Less successful Roman conquest of Britannia

[EasternRomanEmpire]

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.

Gifts won't make ones army significantly more powerful, as for Germania after Teutoburg (or more precisely the withdrawal from Germania) their control over the area was reduced to almost nothing, they could exert influence over the tribes across the Rhine because the tribes there knew the Romans could just decide to march their legions in a punitive expedition if they didn't comply, you can't do this kind of thing overnight in Britannia

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.

Do you think there would be a Briton tribe with a large enough navy to manage logistics across the channel, that has an army that is powerful enough to compete with other players in Gaul and that wouldn't decide to use this power in Britannia instead of gambling over an invasion of Gaul?
Seems very unlikely to me.

 

[JamesHunter]

Gifts won't make ones army significantly more powerful, as for Germania after Teutoburg (or more precisely the withdrawal from Germania) their control over the area was reduced to almost nothing, they could exert influence over the tribes across the Rhine because the tribes there knew the Romans could just decide to march their legions in a punitive expedition if they didn't comply, you can't do this kind of thing overnight in Britannia

Do you think there would be a Briton tribe with a large enough navy to manage logistics across the channel, that has an army that is powerful enough to compete with other players in Gaul and that wouldn't decide to use this power in Britannia instead of gambling over an invasion of Gaul?
Seems very unlikely to me.

Why not, they did it OTL, and further they did it while Britain proper was imploding and under Anglo Saxon invasion. Here Britain will be fairly stable, won't have suffered four centuries of Roman occupation and should have an intact economy at least on the same level as the Germanic tribes. Meanwhile Gaul has imploded as the WRE has fallen apart and "You get what you grab," will be in operation.

Also not being dependent on the Legion's (and probably having built up their own forces to try to keep Rome out when possible) Britannia should be strong enough that it won't be targeted itself this time (or if it is they can kick the invaders out). That's in addition to not having a bunch of Anglo Saxon's already on the island due to a Roman invite.

 

[Xenophonte]

That said, the Romans have more funds for a defense of Gaul and the Limes germanicus.

Not only for the defensive, it would also free more resources for the OTL offensives campaigns in Germany. But, in a crisis time, I think that we can't discard that some of the southern Britons tribes, wouldn't take advantage from it for a little raiding of their own... And, if so, it would probably to lead to the eventual formation of an additional one: the 'Limes Britanicum'.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Why not, they did it OTL, and further they did it while Britain proper was imploding and under Anglo Saxon invasion. Here Britain will be fairly stable, won't have suffered four centuries of Roman occupation and should have an intact economy at least on the same level as the Germanic tribes. Meanwhile Gaul has imploded as the WRE has fallen apart and "You get what you grab," will be in operation.

Also not being dependent on the Legion's (and probably having built up their own forces to try to keep Rome out when possible) Britannia should be strong enough that it won't be targeted itself this time (or if it is they can kick the invaders out). That's in addition to not having a bunch of Anglo Saxon's already on the island due to a Roman invite.

Britons will be very divided, so any power that has a realistic chance of carving up Gaul will first try to dominate the island, and such a state probably wouldn't have the naval power to manage logistics and your territory in Britannia will be undefended while you carry this doomed operation.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Not only for the defensive, it would also free more resources for the OTL offensives campaigns in Germany. But, in a crisis time, I think that we can't discard that some of the southern Britons tribes, wouldn't take advantage from it for a little raiding of their own... And, if so, it would probably to lead to the eventual formation of an additional one: the Limes Britanicum.

Offensive campaigns in Germany stopped once Tiberius ordered Germanicus to return to Rome, conquest of Britain was under Claudius.
A tribe that has the naval power of doing piracy across the Channel is unlikely and if the WRE isn't in a position to answer that then it mean that Gaul is already invaded by every tribe you can possibly imagine.

 

[Nivek]

So no conquest..how britannia would evolved as just a distant foederati but one rome never cares that much?

 

[Xenophonte]

Offensive campaigns in Germany stopped once Tiberius ordered Germanicus to return to Rome, conquest of Britain was under Claudius.

Marcus Aurelius' campaigns against the Marcomanni and Quadi contradict it

A tribe that has the naval power of doing piracy across the Channel is unlikely and if the WRE isn't in a position to answer that then it mean that Gaul is already invaded by every tribe you can possibly imagine.

ITTL,, would probably get developed a strong cross channel commercial trade and it would stimulate the Britons to either build their own ships of acquire them from the Romans Merchants. Also, in this scenario wouldn't seem probably that the Roman would create or base fleets of their own in the port of the Galia. So, I'd suppose that if the opportunity would arise that they would be using those ships for the raiding...

 

[JamesHunter]

Britons will be very divided, so any power that has a realistic chance of carving up Gaul will first try to dominate the island, and such a state probably wouldn't have the naval power to manage logistics and your territory in Britannia will be undefended while you carry this doomed operation.

