WI Romans conquered Scotland?

Dutchie, I like your maps.

I´m starting to think we should write a TL you know:rolleyes: We´re sort of improvising the structure now, and once we have the grid we could fill in a lot.
----

---
Another idea occurred to me, the emperor might get gifts from norse vikings trying to build a name for themselves as warriors. OTL, this occured in English, Danish and Norwegian courts, Icelandic men actually showed up with live polarbears.

Maybe one emperor gets curious and sends out an official expedition.

Just so that it wouldn´t end up as wank, I suggest that they find Greenland and maybe some canadian coastline but decide not to do anything about it. After all the emperor is to busy waging continental wars. Could be an interesting side plot though. (I could f.x. write a short story about the expedition).

Or it could end up with colonisation at some point too
---
Arab conquest is an interesting thing as well.

Whether or not Islam or something like it develops, arab population will expand out of the arab peninsula and quite likely overrun the eastern med.

If they reach Spain during or before a war against Franks, Anglons and maybe Wisigoths, wouldn´t they be natural allies to the Romano Brits?

After all both sides loath the pretenders in Byzantium:D And Spain is a bit to far stretch I suppose, when the ultimate goal is Rome in the opposite direction.

In a world like that Spain and Britain would exchange classical knowledge becoming the beacon of knowledge in the occidental world.
I'm liking the ideas we're putting together here... so a TL is not out of the question.

I was avoiding the Hebrides-Iceland-Greenland-New World hop because then we risk being accused of Britano-Roman-wank...:rolleyes: My guess is they wold be focused on activities on the European continent to get into long-seas exploration. Besides, the Roman Isles aren't going to be as wealthy as the original or 'other' Rome, so their development might be slower and tougher than some might expect - which also makes it more interesting I think.

I'd see the Spanish Vikings as an impediment to the Arabs crossing of the Gibraltar strait - militarised, fortifed and fierce. As to who they would side with, it would depend on whether an Abrahamic religion still arises in Arabia (Islam or something along those lines) or if they too remain 'pagan'. I rather doubt there would be much cooperation either way though - the cultural differences would be too great. Also, if the Arabs arrive at Gibraltar in a simlar time/manner as OTL, they will be feeling pretty strong and powerful, and wouldn't feel the need for allies.
 
I'm liking the ideas we're putting together here... so a TL is not out of the question.

I was avoiding the Hebrides-Iceland-Greenland-New World hop because then we risk being accused of Britano-Roman-wank...:rolleyes: M.

I agree. I suggested an exploration more in the Chinese style. One emperor rather interested hiring someone to do it. Listening to an interesting report on the subject of an area of forests beyond a huge island of Ice.

Then a successor that abandons the projects and decides that other matters are more interesting. Be it a huge road project between Lundunium and northern part of Scotlands or a war to reclaim the italian peninsula. (An unsuccesful one maybe).

As for the Spanish moors. Well, realpolitik often crosses cultural boundaries, they could work together. And I´m more thinking about their alliance as sometime later when Spain is one or maybe several independent sultanates.

(As for the America discoveries, I suggest that the civilisation situated in Spain makes the discovery as OTL, which ever one it is. That way we steer clear of any wank zones).
 
Overestimated impact?

I'm not sure how stronger Romanized kingdoms of Strathclyde, Caledonia and the Votadini will repel the Anglo-Saxon invasion in the south, although Northumberland will be far less likely to become a going concern. First, the Picts will still have to deal with the invasion of DalRiada (the progenitors of the Scots). They will likely fend this off but it will divert energy from the fighting in the south. You could even see a Caledonian invasion of northern Ireland.

I could see the Celts having enough strength in the south to maintain a link with Cymru, but I don't see the resources of the highlands as being enough to enable them to stop the formation of Wessex, Mercia, etc.

I could see this sphere enabling an even stronger flowering of Irish culture in the 6th century.
 
@bill_bruno
I'm not sure how stronger Romanized kingdoms of Strathclyde, Caledonia and the Votadini will repel the Anglo-Saxon invasion in the south, although Northumberland will be far less likely to become a going concern.
There are no seperate Kingdoms, as such there is no Invitation to the Saxons to come in and help in the wars between them.
First, the Picts will still have to deal with the invasion of DalRiada (the progenitors of the Scots). They will likely fend this off but it will divert energy from the fighting in the south. You could even see a Caledonian invasion of northern Ireland.
Given a Roman-North, there would have been much more contact with the Winter Isle,
As such the Winter Isle would have been unified, and tied to Romao-Britian. Therefore, unlikey to be invading the summer Isle.
 
