Less successful Roman conquest of Britannia

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The English Channel is easy for raiders to cross, and Roman influence wasn't lost anywhere else after the Third-Century Crisis.

After the Third Century crisis the Romans have other things to do than to re-assert their influence in Britannia.

That doesn't affect the point I was making.

What point were you making?

If the Bretons are securer, that makes it more likely they'll try raiding/expanding in Gaul, not less.

They are more secure because they never begun to rely on the Romans for protection so they don't have a collapse of their society.
They won't start to expand in Gaul because they are busy fighting among themselves for hegemony over Britannia, it's almost impossible that a tribe that has the military capability to invade Gaul, the naval capability to manage logistics across the Channel and still enough troops to defend their homeland would rise and even if it did it would try to dominate Britannia as that would be much easier than just throwing all of your resources on an invasion of the most contested area of the WRE.

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.

But do you think the Bretons will be able to produce that much food extra than what they need for themselves? Even if they did imagine the nightmare of having to build ships on the Atlantic to trade (and therefore also that cargo can be destroyed) with the Britons just to bring back food which could've very well just been transported from Gaul or some other place of the Empire.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

After the Third Century crisis the Romans have other things to do than to re-assert their influence in Britannia.

Securing the empire from attack is something the Romans are always going to want to do.

What point were you making?

That neither "logistics" nor "having other enemies closer to home" were barriers to invasion during the late antique/early medieval period.

If the Bretons are securer, that makes it more likely they'll try raiding/expanding in Gaul, not less.

I'm not sure why you decided to change "Britons" to "Bretons"; "Briton" is the correct term for an inhabitant of Britain.

They won't start to expand in Gaul because they are busy fighting among themselves for hegemony over Britannia, it's almost impossible that a tribe that has the military capability to invade Gaul, the naval capability to manage logistics across the Channel and still enough troops to defend their homeland would rise and even if it did it would try to dominate Britannia as that would be much easier than just throwing all of your resources on an invasion of the most contested area of the WRE.

See above re: the multiple seaborne invasions that took place during these centuries.

But do you think the Bretons will be able to produce that much food extra than what they need for themselves? Even if they did imagine the nightmare of having to build ships on the Atlantic to trade (and therefore also that cargo can be destroyed) with the Britons just to bring back food which could've very well just been transported from Gaul or some other place of the Empire.

All travel in bulk was done by water in this period, so any grain brought in from the area outside the Rhine itself and its tributaries will have to come by sea. Shipping grain in from southern Britain would be easier than, say, shipping it from central Gaul down the Loire, then around the Gallic coast till you reach the mouth of the Rhine. Which, incidentally, the Romans were also able to do. The North Atlantic has been a conduit for trade and travel since at least the bronze age; it's not the terrifying, impassable barrier people here seem to be imagining.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Securing the empire from attack is something the Romans are always going to want to do.

Bretons didn't have a particularly good navy.

That neither "logistics" nor "having other enemies closer to home" were barriers to invasion during the late antique/early medieval period.

Vikings invaded because it was right in front of them, the Anglo-Saxons because they were invited, Bretons aren't a maritime based people like the two examples you cited.

I'm not sure why you decided to change "Britons" to "Bretons"; "Briton" is the correct term for an inhabitant of Britain.

Britain is a region of France, so Britons are the inhabitants of the region to the North-Western France.

See above re: the multiple seaborne invasions that took place during these centuries.

Bretons didn't have a good navy and they didn't have the numbers to launch an invasion of Gaul, Gaul is difficult to conquer precisely because there are so many enemies there.

All travel in bulk was done by water in this period, so any grain brought in from the area outside the Rhine itself and its tributaries will have to come by sea. Shipping grain in from southern Britain would be easier than, say, shipping it from central Gaul down the Loire, then around the Gallic coast till you reach the mouth of the Rhine. Which, incidentally, the Romans were also able to do. The North Atlantic has been a conduit for trade and travel since at least the bronze age; it's not the terrifying, impassable barrier people here seem to be imagining.

