Less successful Roman conquest of Britannia

[Collondi]

First, I’m going to adress a point I see all the time and someone most likely would have argued, which is that the Romans decided that Britannia had enough resources to justify the cost of invading, so they would just keep trying until they won. That’s true, but the way they figured out how easy a region was to invade and subdue was by trying to invade and subdue it. I can’t think of a single neighbor of Rome besides maybe the Sahara that an invasion or at least expedition wasn’t attempted. The less successful the Romans are initially, the less willing they’ll be in the long term.

That being said, let’s say the Claudian invasion was less successful, just enough to show the allied Britons how awful life under Rome is, while having the war drag on for decades, with there being a massive setback with every rebellion or Roman civil war. The legions also never fully lose their fear of the island. Eventually, the emperor decides enough is enough and sues for peace. I think it’s unlikely Britannia could avoid Rome forever, it’s just too convenient a target for any emperor looking to establish themselves militarily, which is like every emperor. But they control the island less directly, maybe vassalizing the different tribes, or controlling only the south coast, or like Dacia they hold it for a century before abandoning it.

What are the short term effects? Could Cladius have kept power if he fails a conquest? Is not controlling Britannia a net benefit or loss?

In the long term, how does this impact major events like the crisis of the third century or even the fall of Rome? How successful is a Celtic Britain against Anglo-saxons or nords? What impact does it have on the rest of Europe?

 

[Evil Crusader]

I would say it's either all or nothing; holding on to parts of the island is likely not going to be worth it so they'd either eventually push to OTL borders or fully give up, unilaterally declaring the attempt to be over if necessary. Rome doesn't really do peace in this timeframe.
They did occasionally try their hand at the Sahara, to be fair.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

First, I’m going to adress a point I see all the time and someone most likely would have argued, which is that the Romans decided that Britannia had enough resources to justify the cost of invading, so they would just keep trying until they won. That’s true, but the way they figured out how easy a region was to invade and subdue was by trying to invade and subdue it. I can’t think of a single neighbor of Rome besides maybe the Sahara that an invasion or at least expedition wasn’t attempted. The less successful the Romans are initially, the less willing they’ll be in the long term.

That being said, let’s say the Claudian invasion was less successful, just enough to show the allied Britons how awful life under Rome is, while having the war drag on for decades, with there being a massive setback with every rebellion or Roman civil war. The legions also never fully lose their fear of the island. Eventually, the emperor decides enough is enough and sues for peace. I think it’s unlikely Britannia could avoid Rome forever, it’s just too convenient a target for any emperor looking to establish themselves militarily, which is like every emperor. But they control the island less directly, maybe vassalizing the different tribes, or controlling only the south coast, or like Dacia they hold it for a century before abandoning it.

What are the short term effects? Could Cladius have kept power if he fails a conquest? Is not controlling Britannia a net benefit or loss?

In the long term, how does this impact major events like the crisis of the third century or even the fall of Rome? How successful is a Celtic Britain against Anglo-saxons or nords? What impact does it have on the rest of Europe?

During a military campaign allied tribes wouldn't understand how life under Rome is. Your best try is probably having a Teutoburg 2.0 where the Romans get ambushed and the whole process of Romanization is destroyed, making the Romans think that their natural expansion stops there.
Claudius would certainly be able to maintain power because it wasn't him that lead the campaign so he isn't responsible for its failure.
Britannia was positive at the beginning since the land was rich of resources but in the long run it was more trouble than it was worth as having two legions defending a now inprofitable province was a waste of manpower.
I don't know if the Anglo-Saxons would still invade the island as it depends on centuries of developement on the island

 

[Hearkener]

First, I’m going to adress a point I see all the time and someone most likely would have argued, which is that the Romans decided that Britannia had enough resources to justify the cost of invading, so they would just keep trying until they won. That’s true, but the way they figured out how easy a region was to invade and subdue was by trying to invade and subdue it.

I'm actually going to argue the opposite: the conquest of Britannia was not motivated by her resources. The Romans were generally not motivated by an abstract concept of "resources", the way that modern countries' expansion is - largely because the exploitation of such constituted a tiny fraction of the SPQR's economy. As an urban civilization, Roman expansion was motivated by the desire to capture cities, and by extension their people and agriculture, which actually form the basis of any agrarian economy. Britannia, just like Germania but unlike Gaul, had no cities to speak of.
The Roman conquest was thus motivated by political incentives - fulfilling the emperor's duty to expand the SPQR.

Is not controlling Britannia a net benefit or loss?

As stated above, the Romans principally relied on controlling cities to exert influence over their hinterland. Since Britannia didn't really have any, they were generally forced to build their own. In the long run, this turned out to be a collossal waste of money, time and manpower; by the 5th century, all their efforts had come to naught and Roman Britain suffered perhaps the most catastrophic collapse of any province during the migration period.
It's not like it was a rich province before that either, the whole place depended on continuous investment from the government to not collapse in on itself.
Therefore, not controling Britannia is probably a net benefit for the empire.

In the long term, how does this impact major events like the crisis of the third century or even the fall of Rome? How successful is a Celtic Britain against Anglo-saxons or nords? What impact does it have on the rest of Europe?

