What happens if Britian is not conquered by Rome?

King Thomas

Banned
If, for example, Julius Caaser (sorry about my bad spelling) is killed by Sulla and the Roman Empire grows a lot slower, would early Britain end up with the political organisation and tech levels of early Ireland? What sort of language would they end up speaking in later centuries?
 
IIRC Britain had large deposits of tin, lead, and copper, plus some precious metals like silver and gold. If the Romans don't invade but know about them then I'd expect a fair amount of trade between them and the various British states, you could well see Roman experts being hired in to help provide advanced mining knowledge and practices.
 
I think once Gaul is conquered (and it will be at some point) Britain may not be invaded but will be drawn into roman orbit and at least tribes in southern England becoming Roman client states.
 
I'd also go with Latinised client states. Britain is too important a trading area to remain outside at least indirect assimilation into the Roman world.
 
Would early Britain end up with the political organisation and tech levels of early Ireland?

Probably a more advanced. They have a major religous center (Anglesy) bringing in pilgrims from across the continent (assuming Gaul isn't conquered) which gives them cultural weight to attract experts of all types. Druidism has the potential to be a major faith in this TL.

They have more resources than Ireland. "Britland/Albion" probably has something like the Saxon Kingdoms which eventual unify into a few small blocks and or one kingdom only a few centuries earlier.

They mostly trade with Rome or Gaul or a more Romano Celtic Gaul in the first few centuries, but as the targets become softer they probably start to raid. This could create a bit of a Brit-Viking culture, where those fleeing the unifying Brit Kingdoms raid and settle and leave a greater cultural imprint on the continent.

At the same time the Med and Gaul probably look like better raid/invasion targets so we very likely don't have a Germanic invasion to the scale of OTL Britian if at all.

What sort of language would they end up speaking in later centuries?

Something Bythonic, rather like Welsh with fewer Latin influences.

Hope that is helpful.
 
Client states is the alternative. This worked until Claudius invaded Britain. Of course you would always get anti-roman parties in the tribes and sometimes they take over the tribe. Same happened in Germania east of the Rhine. So it is unclear, if the romans could keep the tribes in Southern Britain rome-friendly or if their diplomacy fails, like they failed in Germania in the long run.

However, with more legions and auxilia at the Rhine border, the romans can easily control the channel and even start campaigns to Britain in order to support their client states, if needed. I am convinced, that the british tribes were never a real threat for Gallia. That was all imperial propaganda in order to justify the invasion.

But I doubt, the romanization of these client states would be stronger than in the german tribes east of the Rhine. Just a kind of (unintentional) development aid, but no real romanization.

The more interesting question is, what the romans would be able or willing to do with 4 legions and about 20.000 men of auxilia more at the Rhine and Danube border.
 
I think once Gaul is conquered (and it will be at some point) Britain may not be invaded but will be drawn into roman orbit and at least tribes in southern England becoming Roman client states.

One thing about this statement is without Ceaser, it probably goes much slower. OTL the best general in the ancient world (IMHO, and I hate the guy) came very close to loosing.

Another commander would have a hard time and Rome would probably take Gaul piecemeal, a tribe every 10 years or so, end up with a lot of client kings

Also, the Republic is not that stable, internal division might just break it apart into Roman statlets.
 
One thing about this statement is without Ceaser, it probably goes much slower. OTL the best general in the ancient world (IMHO, and I hate the guy) came very close to loosing.

Another commander would have a hard time and Rome would probably take Gaul piecemeal, a tribe every 10 years or so, end up with a lot of client kings

Also, the Republic is not that stable, internal division might just break it apart into Roman statlets.

We can discuss how Gaul is conquered but it will be. It's just too near, too developed and has too hostile past with Rome to be left alone.

Of course different commander could also mean no/less opposition in Rome so whole conquest and aftermath plays out very differently
 
The more interesting question is, what the romans would be able or willing to do with 4 legions and about 20.000 men of auxilia more at the Rhine and Danube border.

This is indeed, a huge point. Not only are 4 legions completely free to bolster the Rhine, Danube, and Eastern frontiers (and perhaps assist in pacifying more land), the problem of Britain being prone to prop up a usurper on a consistent basis is removed, and so that helps a lot with internal stability. Rome also has more money to work with, since Britain cost more to defend than it produced for the empire.

I could see those 4 legions put to good use in an expanded Dacian conquest. Or in potentially holding Mesopotamia.
 
I could see those 4 legions put to good use in an expanded Dacian conquest. Or in potentially holding Mesopotamia.

Mesopotamia is probably the most obvious option for any emperor. It is rich with high population. Some of them potential firendly greek cities. Latest when the trouble starts during Neros reign more legions could lead to a more ambitious campaign. Imagine Corbulo gets 40.000 more men.

Another option is going going back to the Elbe border. And from there support a dacian campaign. Which makes a nice new border.

During Claudius times, the Chauci were almost conquered by Chaucicus and again later by Corbulo, after their fleets raided the gallic coasts. But Claudius called them back.

The Chatti were almost conquered by Galba, following Caligulas campaign in 41. But it seems Claudius was not willing to keep the territory.

Around 50 AD, Vennius the roman client king of the Marcomanns was attacked by his nephews. The Lugii, the Quadi and the Yazyges were involved. A perfect casus belli, but Claudius did nothing. Like Tiberius did nothing to help Marobodus in the same situation a few decades earlier.

The Bructeri living north of the Lippe and near the Rhine were anihilated by their neighbours. Again the romans did nothing.

And the Cherusci have been in the mid of a civil war, which led to their desintegration a few decades later.

Claudius was busy in Britannia. But without this useless adventure and 40,000 men more at the right place ...
 
Last edited:
Mesopotamia is probably the most obvious option for any emperor. It is rich with high population. Some of them potential firendly greek cities. Latest when the trouble starts during Neros reign more legions could lead to a more ambitious campaign. Imagine Corbulo gets 40.000 more men.

Another option is going going back to the Elbe border. And from there support a dacian campaign. Which makes a nice new border.

During Claudius times, the Chauci were almost conquered by Chaucicus and again later by Corbulo, after their fleets raided the gallic coasts. But Claudius called them back.

The Chatti were almost conquered by Galba, following Caligulas campaign in 41. But it seems Claudius was not willing to keep the territory.

Around 50 AD, Vennius the roman client king of the Marcomanns was attacked by his nephews. The Lugii, the Quadi and the Yazyges were involved. A perfect casus belli, but Claudius did nothing. Like Tiberius did nothing to help Marobodus in the same situation a few decades earlier.

The Bructeri living north of the Lippe and near the Rhine were anihilated by their neighbours. Again the romans did nothing.

And the Cherusci have been in the mid of a civil war, which led to their desintegration a few decades later.

Claudius was busy in Britannia. But without this useless adventure and 40,000 men more at the right place ...
Even without conquering up to the Elbe, a more interventionist Roman policy in Germania would be a great way to maintain friendly presences wel into the 3rd century when the Germans start to develop more sophisticated forms of government and possibly, having the better part of 2 centuries of near constant Roman intervention, are ripe for conquest then.
 
I'd also go with Latinised client states. Britain is too important a trading area to remain outside at least indirect assimilation into the Roman world.

I agree, but a Celtic state with Roman influences is very different from Ireland in OTL, where Roman contact was minimal. And in the Third Century Crisis, the Alban king Artorīgios takes advantage of the crisis to take on the Empire!

In all seriousness, you'd probably see the Celtic faith becoming a faith with a literate clergy. I don't think this aborts Christianization, but I feel like it has to do something?
 
Top