And you'll end up with certain tribes (as happened in the East) who can't compete with the coming powers look south and see a nice anarchy in the middle of some prime land. It's not exactly hard to get across the channel and if you can't expand at home heading abroad to colonize has been a common option for thousands of years.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Gifts won't make ones army significantly more powerful, as for Germania after Teutoburg (or more precisely the withdrawal from Germania) their control over the area was reduced to almost nothing, they could exert influence over the tribes across the Rhine because the tribes there knew the Romans could just decide to march their legions in a punitive expedition if they didn't comply, you can't do this kind of thing overnight in Britannia

Gifting a large amount of gold or similar valuables, enabling a friendly leader to hire more warriors and so increase his strength, was a common way for rich empires to manage tribes beyond their frontiers. It's not an infallible way, sure, but that doesn't mean it has no effect.

Do you think there would be a Briton tribe with a large enough navy to manage logistics across the channel, that has an army that is powerful enough to compete with other players in Gaul and that wouldn't decide to use this power in Britannia instead of gambling over an invasion of Gaul?

Logistics didn't stop the Britons settling in Brittany, or the Saxons and Vikings settling in Britain, and the latter two had to cross larger bodies of water than our hypothetical British tribe would. And if the POD is some time in Claudius' reign, that still leaves a good 350 years or so before any "scramble for Gaul" happens (assuming the Roman Empire falls at around the same time as IOTL), so there's plenty of time for some political consolidation to happen. The trend in Germany was for smaller tribes to coalesce into larger ones, and it's likely a similar process will happen in Britain as well.

 

[pjmidd]

It's not exactly hard to get across the channel

Actually it was, the channel has a habit of getting very nasty, very quickly ( even in the 1500's not unknown for ships to have to wait for weeks before trying to dash across )

 

[Xenophonte]

Logistics didn't stop the Britons settling in Brittany, or the Saxons and Vikings settling in Britain,

Also, neither did stopped the Irish raiding/piratical activity across the Irish sea

 

[Hearkener]

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.

As I understand it, the politics of these people were often extremely transient. You likely would not be able to establish permanent political entities above the level of individual familial clans (which could still be quite large). Admittedly, I'm more familiar with Semitic than with Indo-European clan structures.

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.

There is also the matter of the empire's enormous economic power. Just by sheer proximity to the SPQR, the islands material and social culture would likely be transformed, as happened in Germania. Close ties to the empire would likely become something that local leaders compete over.

 

[Malta]

As I understand it, the politics of these people were often extremely transient. You likely would not be able to establish permanent political entities above the level of individual familial clans (which could still be quite large). Admittedly, I'm more familiar with Semitic than with Indo-European clan structures.

There is also the matter of the empire's enormous economic power. Just by sheer proximity to the SPQR, the islands material and social culture would likely be transformed, as happened in Germania. Close ties to the empire would likely become something that local leaders compete over.

Indeed, that’s why I would believe a situation such as in Germania and Armenia would occur with Latinized Britons adopting aspects of the Roman culture. Probably focused on the main tribes that trade with the Romans. Leading to a certain amount of side eyeing by those tribes further away from the trade hubs at those who have adopted Roman ways.

Also let’s not forget the Romans were happy to sell arms and armor to Germanic tribes that acted as buffers/clients in Germania and Denmark

 

[JamesHunter]

Indeed, that’s why I would believe a situation such as in Germania and Armenia would occur with Latinized Britons adopting aspects of the Roman culture. Probably focused on the main tribes that trade with the Romans. Leading to a certain amount of side eyeing by those tribes further away from the trade hubs at those who have adopted Roman ways.

Also let’s not forget the Romans were happy to sell arms and armor to Germanic tribes that acted as buffers/clients in Germania and Denmark

True, although obviously that isn't as big an issue here since there's nothing beyond Britain to threaten the Romans so at most they'll properly properly up friendly southern tribes to block off any risk of raiders from further North going after Gaul.

Actually it was, the channel has a habit of getting very nasty, very quickly ( even in the 1500's not unknown for ships to have to wait for weeks before trying to dash across )

True but it can be done with the technology available to the Briton's (especially when highly motivated) .

 

[Xenophonte]

Also, in this scenario would be interesting to see as would evolve the British own Druid tradition or or how would the Gauls and Britons seemingly closer cultural and religious links would be developing and/or influencing each other with ones integrated to the empire and Britain out of the Roman world. So, and as how would fare/develop the Caledonians in the North with (according to Archeological evidence) their close links between Northern Ireland and the coast of Western Scotland since the Neolithic both without the Roman presence (albeit if temporal) or the (Tacitus' mentioned) Battle of Mount Graupius...

 

[Putnam]

Honestly, you could completely prevent Rome's conquest of Britannia relatively easily. Just keep Rome's conquest of Germania going.

With Roman military resources tied up in Germania no one's going to give Britannia a second glance and the conquest of Germania is going to be a multi-generational process that will probably take most of the first century AD to pull off.

