Question: Roman Legion stays in Britian.

[orion900]

From late AD 300's until about AD 400, there was a Roman legion in Britian. What if the Legion stays in Britian? What POD would there need to be for the legion to stay and be operational until around AD 550?

Could Britian Stay Roman/Celtic? Would the Legion allow Britian to advance with the fall of the Western Empire?

 

[MerryPrankster]

I believe the legions were withdrawn when one of the British army commanders (I believe his name was Maxentius III or Constantius III) attempted to mount a coup. This coup failed and the Britons, tired of perpetual war, expelled the usurper's officials.

Rome never bothered to take the province back, considering they had all sorts of problems closer to home.

 

[carlton_bach]

Well, first of all the Roman troops in Britain after AD 300 bore very little resemblance to what we normally consider a 'legion'. They were composed of border 'limitanei' (who may well have stayed past the official 'withdrawal date'), field 'comitatenses' (who most likely left), barbarian federate forces (who may have left) and local militias. By this time the 'Roman' army was probably a good deal less Roman than the Romano-British civilians it guarded.

Had all the troops stayed, they may have obviated the need to invite Saxon federates. I doubt they could change the fact that Rome could not hold the outlying provinces, though, and Britain was not politically or economically in a position to maintain the troops (it had always had more defense expenditure than revenue). That means we may see a Pictish-Celtic Britain with smaller Saxon and later Scandinavian areas.

Roman civilisation did stay very much alive and well in Britain past 410, by the way. It only gradually disappeared. There was no need for the troops to maintain it, there would have been a need for peace, and the barbarians outside the borders (and emperors within) were simply not prepared to give them that. So, if you want a longer Romanised Britain you'll need a very far-reaching POD that gives you more peaceful borders, more revenues for the Western parts of the Empire, and maybe a more stable political system. Otherwise, it's merely a matter of who gets to invade the Isles.

 

[Rick Robinson]

First a general question: What were "legions" like by AD 400? My impression is that the the classical legionaries, Marius' Mules and the regulars of the early Empire, had long vanished by this time. If the "legions" remain in Britain, are they really very different from the auxiliaries who did remain?

To the point: My recollection is that the last would-be usurper took the legions with him to Gaul, so they weren't so much "recalled" as simply never sent back. When the Britons asked for them back, Rome (Stilicho?) said, "you're on your own."

Suppose that, instead of marching away with them, someone proclaims himself Emperor, but chooses to stick tight in Britain. This had been tried before, by Carausius c. 280, but by c. 400, what is Stilicho or anyone else going to do about it? If in OTL there weren't legions available to re-garrison Britain when it asked for them, there certainly aren't legions to spare to re-conquer it from a breakaway usurper.

Perhaps our guy has a British mother or wife, which is why he doesn't cross over into Gaul, even though it's much richer. Or he reads the handwriting on the wall - if he crosses over, he'll just get caught up in the general turmoil.

Does this give Roman Britain the resilience to resist or absorb the Saxons, and avoid fragmentation into quarelling post-Roman kingdoms? Does Britain end up speaking neither English nor Welsh, but a Romance language akin to French?

Or is Roman Britain too far gone to be saved? Romanization had always been pretty thin in most areas - it's indicative that Latin died out in Britain, whereas it survived even in northern Gaul.

-- Rick

 

[orion900]

Well, first of all the Roman troops in Britain after AD 300 bore very little resemblance to what we normally consider a 'legion'. They were composed of border 'limitanei' (who may well have stayed past the official 'withdrawal date'), field 'comitatenses' (who most likely left), barbarian federate forces (who may have left) and local militias. By this time the 'Roman' army was probably a good deal less Roman than the Romano-British civilians it guarded.

Had all the troops stayed, they may have obviated the need to invite Saxon federates. I doubt they could change the fact that Rome could not hold the outlying provinces, though, and Britain was not politically or economically in a position to maintain the troops (it had always had more defense expenditure than revenue). That means we may see a Pictish-Celtic Britain with smaller Saxon and later Scandinavian areas.

