The Celts kick out the Romans

I think you're being too pessimistic here. The Germans didn't have any of those things and managed to avoid conquest, and they didn't even have the advantage of being separated from Roman territory by a sea.

But they had lots of ground where to retreat and from where to come back. The Britanni didn’t really have that luxury. Plus I don’t know how much the Germans avoided conquest, they weren’t direct subjects of the Romans, but they’ve been under their hegemony for a long time, and many of them were forcibly obliged to serve under the empire at least until the mid fourth century.
 
But they had lots of ground where to retreat and from where to come back.

Do you mean in terms of strategic depth, terrain, or something else here?

Plus I don’t know how much the Germans avoided conquest, they weren’t direct subjects of the Romans, but they’ve been under their hegemony for a long time, and many of them were forcibly obliged to serve under the empire at least until the mid fourth century.

They certainly managed to avoid becoming a Roman province, though.
 
Do you mean in terms of strategic depth, terrain, or something else here?

Strategically, they could retreat deep into barbaricum while waging a guerrilla war against the Romans. Celts in Britannia didn’t have much territory where to do that.



They certainly managed to avoid becoming a Roman province, though.

More because of their massive numbers than anything. In Britain there were considerably less tribes, and, I suppose, less people to oppose the Romans. Beyond the Danube, even after the Romans had defeated a tribe, and they defeated plenty of them, another would appear, and then another, and then another, and then another, bigger and fiercer than the last. Barbarians in Europe had numbers and strategic advantages the Britains sorely lacked.
 
Strategically, they could retreat deep into barbaricum while waging a guerrilla war against the Romans. Celts in Britannia didn’t have much territory where to do that.

But neither Barbaricum in general nor Germany in particular were united. Instead, you had a group of independent tribes, each of which was smaller than the average Roman province, and therefore lacked the strategic depth to retreat deep into anywhere.

More because of their massive numbers than anything. In Britain there were considerably less tribes, and, I suppose, less people to oppose the Romans. Beyond the Danube, even after the Romans had defeated a tribe, and they defeated plenty of them, another would appear, and then another, and then another, and then another, bigger and fiercer than the last. Barbarians in Europe had numbers and strategic advantages the Britains sorely lacked.

But when the Romans got kicked out of Augustus' province across the Rhine, that had nothing to do with them bumping up against bigger and fiercer tribes beyond the new frontier, and everything to do with the tribes already living there. And the reason they didn't make any real subsequent attempt to conquer it was because of logistical difficulties and the lack of sufficient projected gain, not because of endless hordes of barbarians coming from over the horizon to throw themselves against the gates of civilisation.
 
More because of their massive numbers than anything. In Britain there were considerably less tribes, and, I suppose, less people to oppose the Romans. Beyond the Danube, even after the Romans had defeated a tribe, and they defeated plenty of them, another would appear, and then another, and then another, and then another, bigger and fiercer than the last. Barbarians in Europe had numbers and strategic advantages the Britains sorely lacked.

The ignorance here is astounding.

Britian had a larger population, as in large settlements in the tens of thousands, fortifications, equal to superior metallurgy, roads, the headquarters to a religous establishment that influence behind Roman lines in Gaul, and developed industries like tin and currency in the form of iron bars as well.

Germany had slash and burn agriculture and nothing bigger than villages. They barely had enough iron to tip their spears. They won Teutonberg Forest in part because they were so primitive, with Romans being spread out on a narrow forest path rather than on a proper road where they could consolidate into proper units.

Germania's poverty (in the 1st century, this changed later) had a lot to do with why it wasn't conquered. One major defeat meant it wasn't worth the expense of resestablishing the province. The intended province was only the area from the Rhine to the Elbe, so they had less strategic depth than the Britons. Retreating meant running into tribes who were rivals, not natural allies.

A lot of people on these forums seem to lump all "Barbarians" as being the same and having the same level of technology and being a vaguely primitive "other". This is an idea that just needs to die.
 