The Fall of Rome had macro-economic reasons rooted in the global climate, so it probably still happens. That said, the Romans have more funds for a defense of Gaul and the Limes germanicus.
Seeing as the Germanic tribes crossed the sea to raid, then turned mercenaries and eventually conquerors, I don't think they'd be much interested in Britannia in this scenario, and will instead focus their efforts on Gaul. They could perhaps build a few settlements along the coast, especially in the Viking Age, as that was largely motivated by demographic concerns that would still apply.

 

[Malta]

One could see a sort of factionalism eventually forming between Pro-Latin and Anti-Latin tribes and groups on the islands eventually. It wouldn’t be far fetched to say the Legions would return and put a Pro-Latin King on the Throne of a large tribe or kingdom or whatever forms. This could at later times lead to resentment toward Christianity as a Pro-Latin sentiment or fuel it’s acceptance under the earlier empire if it arrives sooner.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

One could see a sort of factionalism eventually forming between Pro-Latin and Anti-Latin tribes and groups on the islands eventually. It wouldn’t be far fetched to say the Legions would return and put a Pro-Latin King on the Throne of a large tribe or kingdom or whatever forms. This could at later times lead to resentment toward Christianity as a Pro-Latin sentiment or fuel it’s acceptance under the earlier empire if it arrives sooner.

There is no large kingdom in Britannia, there are thousands of small tribes and stronger tribes control the weaker ones so you would have to do this hundreds of times not to talk about the fact that by the time you launch your campaign your pretendant is probably already dead.
Also all of the strong tribes don't want the Romans to come while the weaker ones want to get rid of the stronger ones and therefore help the Romans, but for obvious reasons the weaker ones cannot really get rid of the stronger ones hence the need to conquer yourself instead of supporting allied tribes; also allied today become enemies tomorrow.

 

[Malta]

There is no large kingdom in Britannia, there are thousands of small tribes and stronger tribes control the weaker ones so you would have to do this hundreds of times not to talk about the fact that by the time you launch your campaign your pretendant is probably already dead.
Also all of the strong tribes don't want the Romans to come while the weaker ones want to get rid of the stronger ones and therefore help the Romans, but for obvious reasons the weaker ones cannot really get rid of the stronger ones hence the need to conquer yourself instead of supporting allied tribes; also allied today become enemies tomorrow.

I mean in terms of the future. Right around the POD that is the case but as we have seen the development will eventually lead to the small tribes banding together and merging and eventually becoming larger entities. Perhaps the outside pressure of the Romans even leads to an earlier unified England/Albion.

We have seen this enough of Roman meddling in their Gaulish clients and then later the chiefs they propped up across the Rhine or in Armenia.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I mean in terms of the future. Right around the POD that is the case but as we have seen the development will eventually lead to the small tribes banding together and merging and eventually becoming larger entities. Perhaps the outside pressure of the Romans even leads to an earlier unified England/Albion.

There were no such states in Germania or in modern day Scotland, they probably won't band together anytime soon.

 

[Malta]

There were no such states in Germania or in modern day Scotland, they probably won't band together anytime soon.

The Romans did enforce tribes to become clients with them or at least accept peace terms that favored them on tribes across the Rhine without directly ruling them.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The Romans did enforce tribes to become clients with them or at least accept peace terms that favored them on tribes across the Rhine without directly ruling them.

That's across the Rhine, doing that across the English? Channel is very different

 

[Malta]

That's across the Rhine, doing that across the English? Channel is very different

Caesar did it when he invaded the second time.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Caesar did it when he invaded the second time.

But when he went away from the island you couldn't really feel Roman presence on the island

 

[Fabius Maximus]

As stated above, the Romans principally relied on controlling cities to exert influence over their hinterland. Since Britannia didn't really have any, they were generally forced to build their own. In the long run, this turned out to be a collossal waste of money, time and manpower; by the 5th century, all their efforts had come to naught and Roman Britain suffered perhaps the most catastrophic collapse of any province during the migration period.

The last part is certainly true. Reading about the archaeology of the period, Post-Roman Britain sounds like some kind of post-apocalyptic dystopia. Large parts of the country seem to have forgotten how to make fricking pots, which are one of the most basic pieces of technology out there.

Seeing as the Germanic tribes crossed the sea to raid, then turned mercenaries and eventually conquerors, I don't think they'd be much interested in Britannia in this scenario, and will instead focus their efforts on Gaul. They could perhaps build a few settlements along the coast, especially in the Viking Age, as that was largely motivated by demographic concerns that would still apply.

Not to mention, Britain IOTL suffered widespread social collapse as a result of the withdrawal of Roman government (see above point re: pots). If the island has been free of Roman control all along, presumably it would be better able to fight off foreign raiders.

There is no large kingdom in Britannia, there are thousands of small tribes and stronger tribes control the weaker ones so you would have to do this hundreds of times not to talk about the fact that by the time you launch your campaign your pretendant is probably already dead.

Thousands is an exaggeration; the real number was probably more like a few dozen, and the Romans realistically only need to bother with the southern tribes anyway.

