Britannia as a Kingdom - Plausibility Check

How plausible is it for the Romans in Britannia, alongside their Briton allies, to ride the tumultuous wave the WRE collapse and establish for themselves a stable kingdom? And if it can be done, how could it have been done? I'm fairly flexible with PODs here, but can it be done? I've check other threads on this subject, and the general answer seems to be no, there could not be a Roman successor state in Britain the way there was in Byzantine, but could the Roman elements on the island work alongside their native allies to create one kingdom and keep any attempts by the Sea invaders from creating their own states in Britain from being successful?
 
Just avoid having mercenaries come over. Perhaps have a stronger native military element; perhaps a 4th century POD will do the trick.
 
I think the best way to do it would for Britannia to start on that path well before the WRE collapses. Definitely keep it one province. Then you'd need a stronger local government, one that could take over in the absence of the Empire.

It might actually need some sort of systemic change in the Roman Empire as a whole. Maybe they manage to send a message to Britannia granting them autonomy? Unlikely, but not impossible. Then the governor arranges for all the local bigwigs to meet and form a British Senate. We might even end up with a republic instead of a kingdom!
 
I think the best way to do it would for Britannia to start on that path well before the WRE collapses. Definitely keep it one province. Then you'd need a stronger local government, one that could take over in the absence of the Empire.

It might actually need some sort of systemic change in the Roman Empire as a whole. Maybe they manage to send a message to Britannia granting them autonomy? Unlikely, but not impossible. Then the governor arranges for all the local bigwigs to meet and form a British Senate. We might even end up with a republic instead of a kingdom!

Now that would be a fascinating change of pace. But how would it work? Who would be on the senate? And obviously there are still native tribal allies around... I think... how would they factor into this governance, if at all?
 
How plausible is it for the Romans in Britannia, alongside their Briton allies, to ride the tumultuous wave the WRE collapse and establish for themselves a stable kingdom?
Not impossible, but quite hard.

By "Romans" I assume you mean Britto-Romans, rather than either only military (that was anyway quite mixed itself, up to local and germanic recruitment). See, you didn't have real provincial identity in Roman Empire, and even the few you may have was even more weakened with the more personal and charismatic imperialship of the Late Empire.

With the decline and fall of this one in WRE, the basic identitarian structure was the pagi, the colonies and critically the tribes (either classified as cities or pagi themselves) whom presence never really disappeared.

This isn't just a British thing, it was the case for almost all WRE provinces : Gaul, Spain, Africa (constant overlapping of tribal and urban/peri-urban identities)...
The big exception being Italy, mostly because it passed directly from Imperial to Romano-Barbarian dominance.

In all these cases, the Barbarians that inherited the imperium and political legitimacy eventually were the unifiers of the dioceses. It's not about Britto-Roman or Roman population being too dumb to unify and to live, but about political and cultural trends of Late Roman era.

You'd probably need a PoD in late Republican Rome to deal with the relativly empty shell that were Provinces when it came to identity. At latest, you'd need something comparable to the Sanctuary of Three Gauls, with its technically unifying yearly assembly. For the influence it had eventually on Gallo-Roman society in Late Antiquity, I'm not too sure it would be ennough to balance the aformentioned effects.

Eventually, if you want to bypass the provincial issue, you have to come back to the usual problem of Late Roman Brittania : isolated, not that deep romanisation (lack of many urban infrastructures, safe in an handful of cities; lack of rural infrastructures, with a low ratio of villae/latifundiae), demographically weakened (maybe 1 million after the epidemics).

Obviously, preventing the Roman army to leave for participating to the Scramble for Imperialship in 407 would probably help, would it be only because you'd prevent the mass expulsion of magistrates two year later. But that would ask for a complete re-writing of the era, giving that the withdrawal of Britain was a thing since the late IVth century : Britain wasn't nearly important enough compared to continental matters, and the withdrawal of 407 mainly concerned South and East (Irish raids encountering no real resistance in late IVth century).

It's why Saxon presence may have seen not so much as an invasion at first, but as well as possible allies against the former.

not be a Roman successor state in Britain the way there was in Byzantine
Giving the cosmical gap when it comes to the revenues difference, it's pretty much a given.

but could the Roman elements on the island work alongside their native allies
You can't wholly separate "Romans" from natives after 500 years. Both eventually merged, would it be only partially.
Heck, even the Saxons (or an agglomerate of peoples adopting Saxon identity, trough Roman standardisation) present in Britain before the Vth century seems to have been fairly integrated trough military.