Roman civilisation did stay very much alive and well in Britain past 410, by the way. It only gradually disappeared. There was no need for the troops to maintain it, there would have been a need for peace, and the barbarians outside the borders (and emperors within) were simply not prepared to give them that. So, if you want a longer Romanised Britain you'll need a very far-reaching POD that gives you more peaceful borders, more revenues for the Western parts of the Empire, and maybe a more stable political system. Otherwise, it's merely a matter of who gets to invade the Isles.

But wouldn't a larger and stronger armed force, by it nature allow for more stable defense position. The Celtic/Roman civilization would have longer to developed than in our OTL, wouldn't a stronger force of Roman Military, I know that the Late Roman Period Legion wasn't the same as the first Century legion, but still they would be much better position, being on a Island, having some cities, and being away from the main European invasion traffic route.

Still you have a point the saxons, scots, angles, and other peoples would have still wanted to move into this area. The Romanized Celtics would have had a better position with some system of defense organized around the Roman Legion.

Can't find any argument with the economic factors, the British province couldn't pay for a full first class Legion.

Thank you for the reply...

 

[DMA]

There is, of course, one of the numerous theories about King Arthur popularised in the recent movie of the same name.

So the Roman "legions" leave, but Arthur & a few others stay, join up with the local Britons & develop a Roman-Briton society. Nominally it's still a Roman type society, but unique insofar as Byzantine was also "Roman" but nevertheless also Byzantine.

 

[DominusNovus]

Or is Roman Britain too far gone to be saved? Romanization had always been pretty thin in most areas - it's indicative that Latin died out in Britain, whereas it survived even in northern Gaul.

Well, the saxons were a tad brutal in their conquest. That didn't help much.

 

[orion900]

Well, the saxons were a tad brutal in their conquest. That didn't help much.

Wasn't the whole invasion and conquest of the Western Roman Empire just as brutal as the destruction of Celtic/Roman Britian?

 

[Nicole]

Wasn't the whole invasion and conquest of the Western Roman Empire just as brutal as the destruction of Celtic/Roman Britian?

Well, languages at least similar to the Rome-era languages are still spoken in most of Italy and Spain. Most of the former Roman Britain, which I believe was Celtic and some Latin speaking, speaks English: A Germanic Language.
That, at least to me, seems to show something.

 

[carlton_bach]

Romance languages died out temporarily all the way down to the Seine valley, and through most of the Balkans. Northern France and Wallonia were reacquired. However, no, not every conquest was as brutal. Most 'barbarians' vame into functioning Roman societies with a view to integration as federates or allies and (pretty soon) Christians. The Saxons came into a tribal, fragmented Sub-Roman society as conquerors. They were not as bad as they are painted sometimes, but they had precious few incentives to integrate.

 

[Faeelin]

Romance languages died out temporarily all the way down to the Seine valley, and through most of the Balkans. Northern France and Wallonia were reacquired. However, no, not every conquest was as brutal. Most 'barbarians' vame into functioning Roman societies with a view to integration as federates or allies and (pretty soon) Christians. The Saxons came into a tribal, fragmented Sub-Roman society as conquerors. They were not as bad as they are painted sometimes, but they had precious few incentives to integrate.

Their name means "long knives". I should think that gives some idea of how they acted.

 

[Rick Robinson]

The Saxons came into a tribal, fragmented Sub-Roman society as conquerors. They were not as bad as they are painted sometimes, but they had precious few incentives to integrate.

That's probably the bottom line. Probably there was not enough romanitas left in Roman Britain to really provide the alternative of taking it over as a going concern.

-- Rick

 

[Thande]

They were not as bad as they are painted sometimes, but they had precious few incentives to integrate.

Where does that sound familiar...?

Britain truly is a nation of immigrants.

 

[JHPier]

There is, of course, one of the numerous theories about King Arthur popularised in the recent movie of the same name.

So the Roman "legions" leave, but Arthur & a few others stay, join up with the local Britons & develop a Roman-Briton society. Nominally it's still a Roman type society, but unique insofar as Byzantine was also "Roman" but nevertheless also Byzantine.

Basically that's what happened. O course it wasn't Arthur's doing, he was active a century after Roman authority ceased in britain.