Romanticized Britain?

Could a more Romanticized Britain have existed from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD? What would it take if it could happen? Maybe the Anglo-Saxons never invade, or something more?
 
Could a more Romanticized Britain have existed from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD? What would it take if it could happen? Maybe the Anglo-Saxons never invade, or something more?

In Perkins' Fall of the Roman Empire and the End of Civilization, I read that the northern bits of the Empire were just never as thoroughly Romanized as the bits around the Med.

The upper class was pretty thoroughly Romanized, but much of the rest of the Roman presence up there was military, or military-related, or lower class folks who hadn't changed very much.

Further, when the Imperial administration centralized virtually all authority, even Romanized local elites no longer felt much attachment to the Empire. Honors, wealth and authority went to the bureaucrats and the Court toadies. Local elites felt little reluctance to buy into the new "Barbarian" ways, if by so doing they could retain some of their wealth, and gain honor and authority.

So if Britain is going to stay "Romanticized", I think you need a greater Romanization through all the classes, right down the the lowest orders. They need a reason to stay Roman in thought and practice, even when separated from the Imperial system.

But I have absolutely no idea how to accomplish that.
 
Ya, the documentaries I've watched agreed that Roman Britain was pushing the edge of what the empire could keep and worth the resources, while the Romanization of itself was limited to a select few. That part of the reason you saw troops withdrawn and eventual abandonment as matters more towards the central empire drew intentions.

Not sure how you would do it, but maybe have the Imperial court move to Britain and thus encourage more focus on Romanizing the barbarians.

Is there a chance that there's a historic event that could get the POD needed for the suggestion?
 
Just making a shot in the dark here, as I don't know much about the period, hence my question. Maybe the Romans hang onto Britain into the barbarian invasions. While the continental Empire falls apart, Britannia remains relatively untouched, maybe with the Angles and Saxons either staying put or moving elsewhere. The migrations cause proper Romans, both peasants and elites, from all over the empire moving to Britannia en masse. This influx romantisices the population because a fair amount are displaced or assimilated. Maybe even a roman government is set up there, if not the Empire maybe a sort of successor state, possibly a Northern Roman Empire down the line?

Does this work, or is it totally ASB?
 
Well, Britain was romanised before and after Anglo-Saxons arrival. It's just that romanisation is a complex and really variant process.
It can be compared to creolization on this regard : what made a roman society was the law, the roman civic conception both imperial and municipal, and religion (imperial cult and later Christianism). On this regard, most oriental provinces were as much if not more romanized than the average western province, even if latin language wasn't dominant (outside urban centers, it was more a situation of diglossy than monopolist : Gaul was still a living language by the IV/Vth centuries).

The Anglo-Saxons invaders didn't simply Conan-ed their way up to full conquest themselves, but both on local and continental influence (especially Frankish, itself hugely Gallo-Romanized, then Franco-Saxon after Charlemagne). Kings of Wessex, for instance, may quite well have been issued from native lines.
People as Ambrosius Aurelianus/Riotomagus (whatever they were the same person, as I think, or not) clearly represented the romanisation of late imperial Britain up to still interacting with continental business.

Now, if you're asking for a romanisation being more close to what existed in Spain or Gaul, you'd need a quite early PoD. These two provinces were quite develloped already on their own (Spain beneficing from ancient trade, for exemple; and Gaul being an agricultural and artisanal powerhouse) while Britain was a bit more undevelloped.

Provincial elites were often the same than before the roman conquest, the romanisation fitting right in the shoes of the previous situation.

Having a more powerful and develloped pre-Roman Britain may just be enough to have more romanized (while, again, I'm not talking of language there specifically) post-Roman Britain : more "compatible" way of life, more presence of pre-conquest roman trade, more important demographics, etc.
It also allow to have more important and numerous urban centers : Roman civilisation and power used them as main transmitters (whatever just fitting in already existing ones, or rebuilding new centers really close to new ones).