The big separation would be, for me, between urban Britto-Romans that may have looked a lot more like Gallo-Romans, and rural Britto-Romans that had really different references while still romanized (by this, understand creolisation of roman imperial and late celtic cultures).
Another rupture could be the South, more similar to the continental situation, and the North and West, that had a different and more distant roman influence.

to create one kingdom and keep any attempts by the Sea invaders from creating their own states in Britain from being successful?
The main problem there is you didn't have such thing as an "abandoned Roman Britain without ressources, that were only able to weep in their togas before the nasty Barbarians crushed them, saw Romans driven before them, and heard the lamentation of their women.

Saxons weren't exactly unknown in Britain, and at least present along the Channel coast, as in Gaul. You have a good chance for that Wessex line had either from Romano-Britain origins or that Barbarian fit in a previous situation there.
 
So in other words, as is always typical of history, the situation is far more complex than any first glance or analysis allows for a sensible solution You would need a POD that is as far reaching back as the late republic? Wow, I figured it would need to reach back far, but that is essentially rewriting history way farther than I expected.

Let's take a step back then and drop away from the proconcieved idea of a Roman Britain Kingdom. Do you think there was any force, whether it be foreign, native, or something inbetween, that could have kept the region that was the former province of Britannia united, instead of falling into numerous squabbling states?

Also, because unfortunately my knowledge of the period in Britain is limited, another question. You mention the critical identitarian structure of the period were tribes, which is a given, but where there major tribal groups still in Roman Britain that still had any sort of influence? And lastly, is there any literature that you would recommend on the period and region to give a better understanding of the time?
 
Last edited:
Do you think there was any force, whether it be foreign, native, or something inbetween, that could have kept the region that was the former province of Britannia united, instead of falling into numerous squabbling tribal kingdoms?

Well, I'm going to point the obvious, but Anglo-Saxons more or less did so eventually.

More seriously and constructivly, the big problem of Late Roman Britain is the lack of contemporary sources : safe Gildas, this is the realm of "maybe" Granted, later historians as Bede and Nennius does help, but it's to be taken as a grain of salt : Bede, for exemple doesn't want to actually write an History of Britain on historical grounds only than to make a moral point about how the invasion was about making the invaders Christians.

(Arugably, it means you could make changes without too much breaking into implausibility, for all we know about it)

We know that they were unifying commands (I'd tend to argue they were more regional and circonstantial than pan-Briton : as Vortigern for the Cantium), at least military-wise : Riothamus/Ambrosius Aurelianus (possibly the same person) is an exemple. So the problem isn't having unifying features, but to make them last against the various and conflicting identities.

It doesn't seem, for instance, that the Old North kingdoms had a much develloped sense of commonity, for all we know.

Now, I think it's possible to have a maintained high-kingship (pretty much as in Ireland, Wales or Scotland) in some regions. Giving the not that much unified Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, it does have a chance to lives on and leading to a wanked *Wales. I don't know enough to definitely name a candidate or a most likely place (while I think that you can forget about North Sea regions); but the bonus point is that you don't even need a Britton or being totally hostile to Germans to have such.

Cerdic of Wessex may be the most obvious exemple of a mix of Britto-Romans and Barbarian elements in the Vth century (you have other ones). It wouldn't surprise me if you could have a Britto-Roman high-king, supported by the Saxons of the Litus managing to lead a more or less unified (in a first time : again, high-kingship didn't looked much as a really united structure) Britto-Roman kingdom.

You mention the critical identitarian structure of the period were tribes, which is a given, but where there major tribal groups still in Roman Britain that still had any sort of influence?
I'm not sure I understand the question : the tribal identity lived on within Roman Britain (as it did in many roman provinces as well).

And lastly, is there any literature that you would recommend on the period and region to give a better understanding of the time?
Gildas is always interesting (I read it recently thanks to Bee, and it's worth it); as well Bede and Nennius (see above).

I didn't ran into his works, but Kenneth Dark does pop often on the bibliographies I had.
Especially Britain and the End of the Roman Empire and Civitas to Kingdom

Alternativly, you may be interested on History Files website about it. It seems interesting and clear on this matter.
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/RomanDeparture01.htm
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/BritishMapAD400.htm
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/BritishMap.htm
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/BritishMapAD450-700.htm
 
Last edited:
Best example
Cato's Cavalry (
multipage.gif
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Last Page) Cymraeg

also
BRITONS TRIUMPHANT: An Alternate History of Dark Age Britain (
multipage.gif
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... Last Page)
robertp6165

(although it's been a LONG time, it may be pre-Roman rather than Roman era). Still, read it. Heck, read EVERYTHING the late, great Robert P wrote!
 
Top