WI: Boudica and her army won the Battle of Watling Street?

[ordinarylittleme]

IOTL, the decisive battle won by the Romans had pitted an alliance of British peoples led by Boudica against a Roman army led by Gaius Suetonius Paulinus. Although heavily outnumbered, the Romans decisively defeated the allied tribes, inflicting heavy losses on them. The battle marked the end of resistance to Roman rule in most of the southern half of Great Britain, a period that lasted until 410 AD.

Boudica herself was a queen of the Iceni, a tribe resident somewhere around modern Essex (or Norfolk) in Britain, early in The Roman Empire, and is most famous for leading a rebellion during Nero's reign, razing Colchester and London and making Nero briefly think twice about the whole "Roman Britain" thing, until she was defeated in about 60-61AD somewhere along the Roman road now called Watling Street, whereupon she either died of illness or committed suicide. This stemmed from an incident where she was flogged and her daughter raped.

So what if Boudica had actually used her advantage of larger numbers well and decisively defeated the Romans, inflicting heavy losses and destruction to the point that Nero decides Britain is better off NOT under Roman rule?

 

[Evil Crusader]

So what if Boudica had actually used her advantage of larger numbers well and decisively defeated the Romans, inflicting heavy losses and destruction to the point that Nero decides Britain is better off NOT under Roman rule?

I'd say you also need to heavily distract Rome, so that it's really not worth the hassle and it doesn't boil down to avenging Roman pride like it happened with Germania.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I'd say you also need to heavily distract Rome, so that it's really not worth the hassle and it doesn't boil down to avenging Roman pride like it happened with Germania.

Rome had plenty of opportunities to re-invade Germania when it wasn't distracted on other frontiers, but didn't, apart from a few punitive campaigns. The Rome of the Imperial period wasn't the indefatigable "keep throwing armies at our enemies for as long as it takes to win" Rome of the Middle Republic.

 

[Evil Crusader]

Rome had plenty of opportunities to re-invade Germania when it wasn't distracted on other frontiers, but didn't, apart from a few punitive campaigns. The Rome of the Imperial period wasn't the indefatigable "keep throwing armies at our enemies for as long as it takes to win" Rome of the Middle Republic.

Which is the point: punitive campaigns would still happen, but as Britain isn't nearly as deep and prohibitive as Germania is, unless we're going down the path that every single one fails, you're still likely to end up with a reconquest.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Which is the point: punitive campaigns would still happen, but as Britain isn't nearly as deep and prohibitive as Germania is, unless we're going down the path that every single one fails, you're still likely to end up with a reconquest.

Except...why? Britain was a lot less powerful and offered little benefit to Rome. After burning three cities to the ground, they'd get the hint and back off at least during Boudica's lifetime

 

[TRH]

Except...why? Britain was a lot less powerful and offered little benefit to Rome. After burning three cities to the ground, they'd get the hint and back off at least during Boudica's lifetime

Because they did IOTL? Boudica wasn't the only Britannian upstart the Romans had to deal with, they faced multiple rebellions both from locals and from Roman governors going rogue. They kept a frankly unreasonably large garrison on the island to deal with such problems for centuries, far more men than were lost at Teutoberg Forest or would have been lost at Watling Street. Whatever the reason, the Romans invested far more time and effort into Britannia than in Germania, and did so for a sustained period of time.

 

[Elfwine]

Germania would have offered less benefit and cost more than Britannia - including the logistical strain of maintaining those garrisons, honestly.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/boudiccas-revolt-succeeds.327022 An earlier thread on Boudicca's revolt that may interest people.

 

[twovultures]

It would add to Nero's unpopularity for sure-being the emperor who lost Britain on top of all the rest of his purported wackiness is really bad. Perhaps it could contribute to an earlier rebellion and overthrow of him?

I may be misremembering, but I think part of what drew Rome to Britain was the mines in the southwestern part of the island. Perhaps if a punitive expedition manages to establish a client state in Cornwall, they'll leave the rest alone and so fulfill OP's request for an independent Britain? They'll have control over the tin mines (tin being a pretty rare commodity at the time), and by successfully establishing a native ally as ruler in that area would have salved Roman honor. So what if the rest of the island is ruled by savages?

 

[GrandMaster]

Well, at least the fact that Rome is no longer in the British Isles means that they can survive longer using the resources that they did in colonizing the British Isles post-Boudica, meaning the split between the two Romes (if it even occurs) is pushed back somewhat.

 

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Whatever the reason, the Romans invested far more time and effort into Britannia than in Germania, and did so for a sustained period of time.

Because tin, among other things.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Germania would have offered less benefit and cost more than Britannia - including the logistical strain of maintaining those garrisons, honestly.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/boudiccas-revolt-succeeds.327022 An earlier thread on Boudicca's revolt that may interest people.

Oooh interesting

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Because they did IOTL? Boudica wasn't the only Britannian upstart the Romans had to deal with, they faced multiple rebellions both from locals and from Roman governors going rogue. They kept a frankly unreasonably large garrison on the island to deal with such problems for centuries, far more men than were lost at Teutoberg Forest or would have been lost at Watling Street. Whatever the reason, the Romans invested far more time and effort into Britannia than in Germania, and did so for a sustained period of time.