That's across the Rhine, doing that across the English? Channel is very different

The English Channel is a bigger barrier than the Rhine, true, but the Romans could still exert influence over the tribes in southern Britain. Arguably they already were before Claudius' invasion, and even without an official conquest Roman influence is likely to increase in the long term.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Thousands is an exaggeration; the real number was probably more like a few dozen, and the Romans realistically only need to bother with the southern tribes anyway.

Those tribes you see on the map are confederations of many small tribes or the power projection of said confederation, if there were only twelve tribes in Britain Caesar would've had no problem conquering Britain.

The English Channel is a bigger barrier than the Rhine, true, but the Romans could still exert influence over the tribes in southern Britain. Arguably they already were before Claudius' invasion, and even without an official conquest Roman influence is likely to increase in the long term.

Not if they try and fail, which is the POD here; while they may have influence it would be nothing compared to tribes near the Rhine

 

[JamesHunter]

Well for a while at any rate. Any client state status probably goes away once the plagues or the crisis of the 3rd century occurs since (as OTL) that will be when the Roman's refocus on the prosperous Greek half of the Empire instead of the western European bit they're been propping up since the 50's BC.

Irony of ironies a Britannia that hasn't been sat on by Rome for nearly four centuries (and so is probably as developed as say western Germany, without the dislocation of the occupation) could end up joining in the scramble for Gaul once the Romans withdrew instead of being a victim of it.

One thing that might go slightly different is the partition of the Empire simply because there won't be a York for Constantine to be visiting when the crown falls on his head...

That said it's inevitable by that point no matter who ends up in charge, only question is when it happens and where the new capital is located.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Irony of ironies a Britannia that hasn't been sat on by Rome for nearly four centuries (and so is probably as developed as say western Germany, without the dislocation of the occupation) could end up joining in the scramble for Gaul once the Romans withdrew instead of being a victim of it.

Britons won't join the scramble for Gaul, the tribes in Germania were forced to attack the WRE because the Huns were chasing them, the Britons would probably be nusy fighting among themselves.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Those tribes you see on the map are confederations of many small tribes or the power projection of said confederation, if there were only twelve tribes in Britain Caesar would've had no problem conquering Britain.

That bolded bit is unlikely. Most of Gaul had only recently been conquered and wasn't under secure Roman control, and the Romans knew next to nothing about British geography or politics. Caesar wouldn't have been able to conquer Britain no matter if there was one tribe or one thousand.

As for confederations, I'm not aware of any evidence for the idea -- unless we define the term so loosely that the Roman Empire would also count as a confederation.

Not if they try and fail, which is the POD here; while they may have influence it would be nothing compared to tribes near the Rhine

The Romans tried and failed to conquer Germany, and that didn't stop them exerting significant influence over the tribes across the Rhine. Even if the Romans abandon the idea of direct control, they can still send gifts to rulers of friendly British tribes, strengthening pro-Roman rulers at the expense of anti-Roman ones.

Britons won't join the scramble for Gaul, the tribes in Germania were forced to attack the WRE because the Huns were chasing them, the Britons would probably be nusy fighting among themselves.

The prospect of wealth and land would be ample reason for the Britons to invade, even without any Hunnic pressure. Not to mention, apart from the case of the Goths, there's no direct evidence that the Germanic invasions were caused by Hunnic pressure in the first place.

 

[JamesHunter]

That bolded bit is just silly. Most of Gaul had only recently been conquered and wasn't under secure Roman control, and the Romans knew next to nothing about British geography or politics. Caesar wouldn't have been able to conquer Britain no matter if there was one tribe or one thousand.

As for confederations, I'm not aware of any evidence for the idea -- unless we define the term so loosely that the Roman Empire would also count as a confederation.

The Romans tried and failed to conquer Germany, and that didn't stop them exerting significant influence over the tribes across the Rhine. Even if the Romans abandon the idea of direct control, they can still send gifts to rulers of friendly British tribes, strengthening pro-Roman rulers at the expense of anti-Roman ones.

The prospect of wealth and land would be ample reason for the Britons to invade, even without any Hunnic pressure. Not to mention, apart from the case of the Goths, there's no direct evidence that the Germanic invasions were caused by Hunnic pressure in the first place.

All good points. Also OTL Briton's did colonise in Gaul (in the form of Brittany), not weakened by centuries of Roman mismanagement they'll be able to keep the Germanic tribes out this time and maybe do some rather more extensive expansion themselves...

Meanwhile "England" probably ends up on the North sea coast of Germany this time since the Angles won't have any reason or ability to move into a broken down anarchy...

 

[Malta]

All good points. Also OTL Briton's did colonise in Gaul (in the form of Brittany), not weakened by centuries of Roman mismanagement they'll be able to keep the Germanic tribes out this time and maybe do some rather more extensive expansion themselves...

Meanwhile "England" probably ends up on the North sea coast of Germany this time since the Angles won't have any reason or ability to move into a broken down anarchy...

Hah! I need a map where England is in place of Normandy.

 

[JamesHunter]

Hah! I need a map where England is in place of Normandy.

Probably still on the Jutland coast actually, although a bigger Brittany covering the entire channel coast would be plausible.