WI: Boudicca was victorious?

Let's say all the Roman forces in Britannia are defeated and the Romans fail to launch an effective counterattack. Would she create a large state in Brittania under her rule? How would this change history? Would it be a weak nation corrupted with paranoia and internal weakness or a benevolent strong nation?
 
The natives of Britain didn't exactly have the political tools to make anything beyond petty kingdoms at the time. Boudica might have forged a small kingdom that might have formed the nucleus for future expansion and state making, but its unlikely. More likely Britain reverts to what it was before and after the Romans, a region of petty kingdoms and tribal cultures.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
And then gets invaded like Ireland did in OTL and doesn't regain independence until the 1920s or even later.

Why- Is there a reason to assume Brythons can never, even after several centuries, form larger Kingdoms?

Heck, even if the Brythons do not pull it off in the time they have, perhaps Saxons would come eventually anyway and start Kingdoms, or Norse.

The way you wrote it sounds like Britain un-romanized ends up a perpetual satellite of a continental power? Gaul or France or Spain?
 
First of all, I have to say that for Boudicca's
untrained forces to defeat the disciplined
Roman legions of the 1st century A.D.- who
had yet to degenerate as of course they
later did IOTL- is so unlikely as to just about
qualify as ASB. But OK- I'll suspend disbelief
& accept that it did. In the longtime scheme
of things it would've made no difference @
all. Why? Because the Romans would have
just shrugged off this defeat & a few years
later, invaded Britain again- & this time they
would be victorious. They were very per-
sistent(ask Hannibal)(indeed, instead of
asking why Rome fell, we should be taking
our hats off to it for managing to last as
long as it did)
 
I don't know if I buy the ever victorious Legions. How did Germania work out? And, indeed, their failure to invade Germania again suggests they won't just come back. The Emprie was very different than the Republic.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
The natives of Britain didn't exactly have the political tools to make anything beyond petty kingdoms at the time. Boudica might have forged a small kingdom that might have formed the nucleus for future expansion and state making, but its unlikely. More likely Britain reverts to what it was before and after the Romans, a region of petty kingdoms and tribal cultures.
What he said - if she wins and the Roman choose not to re-conquer, Britain reverts to status quo ante. Just another part of the Barbaricum where an exceptional leader forges a state for a generation or two - and which later falls apart under less capable/less brutal/less lucky successors.
I suspect such a tribal Britain might stand a better chance of fighting off Saxons, Angles and Jutes.
 
What he said - if she wins and the Roman choose not to re-conquer, Britain reverts to status quo ante. Just another part of the Barbaricum where an exceptional leader forges a state for a generation or two - and which later falls apart under less capable/less brutal/less lucky successors.
I suspect such a tribal Britain might stand a better chance of fighting off Saxons, Angles and Jutes.

I would reject the idea of the peoples of Europe living in a barbarous welter of tribes without the Roman conquest. You saw statebuilding along the fringes of the Roman Empire in Germania in OTL. I don't know why Britain would be different; by the 4th century AD, you could see increasingly complex kingdoms, just like you did in Germania. But the pro-Roman states in Britain were already making coinage when the Romans invaded, so they're likely further developed...
 
I would reject the idea of the peoples of Europe living in a barbarous welter of tribes without the Roman conquest. You saw statebuilding along the fringes of the Roman Empire in Germania in OTL. I don't know why Britain would be different; by the 4th century AD, you could see increasingly complex kingdoms, just like you did in Germania. But the pro-Roman states in Britain were already making coinage when the Romans invaded, so they're likely further developed...

They were. Market towns, merchant class, religious hierarchy, specialized professions, roads and large towns and fortifications. In fact, I've heard it argued that the underlying reason the conquest of both Northern Britain and Germany failed was the infrastructure to support the legions were not in place.

As for whether Boudicca could win, consider that she had defeated every force but Suetonius, including destroying a legion.

She was one battle from winning otl.

Yes, open battle favored the Romans. However, an ambush, containing Suetonius' forces so they cannot forage or resupply the way Vercegetrix almost defeated Caesar, or picking a terrain where British numbers can have maximum effect are all possible paths to victory.
 

Kaze

Banned
The easiest way is that the Romans do not Rally. Suetonius was unable to completely to regroup his forces. Before he could get together the Legio XIV Germinia, XX Valeria Victris, and the those that were routed - is caught unaware at Watling Street. He is defeated. The remaining legions are in disarray - Budicca finishes them off.

Defeating the Romans was the easy part. Ruling would be the hard part - most likely the allies would turn on each other like dogs fighting over the same bone.

One of Nero's successors might look at Britannia as an opportunity to have a military victory to legitimize their rule, recover the lost eagles in Britannia, and punish the Britons for their rebellion.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Boudicca if she won would probably be the symbol of Britain today.

I do fear that the Britons would not be able to unite long term, because of the example of Ireland.
 
One of Nero's successors might look at Britannia as an opportunity to have a military victory to legitimize their rule, recover the lost eagles in Britannia, and punish the Britons for their rebellion.

Maybe! On the other hand, Germania.
 
They didn't really unite anyway despite centuries under Roman rule.

I don't know what this shows. The Roman collapse left a society that, for whatever reason, fell so much that it lost the ability to make pottery wheels. And the areas that were the least Romanized held out the best against the Saxons, i.e., the People of the Long Knives.
 
I would say from my limited knowledge of that specific part of roman history, Boudiccas rebellion was less a organized resistance against Roman rule and more a large riotous mob moving across southern Britain. Anger against roman power in Britain made manifest through violence. If she was successful, I think you would see something similar to what happened after Popé's revolt in the Pueblo Rebellion, a charismatic leader pushes out a foreign power on a back-to-roots, grassroots violent rebellion but sees their movement quickly fall apart due to infighting. This is, they never founded a new identity, only aggressively reaffirmed a old one, but that same old identity was one that was fiercely against any sort of large overarching organization.

I would imagine there would be a brief period of re-britishization, the removal of roman culture and certainly the slaughter and driving out of actual romans, but then Britain would immediately fall back into tribal confederacies and decentralized rule, to be quickly followed by a massive retaliatory roman invasion. Whether or not the Romans stay in the long run is the larger question. As with Germania, they were defeated, driven out, but then returned, crushed the rebellion (Germanicus), but then largely abandoned the territory anyways. A successful Boudiccas rebellion could affect the trajectory of Roman britain significantly, but it would be after the Romans would have defeated Boudicca regardless.
 

Maoistic

Banned
The natives of Britain didn't exactly have the political tools to make anything beyond petty kingdoms at the time. Boudica might have forged a small kingdom that might have formed the nucleus for future expansion and state making, but its unlikely. More likely Britain reverts to what it was before and after the Romans, a region of petty kingdoms and tribal cultures.
If the Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Scots and Welsh could, why not the Britons?
 
If the Anglo-Saxons, Irish, Scots and Welsh could, why not the Britons?
I thought it was self evident that in the time frame of centuries they indeed could. It just appeared that the thread was about the chance of a Briton kingdom arising in the immediate aftermath of Boudicca defeating the Romans. That was what I doubted, that in the glow of victory and independence that they could subsequently forge a kingdom that encompassed most of the previous Roman territory. That was what I doubted, since I figured they'd break into a smattering of petty kingdoms. If not immediately, then probably after Boudicca died.
 
Top