WI: Nero orders the abandonment of Britain due to Boudicca's Rebellion?

Say that the Battle of Watling Street was delayed, or Suetonius's forces were destroyed in some other battle fought on the Britons' terms. Nero decides to cut his losses and to pull out of the island altogether. What effect would this have on the future collapse of Rome? Would the Britons fall to infighting and get reconquered, or would they head off any future invasion attempt (by either the Romans or Germanic tribes) and play a direct role in furthering the end of Western Rome?
 
They would still very likely be targets by local governors and Emperors alike. For tribute or to pacify any raids that occur but it just might discourage any outright attempt of total conquest. The history of the Roman Empire of course would be changed as Emperors were killed or forged on the Island.
 
The fear of a possible british invasion of Gallia was pure imperial propaganda, in order to justify the invasion. I am convinced, that the northern Gallic coast was easily controllable with not that many troops. Including occasional campaigns into Britain in order to support friendly chieftains.

Without Britannia, you would have had still 8-10 Legions at the Rhine border and roman emperors focussing on Germania. The fact, that the roman emperors underestimated the Germans and the development of the german tribes in the 1st and 2nd century is a major reason for the 3rd century crisis. With a stronger focus on Germania, with or without further conquests in Germania, the crisis might not happen or at least not escalate like it did.

Actually, Nero considered to abandon Britannia in OTL.
 
Boudicca or any of the other Britons further seeking the destruction of the Empire would be extremely unlikely, as there was little reason to do so. Their homeland was freed and any further efforts would cost thousands of men. If I chose a scenario, after a few years or so, most likely, the Britons would begin to disunify and the anti-Roman zeal would shift into ideas of independent tribes, similar to pre-Roman Britannia. A Roman reconquest would heavily depend on politics back in Rome. Pulling out of Britannia would have definitely been interpreted as a cowardly move.
 
Abandoning conquered lands, while clearly not unheard of in Rome (see Germania after Teutoburg, although the word "conqured" could be overstatement in that case), was see in extremely poor light.
Nero's already less than stellar legitimacy among the senatorial order would plummet further down.
That could have major consequences, which I am not able to detail, for the internal politics back home in Rome. A place where you expect significant ripple effects is Judaea, where you could imagine even harsher Roman repression in the earlier phases of the revolt, as nero would need a victory to show.
What this does to Vespasian's career and the chances of the Flavian dynasty to rise is up in the air. The Julio-Claudians are very likely still doomed, and their post-Augustus legacy even less well regarded than IOTL. I don't think that anyone could restore the Republic at this point (the military isn't going along with anything of the sort), although it is possible that this is considered by some.
A weaker position for both Vespasian and the Empire in general could cause a longer, bloodier civil war. Whoever comes out on top would have a lot more work ahead to regroup and consolidate, although, as Agricola noted, having three-four legions more on the mainland is likely to prove a long term advantage.
In general, I think the scenario is not very likely. The Romans did not abandon rebellious provinces if given a choice (both Hadrian's abandonement of Mesopotamia and Aurelian's retreat from Dacia occurred under vastly different circumstances; the only parallel here is Germania under Augustus, where Roman control was, I gather, a lot shakier than in Britannia to begin with) , they rather devastated and reconquered them if they could.
 
Had Suetonius been defeated, the Romans would have had little choice but to withdraw.

Britian would, within a few years time go back to trading w/Rome. At that point, Britian as a trading partner would be much more worthwhile then as a province (and cheaper) and within a generation thoughts of reconquest would probably fade.

In a few centuries the trading would turn to raiding and the Brits plus the Germans would probably be too much eventually. You might have a fairly large piece of Gaul back in Celtic hands.
 
Had Suetonius been defeated, the Romans would have had little choice but to withdraw.

Britian would, within a few years time go back to trading w/Rome. At that point, Britian as a trading partner would be much more worthwhile then as a province (and cheaper) and within a generation thoughts of reconquest would probably fade.

In a few centuries the trading would turn to raiding and the Brits plus the Germans would probably be too much eventually. You might have a fairly large piece of Gaul back in Celtic hands.

Would they return to settle the score, that's the question. Britain wasn't the most profitable colony, but prestige might make it necessarily to underline that no barbarian could hurt Roman interests and get away with it.
 
Would they return to settle the score, that's the question. Britain wasn't the most profitable colony, but prestige might make it necessarily to underline that no barbarian could hurt Roman interests and get away with it.

I think they would raid, recover eagles, try to kill Boudicca. However, like Germany, the cost would be judged too high to re occupy.
 
Just to offer the possibility that, in the event the rebellious tribes did succeed, soon enough other Celtic tribes would ask Rome for help and alliance against them.
 
Top