1. Bretons aren't really able to produce that much food
2. You have to trade with them something that they need, which is sort of useless if in exchange of food
3. The Romans were travelling near the coast, travelling in open sea wasn't their thing and in open sea there is potential for storms that might prevent the Romans from shipping grain
4. You have other simpler ways of getting the food to destination

 

[piratedude]

Britain is a region of France, so Britons are the inhabitants of the region to the North-Western France.

....Britanny , home of the bretons, is in France
That is not the same as the Britons of the isle of Britain, (tho the language is relatedto the other Brythonic tongues thanks to 5th century migrations from Britain)

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Bretons didn't have a particularly good navy.

Remember we're talking about something that happens 350 years after the POD. That's plenty of time for the Britons to develop a seafaring tradition, particularly if they've an incentive in the form of rich trading/plundering opportunities across the Channel. The Vandals, who'd had no naval tradition to speak of, started conducting transmarine raids just a few years after settling in Carthage.

Vikings invaded because it was right in front of them, the Anglo-Saxons because they were invited, Bretons aren't a maritime based people like the two examples you cited.

Britain is not "right in front of" Scandinavia; in fact, it's considerably further away that it is from France. As for the Saxons, they were raiding Britain long before Vortigern's invitation. And that still leaves out the Scots and Irish, both of whom also settled in Britain during this period despite originating from the other side of a sea.

Britain is a region of France, so Britons are the inhabitants of the region to the North-Western France.

No, Brittany, home of the Bretons, is in northern-western France. Britain, home of the Britons, is an island group off the north-west coast of continental Europe.

Bretons didn't have a good navy and they didn't have the numbers to launch an invasion of Gaul, Gaul is difficult to conquer precisely because there are so many enemies there.

Britons managed to conquer and occupy a part of France IOTL, hence the existence of Bretons. TTL's Britons, who are in a better shape for fighting and conquest, should be able to do at least as well.

1. Bretons aren't really able to produce that much food
2. You have to trade with them something that they need, which is sort of useless if in exchange of food
3. The Romans were travelling near the coast, travelling in open sea wasn't their thing and in open sea there is potential for storms that might prevent the Romans from shipping grain
4. You have other simpler ways of getting the food to destination

South-eastern Britain is good farmland, with fertile soil and a temperate climate, and it's conveniently close to the Rhine mouth. There's really no reason for the Romans not to import grain from there. As for travelling near the coast, I've mentioned already that you can see across from Dover to Calais on a clear day, so if the Romans or Britons or anyone else wants to avoid the open sea, they could just sail along the coast of Britain to Dover, sail across to Calais, and then sail on to the Rhine. I'm also wondering how you think the Romans were even able to conquer Britain in the first place, much less rule it for 350 years, if they were unable to sail across the English Channel.

 

[JamesHunter]

Remember we're talking about something that happens 350 years after the POD. That's plenty of time for the Britons to develop a seafaring tradition, particularly if they've an incentive in the form of rich trading/plundering opportunities across the Channel. The Vandals, who'd had no naval tradition to speak of, started conducting transmarine raids just a few years after settling in Carthage.

Britain is not "right in front of" Scandinavia; in fact, it's considerably further away that it is from France. As for the Saxons, they were raiding Britain long before Vortigern's invitation. And that still leaves out the Scots and Irish, both of whom also settled in Britain during this period despite originating from the other side of a sea.

No, Brittany, home of the Bretons, is in northern-western France. Britain, home of the Britons, is an island group off the north-west coast of continental Europe.

Britons managed to conquer and occupy a part of France IOTL, hence the existence of Bretons. TTL's Britons, who are in a better shape for fighting and conquest, should be able to do at least as well.

South-eastern Britain is good farmland, with fertile soil and a temperate climate, and it's conveniently close to the Rhine mouth. There's really no reason for the Romans not to import grain from there. As for travelling near the coast, I've mentioned already that you can see across from Dover to Calais on a clear day, so if the Romans or Britons or anyone else wants to avoid the open sea, they could just sail along the coast of Britain to Dover, sail across to Calais, and then sail on to the Rhine. I'm also wondering how you think the Romans were even able to conquer Britain in the first place, much less rule it for 350 years, if they were unable to sail across the English Channel.

