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

[alexmilman]

So it seems that the answer to WI Boudicca won at Watling St is: she can leverage this to kicking out the Romans only if the Romans are distracted elsewhere.
Would that be an accurate summation? That a longterm win for Boudicca REQUIRES Rome to be prevented from fighting back?

Seems to be an accurate summation. Taking into an account that Britain was a source of some valuable items and that soon enough Rome was willing and able to commit considerable resources to crush a revolt in the Judah, it is not quite clear to me why such a situation would happen short of the gratuitous combination of the disasters along all Roman borders. Of course, such a combination can be invented but it’s probability seems to be quite low (why not a meteor hitting the Rome?).

On a strictly military side, it does not look like the Britons had been a formidable military power even if they would manage to win a battle with a numeric advantage of 20:1 (which they lost in OTL): choice of a battlefield and the tactical arrangements on the British side were pathetic and Bodica’s ability to exercise command during the battle were plain zero. The tribal mobs had been just rushing ahead and that was pretty much it. It is probably fair to assume that after the Romans are out, these tribes will go their own ways and by the time of the next Roman landing there is no unified state in any meaningful form.

 

[Gloss]

On a strictly military side, it does not look like the Britons had been a formidable military power even if they would manage to win a battle with a numeric advantage of 20:1 (which they lost in OTL): choice of a battlefield and the tactical arrangements on the British side were pathetic and Bodica’s ability to exercise command during the battle were plain zero. The tribal mobs had been just rushing ahead and that was pretty much it. It is probably fair to assume that after the Romans are out, these tribes will go their own ways and by the time of the next Roman landing there is no unified state in any meaningful form.

Not sure why you are simply taking figures of 200k army as plausible or valid(apparently Boudica managed to rally 10% of the entire island's population in one single place when we don't have any mentions of that many groups joining her).
Anyway why are you assuming the entire island to be made of incompetent people without memory? The Britons knew how the Roman fought after 20 years of the initial invasion, Boudica might not have been a good general but there are 2 other million people in the island that can be.
Also the Britons were already centralizing politically, which is why confederations existed such as the Brigantes.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Not sure why you are simply taking figures of 200k army as plausible or valid(apparently Boudica managed to rally 10% of the entire island's population in one single place when we don't have any mentions of that many groups joining her).
Anyway why are you assuming the entire island to be made of incompetent people without memory? The Britons knew how the Roman fought after 20 years of the initial invasion, Boudica might not have been a good general but there are 2 other million people in the island that can be.
Also the Britons were already centralizing politically, which is why confederations existed such as the Brigantes.

With this political centralization it would make them EASIER to attack at once...

 

[Komnenos002]

Again with this argument, we are talking about things that actually happened ultimately, using the argument "it didn't happen that early!" is honestly against the spirit of this entire forum, plus I only mention inflation, everything else already happened at that point in time.
This is an "alternate history forum" not a "alternate history forum(but only for timelines that don't deviate too much!)", using this logic even the idea of the Roman empire surviving but be too "drastically different", yet you entertain that notion.
But this comes back to my original point, which is that many people here in effect believe that anything other than the Roman state establishing the exact borders it wants and squashing all resistance is "divine intervention", at least in on the European front.

No, I think the idea that the most powerful military state in the region, which showed itself more than capable of smashing its foes in the West at this time period while distracted isn’t going to suddenly suffer repeated military disasters because two legions somehow got slaughtered in a battle that OTL they won with rather pitiful losses, is highly unlikely.

Also since I realized I forgot to address demography. You’d be wrong about it being worse in the early Empire. Population under Augustus is estimated at being around 45 million. By 350 it had declined to under 40 million, a decrease of over 10%. You’d be right about it growing after Augustus though. To somewhere around 60 million in 165 IIRC. Which means a full 1/3 decrease afterward.

So I think the difference I'm seeing, Gloss, is that what you're doing is far more widespread than what the question actually asks.

The question is "What if Boudica won at Watling Street."

What you're answering is "What if Rome suffered a series of misfortunes and tragedies across its entire Empire."

For the former POD, then the facts on the ground do point towards Rome dispatching an expeditionary force. For the latter, then sure, part of this timeline is a Roman withdrawal from Britain. But if you just have Watling Street go differently, the butterflies from that don't really strike at the heart of the empire. Is it possible that everything everywhere goes wrong for Rome? Sure, but now we're just kind of picking shit that we want to happen and not examining the butterflies from Watling Street. The most likely butterflies being a Roman expeditionary force dispatched to re-subdue Britain.

 

[Gloss]

So I think the difference I'm seeing, Gloss, is that what you're doing is far more widespread than what the question actually asks.

The question is "What if Boudica won at Watling Street."

