Early Thalassocracy in Britain?

Possibly ASB, but anyway.

I don't have a great understanding in early human migrations and how easy civilizations can emerge"by themselves", but how possible would it be for a thalassocracy, similar to the old phoenicians and greeks, to arise in south britain advanced enough to be considered "it's own civilization", instead of being considered prehistoric until the roman arrival. Also, how early could that be?

I'm not really sure how difficult it is to grow crops in southern England, but it's a particularly interesting idea if they could get advanced enough to colonize and "civilize" the coast of Western Europe through trade and settlements, and eventually have interactions with the mediterranean powers.

Thoughts?
 

Skallagrim

Banned
As always, having a heavy plough would be great for increasing agricultural capacity. Interestingly, there is some archaeological evidence that a heavy wheeled mouldboard plough was developed by the Romans as early as the late third century. The heavy plough's first undisputed use in Europe was in 643, and later on, its use spread throughout Northern Europe and revolutionised agriculture. It is possible that the design was lost after the fourth century, and that the seventh century appearance was in fact a rediscovery. In any case, it was apparently re-introduced to the British Isles post-643, so the tech was probably lost there.

Prevent that loss. Keep the heavy plough in use in Britain. Romans leave as per OTL, but post-Roman Britain gets a nicely boosted population, which prevents the OTL period of de-urbanisation. That's a good basis for having a nice head-start over the rest of North-Western Europe and gaining dominance via sea power. (Although, obviously, that's not a given. It's just a nice basis to work from.)

When we get earlier, the greater agricultural difficulties with the heavy soil of Northern Europe simply make a high-population civilisation in that part of the world less likely. This makes an urban culture less likely. this makes an advanced empire less likely. So, unless you have some POD that allows for better agricultural practices far earlier than in OTL, chances are slim. That said, if you have ancient Britons somehow developing the right tech in 500 BC or something, you'll probably end up with a very interesting scenario. It'll just be very far from OTL, so it will by defenition be a highly speculative TL.


Someones been reading too much aleksandr dugin.

What on earth does a Russian fringe ideologue have to do with ancient Britain?
 
As always, having a heavy plough would be great for increasing agricultural capacity. Interestingly, there is some archaeological evidence that a heavy wheeled mouldboard plough was developed by the Romans as early as the late third century. The heavy plough's first undisputed use in Europe was in 643, and later on, its use spread throughout Northern Europe and revolutionised agriculture. It is possible that the design was lost after the fourth century, and that the seventh century appearance was in fact a rediscovery. In any case, it was apparently re-introduced to the British Isles post-643, so the tech was probably lost there.

Prevent that loss. Keep the heavy plough in use in Britain. Romans leave as per OTL, but post-Roman Britain gets a nicely boosted population, which prevents the OTL period of de-urbanisation. That's a good basis for having a nice head-start over the rest of North-Western Europe and gaining dominance via sea power. (Although, obviously, that's not a given. It's just a nice basis to work from.)

When we get earlier, the greater agricultural difficulties with the heavy soil of Northern Europe simply make a high-population civilisation in that part of the world less likely. This makes an urban culture less likely. this makes an advanced empire less likely. So, unless you have some POD that allows for better agricultural practices far earlier than in OTL, chances are slim. That said, if you have ancient Britons somehow developing the right tech in 500 BC or something, you'll probably end up with a very interesting scenario. It'll just be very far from OTL, so it will by defenition be a highly speculative TL.




What on earth does a Russian fringe ideologue have to do with ancient Britain?

I've only read "last war of the world island" but throughout the book he rambles about how britain and america are pre destined to fight russia because russia is a civilisation of the land and the anglospehere is a civilisation of the sea or thalassocracy. I dont agreee with him or anything and he makes some hilarious claims in the book like masons being behind the february revolution, i just havent heard that word much outside of that book.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I've only read "last war of the world island" but throughout the book he rambles about how britain and america are pre destined to fight russia because russia is a civilisation of the land and the anglospehere is a civilisation of the sea or thalassocracy. I dont agreee with him or anything and he makes some hilarious claims in the book like masons being behind the february revolution, i just havent heard that word much outside of that book.