All good points and there is almost no way the Briton's won't develop some kind of Maritime tradition if they're not occupied. After all Rome isn't sucking their life blood and their is a very prosperous state right next door and they're going to want in on that action. Equally Rome is going to be very unhappy if they're raiding North Gaul (or aiding little villages still holding out against the Roman's) so you'd probably see a gradual move to trade and merc work as happened with the Eastern tribes.

Then when the contradictions in the Western Empire's economic and political system eventually take it apart (sadly pretty much inevitable as the North west was pretty much on life support from the moment Caesar conquered it and when there eventually is a crisis "save the rich East" will still be the cry) the Briton's will be in a very good position to move in and grab what they can. Probably better than some of the tribes in the East actually as they won't have Hun problems behind them and if Britain proper is intact (and possibly at least at Heptarchy level's of unity) any attempts by the Angles or Saxon's to invade will be dumped straight back into the sea while adventurous Briton's take not only Brittany but large parts of the North channel coast.

If there is a relatively stable culture in place that might also accelerate the recovery of western Europe and certainly Britain proper won't collapse to the level it did OTL (obviously a massive economic depression is inevitable with all the markets and trade routes broken with the Empire's fall).

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

....Britanny , home of the bretons, is in France
That is not the same as the Britons of the isle of Britain, (tho the language is relatedto the other Brythonic tongues thanks to 5th century migrations from Britain)

The Island is Great Britain, Britanny can also be called (Little) Britain.

Remember we're talking about something that happens 350 years after the POD. That's plenty of time for the Britons to develop a seafaring tradition, particularly if they've an incentive in the form of rich trading/plundering opportunities across the Channel. The Vandals, who'd had no naval tradition to speak of, started conducting transmarine raids just a few years after settling in Carthage.

That's different, they just used what North Africa already had. Here we're talking about a dozen different confederations of tribe, a good part of them doesn't even have access to the sea.
An habit of plundering isn't really going to develop, the Bretons don't have a chance to plunder the Romans before the Third Century Crisis, but what the Bretons can do at best is plundering a few coastal villages, not really something that you would wait to do again and even that is doubtful.

Britain is not "right in front of" Scandinavia; in fact, it's considerably further away that it is from France. As for the Saxons, they were raiding Britain long before Vortigern's invitation. And that still leaves out the Scots and Irish, both of whom also settled in Britain during this period despite originating from the other side of a sea.

It's not impossible to pass the sea but usually people don't migrate if they don't have an excellent opportunity or if they are forced to, and abandoning your homeland for some probably unsuccessful expedition isn't something most people want to try.
Bretons don't really have a reason to do so as Gaul isn't a good opportunity.

No, Brittany, home of the Bretons, is in northern-western France. Britain, home of the Britons, is an island group off the north-west coast of continental Europe.

(Little) Britain is another name for Britany, Great Britain is the island of Britannia.

Britons managed to conquer and occupy a part of France IOTL, hence the existence of Bretons. TTL's Britons, who are in a better shape for fighting and conquest, should be able to do at least as well.

They didn't conquer it, they migrated there without conquering anything since it was still a part of Rome; this could be compared to the Romans in Dacia who returned on the other side of the Danube.

South-eastern Britain is good farmland, with fertile soil and a temperate climate, and it's conveniently close to the Rhine mouth. There's really no reason for the Romans not to import grain from there. As for travelling near the coast, I've mentioned already that you can see across from Dover to Calais on a clear day, so if the Romans or Britons or anyone else wants to avoid the open sea, they could just sail along the coast of Britain to Dover, sail across to Calais, and then sail on to the Rhine. I'm also wondering how you think the Romans were even able to conquer Britain in the first place, much less rule it for 350 years, if they were unable to sail across the English Channel.

