguments and plenty of counter-arguments over whether navies are effective at stopping invasion forces from landing during the Dark Ages and the Medieval period,especially in Britain.I have seen some rather glaring examples of naval invasions being stopped like the Battle of Cape Bon but there were also plenty of times where the navy's generally ineffective.The English navy most notably failed to stop most of the invasions during the Medieval period.

Another thing is that equipment of naval personnel should not be the same as army troops.
 
Last edited:
How effective are navies supposed to be?I have heard plenty of arguments and plenty of counter-arguments claiming that navies in the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages are generally ineffective at stopping an invasion force landing.

Historically and IMO the British Isles always did better shipping large volumes of goods by sea - this seems relevant for armies too. Admittedly there is still a need for inland forces, Britain isn't that narrow, but at those points armor can be stowed for use on inland campaigns/actions.

But for coastal defense, and rapid deployment - leather armour works best.

For stopping landings, they may not be the most effective (it entirely depends on how they operate), but for intercepting logistics or harassing reinforcements, or intercepting an invading fleet - navies are great, with the right setup for communicating invasion. They even help to move armies from across the isles to the point of invasion quickly, to intercept them when they are on land.

It might not be overnight, but I don't doubt the ability of a non-Dark Ages Britannia being able to develop the navy that would allow them to stop an invasion force. Just prior to that you'd be using the navy for rapid deployment, with troops able to fight on land and sea.
 
Safer when sailing? Some metal is practical, too much leads to being unable to swim and drowning.

Plus non-metal armor is cheaper, which in the early transformation from Roman to Britannic Legion is a major concern. I'm not saying no metal at all, but probably leather with thin metal strips to prevent slashing injuries and soften thrusts - rather than a full suit in metal that causes a Barbarossa.


Oh so you mean more wool? Quilted woollen armour is reasonably effective leather with thin metal strips is for glamour models and bikers. The big problem with any armour though is that if it is thick or study enough to be effective it will effect your movement and make swimming awkward anyway. So the question generally comes down to which are you more worried about, the enemy putting something sharp in you or falling off your ship and most of us most of the time manage not to fall off our ships.
 
Historically and IMO the British Isles always did better shipping large volumes of goods by sea - this seems relevant for armies too. Admittedly there is still a need for inland forces, Britain isn't that narrow, but at those points armor can be stowed for use on inland campaigns/actions.

But for coastal defense, and rapid deployment - leather armour works best.

For stopping landings, they may not be the most effective (it entirely depends on how they operate), but for intercepting logistics or harassing reinforcements, or intercepting an invading fleet - navies are great, with the right setup for communicating invasion. They even help to move armies from across the isles to the point of invasion quickly, to intercept them when they are on land.

It might not be overnight, but I don't doubt the ability of a non-Dark Ages Britannia being able to develop the navy that would allow them to stop an invasion force. Just prior to that you'd be using the navy for rapid deployment, with troops able to fight on land and sea.
Against who?To invade Ireland or Saxony?
 
Oh so you mean more wool? Quilted woollen armour is reasonably effective leather with thin metal strips is for glamour models and bikers. The big problem with any armour though is that if it is thick or study enough to be effective it will effect your movement and make swimming awkward anyway. So the question generally comes down to which are you more worried about, the enemy putting something sharp in you are falling off your ship and most of us most of the time manage not to fall off our ships.

I'm thinking it would be more useful during a naval engagement - if your enemy is in bulky/heavy armor, it is easier to throw them off balance, and then let them drown. Makes ship ramming more practical, as you can damage their ship, knock their guys into the water, and if you lose a few guys, they are more likely to be able to survive. (I'm spitballing here, forgive me). Perhaps I'm being naive, but something not unlike Mongolian plating seems sensible to me, or essentially some thin square scaling on the chest and arms. Not an armor expert.

Against who?To invade Ireland or Saxony?

Raiders? Being able to react and pursue would be practical, and may lead to invasions of Ireland. Also helps in Scotland to invade coastal and island communities.
 

Artaxerxes

Banned
IIRC the garrison were stripped out in one of the many civil wars and attempts to shore up the continent, then never put back.

The Legions were also heavily subsidised and required a lot of tax revenue to maintain, I believe some theories suggest that what garrisons were left did stay locally and at least partly form the nucleus of some settlements or future chiefdoms.
 
I'm thinking it would be more useful during a naval engagement - if your enemy is in bulky/heavy armor, it is easier to throw them off balance, and then let them drown. Makes ship ramming more practical, as you can damage their ship, knock their guys into the water, and if you lose a few guys, they are more likely to be able to survive. (I'm spitballing here, forgive me). Perhaps I'm being naive, but something not unlike Mongolian plating seems sensible to me, or essentially some thin square scaling on the chest and arms. Not an armor expert.



Raiders? Being able to react and pursue would be practical, and may lead to invasions of Ireland. Also helps in Scotland to invade coastal and island communities.
Is useful for invading Ireland or Scotland,but too hard to pursue raiders.
 
I'm thinking it would be more useful during a naval engagement - if your enemy is in bulky/heavy armor, it is easier to throw them off balance, and then let them drown. Makes ship ramming more practical, as you can damage their ship, knock their guys into the water, and if you lose a few guys, they are more likely to be able to survive. (I'm spitballing here, forgive me). Perhaps I'm being naive, but something not unlike Mongolian plating seems sensible to me, or essentially some thin square scaling on the chest and arms. Not an armor expert.

