Boudicca wins at Watling St.

Boudicca sends several thousand warriors through the woods at the battle of Watling Street, going behind and massacring the Romans. Do the Romans care to reconquer a backwards province? Does Boudicca hold the tribes together to form a government? Britain without Roman influence remains pagan or becomes Christian or a mix, like Iceland? With Rome's departure 300+ years earlier does the Britain get a head start on consolidating the islands or held back?
 
From what I understand, the woods were behind the Roman position, but their flanks were protected by a narrow gorge. Outflanking such a position would probably be slow going, and the rebellion had gone so well up to this point that Boudicca almost certainly had grown overconfident, especially with her numerical advantage.

Still, supposing this happened...I dunno, the Romans took a long time to cut the island loose even though it never stopped being a significant manpower sink with incessant rebellions. Think they'd make at least one last attempt to redress the issue with a punitive expedition. If that failed, then they'd more likely give it up. I still doubt Boudicca could keep everyone together, though. If the Romans did call it quits on using direct force, then their logical next strategy would be to pit different tribes against each other to protect local commerce from raiders.
 
Would Watling Street be enough expel Romans from the island? And even if Romans would be expelled they are coming back with more legions. Romans don't accept defeat and löossing of their province to barbar woman. Boudicca might last some years longer but is still going to lost to Romans.
 
I can imagine Boudicca's victory here may result in the Romans retreating to their strongholds on the island, but I don't believe it would be enough to expel them entirely. However, if the Britons are able to restrict the Romans to a smaller Roman Pale along the southern and southeastern coasts, it would be a tremendous achievement and dramatically alter Britain's history.
 
IIRC, Nero was strongly considering giving up on Britannia entirely. Should Boudicca's military success have continued, he'd probably have decided to abandon the island. Of course, that would probably have some pretty adverse effects on him...
 
Would Watling Street be enough expel Romans from the island? And even if Romans would be expelled they are coming back with more legions. Romans don't accept defeat and löossing of their province to barbar woman. Boudicca might last some years longer but is still going to lost to Romans.

Augustus gave up Germany after Teutoberg, and was content with a nominal submission from the Parthians after Crassus' and Antony's failed expeditions. And indeed, post-Augustan Romans didn't do much expansion compared to their forebears. Whilst "Romans don't accept defeat" is arguably true of the Republican period, by the first century there seems to have been a growing realisation that the Empire was reaching the limits of what it could realistically conquer, and I'd expect a major defeat at Boudicca's hands to be seen as a sign that Britain was too distant to keep control of. Most likely there'd be a punitive expedition or two with some nominal submission from the southern British leaders, but no meaningful direct rule.
 
IIRC, Nero was strongly considering giving up on Britannia entirely. Should Boudicca's military success have continued, he'd probably have decided to abandon the island. Of course, that would probably have some pretty adverse effects on him...
I doubt Nero would go through with it. Watling Street, as others have mentioned, would not completely expel the Romans from the island. Though if he does pull out, perhaps his reign, which had already becoming shaky after the events of 59 CE, might end sooner. Nero was already launching treason trials as early as 62 CE IOTL anyway-one might expect with things going even worse for him on the foreign policy front, he might hasten this process. Something like the Pisonian conspiracy may pop up earlier, and perhaps be more successful. Incidentally, in contrast to defeat in Britain, at the same time Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo is experiencing a remarkable run of success in the east against the Parthians, and he'd make an attractive candidate for opposition to rally around. Indeed, IOTL the son in law of Corbulo, Lucius Annius Vinicianus hatched a plot to overthrow Nero in 62 CE. It's not hard to see how such a plot could gain more steam if the situation in Rome gets noticeably worse in 61 and 62.

Regardless, if Nero pulls out of Britain, one thing becomes apparent: The allure of reconquering Britain would likely be enough for a new Roman expedition once a new emperor takes over for him. It has all the components: the important resource value of Britain, righting Nero's wrongs for abandoning the island, and providing a new military triumph against non-Romans to inaugurate the new regime.

Augustus gave up Germany after Teutoberg, and was content with a nominal submission from the Parthians after Crassus' and Antony's failed expeditions. And indeed, post-Augustan Romans didn't do much expansion compared to their forebears. Whilst "Romans don't accept defeat" is arguably true of the Republican period, by the first century there seems to have been a growing realisation that the Empire was reaching the limits of what it could realistically conquer, and I'd expect a major defeat at Boudicca's hands to be seen as a sign that Britain was too distant to keep control of. Most likely there'd be a punitive expedition or two with some nominal submission from the southern British leaders, but no meaningful direct rule.
Rome was in a uniquely weak military situation following Teutoberg that they were not in during Boudicca's rebellion. What made the rebellion even feasible-the Illyrian Revolt-is also what made Rome practically unable to respond to the loss of 3 legions there. The Roman military was stretched perilously thin by the time Teutoberg happened, and would need some time to recover. Augustus could not really afford to expend the men and resources to retake Germania even if he wanted.
 
Rome was in a uniquely weak military situation following Teutoberg that they were not in during Boudicca's rebellion. What made the rebellion even feasible-the Illyrian Revolt-is also what made Rome practically unable to respond to the loss of 3 legions there. The Roman military was stretched perilously thin by the time Teutoberg happened, and would need some time to recover. Augustus could not really afford to expend the men and resources to retake Germania even if he wanted.

But even after the Romans had had time to recover from the Illyrian and German revolts, none of the subsequent emperors made any serious attempts to reconquer Germany.
 
But even after the Romans had had time to recover from the Illyrian and German revolts, none of the subsequent emperors made any serious attempts to reconquer Germany.
The Roman presence in Germany at the time of Teutoberg was much sparser than it had been in Britain up until Watling street. You could also make the case that it was a more difficult place to control generally, and there was not much of an economic incentive to go back. That's not to say I think there's no circumstances under which Rome would go back into Germania after Teutoberg, just that after Tiberius's reign particularly, there was not much reason for Rome to return, and any need for external military victory for an emperor could be satiated by more valuable areas, such as Dacia, Britain, or kicking the Parthians face in repeatedly.

Britain on the other hand, had value-the Romans operated profitable tin, silver, gold, and iron mines, and has more of a base for Roman control than Germany beyond the Rhine does.

Whatever happened to Gaius Suetonius Paulinus?
Became consul in 66 CE, and was closely involved with Otho during the Year of the Four Emperors (and probably was in retirement after that).
 
I can imagine Boudicca's victory here may result in the Romans retreating to their strongholds on the island, but I don't believe it would be enough to expel them entirely.

The problem with this is Boudicca had already taken and destroyed the bases the Roman had marched from. The Roman force were mostly the recalled expeditionary force that had been taking Anglesey.

With forest behind them, the Romans retreating to into it lose unit cohesion and are probably easy meat for Celtic skirmishers. If this, the largest sizable force of Romans on the island falls, what remains of Roman administration is running for the boats before they are slaughtered or enslaved, with one legion, left on the island to cover the retreat as the odds of a Roman victory become very long as Boudicca is reinforced by other tribes.

I don't see how Roman defeat with the Celts storming the hill by weight of numbers can be anything other than a massacre. On the other hand, different tactics, such as blockade of the Roman position, catching the Romans on the march are more likely to create a Celtic victory, but also not be total.
 
Last edited:
Top