What if the Britons had successfully defended themelves from the saxon invasion.

The roman culture survived in Britain until the Germanic invasion, even though the land split into many rival kingdoms. So let's say when the roman left the island in the early 400s, a unified state arose and had pushed back the Germanic hordes, how would the culture and state fare for the many centuries until the modern era.
 
Wow! What a great idea for a thread! I am presently re-reading a book called "The Age of Arthur". (I originally read it in the late 1970's.)

The author, based on evidence from archaeology and contemporary literature states that there was a literal Arthur who re-conquered the entirety of Roman Britain under one government. The Saxons were not totally expelled but lived only in Kent, Norfolk, and Suffolk. Arthur's government extended to the Antonine Wall as well.

This was circa AD 450. After Arthur's death, the unity split between numerous British war-lords and beginning in the 480's, the Saxons began their invasion in earnest.

So, that is where I would begin the story.
 
I'm just going to go with that potential real life King Arthur real surviving.

The Language may be a romantic language with Celtic influence, maybe like a western version of Romanian, with it being heavily influenced. If they aren't taken over by the Saxons or the Angles, I would assume that the entirety of the British isles will be converted to Christianity much sooner, as the Saxons were later converts there and on the mainland. It may see itself as the true roman successor, as opposed to the Greeks, and its capital, be it Londinium or not, as being the Second Rome.
 
I'm just going to go with that potential real life King Arthur real surviving.

The Language may be a romantic language with Celtic influence, maybe like a western version of Romanian, with it being heavily influenced. If they aren't taken over by the Saxons or the Angles, I would assume that the entirety of the British isles will be converted to Christianity much sooner, as the Saxons were later converts there and on the mainland. It may see itself as the true roman successor, as opposed to the Greeks, and its capital, be it Londinium or not, as being the Second Rome.

I agree that the nation would be Christian but I wonder would they take the hard stance of the late Byzantine and Roman Catholic Church or would they have their own church, or maybe keep the Aryan church alive.
 
They did, for a time. Gildas writes that the Saxons had been pushed back into their enclaves, and had been no danger for a generation (while Bede puts the establishment of Wessex/Gewissae in this time, it's possible that this was not seen as a Saxon takeover but 'normal' British internecine warfare, possibly using some Germanic mercenaries, considering the quite British names of the first kings of Wessex).
The problem was that the more or less unified Britain depended for its soldiers either on Germanic mercenaries (which brewed the Saxon trouble) or semibarbarian tributary tribes between Hadrian's and Antonine's wall. With the spreading of the latter for military purposes, their Celtic culture spread, too, and this re-celticizing, with the associated decentralized structure of over- and underkings was probably what did the Britons in.
 

jahenders

Banned
Always good to take Gildas, Bede, and a lot of Arturian history with a grain of salt. However, it does appear that:
- Some of the earliest Saxons were invited as mercenaries or a counter-balancing force
- Then Saxons, Angles, Jutes, etc came in repeated waves.
- The Britons had success for a period of time beating them back but were eventually overwhelmed, probably due to disunion.

So, the most likely way to achieve this is for a strong Briton leader (Arthur or otherwise) to emerge and build a stronger central kingdom/force that would not only have success in beating the Saxons back, but also have staying power to maintain those gains and survive changes in leadership.

Even so, I don't think the Britons were strong enough to totally keep the Saxons off the island, but they could potentially have kept them constrained to a relatively small portion of England until the waves of Germanic and Norse invaders subsided. If they do that, then they might eventually conquer/absorb those Saxon areas so it's still a Briton kingdom.

If England remains essentially a Briton kingdom, then it would likely retain more Roman culture, learning, and tradition, though it would have a strong Briton flavor to it. They would have a different take on government, society, and religion than the Saxons. They'd likely be Christian, but not sure how Catholic they'd be.

Assuming all that, it's unclear whether/how the contention with Normandy would evolve and whether there's a Norman invasion.
 
A serious issue in the north was the increasing splitting of the kingdoms of the descendants of Coel Hen.

It's important to keep in mind for about 30-50 years after Mons Badonicus (The Battle of Badon) the Anglo-Saxons were dealt a terrible blow and essentially forced back. It was only with Cerdic's invasion of West Seaxe and the Bernician Angles overthrowing Bryneich that thiings began to go south for real. The North was essentially being invaded from two sides, and that undermined some of the strongest kingdoms there like Ebrauc and Rheged (though Rheged fell mainly because it was split into two, North and South Rheged, after a strong king has died).

By that point the rest was inertia. The south was too divided and Dumnonia, Pengwern, and Powys couldn't hold it all on their own. The Battle of Deorham was also a horrific loss and cut off Dumnonia from Powys and the Welsh kingdoms, allowing West Seaxe to essentially batter it at its leisure.