Also, even were Nero to want to withdraw from Britain, doing so could be a likely catalyst for shattering any perceived legitimacy gained from victory in the east.

 

[Gloss]

I honestly don't understand how some people view Roman history, it seems that it's simplified down to "Rome is invincible and will never lose any long term conflict from 300 BCE to 200 CE or 300 CE and if they retreat from a region it means that region is objectively not worth it anyway, thus they made the right strategic choice and are still in practice undefeated"
It's not really helpful to discuss things within this framework.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

I honestly don't understand how some people view Roman history, it seems that it's simplified down to "Rome is invincible and will never lose any long term conflict from 300 BCE to 200 CE or 300 CE and if they retreat from a region it means that region is objectively not worth it anyway, thus they made the right strategic choice and are still in practice undefeated"
It's not really helpful to discuss things within this framework.

I don't see it in this way, but in the case of Britain there is a lot of political incentive for Nero to not abandon the province and every incentive for his many political enemies to use Britain as a wedge issue should he go ahead with it anyway.

 

[Gloss]

I don't see it in this way, but in the case of Britain there is a lot of political incentive for Nero to not abandon the province and every incentive for his many political enemies to use Britain as a wedge issue should he go ahead with it anyway.

Just because they decide to invade again doesn't mean they will succeed or try to conquer the island repeatedly, especially considering the political troubles that could still happen IATL, especially in the Lower Rhine area.
The Britons will also be more prepared and more hostile to Roman rule in a second invasion, plus leading Britonnic tribes will probably see a weaker resistance to centralization of political power if the alternative is Roman rule.

 

[TRH]

I don't see it in this way, but in the case of Britain there is a lot of political incentive for Nero to not abandon the province and every incentive for his many political enemies to use Britain as a wedge issue should he go ahead with it anyway.

Also, it would be downright insane to suggest that Rome couldn't muster the manpower necessary to retake Britain sooner or later, only a question of whether they could afford to do so and if they'd be inclined to make such an investment. And historically they did commit those resources.

Besides, Boudica's not exactly Hannibal or even Pyrrhus. She destroyed one legion in detail and overran poorly defended Roman settlements before falling to pieces the moment she faced a well-prepared Roman defense. How is the army that was crushed by two legions supposed to defeat four plus auxiliaries?

 

[Gloss]

Also, it would be downright insane to suggest that Rome couldn't muster the manpower necessary to retake Britain sooner or later, only a question of whether they could afford to do so and if they'd be inclined to make such an investment. And historically they did commit those resources.

Besides, Boudica's not exactly Hannibal or even Pyrrhus. She destroyed one legion in detail and overran poorly defended Roman settlements before falling to pieces the moment she faced a well-prepared Roman defense. How is the army that was crushed by two legions supposed to defeat four plus auxiliaries?

I mean I'm not wrong in characterizing your opinion as "Rome is invincible from 300 BCE to 200 CE".

 

[TRH]

I mean I'm not wrong in characterizing your opinion as "Rome is invincible from 300 BCE to 200 CE".

If "stronger than any individual neighboring state" is "invincible" in your mind, then yes. I believe this is what a reasonable person would call a strawman, though. If I were to say that even if she were to overtake Roman Britain, Boudica would definitely fail if she then attempted to conquer Gaul, would that also count as me asserting Roman invincibility?

 

[Karolus Rex]

I mean I'm not wrong in characterizing your opinion as "Rome is invincible from 300 BCE to 200 CE".

I do not believe he is saying Rome is invincible, just that resources wise if they commit to a war victory would be on their side, but have to say committing four full legions and auxiliary forces from outside Britannia against Boudica is in my view very unlikely, given such a force would take years to prepare and would represent such an amount of resources available that is unlikely anyone would consider it worth it (even Corbulo for the war with Parthia only had 3 Legions available and it took him 2 years to prepare for a campaign), that it would be far cheaper for the Romans to resort to their cheaper tactic of bribing chiefs to cause problems and cause disunity on the Brittons so that a far smaller, and cheaper, expedition can be prepared down the line.

 

[TRH]

I do not believe he is saying Rome is invincible, just that resources wise if they commit to a war victory would be on their side, but have to say committing four full legions and auxiliary forces from outside Britannia against Boudica is in my view very unlikely, given such a force would take years to prepare and would represent such an amount of resources available that is unlikely anyone would consider it worth it (even Corbulo for the war with Parthia only had 3 Legions available and it took him 2 years to prepare for a campaign), that it would be far cheaper for the Romans to resort to their cheaper tactic of bribing chiefs to cause problems and cause disunity on the Brittons so that a far smaller, and cheaper, expedition can be prepared down the line.

I used that number as a ballpark because the Romans used around that many troops just to try and take Caledonia. Twice. Like I've said a few times, they committed a lot of troops to Britain. And I think the logistics are easier for a British campaign than a Parthian one because Gaul was a major recruitment source AIUI.