If the Romans never invade Britain?

nova2010

Banned
what if the Romans decide that Britain is worthless to conquered it? As in OTL thought about Ireland. What the effects?
 
I think we'd see a sort of semi-Roman culture develop, at least in Southern Britain, with various Roman client states. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Britain at the time was rather more advanced than Germania or Ireland, so IMHO this is more likely than simple endless "barbarism" going on. The situation will more likely look like the semi-Romanisation that occured in the Caucasus and Crimea.
 
Interesting notion.

If Rome doesn't invade Britain, does that mean they have more armed forces to spread around Central/W. Europe?

Does that mean that refugees from the Roman invasions in that area will increase in numbers flocking to Britain?

With a little stretching (ie Rome lasting a little longer from not overstretching, and gaining more/stronger foothold on the continent), could it bring the Romans up against Vikings?
 
My guess is that non-Roman Britain would see the continued urbanization that pre-Roman Gaul and Britain saw, along with growing political centralization. The Kingdom of Prydain, under its Great King Artorius, would go on to play a major role in the 3rd century crisis...
 
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?
 
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?

They probably did, or easily could have. It wasn't an issue of a strategic shortfall or monopoly; 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.
 
If Rome never invades Britain, someone else will. 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".
 
If the Romans had kept their distance from Britain, what could have occured 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 organzation 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. Writing appears on British coins as recently as the First Century CE. And the "Roman" Palace at Fishbourne was built for the King Cogidubnus of the Regenses. Also, southern British tribes such as the Atrebates and the Catuvellauni are believed to have been Belgic emigrants whom have been colonising the south of Britain prior to the Roman conquest of Gaul, so may still have some familial links with Romanized noble families across the Channel.
 
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. ;)

I meant to write the second sentence as a theoretical what-if than as actual fact. I can understand that there was confusion in regards to what I stated as I may not have been very clear.
 
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. ;)

Also, ecclesiastical latin has a major impact.
If you hear mass every sunday in latin, something is bound to pass through.
And of course every book/document in western europe was written in latin , and latin was the official diplomatic language.
Thus I'd say that the language wolud be more or less the same
 
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.
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 with Britain means that when the Emperor wants a quick Victory he will look toward Germany and not toward Britain.
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.
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Caesar invaded southern Britain because the Catuvellauni, the Trinovantis were sending war-parties to assist the Belgae tribes in northern Gaul and perhaps the Veneti of present day Brittany as well. And as for the observation of "half starved tribes", the Iron Age British had relatively well-developed agriculture suited to the local climate.

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?).

Could you explain then why did Diocletian and Maximian attempt to reconquer Britian after the seccession by Caurausius in 286 CE?

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

That is a silly over-simplification. Britain (in the south) had enough economic value, plus it was reachable by ship. Anything they wanted to find out about Britain could have been told to them by pro-Roman Gallic merchants whom would have gone there regularly.
 
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.

That makes sense. If the various tribes united, they probably would be undefeatable. Just think if the Picts and the Scots joined the Britons in a huge military force to fight any group that tried to conquer the British Isles. Imagine a united front.
 
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...
 
Franks? What Franks?

* Hides head from executed Frankish warrior behind shield with the throwing axe the Frank had tried to use.*:p
 
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...

Interesting idea, though I wonder whether the Anglo-Saxons would last against the Francs there...

My impression was, that the Anglo-Saxons did quite poorly during their first centuries in England, esp. when it came to making use of the remains of Roman infrastructure and society.
 
Top