What you're answering is "What if Rome suffered a series of misfortunes and tragedies across its entire Empire."

For the former POD, then the facts on the ground do point towards Rome dispatching an expeditionary force. For the latter, then sure, part of this timeline is a Roman withdrawal from Britain. But if you just have Watling Street go differently, the butterflies from that don't really strike at the heart of the empire. Is it possible that everything everywhere goes wrong for Rome? Sure, but now we're just kind of picking shit that we want to happen and not examining the butterflies from Watling Street. The most likely butterflies being a Roman expeditionary force dispatched to re-subdue Britain.

This is a construct that many TL writers don't actually abide by, in many cases there is no way to objectively distinguish between "picking shit we want to happen" and events that in any other context nobody would deem non-historical. Many timelines are explicitly created not to be some impossible chase after "the most likely outcome".
Either what happens is possible and thus a timeline can have such an event happen or it's not, for us it's impossible to prove or know how exactly history would have played out to begin it, if it's even that deterministic to begin with(but that's a discussion about physics and chaos theory).

Can you really say for sure you can predict how Roman internal politics will fare in this timeline? And its effect on Parthia or the rest of the empire in those 1-2 years? You adopt a more conservative stance, which is fine, but to say that the conservative stance is the natural one and anything else is not needs a good case behind it.
It's one thing to say that you think X is more likely, another thing is to say that X is the "natural outcome" and everything else is not a valid answer.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

If you want to write a timeline on a lot of bad shit happening to the Romans in the 60s that allow an independent Britain, go for it. But that's not what the WI about. It is about what would likely happen were Boudicca to win Watling Street. You can speculate all kinds of other Rome screw things that happen, and thats good for a timeline. but that doesn't help in answering the question posed.

In the conditions that prevailed in the 60s CE, with everything we know, the likeliest outcome is Boudicca still loses, and loses pretty handily. There is no reason to think this POD would be the cause of a massive series of calamities in the 60s that prevent the Romans from retaking it. Those calamities aren't impossible but they aren't going to be the result of losing 2 legions at Watling Street, so just positing a bunch of separate PODs is not useful to answering the question.

 

[The Professor]

This is a construct that many TL writers don't actually abide by, in many cases there is no way to objectively distinguish between "picking shit we want to happen" and events that in any other context nobody would deem non-historical. Many timelines are explicitly created not to be some impossible chase after "the most likely outcome".
Either what happens is possible and thus a timeline can have such an event happen or it's not, for us it's impossible to prove or know how exactly history would have played out to begin it, if it's even that deterministic to begin with(but that's a discussion about physics and chaos theory).

Can you really say for sure you can predict how Roman internal politics will fare in this timeline? And its effect on Parthia or the rest of the empire in those 1-2 years? You adopt a more conservative stance, which is fine, but to say that the conservative stance is the natural one and anything else is not needs a good case behind it.
It's one thing to say that you think X is more likely, another thing is to say that X is the "natural outcome" and everything else is not a valid answer.

Thing is, this discussion isn't a timeline story.
It is asking for the most likely outcome.
Of course you're helping here because you're showing that multiple events appear to be needed to prevent Boudicca's ultimate failure.

 

[Elfwine]

In the conditions that prevailed in the 60s CE, with everything we know, the likeliest outcome is Boudicca still loses, and loses pretty handily.

Sly, you beat me to it.

I think that first part is crucial - "In the conditions that prevailed in the 60s CE, with everything we know..." There are many ways to change what those conditions even are if you want to write about Rome doing better or worse than OTL - if we really want to take this to the fullest there's no reason that the 60s must have the Romans in Britannia in the first place or even as an empire at all, but then there's no battle of Watling Street for Boudicaa to win.

 

[Gloss]

If you want to write a timeline on a lot of bad shit happening to the Romans in the 60s that allow an independent Britain, go for it. But that's not what the WI about. It is about what would likely happen were Boudicca to win Watling Street. You can speculate all kinds of other Rome screw things that happen, and thats good for a timeline. but that doesn't help in answering the question posed.

In the conditions that prevailed in the 60s CE, with everything we know, the likeliest outcome is Boudicca still loses, and loses pretty handily. There is no reason to think this POD would be the cause of a massive series of calamities in the 60s that prevent the Romans from retaking it. Those calamities aren't impossible but they aren't going to be the result of losing 2 legions at Watling Street, so just positing a bunch of separate PODs is not useful to answering the question.

Thing is, this discussion isn't a timeline story.
It is asking for the most likely outcome.
Of course you're helping here because you're showing that multiple events appear to be needed to prevent Boudicca's ultimate failure.

The question is "what if Boudicca makes Nero not want to conquer Britain" and explicitly not "what's the most likely outcome of a victory". OP was searching for a specific outcome to begin with.
It's all in the starting post, OP makes the rule generally, not you.