It's not impossible that they do that if the Bretons produce enough food (which I'm very doubtful) but why would you bother to sail something from another part of Rome to only trade with the Bretons food? It simply doesn't make sense as it is much easier to just transport it from Gaul.

 

[piratedude]

The Island is Great Britain, Britanny can also be called (Little) Britain.

Yep. But the inhabitants of the island are still not called Bretons, and I don't understand why you're insisting on mis-applying it when a quick dictionary search would tell you that.

Breton - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Here we're talking about a dozen different confederations of tribe, a good part of them doesn't even have access to the sea.

Even if it's not absolutely all of them, most of them do in fact have ready access to the sea, and if the Veneti of Gaul can develop a sea fairing tradition i don't see why, at the very least, their trading partners in Britain wouldn't have developed one too

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Even if it's not absolutely all of them, most of them do in fact have ready access to the sea, and if the Veneti of Gaul can develop a sea fairing tradition i don't see why, at the very least, their trading partners in Britain wouldn't have developed one too

What trading partners? Just because one tribe in all of Gaul has developed a sea fairing tradition doesn't mean that Bre/itons will too. To my knowing there was no such tribe in Britannia and I doubt it would develop without any incentive (there aren't any because if there is trade with the Romans it won't be extremely important and the Romans will almost surely be the ones who are carrying cargos back and forth).

 

[piratedude]

Just because one tribe in all of Gaul

Okay but it wasn't just one tribe, they were just noted as being the best/most powerful at it in Gaul. Look even Caesar says there are others

they have as tributaries almost all those whose custom is to sail that sea. -Caesar, Bellum Gallicum, III

And also, why tf would they be so passive about it to just let the Romans do it, (or rather Romanized Gauls since the Romans were unfamiliar at sailing in the atlantic/channel/north sea, compared to the locals).

What trading partners?

...the ones Caesar explicitly mentions and all the archeological evidence we have concurring with it?

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Okay but it wasn't just one tribe, they were just noted as being the best/most powerful at it in Gaul. Look even Caesar says there are others

And also, why tf would they be so passive about it to just let the Romans do it, (or rather Romanized Gauls since the Romans were unfamiliar at sailing in the atlantic/channel/north sea, compared to the locals).

...the ones Caesar explicitly mentions and all the archeological evidence we have concurring with it?

The Veneti were the only ones to my knowing to have arrived at that level of "maritization", I doubt the Bretons were having that level of shipbuilding nor will have since I don't think trade will be that important.

 

[piratedude]

Look, if you really think the  Britons would forever remain some sort of dumb savages that never learn to organize into polities bigger than a county and never bother to make boats despite being, ya know, a fucking island with lots of navigable rivers, why are you continuing to engage with this thread?

 

[Andristan]

Caesar even tells us that the Britons (from Britain) were sending armed help to their fellow Belgae across the channel. This lets us know that the Britons(from Britain) even if they never changed or developed in any way from the 1st century BC, could in 300 years send troops across the channel, its something the Britons (from Britain) have done, and is a big reason why Caesar decided to attack in the 1st place.

They didn't conquer it, they migrated there without conquering anything since it was still a part of Rome

As a point of fact, the Britons did invade and conquer Brittany(in Gaul) to become Bretons(from Brittany) in the 5th or 6th centuries, so there should be no reason for them not to be able to do so if they are (semi) independent states (or state-like/tribes etc), the Gallo-Romans were complaining about them in the 6th century to the Franks, treating them as foreign invaders in the 580s. Although we can know that there were Britons (from Britain) in the 5th century in Gaul from Jordanes, Sidonius and Gregory of Tours all mentioning Riothamus arriving "from across the sea" with 12,000 men, to fight the Visigoths alongside Childeric the Frank and Aegidius.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Caesar even tells us that the Britons (from Britain) were sending armed help to their fellow Belgae across the channel. This lets us know that the Britons(from Britain) even if they never changed or developed in any way from the 1st century BC, could in 300 years send troops across the channel, its something the Britons (from Britain) have done, and is a big reason why Caesar decided to attack in the 1st place.

