Post-Roman Britain

Sir Chaos

Banned
From what I can gather about Britain in the 5th century, around the time that the last regular Roman troops (and provincial officials loyal to Rome rather than the province itself) left Britain, the Picts started raiding the province.

After a while, a Briton king named Vortigern invited Saxons to settle in Brtain in return for their help against the Picts. That kind of backfired when the Saxons revolted against him (this revolt is said to have included the original "Night of Long Knives"); soon enough a considerable part of modern-day England was occupied by Saxons, Angles and Jutes.


So, assuming that this is correct at in general terms -what would have happened, had the Saxons NOT been invited to Britain?

By this time, presumably the Saxon had already been raiding Britain or would at the very least have started soon. Could Post-Roman Britain had held out against both Pictish and Saxon (and Angle and Jute) raiders, and presumably Irish raiders as well? Could they have prevented the Saxon migration to Britain, or limited and/or slowed it down?

Could a recognizably Roman successor state Britain - or a collection of Roman and/or Celtic Briton nations (analogous to the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms later on) - have survived until at least the beginning of the Viking Age? Or was Britain turning Anglo-Saxon to more or less the historical extent pretty much unavoidable?
 
It actually took the Saxons and Angles the best part of 150 years to occupy all of what is now England (by 600AD roughly and the northern boundaries are markedly different) so it wasn't a quick "changeover" by any means! It is more than possible that more successful Celtic leaders could have held on to more land. However the eastern lowlands were probably going to be occupied regardless.
 
THe Post Roman Britons are at a disadvantage come the 6th Century because they have greater links with the rest of Europe. They are thus more likely to import the plague that rampaged across the world at the time.
 
You would need a more organized army stationed in Britain because when the Romans left they evacuated all their soldiers leaving poorly trained people behind. And after Gaul falls to the barbarians you have a significant loss in trade which decreases wealth and such. It needs a higher sustainable economy and defensive force to hold out longer or at the very least remain more Roman.
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
What if, instead of the Saxons, the Britons invite one or two of the tribes bouncing around Gauls in the time of Attila´s campaigns into Britain? The idea of putting a couple dozen miles of ocean between themselves and the Scourge of God might appeal to some of them, and they are a less risky proposition than the Saxons.
 
You would need a more organized army stationed in Britain because when the Romans left they evacuated all their soldiers leaving poorly trained people behind. And after Gaul falls to the barbarians you have a significant loss in trade which decreases wealth and such. It needs a higher sustainable economy and defensive force to hold out longer or at the very least remain more Roman.
Paradoxically the area to become England was rich enough to hold its ground in the Miiddle Ages and would have been well able to run out a load of barbarian settlers. Whilst trade would make some difference, the main drivers of both the Anglo-Saxon and British economy was agriculture and there was no significant difference between the two. Whilst the British needed a higher economy, the technology to achieve this may not have been available at the time.

As for training, the average German invader was no better than the average native. What thy had was a numerical advantage in that more settlers kept coming across from the continent. If Gallo-Romans had poured in as well the British could have offset the numbers. Instead, the flow seems to be in the other direction.
 

jahenders

Banned
First, the details of Vortigern's invitation and so forth are somewhat shrouded in the mysts of myth -- it's primarily from Gildas and his history is sometimes dubious.

In any case, when the Romans pulled out they left a power vacuum and (given the various "barbarian" expansions of the time) it was almost given that England was going to be attacked from several directions.

That being said, one thing that hindered the Romano-Brits in holding their land was that it doesn't appear they cooperated well. We have fragments suggesting some high leaders (Vortigern, et al), but some of the groups went back to being the independent tribes they'd been before the Romans came, while others tried to maintain Roman-style governments and/or communities. The depictions of the battles of King Arthur (whether he was a real figure, a compilation of several historical figures, or a compilation with some tales from myth) all suggest that the Brits enjoyed success for a time because they operated under a single strong leader.

Had the Brits been able to forge a united kingdom under strong leaders from the beginning, they likely could have held off the invaders in many areas for an extended period of time.

From what I can gather about Britain in the 5th century, around the time that the last regular Roman troops (and provincial officials loyal to Rome rather than the province itself) left Britain, the Picts started raiding the province.

After a while, a Briton king named Vortigern invited Saxons to settle in Brtain in return for their help against the Picts. That kind of backfired when the Saxons revolted against him (this revolt is said to have included the original "Night of Long Knives"); soon enough a considerable part of modern-day England was occupied by Saxons, Angles and Jutes.


So, assuming that this is correct at in general terms -what would have happened, had the Saxons NOT been invited to Britain?

By this time, presumably the Saxon had already been raiding Britain or would at the very least have started soon. Could Post-Roman Britain had held out against both Pictish and Saxon (and Angle and Jute) raiders, and presumably Irish raiders as well? Could they have prevented the Saxon migration to Britain, or limited and/or slowed it down?

Could a recognizably Roman successor state Britain - or a collection of Roman and/or Celtic Briton nations (analogous to the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms later on) - have survived until at least the beginning of the Viking Age? Or was Britain turning Anglo-Saxon to more or less the historical extent pretty much unavoidable?
 
I was always under the impression that the Celtic/Gaelic people as a whole were loosely allied too independent to permanently unite. Plus they were clannish and feuds common. Take a look at medieval Ireland; they had a High King who ruled over many minor kings. That's probably what we'd see without the Saxon invasion.














p
 
I think it was inevitable to some degree.

I suspect the Anglo-Saxons invaded and were not invited as the Chronicles say.

Or perhaps a mixture of both. Possibly some Frisian, Jutish, or Saxon nobles thought "hmm....this Kent and East Anglia look good to settle, and we don't have to bother with those other Frisians who steal my land and cattle back home. Let's stay and convert these Celtic people to our ways!"

And they probably knew that the Romans had left, and the area was ripe for the taking. I'd imagine all the Germanic peoples at that time had heard of the Romans, or come to detest or fear them.
 
Never heard of Foederati?

The likeliest scenario is that H&H (his sister, or horse) were probably invited over to act as auxiliary troops and succumbed to temptation after they realised how weak Vortigern and his treasurers really were. Marrying off a sister/daughter to Vortigern sugared the pill and got him on side...:mad:
 
I was always under the impression that the Celtic/Gaelic people as a whole were loosely allied too independent to permanently unite. Plus they were clannish and feuds common. Take a look at medieval Ireland; they had a High King who ruled over many minor kings. That's probably what we'd see without the Saxon invasion.

Were you being sarcastic when you said that?
 
Were you being sarcastic when you said that?

No I was not. The Celtic people were loosely allied and England wasn't brought under one king until later on. So it makes since that they'd continue that way without the Saxon Invasion.
 
Top