As for how? Maybe a slower conquest of Gaul, scaling on more years than just a decade. It would increase both ressources (from roman presence, influence, trade, clientelism) for Celto-Britton states, and need for more strong political ties.
Defeat before Cimbrii? Caesar's head serving as decoration in an Arverni temple? Everything that would delay a bit would be appreciated, but coupling it with an earlier interventionist in the west in the same time would be as well quite interesting (Carthage being crushed in the 1st or 2nd war?)
Your guess is as good as mine there.
 
I'm pretty sure King Arthur and the court of Camelot is rather romanticized.
But I doubt that's possible, especially under the empire as it was.
 
What if the first roman invasion fails, giving the Britons some time react and become more like Rome. Then the romans come in again a few decades down the line?
 
What if the first roman invasion fails, giving the Britons some time react and become more like Rome. Then the romans come in again a few decades down the line?

It's less becoming "more like Rome" than being more deeply in contact with Mediterranean basin, (even if roman cultural influence can explain things as the appearance of vergobrets against traditional institutions in Gaul), early enough for that the concerned territory being more develloped trough commercial exchanges (basically, when you're selling stuff as krater or paste glass jewelry, you're selling the way of life going with).

Honestly, just an hit an run from Rome isn't going to change many things : Caesar campaigned in Britain in -55 and it didn't provoked a huge boost (while, admittedly, made Britton tribal states entering in clientele relationship).
There you need an economical and social reason why Britain is going to devellop itself economically and socially enough to reach an appreciable ground.
As in not too much dependent on trade, as it can backfire when ties are cut (as it most probably happened to final Halstatt, and caused the decline of hillfort cultures in Britain), but having it nevertheless to launch a devellopment process.

The easy way would be to have a more tied up Southern Britain/Northern Gaul relationship (An actual Halstatt period in Britain? Maybe trough partial move of population as in IIIrd century?) and earlier Roman presence (as in trade, not conquest itself) in Atlantic Europe.
 
Romanization was, as someone pointed out, very intimately tied up with urban life. So it will help a lot to have a flourishing and sustainable urban life in Britain.

How to achieve that?

First, cities cannot be dependent on inter-regional trade. Once commerial ties to the continent get cut, the cities take a big hit, because they were usually centers of manufacturing and trade.

To get around that, you need a robust manufacturing and trade system within Britain. Urban areas need to be centers of production and trade for items that are in great demand elsewhere in Britain.

Second, cities must continue to have a large administrative role (another urban function). It seems to me that the best way to achieve that is to have much greater regional autonomy within Britain. Since most of the work of administering Britain is done in British cities, severance of the link with the Med-littoral cities won't be such a problem. This implies, though, that there is a big need for administration in Britain. Having much greater intra-British manufacturing and trade will result in a greater need for administrative function, which boosts urban relevance.

You also need a stronger military in Late and post-Roman Britain. If you have "goodies" such as wealth and manufacturing in Britain, someone is going to consider invading and seizing it (historically this is more or less what the "Barbarians" did in the Roman West, but once they succeeded, they lacked the understanding to keep the wealth and trade going). If you can keep the would-be invaders at bay, you not only keep them from wrecking the system, you also ensure that, if they want the goodies, they have to trade for them.

Which, in turn, means external trade, which supports manufacturing ( which helps the cities) and requires a larger administrative base (which helps the cities). And since Romanization was largely an urban phenomenon, all this could help bolster the Roman character of Britain.

Having puzzled all this out, it looks to me like economic diversification and trade are at the heart of the matter.

So, we need a lot more investment in manufacturing and trade in Britain from earlier times. Which means we need fortunes to be made, and probably government encouragement for individuals to invest this far from the Center.

Remember how the Greek cities and the earlier Rome encouraged the establishment of colonies in distant possessions? We need a lot more of this in Britain.
 
Wasnt there a timeline on here by some person who had "neo-confederate (but not a nutjob) in his tag? A romanized britain, with celtic kids and only a few anglo-saxon kingdoms on the east coast?
 
And here I thought this was going to be a rag on "The Difference Engine", with Byron as the Prime Minister.

Or maybe Coleridge and Wordsworth lead a coup, cancel the Industrial Age, and build pre-ruined castles all over the countryside.
 
Top