WI: No Londinium

What if Romans never founded Londinium? Where would the capital be and what would be the consequences for Britain?
 
Thames is a major waterway but other parts of the Thames basin are almost rural ou dottled with small and medium settlements...so the Thames alone is no chance of a major city developing in OTL London spot.
 
Thames is a major waterway but other parts of the Thames basin are almost rural ou dottled with small and medium settlements...so the Thames alone is no chance of a major city developing in OTL London spot.

I think the reason for that is simply because the fact that London is there. There's little chance for major settlement expansion as those that did were historically close to London and ended up getting absorbed into it over time, with all the others they don'y attract many people for the simple fact that tere's another major city nearby.
 
I suppose you have to look at why people choose sites for capitals. Just off the top of my head, you do it because the site already has some huge significance, or is at exactly the right position to be linked to communication networks, or because there's some imposing piece of geography to impress people with, or because it's already politically dominant due to population size.

Any site that fulfills one of those reasons is possible, any site that fulfills multiple criteria is very likely to be chosen.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
You have to build a bridge over the Thames somewhere. London makes a lot of sense because its near the point where the estuary deepens but isn't yet too wide. So it can be a port and a land crossroads. But if not there the Romans will build a bridge somewhere else and even if they don't found a town there, which they probably will, one will start up eventually. So the port function may be separated from the bridge/crossroads function at another location but an important regional center will almost inevitably develop along the Thames even if its not London specifically.

A Thames city still has a good chance of becoming the capital. Though I suppose if the capital defaults to another city it could mean that one city doesn't dominate England to the extent that London does. But that relationship will probably be dictated by what other city becomes the capital and how it was chosen. If London or another Thames city isn't there to become the capital after Camulodunum is sacked maybe that city is rebuilt and maintains its status as administrative center of Roman Britain. But London/other Thames city will be a serious economic rival, so when Roman Britain breaks down it could emerge as a new capital. Or maybe just defacto capital if the Kings official reside elsewhere. Maybe some kind of situation like Den Hague vs Amsterdam.
 
I suppose you have to look at why people choose sites for capitals. Just off the top of my head, you do it because the site already has some huge significance, or is at exactly the right position to be linked to communication networks, or because there's some imposing piece of geography to impress people with, or because it's already politically dominant due to population size.

Any site that fulfills one of those reasons is possible, any site that fulfills multiple criteria is very likely to be chosen.

The question is: if not London, the Roman capital would be somewhere else....where would be the capital and what would change in Roman Britain and Britain afterwards if the capital was in other place?
 
Eburacum/York has had capital functions from time to time, so that might be a reasonable choice. The Danelaw would be the dominant part of England.
 
Eburacum/York has had capital functions from time to time, so that might be a reasonable choice. The Danelaw would be the dominant part of England.

Chester seems to have an amphitheatre and other structures far in excess of what was really necessary, it looks like there was some sort of vague notion of incorporating Hibernia and making Chester the capital of both (it's relatively central to the isles as a whole).
 
Chester seems to have an amphitheatre and other structures far in excess of what was really necessary, it looks like there was some sort of vague notion of incorporating Hibernia and making Chester the capital of both (it's relatively central to the isles as a whole).

Bah, there's evidence to suggest that the Romans had a fort just north of modern Dublin during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian (from what I recall, it was probably there longer). if they'd wanted to incorporate Ireland they could have done it whenever, but they didn't.
 
Londinium was never the administrative capital of Roman Britain - it was Camulodunum (Colchester). However, due to London's location and advantages, there's always going to be some major city there. Just with a different name, and possibly not the capital.
 
What if Romans never founded Londinium? Where would the capital be and what would be the consequences for Britain?

There was already a community in place on the future site of Londinium when the Romans arrived. It was called Llyn (swamp or marsh) Dyn (fortress) ie fortified place surrounded by marshland. So it's just a matter of who founded the town, and when it would have become a trade-based city (given its position on a tidal river, facing towards Europe).
 
The Pool of London is the highest point on the Thames you can get a proper ocean going ship up to and turn it around.

Thus it is where cargo will move from ships to barges, and all the activity will make it the natural place to cross going north to south.

It is thus the focal point and transport hub for the Thames Valley and the South East Coast, and will be that regions biggest city.

Since the Thames Valley and the South East Coast are by far the most agriculturally productive region in the British Isles pre-potato, and the closest to the continent and the continental trade, the biggest city in that region will be the most populous, wealthiest, and dominant city on Great Britain.

You don't get >10% of England's entire medieval population living in a city just because its the capitol.

Since its the wealthiest and well positioned for continental diplomacy, and an England only polity will probably run communications by sea anyway, its very very likely that a King of England will eventually move their capital there.

A conquering and external polity like the Romans will have their headquarters wherever politics and military necessity dictates, but if you're still having an England controlled by a local ruler-ship, the capital will move to London, and the long term differences will be minimal (beyond butterflies ;)).
 
Since the Thames Valley and the South East Coast are by far the most agriculturally productive region in the British Isles pre-potato, and the closest to the continent and the continental trade, the biggest city in that region will be the most populous, wealthiest, and dominant city on Great Britain.

I would have thought that Dover or any of the Cinque Ports woud have been better for trade with Europe. Or even Felixstow and Harrage if you are talking about trade with the Eastern Empire. The only advantage that London enjoys is the lenght of the Thames and that it would be such a major route for moving heavy goods. Bristol has similar advantages to the west of England.

London didn't become politically important until the late Saxon times (950 onward) when it seemed to take control from Winchester. If the Saxons merged their kingdoms in a slightly different way then it may well be possible for York to become pre-eminant, although I think a port city would be a better choice than a land locked one (I suspect this was the reason for the move).
 
I would have thought that Dover or any of the Cinque Ports woud have been better for trade with Europe. Or even Felixstow and Harrage if you are talking about trade with the Eastern Empire. The only advantage that London enjoys is the lenght of the Thames and that it would be such a major route for moving heavy goods. Bristol has similar advantages to the west of England.

Except that dover and the channel ports are pissants of towns restricted in size by the rugged coasts and in population by higher travel distance for foods. The most important trading pre-age of discovery relationship is with the north sea and northern france entrepôts, and the access to baltic shipping stores, and London is the best positioned site that can also support a vast city.

Bristol whilst wealthy, was involved in western europe, and had smaller high value cargos that never pushed it to truly be big.
 
Top