Last edited:
But neither Barbaricum in general nor Germany in particular were united. Instead, you had a group of independent tribes, each of which was smaller than the average Roman province, and therefore lacked the strategic depth to retreat deep into anywhere.



But when the Romans got kicked out of Augustus' province across the Rhine, that had nothing to do with them bumping up against bigger and fiercer tribes beyond the new frontier, and everything to do with the tribes already living there. And the reason they didn't make any real subsequent attempt to conquer it was because of logistical difficulties and the lack of sufficient projected gain, not because of endless hordes of barbarians coming from over the horizon to throw themselves against the gates of civilisation.

That’s true for Augustus’ time, when borders were relatively safe and there was no need for further expansion. In subsequent years though both Marcus Aurelius and Maximinus Thrax attempted to expand the frontier between Dacia and Pannonia Superior up to the Carpathians. They led incursions there several times, and defeated countless tribes, yet they couldn’t create a province of Sarmatia because other tribes, kept pushing at the border, amongst other reasons.
 
The ignorance here is astounding.

Britian had a larger population, as in large settlements in the tens of thousands, fortifications, equal to superior metallurgy, roads, the headquarters to a religous establishment that influence behind Roman lines in Gaul, and developed industries like tin and currency in the form of iron bars as well.

Germany had slash and burn agriculture and nothing bigger than villages. They barely had enough iron to tip their spears. They won Teutonberg Forest in part because they were so primitive, with Romans being spread out on a narrow forest path rather than on a proper road where they could consolidate into proper units.

Germania's poverty (in the 1st century, this changed later) had a lot to do with why it wasn't conquered. One major defeat meant it wasn't worth the expense of resestablishing the province. The intended province was only the area from the Rhine to the Elbe, so they had less strategic depth than the Britons. Retreating meant running into tribes who were rivals, not natural allies.

A lot of people on these forums seem to lump all "Barbarians" as being the same and having the same level of technology and being a vaguely primitive "other". This is an idea that just needs to die.

Britain was hardly a profitable province, at least compared to other wealthier provinces like Gaul and Spain. It wasn’t conquered for its riches, but to enhance the emperor’s glory and expand Roman hegemony. I’m not saying Germany was richer or more advanced, and I was even careful in the previous post to distinguish “barbarians” in the continent from Britons. But, being separated from the mainland is only an advantage as long as you have a strong navy to repulse enemy attacks, and even Roman liburnae could smash trough the Britons’ navy by imperial times. If a German tribe could at least move from the Rhine to Frisia, like the Chatti, a British tribe was trapped in the island, with no option to go anywhere since it was also surrounded by hostile tribes. The only option would have been to unite into a huge confederacy and battle the Romans through guerrilla warfare, but Boudicca’s rebellion proves that such large confederacy needed to give battle as soon as possible, lest it broke on its own, and no barbarian tribe could seriously hope to win against a prepared Roman army. Boudicca got trounced by Paulinus, and she outnumbered him. It’s telling that the most successful usurpers were always proclaimed in Britain, that there never was a British senator, when almost every province had at least one, and that Rome never put much of an effort in defending Britain in the fifth century, once a barbarian tribe with a decent enough navy came in the picture. As a province, it just wasn’t worth the effort.

Germany wasn’t worth conquering in the first century, but doing so in the second and third became almost a necessity due to pressure in the borders. Marcus Aurelius attempted to conquer “Sarmatia”, Caracalla campaigned extensively in Germany in 213-214, going as far as Frisia, and Maximinus Thrax also led campaigns there after Alexander Severus’ dismal performance on that sector. Of course then the crisis happened, and Rome was too embroiled in its own issues to think about conquering anything, and it’s doubtful that, even if they had conquered further territory beyond the Rhine or the Danube, they could hold it. Still, the intention was there.
 
Last edited:
I've long suspected that a really interesting timeline involves a POD where Julius Caesar is forced back to Rome early after the Gallic Wars so he never lands on Britain in the first place. All you need then is the internal and external unrest with Rome and his neighbours to prevent Britain ever being occupied or even establishing a client state.

