Another source of grain?
Anyways they may recruit some troops from them but Britannia won't be able to replace Germans in quantity of soldiers
Less successful Roman conquest of Britannia
- Thread starter Collondi
- Start date
Anyways they may recruit some troops from them but Britannia won't be able to replace Germans in quantity of soldiers
The combination of tides, currents and squalls that almost come out of nowhere have aways made the channel more problematic than distance alone would suggest, its why you did not end up with a tribe spanning both sides. The historical record does indicate roman sailors were scared of it.
Well yeah, the armies gotta be kept fed to perform well and not revolt, and it would be fairly cheap to buy grain from Britain, at least until the accumulation of wealth and power by British tribes favorable to Rome leads them to start conglomerating and thereby increasing their ability to bargain
Okay??? So? They don't have to
Last edited:
Yeah it's just extra mercs, not a replacement. Also from a Roman perspective two sources means you can play them off on each other and they won't be conspiring to take advantage of you. Also means there will already be Brit's in various places who will send for their family's when Rome enters terminal decline. Same result as the Goth's had OTL...
Do the British tribes produce a surplus of grain enough to feed the Roman armies? Even if they did it would be extremely unreliable because a storm would be enough to prevent the supply of grain and the legions will rebel.
Basically they won't be able to arrive at the level of influence Germanic tribes , they will have a peripherical influence and won't really influence in the Roman collapse; what really changes is that there are no Anglo-Saxons and unified kingdoms probably won't form anytime soon, butterflying away England and the UK.
Sure. But again, they don't have to. I'm just speculating possible interactions, the Britons don't have to be "main characters" or whatever in a possible western collapse scenario (which is not guaranteed to happen in any remotely similar way as OTL anyways, given how early the POD is relative to that)
I don't see why we should be so skeptical about the formation of relatively large (for British standards anyways) kingdoms after +300 years of alternate interactions. Even in the time of Claudius the Brigantes were a fairly large kingdom/confederation, just about the same size as the early medieval Northumbria, for example, and the Catevellauni seem to have been relatively big and influential as well at the time
Britannia not being conquered doesn't change what happened OTL, maybe (although very unlikely) the same Emperors don't come to power but the general trend wouldn't be changed, Rome has Pax Romana, it then has political and military instability where generals constantly march their troops to Rome and it then collapses.
While they will form bigger confederations this won't create the same kind of structure as the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, places such as Ireland who remained very tribal are a good example of a possible development.
Kinda hard to believe that when many influential generals had a career/base in Britain; Suetonius Paulinus, Gnaeus Agricola, Vespasian, Clodius Ablinus, Constantine, Count Theodosius, Magnus Maximus.
It'd be different, sure, but we can't assume no consolidation at all. Britain may share some cultural similarities with Ireland but they are not identical contexts
I was more talking about the early emperors, yes some began their career in Britannia but those would either still come to power as they are successful in campaigns elsewhere or would be replaced by others.
Supporting friendly rulers to create a buffer zone around the Empire was what the Romans did on every other frontier, and I see no reason why Britain wold be any different.
The Normans were descended from Vikings, but they were really a separate people by 1066. As for being centuries later, unless there's some specific technological or whatever change that makes transmarine invasions easier, I don't see how that makes any difference.
The Britons weren't defenceless, though. In fact, Britain was the only former Western province to resist the barbarian invaders for any length of time.
Compared to the Mediterranean, sure, it's treacherous, which is why Roman sailors were scared of it. But to peoples who were used to the sea, it wasn't really difficult to traverse. The kings of England would manage to hold onto land in France for a good five centuries during the middle ages.
Storms in this area hardly ever last more than a day or so, and most are considerably shorter. A grain shipment being delayed by one day isn't going to cause a revolt unless a lot of other things have gone very, very wrong.
You don't have a frontier with Britain, your buffer is the English? Channel; and even if they did every sort of influence will be lost after the Third Century crisis
They aren't invading in the 5th century AD
They will defend much better than OTL if the Anglo-Saxons invade, which is unlikely
Boats won't go from one side of the Channel to the other every day, they will have one big voyage every month or so and if the boats are destroyed by a storm (which happened to some of Caesar's boats in both invasions of Britannia) then you are screwed
Economics of scale makes this unlikely. Even if all of Britannia were to be united under a single state, her economy would be dwarved several times over by just the province of Egypt on her lonesome. Basically, the Romans could still pay astronomically high prices without it affecting their economy at all, whereas a relatively minor economic sanction on the empire's part would rain hellfire down upon the Britannic economy.