Well the thing is the Roman legions did in their past have a certain amount of experience in hand to hand combat on ships...think the wars against Carthage and the Battle of Actium and the inhabitants of the British Isles would acquire some experience of the same. Generally speaking the Romans decided what they liked was to bring their boats alongside and beat the snot out of the enemy's crew and for well into the 19th Century the British found that the most effective naval tactic was to bring your boat alongside and beat the snot out of their crew (of course heavy cannon are even better than boarding for this but the main target was still the crew of the other ship).

Throughout history an awful lot of sailors could not swim terribly well and if you are knocked into the water in a battle you might not be in a very swimming mood anyway.



Raiders? Being able to react and pursue would be practical, and may lead to invasions of Ireland. Also helps in Scotland to invade coastal and island communities.

Your proposed defensive system on the other hand sounds a lot like the Anglo-Saxon Burh system employed most famously by Alfred the Great. You cannot protect everyone but secure your most essential population ie craftsmen, rulers, soldiers behind stout wall along with your grain supplies and treasury and then move reinforcements around the coasts to counter incursions before they can mount any kind of effective siege.

Nothing works perfectly but invasions of Britain failed more often than they succeeded so it clearly did not suck.
 
Is useful for invading Ireland or Scotland,but too hard to pursue raiders.

Possibly, but the idea would certainly be a deterrent.

Well the thing is the Roman legions did in their past have a certain amount of experience in hand to hand combat on ships...think the wars against Carthage and the Battle of Actium and the inhabitants of the British Isles would acquire some experience of the same. Generally speaking the Romans decided what they liked was to bring their boats alongside and beat the snot out of the enemy's crew and for well into the 19th Century the British found that the most effective naval tactic was to bring your boat alongside and beat the snot out of their crew (of course heavy cannon are even better than boarding for this but the main target was still the crew of the other ship).

Your proposed defensive system on the other hand sounds a lot like the Anglo-Saxon Burh system employed most famously by Alfred the Great. You cannot protect everyone but secure your most essential population ie craftsmen, rulers, soldiers behind stout wall along with your grain supplies and treasury and then move reinforcements around the coasts to counter incursions before they can mount any kind of effective siege.

Nothing works perfectly but invasions of Britain failed more often than they succeeded so it clearly did not suck.

I should have recalled that system! I don't see why a military man couldn't come up with a similar idea. The principle of walled fortifications aren't alien to the Romans, the Saxon Shore shows that to be the case.

Regarding ship tactics, I'm aware that was how naval warfare worked most of the time. I'm a fan of tactical flexibility, and being able to ram or board (or both!) with a single ship could be a powerful tactical advantage.

Hehehe, an amusing aside, an alt-Burh system could create a system where a British Senate/Parliament, originally a military body, becomes the method that the polity appoints its "First Citizen". A Senate of Britain rebuilding the Senate of Rome! The ability to cast the vote as "representative" is the reward for providing the obligations of the alt-Burh system. Roman Senate and British Parliament rolled into one!

Admittedly the survival of this Britannia would almost certainly rely on the continent going "Britain is too poor to bother with", avoiding the devastation of raids that the continent suffers, to transition to "It is too difficult to raid, despite the value".
 
It's worthwhile to note that until the 1500s,most of the fleets that set sailed to conquer England ends up landing unopposed by the English navy.

Which is why you have inland fortifications. The means of detection available means interception at sea is less than likely in this period but for long range movement ships are very useful So rather than trying to stop the enemy you react quickly to their incursion. The aim being to stop them establishing a base of supply, more armies were defeated by the old friends of the defence starvation and disease than by actual combat so even if you cannot bring to bear enough troops to win in open battle if you can secure your main food stocks and then have troops on hand to harass the foragers of the enemy you can make any incursion be it a raid or a full scale invasion very uncomfortable.
 
Which is why you have inland fortifications. The means of detection available means interception at sea is less than likely in this period but for long range movement ships are very useful So rather than trying to stop the enemy you react quickly to their incursion. The aim being to stop them establishing a base of supply, more armies were defeated by the old friends of the defence starvation and disease than by actual combat so even if you cannot bring to bear enough troops to win in open battle if you can secure your main food stocks and then have troops on hand to harass the foragers of the enemy you can make any incursion be it a raid or a full scale invasion very uncomfortable.
So basically,we will be expecting very few ship to ship combat from the likes the Actium is that correct?
 
So basically,we will be expecting very few ship to ship combat from the likes the Actium is that correct?

I would generally expect actions like Actium to be the exception rather than the rule, obviously you would want to be able to win it should one occur but if yours is the navy/fleet that is good at this ship to ship stuff then you can expect other fleets to try and avoid action. Which is fine as the main purpose of your navy is to allow you strategic mobility, sea denial would be a nice ability to have as well but that awaits an era with better ships that can stay at sea for longer.
 
I would generally expect actions like Actium to be the exception rather than the rule, obviously you would want to be able to win it should one occur but if yours is the navy/fleet that is good at this ship to ship stuff then you can expect other fleets to try and avoid action. Which is fine as the main purpose of your navy is to allow you strategic mobility, sea denial would be a nice ability to have as well but that awaits an era with better ships that can stay at sea for longer.
@RodentRevolution

So why bother changing most of your equipment to suit naval use if you aren't expected to fight naval battles in the first place?First off,there's most likely only enough ships to transport a small portion of your troops.Secondly,if you are invading someone in Ireland or Scotland,you most likely won't be fighting D-Day style battles.Most landings in this era were met unopposed.
 
Top