Well one of the biggest attractions for Rome at the time to go for Britain was its supply of tin. Maybe if a native state manages to mine and export it for a rate that's efficient enough, we'll see the Romans turn that state into a client with as opposed to invading?
Also, English has more roots in Germanic and Welsh/Celtic and much less in Latin, so Latin based words in English we find familiar are replaced by a sort of "Anglish" dialect, for example conscience becomes inwit. "My inwit told me not to do this".
Almost 2/3 of the modern English vocabulary is ultimately derived from Latin, many of the words came through French. However, there were very few Latin loanwords into Anglo-Saxon during the Roman occupation. And the word "inwit" is the invention of a medieval writer who was trying to "purify" his language of encroaching French vocabulary.![]()
Almost 2/3 of the modern English vocabulary is ultimately derived from Latin, many of the words came through French. However, there were very few Latin loanwords into Anglo-Saxon during the Roman occupation. And the word "inwit" is the invention of a medieval writer who was trying to "purify" his language of encroaching French vocabulary.![]()
The lesser contact with Britain means that when the Emperor wants a quick Victory he will look toward Germany and not toward Britain.Rome was invaded in the 1st century because the Emperor wanted a quick, glorious military campaign of what seemed like a poorly defended, prosperous region.
The lesser Contact means slower Roman penetration, however by the early 4th century Britain is vassalized. The problems will arise in the late 4th Century with the Rise of Christianity.If the Romans had kept their distance from Britain, what could have occurred may have been a steady urbanization by the native tribal kingdoms. While politically, the island may have been influenced by a kind of theocratic hegemony governed by the Druids based in Mona (Anglesey). Whatever styles of legal and political organization develops, the Druids of the island of Mona may act to the native British princes what the Holy See of Rome was to the kingdoms of western Europe in the centuries after the collapse of the western Roman Empire.
Caesar Invaded Britain in 56 BC due to the British Celts support of the Celtic Tribes in Gaul. So to Butterfly this invasion away, Requires less cross-channel intercontact. Britain/Gaul/Brittany.
If Caesar doesn't take his three legions into Britain, My guess is he uses them to Conquer Frisia. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frisians.png ]
An earlier conquest of the Area North/East of the Rhine, Butterflies into an Earlier Roman Push East of the Rhine.
The lesser contact with Britain means that when the Emperor wants a quick Victory he will look toward Germany and not toward Britain.
The lesser Contact means slower Roman penetration, however by the early 4th century Britain is vassalized. The problems will arise in the late 4th Century with the Rise of Christianity.
Actually Caesar did not make anyting more than touching ground, slaughtering a few half starved tribes and then retreating back to the civilized world.
His was a statement more than an invasion: I can get it if I want it.
For Romans Britain had no real value from the economical POV (lead mines and a little silver not being enough to justify occupation costs), nor strategical (a few Gaul rebels? who cares?).
The real point was psicological rather than economical: Britain was beyond the sea.
Since Oceanus was considered to enclose the whole world (Orbis), going to (and conquering) something beyond Oceanus was something comparable to nowadays moon landing.
Imperators were not kings: they needed a huge propaganda machine to stay in power
I would like to add to this fruitful discussion that an independant Britannia of one or several evolved kingdoms would do a better job against the invading Anglo-Saxons instead of relying on the less and less effective (and finally leaving) Roman legions. Thus, Britain might end up with a much stronger Celtic element up to today.
I would like to add to this fruitful discussion that an independant Britannia of one or several evolved kingdoms would do a better job against the invading Anglo-Saxons instead of relying on the less and less effective (and finally leaving) Roman legions. Thus, Britain might end up with a much stronger Celtic element up to today.
Not to mention that a significant percentage of the Anglo-Saxons might be tempted to try their luck in the Empire rather than Britain in such a scenario. ATL "England" might be located in northern France...