Nowhere is it stated that we should only discuss the most likely outcome.

 

[Admiral_Zann]

The question is "what if Boudicca makes Nero not want to conquer Britain" and explicitly not "what's the most likely outcome of a victory". OP was searching for a specific outcome to begin with.
It's all in the starting post, OP makes the rule generally, not you.

Nowhere is it stated that we should only discuss the most likely outcome.

"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?" - This is what OP asked. It is in direct reference to Boudica winning at Watling Street or an equivalent battle around the same time. And it really doesn't change anything in regards to what has been said here.

Withdrawing from Britain (question if Nero ever actually considered it aside) is something that will severely damage Nero's prestige. However, it does not mean that no punitive expeditions are launched. Rome abandoned attempts to establish a province east of the Rhine following Teutoburg Forest, but launched a massive series of campaigns to enact revenge and counter the potential threat of a Germanic Confederation. Simply going by everything we know about how Rome handled similar situations we can reasonably argue that another attack on Boudica (if she actually manages to hold onto power which is not a given) will follow. Now in what form that happens is an open question.

Even in the worst case with Nero getting couped or a civil war breaking out there is the question: what prevents Rome from trying again once the dust has settled? Britannia is an obvious target for any Emperor that wants to gain legitimacy via conquest and military victory (the traditional Roman way) and a British Confederation (lets say that one forms) that managed to defeat several Legions would be high up on the list of potential targets. You also have to question how quickly the Britons could consolidate. With Rome occupied with itself (in this worst case scenario) what is there to unite the tribes?

Simple truth of the matter is that OP wanted to know what a reasonable series of events could spiral out of a defeat at Watling Street. And in the same way that Teutoburg Forest was merely a setback (and not even that damaging when compared to the Great Illyrian Revolt), Watling Street would also probably be just another setback that Rome would attempt to rectify militarily. Of course you can have the Britons roll well again and again, but is that really likely? I don't think so.

 

[Gloss]

"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?" - This is what OP asked. It is in direct reference to Boudica winning at Watling Street or an equivalent battle around the same time. And it really doesn't change anything in regards to what has been said here.

Withdrawing from Britain (question if Nero ever actually considered it aside) is something that will severely damage Nero's prestige. However, it does not mean that no punitive expeditions are launched. Rome abandoned attempts to establish a province east of the Rhine following Teutoburg Forest, but launched a massive series of campaigns to enact revenge and counter the potential threat of a Germanic Confederation. Simply going by everything we know about how Rome handled similar situations we can reasonably argue that another attack on Boudica (if she actually manages to hold onto power which is not a given) will follow. Now in what form that happens is an open question.

Even in the worst case with Nero getting couped or a civil war breaking out there is the question: what prevents Rome from trying again once the dust has settled? Britannia is an obvious target for any Emperor that wants to gain legitimacy via conquest and military victory (the traditional Roman way) and a British Confederation (lets say that one forms) that managed to defeat several Legions would be high up on the list of potential targets. You also have to question how quickly the Britons could consolidate. With Rome occupied with itself (in this worst case scenario) what is there to unite the tribes?

Simple truth of the matter is that OP wanted to know what a reasonable series of events could spiral out of a defeat at Watling Street. And in the same way that Teutoburg Forest was merely a setback (and not even that damaging when compared to the Great Illyrian Revolt), Watling Street would also probably be just another setback that Rome would attempt to rectify militarily. Of course you can have the Britons roll well again and again, but is that really likely? I don't think so.

Yes OP was clearly looking for a specific kind of timeline and I met him halfway after others pointed out flaws in his initial premise, I don't see the issue.

Once again there is literally zero reference to OP seeking the most likely timeline, so please stop implying that the conversation was specifically about that.

 

[Everdarklegion]

If you want a realistic idea of how Rome would react in this scenario, then look at how Rome dealt with Germania. One defeat, no matter how decisive, would not be enough for Rome to abandon their claim. Rome can endure the loss of even 2 or 3 legions. More than likely had they been defeated in such a manner, Nero would send another 3 to 5 legions to Britannia and massacre the native population in retaliation. The most Boudica would have achieved is the genocide of her people.

 

[ordinarylittleme]

Yes OP was clearly looking for a specific kind of timeline and I met him halfway after others pointed out flaws in his initial premise, I don't see the issue.

Once again there is literally zero reference to OP seeking the most likely timeline, so please stop implying that the conversation was specifically about that.

I feel like I've stated before that I use she/her pronouns...
On an irrelevant note, I don't really care about how likely situation X would be. As long as it's not ASB to the point of "Boudica rules Rome as its new queen" then...whatever suits you best can work