Effect of Barbarian Migrations on Brythonic Alba?

Okay, it's pretty much agreed upon that Britannia is among the worst and useless acquisitions Rome has made in its history. So with the uselessness of Britain understood, what happens to the island in the event of something similar to the OTL migration period should Rome in this situation leave it be.

It's a given that an independent Britain would certainly do better against barbarian settlement and a large amount of the OTL settlers were mercenaries who are likely to never make the trip with no one to pay. But, would that better defense lead to more barbarians being diverted south into Roman territory ultimately making the burden of foreigners worse for the empire?
 
I think that it would be a toss up. Yes they would have kept their military tradition, but at the same time that would have remained little tribal kingdoms, which could be invaded one at a time and played off against each other.
 
Okay, it's pretty much agreed upon that Britannia is among the worst and useless acquisitions Rome has made in its history. So with the uselessness of Britain understood, what happens to the island in the event of something similar to the OTL migration period should Rome in this situation leave it be.

It's a given that an independent Britain would certainly do better against barbarian settlement and a large amount of the OTL settlers were mercenaries who are likely to never make the trip with no one to pay. But, would that better defense lead to more barbarians being diverted south into Roman territory ultimately making the burden of foreigners worse for the empire?

I don't know a ton about the period, but it does seem probable that if the Anglos and Saxons couldn't migrate into Britain that they'd go south into Roman territory instead.
 
Okay, it's pretty much agreed upon that Britannia is among the worst and useless acquisitions Rome has made in its history
Well...There's eastern Dacia.
Seriously, though, it was less interesting in comparison of other provinces : Spain was more or less Ancient Mediterranean Peru, Gaul a demographical behemoth (meaning big market and big production), Africa a living cash registrer...
So, yes, Britain paled a bit of the comparison, but wasn't that of the trash can you describe.

It's a given that an independent Britain would certainly do better against barbarian settlement and a large amount of the OTL settlers were mercenaries who are likely to never make the trip with no one to pay.
Nope, and nope.

Without a Roman Britain, no unified rule to speak of, or variation around high-kingship as in medieval Wales, Ireland or Scotland. Giving that political disunity was hardly a strong point when it came to scandinavian settlements, I'm afraid that Western Germans would have an even easier time coming in, and right from the IIIrd century instead of the Vth.

In fact, the pauperisation that plagued Germanic society after the fall of Rome would certainly damage a lot the Britton kingdoms, hooked on Roman trade since centuries, making them lot really unstable. To think that no one would have the use for mercenaries because they're not Romans is quite naive, to be bluntly honest.

But, would that better defense lead to more barbarians being diverted south into Roman territory ultimately making the burden of foreigners worse for the empire?
There's no way a divided up and even less develloped Britain would do better against Germanic takeover when doing as much would already be a good thing.
The more interesting question would be about the possibility of non-Brythonic celtic raids from Ireland and Scotland as IOTL..
But as I said above, there's a certainty that Britain would know the same pauperisation and destructurisation than knew Germans IOTL by the IVth and IIIrd centuries, which would probably have same effects (as in more warfare and plunder, with some peoples migrating and/or expanding at the expense of others).

For consequences on Rome, it would certainly look like as what happened in the Vth, meaning Saxons using Britain as a jumpgate to raid Gaul, but giving the really limited numbers involved in the Great Invasions, it would be far from a horde of Barbarians overruning the Romans.

As for the effect of migrations :
- Western Germans would probably settle by the IVth century in Eastern Britain. Either by their own, or "invited" by Brittons to fend off possible northern and/or western invasions.
- Britain may look more Gaelic, Pictish or northern Brythonic in West and East, with survival of Brythonic languages being in question. (For exemple, maybe Gaelic not only expanding on modern Scotland but Wales and further)
 
Spain was more or less Ancient Mediterranean Peru

To think that no one would have the use for mercenaries because they're not Romans is quite naive, to be bluntly honest.

First one is a strange comparison that needs explaining.

The second is just me assuming that the petty rulerships hadn't the money to pay for foreign warriors in any meaningful way. Excuse me for thinking that those disunited bunch of tribes were a bit insufficient in the money department compared to Rome.
 
First one is a strange comparison that needs explaining.
Mines of Spain were famed in Antiquity (since at least the Vth BCE, something that owed the region to be the first and only one western region named in the Old Testament) , and the peninsula harbored the main production ore of the Empire : cooper, gold, silver, lead, in proportions important enough to owe building strutures for allowing deep mining and being one of the reasons to maintain a legion in Spain, that was quite far from the limes.

Eventually no more strange than calling Nubia the Peru of Ancient Egypt.

The second is just me assuming that the petty rulerships hadn't the money to pay for foreign warriors in any meaningful way.
Giving that being divided never prevented, for exemple, medieval Irish statelets using Scandinavians or Normans as mercenaries; Gallic hegemonies doing the same with Germans; or more interestingly, Britto-Roman peoples asking for Saxons as mercenaries against Picts, I'd disagree with this.

Furthermoire, that's assuming as well that settlement comes only trough mercenaryship : but, again using a local exemple, it wasn't much the case with Scots in Northern Britain.

Excuse me for thinking that those disunited bunch of tribes were a bit insufficient in the money department compared to Rome.
Excuses accepted. [Mode Sarcasm-concious OFF]
 
Since proximity to the Roman frontier and the extra wealth gained through trade and diplomatic gifts acted as a stimulus to the organisation of larger tribal confederations in Germany, it's reasonable to assume that a similar thing would have happened in Britain as well had the island remained independent. Also, a non-Roman Britain would almost certainly be less wealthy, and therefore less of a tempting target to invaders, than it was IOTL, especially when you've got wealthy Roman Gaul just a few miles to the south. Whilst you might still see a Saxon conquest, IMHO a more likely scenario would be for the Britons to join the Germanic tribes in plundering Roman land.
 
Since proximity to the Roman frontier and the extra wealth gained through trade and diplomatic gifts acted as a stimulus to the organisation of larger tribal confederations in Germany, it's reasonable to assume that a similar thing would have happened in Britain as well had the island remained independent.
I'd think we would have more of a clientele relationship with Britons, continuous from the foreign roman policy had with the south of Britain IOTL before the conquest rather than the Rhine situation.
Basically establishing tribal states (or confederacies) on Southern Britain and intervening when needed (or even blunt annexation during some reign, as Nero or Trajan did with some client states then).

Overall a more stable geopolitical situation, without the creation of leagues comparable to Franks or Alamans, at least in a first time.

(That said, it would make the aforementioned destructuration more important)

Also, a non-Roman Britain would almost certainly be less wealthy, and therefore less of a tempting target to invaders, than it was IOTL, especially when you've got wealthy Roman Gaul just a few miles to the south.
Certainly, but it was the case for late and post-Roman Britain as well, which didn't prevented it being invaded.

Whilst you might still see a Saxon conquest, IMHO a more likely scenario would be for the Britons to join the Germanic tribes in plundering Roman land.
That's a fair and sound point (I actually feel like an idiot not having tought of this), but I think that Britons would encounter same problem than other roman clients along Danube and Black Sea, namely being raided and took over by Barbarians during the IIIrd and IVth century (as bordering Sarmatic peoples, Bosporean Kingdom, etc.)

While Britons may participate in raiding most certainly (while in more limited manner than Germans), I think they would be eventually more raided and pushed around by neighbouring peoples : Western Germans, Gaels, Picts or even Northern Britons over their southern counterparts.
 
Top