Even, putting aside the already noted M. Aurelius' intentions, him planning to and taking the war to the enemy territory, either to retaliate by their earlier invasion or as way to destroy them and preempt any possible future invasion... It only could be constructed as an offensive campaign.
Besides from as was noted upthread of Rome possible interest for recruitment of foreign warriors either individually or even as whole groups, as auxilia (like IIRC Constantine, fielded in Milvian Br battle). Britain, still would be of interest for Rome as trading partner and for secure the undisturbed flow of the British mineral resources. Also, to put attention on the closer Barbarians and to exert influence either directly or indirectly through trade and playing some chieftains against others or mediating between them, was kind of of standard policy for most of the empires (with competent enough rulers/bureaucracies) through the History.
Should be noted that while Romans losses equivalents to the Teutoburg ambush ones, while if not common, neither they were unheard in Rome military history/military campaigns. And that both Rome lack of political will and the necessary continuity on it as for prioritize it enough as for let be involved in a such multi decades effort. But, particularly Tiberius' actions and political-military decisions could be attributed, mainly that he wasn't a military leader/able general and looked for an 'easier' target on Britain and also, as you noted, to internal political reasons/court intrigues.
But, it, in fact, started way earlier and his decisions/actions was shaped by the at the times ongoing and far more concerning (in terms of scale and deployed armies), for Rome, the Bellum Batonianum/Great Illyrian Revolt.
Perhaps, but aside that it wasn't in discussion, it would last long enough as for that it would provide both advanced defense and if necessary for it be a base for the next emperors military expeditions.
It would show its effects way earlier with those even if no more than few tens or hundreds of surviving veterans back in Britain. Would be used to an monetary economy, after to have been deployed/fighting through the whole empire and probably well off in comparison to most of their neighbours/fellow tribesmen. It would probably, these Britons would brought with them new ideas/religious beliefs and ways to think/perspectives from the ones commons back in their tribal homes. Would be probably to cause changes and/or along with trade with the Empire, to stimulate the island, even if primarily at local /regional level.
Last edited:
Trade of resources will be relatively minor and any influence the Romans may have will be gone after the third century crisis.
Tiberius was a very competent general and he was the one leading the armies in Germania until the Illyrian Revolt and when he put that down he got news that Teutoburg happened, he didn't personally lead the armies in Germania because he had to govern Rome. He didn't conquer Britannia, that was Claudius, he didn't even send an expedition to Britannia.
Commodus? No and the region will probably be abandoned like Dacia at some point.
How about the Picts? Given that Rome only controlled a small part of Scotland, and even that only briefly, it could make sense for anti Roman Celtic tribes in England to ally with the Picts to ensure that the pro Roman tribes do not gain power. At least in northern England, at least.
Hard to say as we know so little about them at this time. Everything we do know from this period is via the Romans so we are not even know how powerful they are or even if they are just a northern Celtic tribe/confederacy. Without the defeat of Mons Graupius then the Caledonian's would still be the top dogs in that part of Great Briton anyway.
The Picts won't be able to influence Southern Britannia and that is the only place the Romans can really influence
It should be noted that in Caesar's time, there were British tribes aiding the Gauls against him, it is part of what motivated him to cross the channel in the 1st place after all, so if Claudius' invasion failed then, the continued development of southern Britain should continue towards increased urbanization, more distant tribes transitioning to a monetary economy( as noted above both the Dobunni and the Dumnonii seem to have minted their own coins before the invasion), and increased centralization of political entities, which was another driver of both Caesar and Claudius's invasions, an ousted leader wanted and got Roman support to be reinstated as tribal king, Mandubracius for Caesar and Verica for Claudius. So in a failed Claudian invasion world, we would see larger and larger confederations that become more or less permanent, or when they collapse into civil war the Romans back the weaker side to produce more client kingdoms.
The English Channel is easy for raiders to cross, and Roman influence wasn't lost anywhere else after the Third-Century Crisis.
That doesn't affect the point I was making.
If the Britons are securer, that makes it more likely they'll try raiding/expanding in Gaul, not less.
The Romans generally kept more than a month's worth in grain in their big stockpiles. The odd grain shipment getting sunk or delayed isn't going to make anyone run out of food.