That was just an excuse to go across the Channel, it's as truthful as "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction".

As a point of fact, the Britons did invade and conquer Brittany(in Gaul) to become Bretons(from Brittany) in the 5th or 6th centuries, so there should be no reason for them not to be able to do so if they are (semi) independent states (or state-like/tribes etc), the Gallo-Romans were complaining about them in the 6th century to the Franks, treating them as foreign invaders in the 580s. Although we can know that there were Britons (from Britain) in the 5th century in Gaul from Jordanes, Sidonius and Gregory of Tours all mentioning Riothamus arriving "from across the sea" with 12,000 men, to fight the Visigoths alongside Childeric the Frank and Aegidius.

They just were people who flew the Anglo-Saxon invasion, not an invasion. 12k men isn't that impressive.

 

[Andristan]

12k men isn't that impressive.

Its apparently impressive enough to be the mainstay of the Roman empire in Gaul in 468, according to contemporaries. Refugees generally are not also fielding armies of 12,000 fighting men, this was no refugee group. Jordanes is very clear, this was an army sent from Britain(the island) to defend Roman Gaul and the catholic faith. Arvandus claims that the Emperor can just be ignored but to claim Gaul for the Visigoths , the Britons(from Britain) have to be defeated.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

They just were people who flew the Anglo-Saxon invasion, not an invasion. 12k men isn't that impressive.

12,000 men is actually quite impressive by the standards of dark age Europe. Even the Byzantine Empire was only able to send 15-17,000 men to conquer Africa under Belisarius, and that was the richest, best-organised state in Christendom at the time.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

12,000 men is actually quite impressive by the standards of dark age Europe. Even the Byzantine Empire was only able to send 15-17,000 men to conquer Africa under Belisarius, and that was the richest, best-organised state in Christendom at the time.

I mean Belisarius' expedition wasn't the most well-funded of all time, a previous expedition attacking the Vandal Kingdom had failed so Belisarius wasn't given much troops.

 

[Andristan]

I wouldnt put too much weight in that number for the invasion of Africa, the ERE was fielding much larger armies on its Persian frontier, 30,000 to 40,000 per army with multiple armies, I would estimate the ERE in the 500s with anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 men, distributed across the Empire of course. I have been under the impression from Procopius that Justinian could have sent more to Africa but chose not to, due to fearing Belisarius, or just risk aversion.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Look, if you really think the  Britons would forever remain some sort of dumb savages that never learn to organize into polities bigger than a county and never bother to make boats despite being, ya know, a fucking island with lots of navigable rivers, why are you continuing to engage with this thread?

1. While the trend always was to form bigger states, barbarians outside the Empire remained confederation of tribes not an organized state such as Rome so I doubt the Britons will suddenly outclass everyone and become a sort of England during this time, places such as Ireland and Scotland were very tribal well in the Middle Ages.
2. I doubt a tribe will become a maritime state such as the Veneti since there wouldn't be that much incentives to do so as if there is trade with Rome the Romans will probably be the ones carrying the cargos back and forth, also apart from a few resources the Romans won't see that much interest in Britannia, you can't really build your entire economy on the selling of one resource. Not that they won't have boats but Veneti level isn't something I consider plausible.
3. I'm 99.9999% sure is that no Briton tribe will be able to have an army so strong that they would be able to seriously contend for Gaul.

 

[Andristan]

Britannia (the Island) also had various metals, grain, furs to trade, even wine, Strabo(i think) mentions in his Geographia before the OTL invasion, that Britannia (the Island) actually pays more to Rome in custom fees and trading goods than the Empire would get if they conquered the place.

While you are correct to say that the tribal confederations on the European borders never formed states, the Franks, Vandals, Visigoths, Suebi, Ostrogoths and Saxons would argue that if given the chance, a tribal confederation could move in on the weakened empire and take advantage to settle inside the empire and form semi-functional states.