Empire of Britannia

I have been reading some of the threads on Roman Britain surviving the fall of the Western Empire and they all have certain things in common. The concensus seams to be that the withdrawl of central authority means that it would have been impossible to hold the British provences together. That with the withdrawl of the legions the Britons would be unable to defend themselves without hireing mercenaries and wouldn't be able to pay them anyway and that if a leader emerged with the ability to pull the remaining Romano British and Celtic peoples together he would enevitably attempet to use what forces he could rais to try for the Imperial Crown and abandon the island. I do have a sugestion to how the Romano Britons might have been able to hold back the tide of invaders but it begins 130 years before the withdrawl of the last legions. In the 280s the Admiral in command of the Channel Fleet with the support of the Legions in Britain had himself declared Emporer not of Rome but of Britannia and reigned for 2 years before being assasinated. He even issued his own coins which were of greater intrinsic value than the debased official coinage. My question his had Rome instead of killing him come to an agreement that recognised him as ruler of Britain would the 100+ years of him and his heirs as Emporer to the Romano British and High King to the native tribes have allowed them to build a society strong enough to survive the fall of the wester empire
 
Have re started naval gift.
I don't have the knowledge of the late roman period to be able to write a time line, but was wondering if others thought it was possible for such a state to have survived. What interests me in the Admirals attempt is that as far as I know he was the only pretender to the purple in Britain to turn his back on the continent. I have occasionaly wondered why when the Roman Empire was divided Britain wasn't given its own ruler. Being geographicaly sperate from the rest of the empire it seems to be a logical move to me. With the Roman channal fleet and the legions in Britain supporting him on the face of it it seems a viable option to produce a state that after the collapse of the western empire would have a chance to survive.

If they could survive it opens the door to expanding not only in the Island of Great Britain but also into Ireland and around the North Sea. It also leads to questions about the development of the early church in Britain. With the near continent have decended into chaos would the Church diverge from the Roman model allowing the Celtic Church to survive? How long would the dark ages last on the continent or could they be avoided with both Britain and Constantinople preserving the knowlege of the empire.
 
but was wondering if others thought it was possible for such a state to have survived.

Imaginable. The geographical situation is quite good. BUT you have to make it viable not on an antique level, but so that this kingdom can survive the complete breakdown of Roman culture and economy in the 5th century. That would be the actual challenge.

I have occasionaly wondered why when the Roman Empire was divided Britain wasn't given its own ruler. Being geographicaly sperate from the rest of the empire it seems to be a logical move to me.

There was no logical concept behind the seperation of east and west, and the separation of power in the complete Roman realm was always somewhat fluid.
Additionally, Britannia was not a net-gain-province. It had to be supported from outside to be kept afloat at the level the Roman Empire intended it to be.

If they could survive it opens the door to expanding not only in the Island of Great Britain but also into Ireland and around the North Sea. It also leads to questions about the development of the early church in Britain. With the near continent have decended into chaos would the Church diverge from the Roman model allowing the Celtic Church to survive? How long would the dark ages last on the continent or could they be avoided with both Britain and Constantinople preserving the knowlege of the empire.

1. Don't let your kingdom waste its spare ressources on adventures of this kind, unless it means a serious improvement of the situation on the continent. And "around the North Sea", there is seriously NOTHING worth the effort at this point of time. Your Britannia will not be the place to fulfil what Rome hadn't done around and after 9AD! Limited action in e.g. Brittany might be interesting, though.
2. The dark ages would change a lot if Britannia comes out better, as this is actually the part of the Roman empire hit hardest (along with the provinces closest to the Rhine and the Balkans). BUT Britannia is not quintessential enough to really be a short-cut for the dark ages. Additionally, the whole topic is loaded and the medieval times often not as steep a descent as we used to learn...
2.
 
Top