By the time Germania to the Elbe is fully conquered no one's going to even consider a conquest of Britannia.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Marcus Aurelius' campaigns against the Marcomanni and Quadi contradict it

That was a defensive campaign and a punitive/securing the border expedition, the intent never was to conquer that part of Germania

And you'll end up with certain tribes (as happened in the East) who can't compete with the coming powers look south and see a nice anarchy in the middle of some prime land. It's not exactly hard to get across the channel and if you can't expand at home heading abroad to colonize has been a common option for thousands of years.

Which coming powers? Without the anarchy caused by the Roman retreat the island will be relatively stable, probably no Anglo-Saxons and the Picts don't have the occasion to sack Britannia. Also if there is a coming power then you first try to defend your homeland and then you migrate but any coming power that would force you to migrate will probably destroy you before you can migrate

Gifting a large amount of gold or similar valuables, enabling a friendly leader to hire more warriors and so increase his strength, was a common way for rich empires to manage tribes beyond their frontiers. It's not an infallible way, sure, but that doesn't mean it has no effect.

What advantage do the Romans get from this? IMO they wouldn't be that interested in Britannia

Logistics didn't stop the Britons settling in Brittany, or the Saxons and Vikings settling in Britain, and the latter two had to cross larger bodies of water than our hypothetical British tribe would. And if the POD is some time in Claudius' reign, that still leaves a good 350 years or so before any "scramble for Gaul" happens (assuming the Roman Empire falls at around the same time as IOTL), so there's plenty of time for some political consolidation to happen. The trend in Germany was for smaller tribes to coalesce into larger ones, and it's likely a similar process will happen in Britain as well.

Those larger tribes will fight among themselves more than look at the Romans' territory, once the scramble for Gaul happens these tribes will probably be busy fighting among themselves and even if they did decide to go to Gaul I doubt they would be powerful enough to succeed

Honestly, you could completely prevent Rome's conquest of Britannia relatively easily. Just keep Rome's conquest of Germania going.

With Roman military resources tied up in Germania no one's going to give Britannia a second glance and the conquest of Germania is going to be a multi-generational process that will probably take most of the first century AD to pull off.

By the time Germania to the Elbe is fully conquered no one's going to even consider a conquest of Britannia.

A conquest of Germania isn't that difficult, before the Battle of Teutoburg the area was pacified and could be compared to Gaul after Caesar, if the campaigns in Germania continue then the Romans will need only a decade or two to manage to pacify the area, they didn't do OTL because Tiberius was worried about the growing popularity of Germanicus and because doing so would be extremely costly.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Actually it was, the channel has a habit of getting very nasty, very quickly ( even in the 1500's not unknown for ships to have to wait for weeks before trying to dash across )

I think that's an exaggeration. The English Channel really isn't that big -- on a clear day you can look across from Dover to Calais -- and the weather in southern England/northern France is generally quite mild.

As I understand it, the politics of these people were often extremely transient. You likely would not be able to establish permanent political entities above the level of individual familial clans (which could still be quite large). Admittedly, I'm more familiar with Semitic than with Indo-European clan structures.

British tribes before the Romans were permanent enough to have their own coinage, large-scale architecture, and distinctive styles of art and dress. Stuart Laycock is good on this.

That was a defensive campaign and a punitive/securing the border expedition, the intent never was to conquer that part of Germania

IIRC Marcus Aurelius did actually intend to conquer the area, it was Commodus who decided not to.

What advantage do the Romans get from this? IMO they wouldn't be that interested in Britannia

The advantage is that southern Britain is controlled by friendly rulers who won't raid Roman territory in Gaul.

Those larger tribes will fight among themselves more than look at the Romans' territory, once the scramble for Gaul happens these tribes will probably be busy fighting among themselves and even if they did decide to go to Gaul I doubt they would be powerful enough to succeed

The Scots, Irish, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans all invaded and conquered parts of Britain, despite having other enemies closer to home.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

IIRC Marcus Aurelius did actually intend to conquer the area, it was Commodus who decided not to.

It wouldn't last very long

The advantage is that southern Britain is controlled by friendly rulers who won't raid Roman territory in Gaul.

Britons will never really pose a threat to the Romans, even if they did decide to create friendly rulers this doesn't mean they will remain friendly for long

The Scots, Irish, Saxons, Vikings, and Normans all invaded and conquered parts of Britain, despite having other enemies closer to home.

Vikings and Normans are the same thing, and that's centuries after.
Scots and Anglo-Saxons exploited the fact that the Britons were defenseless to expand their influence, without the Romans:
A) They probably won't migrate there
B) The Briton tribes will be able to resist their invasion

 

[piratedude]

Gifting a large amount of gold or similar valuables, enabling a friendly leader to hire more warriors and so increase his strength, was a common way for rich empires to manage tribes beyond their frontiers. It's not an infallible way, sure, but that doesn't mean it has no effect.

What advantage do the Romans get from this? IMO they wouldn't be that interested in Britannia

The advantage is that southern Britain is controlled by friendly rulers who won't raid Roman territory in Gaul.

The Romans would also likely get mercenaries/auxilia and another source of grain for the legions on the german frontier