The Britons would then obviously be right on the Roman border and would experience some Romanisation but far less than OTL. And creates the potential for an incredibly interesting Celtic culture to develop.

The Druids would be exposed to the benefits of Latin script, experiencing some pressure from Roman culture and would respond to that but they wouldn't be subjugated and instead would be empowered.

If you have Roman traders in the country spreading their culture and faiths the response from the native religions generally is one of push back and centralisation and subtle shifts. I see it as highly likely that a Druidic religion begins to centralise and get written down. And furthermore, Druids held more than just a religious focus.

Such a timeline could go anywhere. But It would be interesting to explore.
 
One thing to think about when it comes to the Druids is that after Boudiccas rebellion the main hierarchy of the Druids was pretty much wiped out, meaning that the remaining Druids will be that weren't on the Isle of Mona/Anglesey are likely going to be more focused on keeping hold of whatever knowledge they haven't lost yet, which could push them towards written scripture.

Helps the Romans cause more inwardly focused Druids means the goal of stopping them from possibly inciting uprisings has been accomplished for at least a few decades.
 
I've long suspected that a really interesting timeline involves a POD where Julius Caesar is forced back to Rome early after the Gallic Wars so he never lands on Britain in the first place. All you need then is the internal and external unrest with Rome and his neighbours to prevent Britain ever being occupied or even establishing a client state.

The Britons would then obviously be right on the Roman border and would experience some Romanisation but far less than OTL. And creates the potential for an incredibly interesting Celtic culture to develop.

The Druids would be exposed to the benefits of Latin script, experiencing some pressure from Roman culture and would respond to that but they wouldn't be subjugated and instead would be empowered.

If you have Roman traders in the country spreading their culture and faiths the response from the native religions generally is one of push back and centralisation and subtle shifts. I see it as highly likely that a Druidic religion begins to centralise and get written down. And furthermore, Druids held more than just a religious focus.

Such a timeline could go anywhere. But It would be interesting to explore.
This would be interesting as we know only from Roman or Christian sources which obviously are not the most unbiased in this area
 
This would be interesting as we know only from Roman or Christian sources which obviously are not the most unbiased in this area
Indeed. It really allows the potential author a great deal of creative licence as you generate states and rulers and society and religion and changes in customs.

Of course, such a POD butterflies away Christianity and could if the author wanted butterfly away the Empire itself, though I think that's more of a stretch.

So you have a Britain with basically a brand new polytheism to play with and a Roman Empire without Christianity. Obviously you can throw in a Christianty analogue if you wished but the potential is so much greater.

I'm trying to imagine a Europe without a highly centralised Religious system and institution. Where religion is decentralised but basically can all be put under the same umbrella. Like Hinduism or Taoism.

So much potential.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. It really allows the potential author a great deal of creative licence as you generate states and rulers and society and religion and changes in customs.

If course, such a POD butterflies away Christianity and could if the author wanted butterfly away the Empire itself, though I think that's more of a stretch.

So you have a Britain with basically a brand new polytheism to play with and a Roman Empire without Christianity. Obviously you can throw in a Christianty analogue if you wished but the potential is so much greater.

I'm trying to imagine a Europe without a highly centralised Religious system and institution. Where religion is decentralised but basically can all be put under the same umbrella. Like Hinduism or Taoism.

So much potential.
Indeed, it seemed pre- Christianity, that Rome was going that way, so many what ifs.
 
I've long suspected that a really interesting timeline involves a POD where Julius Caesar is forced back to Rome early after the Gallic Wars so he never lands on Britain in the first place. All you need then is the internal and external unrest with Rome and his neighbours to prevent Britain ever being occupied or even establishing a client state.

Caesar's British adventures took place during the Gallic Wars, so early after them is too late a POD to keep him away. Though the good news is that I'm not sure it's necessary: Rome doesn't seem to have been interested in conquering the place, and absent Claudius' need to win some military glory in order to shore up his prestige, there's a good chance there'd never be a full-scale conquest attempt. Client-states probably, in order to secure the North Gallic coast, but you'd probably get that even if Caesar hadn't invaded.
 
Top