One of the best ways to prevent the Saxons from rising too much is crippling the Picts and Irish, which was one of the main reasons why in the north they had been brought in. Hen Ogledd suffered a lot of raiding from the Picts. If the north holds it would be easier for the south to, as well, though it's hard to see how you could have a better outcome than Mons Badonicus. Maybe if someone managed to become High King of Britannia during the peace from 496-547 and have him cripple one particular area which can take the pressure off Britain. Good target would be South Seaxe, west Seaxe or East Seaxe; these were really the pivots of expansion for the Anglians in this period.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the nation would be Christian but I wonder would they take the hard stance of the late Byzantine and Roman Catholic Church or would they have their own church, or maybe keep the Aryan church alive.

If they thought of themselves as a Roman Successor instead of the Byzantines, then I assume they would not align themselves with their branch, but also Arianism was never really prevalent in the British Isles as far as I know, more so in the "Barbarian" invaders of the old West Rome. Since the Schism as we know it wouldn't happen with an earlier converted Britain, but the division between the Patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople would, they two may break off even sooner than OTL, with the Patriarch of Rome backed by the *British Roman Empire and other western Christians, while Constantinople is backed by the Byz.


I don't think that Celtic Christianity was ever really distinct enough from continental to be considered its own branch.
 
To be frank I don't think the Britons would really consider themselves the successor of Rome. There ain't much reason for them to; many Roman cultural things carried over but there wasn't that big of an attraction for the idea of Rome, and when a ruler wanted to look good they would reference Coel Hen or Vortigern or another notable High King. I think that sort of thing was restricted to a few more romanized areas like Glevum.
 
I have been thinking of doing a similar thread .There is historical evidence for a Arthur.His power was based on a late empire mobile roman army IE Clibanarii heavily armoured and armed cavalry with lighter missile armed cavalry units ,backing up and supporting local tribal levies with a elte pretorian infantry unit.I was going to start my thread with the rebellion of the saxon mercenary troops Their killing of Vortigan then high king and his entire family.The then rise of the Pendragon family under Uther ,and his subsequent assassination.Throwing Britain into a period of civil war Which the saxons took full advantage of .Until Arthur or Arutha comes of age ,and claims the high kingship. Backed by his loyal commanders and the armies of his sisters husbands. Morgan le Fay,Morgause,Etaine, who had married barbarian lords Again there is evidence these ladies where sisters half sisters ect. Arutha defeats ,and pushes the saxons back to their heartlands,and takes their oaths of loyalty ,and coverts them to christianity.Not ROMAN christianity but the CELTIC version Guinevere and Lancelot don't betray him That my POD ITTL The commanders of the heavy horse regiments ,stay loyal ,and there is no battle of Camlann roads Thus Arutha can found a dynasty Again there is historical evidence,the Arthur / Arutha of legend had sons
So really looking forward to how you develop the history here,and how it ripples across europe as a whole Good luck
 

jahenders

Banned
There IS some historical evidence for Arthur, but it's pretty fragmented and uncertain. He may have been a warlord with a strong band of cavalry as you note, but the whole set of Vortigern, Pendragon, Uther relations is uncertain. Many such things could be an interesting basis for a thread, but a lot of it would be a fairly week historical foundation to start from.

I have been thinking of doing a similar thread .There is historical evidence for a Arthur.His power was based on a late empire mobile roman army IE Clibanarii heavily armoured and armed cavalry with lighter missile armed cavalry units
 
A surviving Romano-British state might well consider itself Roman -- even as late as the 6th century, Gildas uses the term cives to refer to the Britons -- but since Britain was never really fully Romanised, the actual culture and language would be far more Celtic than Roman. (Sort of like how the Byzantines' culture owed more to the Greeks.) Literacy might be more widespread, although it's difficult to tell how much more widespread: IOTL Britain even before the Saxon conquest was far less literate than the Continent, although this might not be the case if the island were more stable and prosperous. The common language, however, would be more similar to Welsh than to any of the Romance languages.

As for Arthur, although it's become pretty much received wisdom in historical works, there's really no evidence that he relied on heavy cavalry for his victories. Nor for that matter is there any evidence for a Camelot-style capital; in fact British courts of the time, IIRC, tended to be itinerant rather than based in one place. Arthur himself almost certainly existed: it would beggar belief for the guy who won *the* victory over the Saxons to be so completely eclipsed by a fictional character that credit for his victory got given to the other guy. Ambrosius Aurelianus certainly existed, since he's mentioned by name in Gildas. Vortigern probably existed; Gildas describes a "proud tyrant" who sounds a lot like him, although he isn't given a name until the 9th-century History of the Britons. Uther and Merlin and most of Arthur's knights were, as far as we can tell, mythological characters who only got associated with Arthur later on.
 
