DBWI The romans don't conquer all of great britain

During the invasion and conquest of Great Britain there were moments where it looked like the romans would have to cut there loss's, that they wouldn't get the whole island, but due to some luck, and infighting they were able to conquer the entire island.

But what if this didn't happen what if they didn't sucessfully unite the entire island how would this change world history?
 
Not so sure it would have made a great difference. Modern historians have generally started to downgrade the importance of Roman Britannia in terms of culture during the Dark Ages, compared to medieval historians which often considered it one of the 'Two Great Roman Kingdoms' that succeeded the Roman Empire along with the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire didn't have the relative defensive capabilities of Britannia, but had far greater resources and a more strategic position. Britannia was indeed a productive Roman province during the gradual decline of the Roman Empire, but its peaceful state meant it lacked the legions to have assisted with the barbarian invasions of Gaul and the Western Roman Empire. It barely survived the Germanic raids during the collapse of the WRE. Its subsequent wars with the Franks and others in a misguided attempt to recreate the WRE only succeeded in further destroying whatever positive legacy the Roman Empire had among the successor Barbarian kingdoms, despite its nominal success at times, and only weakened it further till it it was barely holding on by luck and inertia and was rendered little more than a figurehead and tributary protectorate after the Norse Invasions.

As for the shorter term affects of failing to conquer the Picts. There were a number of Emperors that very much sought geographical or strong defensive positions, so you'd probably see a wall built. Or if the Picts rally enough and the Romans are focused more on the mainland, they might retreat south all the way to the Thames and maintain only a foothold on Britannia in hopes of eventually pushing north when the situation stabilized south (which we know would never happen).

Religiously you might not see a new Pope be chosen in Britannia if the Romans of Britannia didn't feel they were the last bastion of culture in the west and should naturally be the center of the Christian religion. That prevents at least some of the religious wars that plagued Christianity between Constantinople, Rome, and Londinium for centuries.

Economically, you probably wouldn't see the North Sea and Atlantic playing as much a role. Britannia all but held the regional trade links together after the collapse of the WRE. Its navy dominated trade and naval warfare and was the greatest in the world for centuries. It wasn't till deforestation of Britannia forced its invasions of Norden in the 8th century to subjugated the Norse that this changed, with the invasions only uniting the Norse who assimilated Britannian naval architecture and tactics before the lumber rich Norden won the war of naval attrition.

OOC: There. Roman Britannia had a Golden Era of peace and prosperity, a time of expansion, and a time of decline before defeat. I also tried to give multiple points for discussion. Britannia's attempt to reform the Western Roman Empire, a religious schism between Rome and Londinium, and the resource driven collapse of Brittania from deforestation.
 
Last edited:
Top