DBWI: No 'Druid Wind'

The short-lived Roman Empire always had bad luck with the Brythonnic Islands. Julius Ceasar's first expedition was a near-disaster, the second slightly more successful, but with no lasting impact. Later historians look back with nostalgia at the wise but all too brief reign of Caligula and his decision not to even attempt a crossing.

Many view Claudius's ill-fated expedition as the first nail in the Empire's coffin. In all, four whole legions were lost to storm and sea, with no survivors. Emperor Galba deposed Claudius, to the acclaim of the Senate. For a time his harsher policies semed successful, but his long struggle with the Flavians split the Empire, and before long all that remained were the few Eastern provinces ruled by Herod Agrippa. The old gods of Rome were forgotten, or merged with the gods of the barbarians.

It's possible that, if Claudius's fleet had landed, Rome could have subdued these islands. How long would that have delayed the inevitable?

.
 
For one thing, no derwidgwint suicide attacks in the Great War.

It seems ridiculous to us now that the britons might have thought their island impregnable from operation seelowe, but this historical event made a huge impression on the Briton national/religious psyche.
 
Eh, it's mostly pop-history that the Britons were the last nail in the Empire's coffin. Really the turning point was the decisive victory of the Parthians of Vologases I over the Romans, exploiting the Flavian Wars. That resulted in Rome losing some of its richest land, and when the Parthians supported a native Egyptian revolt Rome lost the bread in its bread and circuses. Britannia is a convenient time to point to, but the strength of Rome wasn't in the West.
 
Eh, it's mostly pop-history that the Britons were the last nail in the Empire's coffin. Really the turning point was the decisive victory of the Parthians of Vologases I over the Romans, exploiting the Flavian Wars. That resulted in Rome losing some of its richest land, and when the Parthians supported a native Egyptian revolt Rome lost the bread in its bread and circuses. Britannia is a convenient time to point to, but the strength of Rome wasn't in the West.

Yeah, the failures against the celts weren't nearly as disastrous as the sagas make them out to be. Although it is possible that preventing the destruction of the 9th and 2nd legions could allow those troops to be redirected elsewhere. The war that broke Rome's control over Egypt was a close thing, another two legions could have made a difference.

Anyway, had Britain been conquered it likely would have been developed like the rest of the empire was. The Romans, for all their faults, brought infrastructure with them where they went. During the migration of the Germanic peoples several centuries later there would have been more drawing them to the island. Assuming Rome falls like OTL, there won't be much to protect the Britons from the coming Germanic migration, and the Roman contributions to the island's economy will make it that much more enticing as a prospective conquest. I know that the whole 'what if the Germanics invaded Britain instead of Greece' is a pretty big cliche here, but I think it is a plausible idea. If the Germanics were divided there might not be a total conquest of the western territories, let alone the Saxon invasion of Greece.

There are also some other cultural implications to consider. The Romans were no friends to the druids- we can see that from their treatment of the priests during the pacification of Gaul. If the druids are removed from their place of influence in Celtic culture the results could be very interesting. The tendency of the druids to abuse their position and undermine the efforts of Briton leaders probably prolonged the unification of the island for centuries.

The history of Britain after Rome would probably be way more patriarchal than OTL. Without the cultural influence of the four Iceni queens there's little chance that Boudica II's succession reforms would have been accepted.
 
Eh, it's mostly pop-history that the Britons were the last nail in the Empire's coffin. Really the turning point was the decisive victory of the Parthians of Vologases I over the Romans, exploiting the Flavian Wars. That resulted in Rome losing some of its richest land, and when the Parthians supported a native Egyptian revolt Rome lost the bread in its bread and circuses. Britannia is a convenient time to point to, but the strength of Rome wasn't in the West.

I said the first nail, not the last. As to your other point, I quite agree that the Empire was lost in the East, not the West. Yet the Wind did seem to have a chilling effect on Roman confidence, even in the Middle Sea. This is seen early on when Titus Flavius Sabinus delayed sending reinforcements to the East. His own brother Vespasian was one of those lost in the Wind. (OOC No Domitian in this timeline either, but possibly Titus, who would have been about 4 at the time of the Wind) The Empire was doomed when control of the Middle Sea was lost, and that was sealed in another natural (or some would say, supernatural) disaster, the loss of much of the remaining Western fleet at Pompeii.
 
Anyway, had Britain been conquered it likely would have been developed like the rest of the empire was. The Romans, for all their faults, brought infrastructure with them where they went. During the migration of the Germanic peoples several centuries later there would have been more drawing them to the island. Assuming Rome falls like OTL, there won't be much to protect the Britons from the coming Germanic migration, and the Roman contributions to the island's economy will make it that much more enticing as a prospective conquest. I know that the whole 'what if the Germanics invaded Britain instead of Greece' is a pretty big cliche here, but I think it is a plausible idea. If the Germanics were divided there might not be a total conquest of the western territories, let alone the Saxon invasion of Greece.

Germanic Britain? That would have had interesting effects upon the language and culture. I'm not sure that Roman Britain would have all that more attractive. Many of the Gaulish roads credited to the Romans were there before their invasion, and there was a certain amount of urban growth in the century following the wind, with the many political and religious refugees who sought safety in the Islands. I would imagine Roman Britain as a far less interesting place intellectually, on the margins of Empire, probably not all that profitable, and quickly abandoned when the bad times came. There would certainly have been no co-ordinated naval protection such as was in place as early as the end of the first century*. The Britons, after all were understandably paranoid about the possibility of another invasion attempt for a long time. By the time the Germanics would have been a threat, the Atlantic League had connections from Norway to Mali.

To take an even longer veiw, if the Romans had invaded Britain, do you think Hy-Brasil would have been discovered so soon - or at all?


*The British calender counts from the Year of the Wind.

There are also some other cultural implications to consider. The Romans were no friends to the druids- we can see that from their treatment of the priests during the pacification of Gaul. If the druids are removed from their place of influence in Celtic culture the results could be very interesting. The tendency of the druids to abuse their position and undermine the efforts of Briton leaders probably prolonged the unification of the island for centuries.

The druids undoubtedly gained much prestige from their claim to have called down the wind, and their hold on the more inland parts of the country in particular lasted for many centuries. But no part of Britain was more than three days walk from the sea and (I don't want to keep banging on about this, but it is important) with internal communications so difficult in many parts, sea trade was vital. The mariners were relatively few in number and often regarded with suspicion. Simply because of the very association of druids with storms, if they were lost at sea they were often thought to have been cursed. No wonder many followed the newer religions, the majority, I believe, being devotees of the Holy Mother, Star of the Sea.
 
Top