Ah, I see. To be clear: it's just a world that means "sea power", and Dugin certainly didn't invent it.
 
Honestly, it could be very early - after all, we have evidence of everything from hide boats, to tin and copper mines (and a few iron ones) in Britain.

I've found myself thinking that you could plausibly turn the Irish sea to a location for bandits to the heart of a ancient Atlantic Isles culture centred between the regions of OTL Dublin, Liverpool, Belfast and the Isle of Man.

You'd probably have to turn our normal approach towards a good settlement location on its head however. The a prime heart for that civilisation would be the West Lancashire Coastal Plain. With effort it can be defensible along the Pennines, and the Dee.

The key is as much solving out how to grow food, as to build the ships they'd need (and in the number required), and what they'd be selling.

You need stuff worth trading. Tin is an import from the south of that location - and the South is quite vulnerable as it isn't that defensible from others on land. It sounds a bit cold, but absent of resources I'm unaware of, it could trade in slaves - capturing them from across the Pennines, and selling them for tin, or using them Sparta-like to grow crops.

But in theory, they could fight to control coastal cities, and all trade. As well as simply have a huge amount of people who go and trade abroad. Buying wine in Gaul and trading it in Spain, and bringing the profit (and some goods) back home.

Hell if I know how to solve its problems though.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
A point to consider, which occurred to me when I was running errands earlier today: deforestation.

What? Well, trees. Britain had loads of big honking forests, and has far fewer now. Because they chopped down a lot of trees. To make ships. Same in the Netherlands. "Holland" is often believed to have been derived from "Hol Land" (Hollow Land), largely being below sea level and all, like a 'hollow' surrounded by dikes. But the name actually comes from "Holtland" (Wood-Land)! It used to be vast forest. Now it's mostly fields. Because the Dutch made a lot of ships. Iceland also had more trees, but those were also chopped down to make Viking ships. And then there's Phoenicia, the ur-example, where they cut down a vast amount of those cedars still emblematic of the region. Some of those trees are still there, but there used to be far, far more.

So a side-effect of an early thalassocracy in Britain would be... correspodingly earlier deforestation of Britain. If this happens rapdly enough, that in itself might be one of the reasons to establish hegemony over surrounding areas-- like Iceland, Hol(t)land, Denmark, etc. etc.

If one really wants to be creative: North America has lots of trees...
 

Zachariah

Banned
Wasn't the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata IOTL, back in the 6th century CE, considered a thalassocracy? Along with the later Kingdom of the Isles, and King Knut's Anglo-Scandinavian Empire?
 
A point to consider, which occurred to me when I was running errands earlier today: deforestation.

What? Well, trees. Britain had loads of big honking forests, and has far fewer now. Because they chopped down a lot of trees. To make ships. Same in the Netherlands. "Holland" is often believed to have been derived from "Hol Land" (Hollow Land), largely being below sea level and all, like a 'hollow' surrounded by dikes. But the name actually comes from "Holtland" (Wood-Land)! It used to be vast forest. Now it's mostly fields. Because the Dutch made a lot of ships. Iceland also had more trees, but those were also chopped down to make Viking ships. And then there's Phoenicia, the ur-example, where they cut down a vast amount of those cedars still emblematic of the region. Some of those trees are still there, but there used to be far, far more.

So a side-effect of an early thalassocracy in Britain would be... correspodingly earlier deforestation of Britain. If this happens rapdly enough, that in itself might be one of the reasons to establish hegemony over surrounding areas-- like Iceland, Hol(t)land, Denmark, etc. etc.

If one really wants to be creative: North America has lots of trees...

Newsline : Today on Alternate History Dot Com, we bring you The Arvor Albion! Discovering the New World before it was cool!
 
Without an act of ROB making the British Isles larger?
I question whether this is possible. It's always been a big issue that everywhere else has always been larger.
Historically France was twice the size, in area and population.
 
Without an act of ROB making the British Isles larger?
I question whether this is possible. It's always been a big issue that everywhere else has always been larger.
Historically France was twice the size, in area and population.
This isn't SpaceBattles :p

We don't have ROB here, we have ASB.
 
Top