WI: Boudicca was victorious?

Maybe! On the other hand, Germania.
I think the case with Germania is often overstated. What's often ignored in that case is Roman manpower in ruins at the time and Rome had been exhausted by the Great Illyrian Revolt-which was the only reason Varrus was in Germany controlling only 3 legions in the first place. Rome simply was not in the position immediately after Teutoburg to retaliate, and Tiberius and his successors then just found it easier to control Germany through client states. Which still merited the occasional invasion.

At the very least, I think you'll see the German situation repeat itself in Britain. The Romans revert to a policy of indirect rule, but one that necessitates keeping client states in line and maintaining a power balance in their favor. Britain is more valuable economically to the Romans than Germania, so there's even more incentive here. But that's also the reason, in my view, that they would be more likely to just re-invade. Politically, the loss of Britain might be disastrous for Nero. Maybe an earlier, and more successful variation of the Pisonian Conspiracy leads to his overthrow. If it's anything like OTL, expect jockeying for the position (I don't see how someone like Piso could hold onto power) but whoever takes over, whether its Piso, Corbulo (in my opinion, the likeliest successor here) or Galba, a military victory against a foreign enemy to establish legitimacy would be a sensible move, and Britain would be a ripe opportunity.
 
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 was pointing out that Thomas's "fear" that Britannia would end up like Ireland was what happened OTL anyway ;)
 

BlondieBC

Banned
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)

There were three legions in England. One legion had already been totally slaughter by Boudicca. The second remained inactive, and the leader would commit suicide. What you call ASB is actually OTL. You are being too deterministic. Boudicca catches the Romans in a bad defensive position (say in a column moving down a road), and it is a short, easy victory.

It is easy to write ATL where Rome wins in Germania and England. The eastern border is not the Rhine. It also easy to write ATL's where Rome is kicked out of both England and Germania.
 
There were three legions in England. One legion had already been totally slaughter by Boudicca. The second remained inactive, and the leader would commit suicide. What you call ASB is actually OTL. You are being too deterministic. Boudicca catches the Romans in a bad defensive position (say in a column moving down a road), and it is a short, easy victory.

It is easy to write ATL where Rome wins in Germania and England. The eastern border is not the Rhine. It also easy to write ATL's where Rome is kicked out of both England and Germania.

I see what you're saying BlondieBC & of
course you're right- though the legions had
a pretty high batting average for a long
time, they certainly didn't always win. Where
I'm coming from is the feeling that in the
long run, if Rome kept @ it, there was simply no way Boudicca would win- Rome
was simply too good. It would, ITTL, have
been a question of Roman will. If they come
to the conclusion that in Britain the game
isn't worth the candle, then Boudicca wins.
But if they decide to keep trying, eventually
she'll lose.
 
I see what you're saying BlondieBC & of
course you're right- though the legions had
a pretty high batting average for a long
time, they certainly didn't always win. Where
I'm coming from is the feeling that in the
long run, if Rome kept @ it, there was simply no way Boudicca would win- Rome
was simply too good. It would, ITTL, have
been a question of Roman will. If they come
to the conclusion that in Britain the game
isn't worth the candle, then Boudicca wins.
But if they decide to keep trying, eventually
she'll lose.
If Boudicca's revolt survived till Nero's end that could stir up enough chaos where Rome doesn't try a full on invasion of England, even though I find that unlikely and almost ASB, it might maybe be possible
 
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.
Well Germania was rather less developed then even Britain, the absolute backwater of the empire.
 

Maoistic

Banned
The Germanics and Celts weren't really less developed, they just didn't have the massive war machinery that Rome possessed. I honestly don't see why Boudicca can't triumph, especially if she resorts to guerrilla tactics and the use of geography as well as convincing enough Roman defectors to side with her. Heck, the Romans were exhausted militarily just conquering southern Britain, and never bothered to conquer what is modern day Wales and Scotland while being afraid of engaging the northern Celts of that region, this being the reason the Romans built a wall there (Hadrian's wall).
 

Maoistic

Banned
Ergo, they were less developed
Having a smaller military is not being less developed. I don't consider size as development, but technology and social organisation and in those things the Celts and Germanics were hardly inferior to the Romans.
 
Top