What would have been the effects of Rome conquering all of Britain

I'm going to sound like an ass, but am I the only person here who actually knows anything about this subject?

I know all about the names I was making a back door joke,,,

But being serious my main point is that Scotland (what ever group manages to conquer the region) is going to be backward and stubborn regardless
 
I know all about the names I was making a back door joke,,,

But being serious my main point is that Scotland (what ever group manages to conquer the region) is going to be backward and stubborn regardless

Oh, my bad.

But, yeah, it is likely that Caledonia will retain the most of it's tribal heritage. It probably would be the least Romanized part of the Empire. I'd be willing to bet even Hibernia would be more Romanized in this scenario.
 
Once the Roman Empire on the mainland starts running into problems, you might see progressive abandonment of the outlying parts of Britain. First Ireland, then Scotland, then the rest of Britain (per OTL).

Roman dominion in Ireland and Scotland might be relatively brief and you might still have tribal peoples making trouble later. The Romans made part of Germany a province and the Germanics still brought the house down OTL.
 
If Romans conquer all of British Isles in the 1st century AD it will probably mean there would be very little military presence and the funds used on the military would be used for urbanisation and road networks. Unless there is a Roman civil war fought on the Isles it will also mean roughy 300 years of unbronken peace and stability before the troubles of the 5th century start. Three centuries is a lot of time to get rich and developed no matter that you are at the very edge of the Empire if you are completely safe. I could also see people from other parts of the Empire migrating to the Isles during the period of unrests and it is not beyond imagination that the Isles might become a semi-mythical safe haven among the population of the Empire.
 
Assuming they can make such a conquest stick....

Limited economic development in both Caledonia and Hibernia; no, or severely limited Anglo-Saxon takeover of Lowland Britain; a more cohesive unified identity in the event of an imperial collapse, or larger, more technologically advanced emergent factions at any rate; resilience of Celtic culture across the British Isles, tied in with a plethora of energing reiligions, including a very different Christianity; possible re-unification at some indeterminate stage by an imperial Roman pretender with a Celtic background.

Butterflies are of the gigantic, earth shattering variety.
 
Roman dominion in Ireland and Scotland might be relatively brief and you might still have tribal peoples making trouble later. The Romans made part of Germany a province and the Germanics still brought the house down OTL.

True.

Of course conquering Scotland wouldn´t be a policy priority for me if I was a roman emperor. Difficult terrain and difficult people.

Heck, I might even cynically abandon England, offer it to some wandering tribes in exchange for not moving south.:D

I can see Ireland lasting long, Scotland maybe not. I haven´t been to Ireland but I imagine waging war there would be easier.

Also there is some gold there at this point. Don´t know if it´s really cost-effective though.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Well, they did conquer Caledonia.

Britannia included what is now the Scottish lowlands, and Roman civilization extends up the eastern seaboard to what is now Inverness.

After the collapse of Rome a Romano-British Kingdom called Strathclyde (modern lowland Scotland and modern Cumbria) survived for centuries in the face of the Scoti invaders before falling in the 11th century. To pressure from the Scots and Saxons.
 
The Irish were the main problem which prompted the Britons to hire the English in the first place.
So assuming a fully romanised Ireland and not just a lose client kingdom the effects could be pretty huge. You've got civilization's western border pretty well secured- the east is still there and that is the really scary side but nonetheless....there could be more of a chance for things to hold.

I'd think Germans would still come in sooner or later but they would have a much tougher time of it, we could even get a France like situation where they end up being assimilated by the locals.
 
Some very good points here from several people.

But one thing to consider is that even cohesive units like Gaul were fractured soon enough, partly due to invasion and settlement, and partly through natural collapse once the empire was imploded.

Since this is more or less what happened anyway to Britannia, one might simply see a different path, larger entities, and different invaders

Hmmm, that was really worth saying!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
A Romanized Scotland or Ireland could still fight with the Romanized Britons.

Some Irish high king with a Roman name trying to conquer Britain after Rome pulls out?
 
A Romanized Scotland or Ireland could still fight with the Romanized Britons.

Some Irish high king with a Roman name trying to conquer Britain after Rome pulls out?

That is what I was sort of thinking, although I have no inclination of writing a TL since I´d have to do so much research to do it properly.

But would he be high king in this scenario. I think one of the benefits of a roman conquered Ireland would be that there´d be no high or low kings, just one king with a capital K.
 
That is what I was sort of thinking, although I have no inclination of writing a TL since I´d have to do so much research to do it properly.

But would he be high king in this scenario. I think one of the benefits of a roman conquered Ireland would be that there´d be no high or low kings, just one king with a capital K.

He probably would be a High-King. The Celtic tendency to stay loyal to their tribe reared its head in OTL Britannia not too long after the legions left. Its not surprising that diverse power brokers wanted a piece of the pie, and Celtic inheritance customs didn't help. Any wannabe ruler of this region post-Roman empire would either need to find a way to keep some legions from leaving, or would be forced to come to some terms with local power brokers. Thinking about it they would probably still need some local power arrangements even if they managed to scrounge up a legion or two.
 

Winnabago

Banned
I’m pretty sure most of OTL’s British legions depended on imports from continental Europe. As it’s far more difficult to get supplies from Gaul to Dublin than it is to get them from Gaul to Londinium, I think it makes sense that there wouldn’t be permanent legions in Ireland.

Rather, there would be merchants and missionaries, and a client king who was Rome-friendly (he had to be, Rome would provide support against insurrectionist tribes) and would do lots of Roman things, probably having Romanesque armies.

So, in the end, there would be no legions to withdraw.
 
Talk Talk Talk.

This way Moscow can't claim the title of being the Third Rome anymore..

So Britain could be a new and improved Byzantium..
 
IMVHO, it depends on when it happens. If the Isles are completeley subdued around 100 AD, it leaves a couple of legions spare for doing stuff in Germany, So butterfies could allow for a consolidated conquest to the Elbe... and even if I think it would not change the overall course of late Roman history, there is a whole lot of changes down the road. If the conquest is only ultimeted later ( I can think this can be done as late as the Severi era) Germany is still a great source of trouble... But probably no hiring of mercenaries. A Romanized lowland core vs. a Celtic highland periphery with little Romanization... could make for very interesting scenarios. Either way, I hardly see anything close to "England".
 
Top