Less successful Roman conquest of Britannia

[EasternRomanEmpire]

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.

I doubt the Britannic tribes will manage to do that, I just don't really see that happening though I may be wrong.

 

[Elfwine]

I doubt the Britannic tribes will manage to do that,

What stops them from doing that that over the course of events going differently for centuries?

You seem to be treating the peoples of Britain as particularly stagnant and uninterested in developing technology to any meaningful extent, even technology that would be darn useful. for them

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

What stops them from doing that that over the course of events going differently for centuries?

You seem to be treating the peoples of Britain as particularly stagnant and uninterested in developing technology to any meaningful extent, even technology that would be darn useful. for them

That's not what I think, I simply doubt that they will arrive to the level that the Goths, Franks... did by virtue of population and infighting. Even if they did succeed, remember me how Brittany ended up being in the 9th century.

 

[Elfwine]

That's not what I think, I simply doubt that they will arrive to the level that the Goths, Franks... did by virtue of population and infighting. Even if they did succeed, remember me how Brittany ended up being in the 9th century.

There's a difference between no Briton equivalent to say, the Carolingian empire, and them not building ships.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

and them not building ships.

I don't believe that they won't build ships, just that they don't arrive at some incredible level of shipbuilding.

 

[Elfwine]

I don't believe that they won't build ships, just that they don't arrive at some incredible level of shipbuilding.

I see people discussing cross-channel trade, raids, and invasion. Not mighty armadas of unprecedented size or super-advanced technology for their day.

If you agree, I'm sorry for having misread you, but looking at this:

Yo 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).

I'm not sure if your idea of "incredible level of shipbuilding" and mine are the same here.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I see people discussing cross-channel trade, raids, and invasion. Not mighty armadas of unprecedented size or super-advanced technology for their day.

If you agree, I'm sorry for having misread you, but looking at this:


I'm not sure if your idea of "incredible level of shipbuilding" and mine are the same here.

Not having ships and not being the Veneti isn't the same thing, obviously there will be some shipbuilding but i don't think it would be particularly important.

 

[holycookie]

I would say that this fixation on Britain becoming England, so to speak, comes more from our view of the world than from anything more tangible. Even assuming that the region of otl england unifies (which is unlikely) the naval rise of england in otl only took place in the 18th century. I would say that without the Normans reforming england the country would probably not be the tita of otl. I bet on behavior more similar to Ireland, Scotland or even Japan than something more similar to otl England.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

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.

I think 15-25,000 per army was more usual. But even those were unusually large -- Charles Martel's army at Tours was maybe 6,000 men, Alfred the Great's at Ethandun maybe 5,000, and William and Harold's armies at Hastings were maybe 10,000 men apiece. Twelve thousand is a perfectly respectable army size by the standards of dark age Europe.

I would say that this fixation on Britain becoming England, so to speak, comes more from our view of the world than from anything more tangible. Even assuming that the region of otl england unifies (which is unlikely) the naval rise of england in otl only took place in the 18th century. I would say that without the Normans reforming england the country would probably not be the tita of otl. I bet on behavior more similar to Ireland, Scotland or even Japan than something more similar to otl England.

The Irish of IOTL engaged in piratical raids and conquests (famously that's how St. Patrick first arrived there), the Scots were originally from Ireland until they conquered Scotland from the Picts, and the Britons themselves conquered land in Brittany. There are also plenty of examples of Germanic tribes engaging in seaborne attacks on Roman or former Roman territory, from the Goths and Heruls in the mid-third century to the Saxons from the fourth century on and the Vandals in the fifth. Saying that TTL's British kingdoms would do the same had nothing to do with "Britain becoming England" and everything to do with extrapolating from how other societies of the time acted.

 

[HyperMuscularDemon]

How about a Britonic state centered around London and Essex focused on trading with mainland Europe? Given that the Celtic Britons traded with the Gauls, it could be possible for a Briton mercantile state to emerge that is focused on trade that later becomes allied to the Romans or at least open to Roman influence.

 

[JamesHunter]

How about a Britonic state centered around London and Essex focused on trading with mainland Europe? Given that the Celtic Britons traded with the Gauls, it could be possible for a Briton mercantile state to emerge that is focused on trade that later becomes allied to the Romans or at least open to Roman influence.

Certainly not impossible, although I think the heartland might be a bit further south as the main trade area will be the extreme South East coast (as is true in OTL for most of our history).

 

[Andristan]

I would argue in a divided britain(the island) that the main trade area would stay the south West, with the tin trade being the major driver as it has been since the bronze age, with the Bristol area being also up there in trade volume. With a failed invasion, there is no Londinium

 

[Collondi]

On the subject of a more unified Britonic identity forming, there are economic things that would help them develop as has been pointed out but I think we can apply Rome’s foreign policy towards the Germans to Britannia. Rome would get actively involved and any sort of unification or one person/tribe from gaining too much power, then during the crisis of the third century they stopped being able to pay attention and it’s no coincidence that that’s when Gothic, Alemannic, and Frankish identity and a confederation system formed.

I think something similar would happen in Brittania (Of course I also think the crisis of the third century would still happen, barring butterflies the overall structural issues that caused it wouldnt change, even if it happens a little sooner or later). Obviously not a unification, just a confederation system where some of them elect a single king to represent them whenever nessecary. The question I have is what do they do in the couple decades that Rome is distracted? Do they get more agressive and start raiding Gaul? Do they build up their navy and prepare for an eventual counterattack? I feel like they would play a massive role in the third century