Successful Carausian Revolt

Pellaeon

Banned
In 286 a Roman naval commander by the name of Carausius took control of Roman Britain and northern Gaul. He had a fleet, three legions, local auxiliaries and Germanic mercenaries. He also appealed to Briton discontent and minted his own coins.

Only recently had Britannia been part of the Gallic empire.

What if Carausius succeeded?

Establishing an indepedent Britain ruled by a Roman elite.

How long could such a status be maintained?
 
I suppose one could speculate that had such a state remained intact and independent down to the early fifth century, it might've survived quite a bit longer. Constantinus III may not have made a bid for the purple, taking with him the British garrison, had Britain been independent. Ravenna's problems, in Gaul and elsewhere, needn't have been his. Britannia might've tried to help out in Gaul, as in the OTL, c 407, but this isn't certain.
If the troops had stayed in Britain they might've prevented the anglo/saxon/jute takeover.
 
unaraaapprtitled.jpg

This is Carausius drawn by Angus Mcbride, if i'm not mistaken.

It seems that Carausius was assassinated by his finance minister, Allectus, when he lost what few continental possessions he had in northern Gaul to roman tetrarch Constantius Chlorus. We could postulate that a longer-lived Carausius could have enough charisma to present more of a challenge to an invading Constantius than the Allectus who usurped him. But, since records of his motives are rather scarce, Carausius simply deciding to invade Gaul and declare himself emperor could have been an option, which just makes him another roman usurper-emperor, rather than the interesting concept of an independent romano-british king.
 
Last edited:
unaraaapprtitled.jpg

This is Carausius drawn by Angus Mcbride, if i'm not mistaken.

It seems that Carausius was assassinated by his finance minister, Allectus, when he lost what few continental possessions he had in northern Gaul to roman tetrarch Constantius Chlorus. We could postulate that a longer-lived Carausius could have enough charisma to present more of a challenge to an invading Constantius than the Allectus who usurped him. But, since records of his motives are rather scarce, Carausius simply deciding to invade Gaul and declare himself emperor would have been an option, which just makes him another roman usurper-emperor, rather than the interesting concept of an independent romano-british king.
This, more or less. There isn't necessarily any reason to expect him to want to just remain in Britain.


That said, let's assume that for one reason or another, Carausius can't/doesn't invade Gaul. Some deal is reached-Carausius recognized as Caesar in Britain by the successor to Diocletian. This lasts until his death, wherein the interim Carausius, not powerful enough to contemplate invading Gaul and wary that the emperors will renege on the agreement and invade, builds up fortifications and a small defensive fleet so when another attempt at retaking Britain is attempted, it flounders.

Eventually Carausius's successor is fine with his British kingdom, and the Romans more or less learn to live with him and in any case will have more pressing matters to attend to.
 
Top