A surviving Romano-British state might well consider itself Roman -- even as late as the 6th century, Gildas uses the term cives to refer to the Britons -- but since Britain was never really fully Romanised, the actual culture and language would be far more Celtic than Roman. (Sort of like how the Byzantines' culture owed more to the Greeks.) Literacy might be more widespread, although it's difficult to tell how much more widespread: IOTL Britain even before the Saxon conquest was far less literate than the Continent, although this might not be the case if the island were more stable and prosperous. The common language, however, would be more similar to Welsh than to any of the Romance languages.

Well, if you had a Roman enough government and lords, then they could potentially change the language to me more Romantic, as the Normans did with English. Maybe it would still be more Celtic, perhaps to Celtic to be considered Romance, but there could definitely be influences. I was thinking a language along the lines of Romanian which, while Romantic, has more Slavic influences.
 
Check out the Warlord series by Bernard Cornwell if you want to see some excellent novels covering that timeframe while holing an Arthur figure. Also-Lancelots an ambitious coward and Druidism hadn't completely died out yet!
 
(CoughCATOSCAVALRY!!Cough)

Have a lozenge ;)


One problem with holding off the Saxons and Angles is that the best agricultural land is in the east and the south and so all things being equal in the beginning eventually there'll be a population disparity against the various Britons.

I think the best case once the Legions have left is to limit the invaders.
What is needed is a unified miltary force that can deny most of the Thames Valley to the Angles or Saxons (I include the Jutes here) and prevent the establishment of a mixed Angle and Saxon Mercia that began the unification of their culture and kingdoms.
 
Well, if you had a Roman enough government and lords, then they could potentially change the language to me more Romantic, as the Normans did with English. Maybe it would still be more Celtic, perhaps to Celtic to be considered Romance, but there could definitely be influences. I was thinking a language along the lines of Romanian which, while Romantic, has more Slavic influences.

Possibly, although Latin in Britain never seems to have enjoyed widespread use as a day-to-day language, even among the upper classes, so a Romance-speaking Britain would require a POD well before the 5th century. WRT the Normans, whilst they did have a major impact on English, note that English is still considered a Germanic language and that Anglo-Saxon, rather than Norman French, is considered to be its ancestor.

Check out the Warlord series by Bernard Cornwell if you want to see some excellent novels covering that timeframe while holing an Arthur figure. Also-Lancelots an ambitious coward and Druidism hadn't completely died out yet!

The Warlord books are certainly fun, although historically speaking they're rather dubious. In particular, paganism was way less widespread than shown in the books, particularly amongst the elite.
 
Possibly, although Latin in Britain never seems to have enjoyed widespread use as a day-to-day language, even among the upper classes, so a Romance-speaking Britain would require a POD well before the 5th century. WRT the Normans, whilst they did have a major impact on English, note that English is still considered a Germanic language and that Anglo-Saxon, rather than Norman French, is considered to be its ancestor.

Well, maybe then it could be a heavily influenced Celtic language. Because while English is Germanic, we have so much in common with French it probably wouldn't be that out of line to call it a Romance. So maybe if we can get the aristocracy Romanized enough (which I'm sure could help with fending off the invaders) then maybe we get a Celtic language with many Latin influences, so that its on the edge of being a Romance.
 
Wow! What a great idea for a thread! I am presently re-reading a book called "The Age of Arthur". (I originally read it in the late 1970's.)

The author, based on evidence from archaeology and contemporary literature states that there was a literal Arthur who re-conquered the entirety of Roman Britain under one government. The Saxons were not totally expelled but lived only in Kent, Norfolk, and Suffolk. Arthur's government extended to the Antonine Wall as well.

This was circa AD 450. After Arthur's death, the unity split between numerous British war-lords and beginning in the 480's, the Saxons began their invasion in earnest.

So, that is where I would begin the story.

While the Age of Arthur is a good read, unfortunately it is quite out-to-date when it comes to Arthurian research.

Most historians of the early Saxon invasions believe that the mythical character is a cross between a Britonnic giant and the hero Ambrosius Aurelianus (from Gildas, the Ruin of Briton).

If we accept Gildas and Bede then to see the Saxons off they shouldn't have been allowed to settle in the first place. Then someone like Ambrosius keeps a form of centralised control, possibly using the old Roman systems of governance. However, ultimately it didn't take much for the Britons unity to be shattered, and we have to remember the Saxons were only part of the problem, the Picts and Irish were also besieging Britannia from all sides.
 
Top