Copied from other thread

Even without a real reason taking all the Britainic isle is [AH] doable.

When Emperor Claudius launched his campain in 43 AD he faced a Celtic federation that was a lot more organized, than Caeser had when He invaded 100years before. As Claudius' campaing worked it's way North over the next 30 years the Celt's and the Picts United and adapted till in 122 AD emporer Hadian ordered the legions to retreat from the firth of Forth back to the Solway Firth and build a wall.

But WI the first invasion had suceeded.

Caeser invaded in 55 BC to prevent the Britians from supporting the Gauls, Caeser was Fighting.
Caeser invaded with 2 legions, But storms prevented the landing of the cavalry , and damaged the ships He had come in.
When the Britions attacked His camp, Caeser withdrew.

Caeser returned the following year
In July of 54 BC, Caesar made the trip with 800 ships transporting five legions, 2,000 cavalry troops and their horses plus a baggage train. They sailed from Boulogne at night on July 6. He landed unopposed in an area between Sandwich and Deal. Upon seeing the large size of the Roman force, the natives moved inland with Caesar and and his troops in pursuit, marching a further 12 miles inland. At daybreak on the 8th of July, 54 BC, the Romans encountered British forces at a ford on the Stour (later the town of Canterbury). The Romans easily scatterd the Britons, who retreated to a hill fort or stronghold (oppidum), which from Caesar's description, is probably the hill fort at Bigbury.

Things didn't go all the Roman's way. For the second time in as many years, storms struck the coast, forcing Caesar's troops to beach the entire fleet and build a land fort for the ships in just ten days. While this activity held the Romans attention, the British obtained a new commander, Cassivellaunus. Cassivellaunus used guerrilla warfare tactics against his Roman visitors. However, he was not well-liked by a number of local tribes, and as a result, the Trinovantes, Cassi, Ancalites, Cenimagni, Segontiaci, and Bibroci tribes switched their allegiances to the Romans.

Cassivellaunus' slip-up occurred when he ordered his troops to attack the Romans' Deal beach camp. The failure of the attack led to Cassivellaunus' surrender, but apparently its terms were less important than new problems Caesar faced in Gaul. Caesar would leave Britain in September of 54 AD. Caesar never again came to Britain. For the next few years, he was at war with Pompey, and then he was assassinated, just when he was on the verge of becoming emperor. The next Roman invasion of Britain - and the start of over four centuries of ocupation - would not take place for another 97 years until AD 43 under the command of Claudius.
So lets use the good old AH Handwavium, and change the 55BC storm.

Caeser moves inland with his 2 legions and their calvary support.
By the time winter quarters come around, Ceaser controls quite a bit of ground,
Both by his Legions, but more important by Holding Hostages from the tribes He has allied with.

When he returns in the spring with three more legions, He finds the two Legions have expanded and reinforced their Camps, and Rome is in control of most of the Canterbury region.

By fall when Caeser returns to Gaul for the winter, Rome and Allies are in control of the entire SE England.
Ceaser would get involved in a war with Pompey in 53 AD and never return to England,
but his Seconds in Command would push North and West, Often bypassing pockets of resistance,

By 10 AD Rome reachs the north Sea tip of the Island [this is ten years longer than OTL's 43 AD~77AD].
And turns to begin cementing Its control over the Island.

In the South Roman Builders have began to widen, Repair, and reseal the Druid roads that criss cross the Island.
Meanwhile British goods are being feed into the Roman Trading Network.

While there would be a few revolts, as the British learn what it means to be a Ally of Imperial Rome,
The reality of Roman control remains secure.

This does two things, This establishes Roman controll some 50 years earlier than OTL, and extends it to the entire island.

The British islands wouldn't have an army to keep dragging away to fight over the imperial throne in the rest of the Roman empire. Instead, it has a navy to defend against pirates. A navy of no use once the troops that can be recruited in Britain are sent over the channel into Europe.
If the main Military force in Britian is Naval, Then you will have Roman Marines instead of Legionares, keeping the Peace.
This means less chance of conquering the Island of Erie.
You may also have a much more Maritime tradition in Britian. Which means a lot more contact with Erie.
So Probally a Vassal relationship then.
 
Why not?

There are no seperate Kingdoms, as such there is no Invitation to the Saxons to come in and help in the wars between them.
Given a Roman-North, there would have been much more contact with the Winter Isle,
As such the Winter Isle would have been unified, and tied to Romao-Britian. Therefore, unlikey to be invading the summer Isle.


Why wouldn't there be separate kingdoms? The breaking up of Romano-Britain wasn't occasioned by the failure to conquer Scotland. Further, the invitation was a catalyst but Anglo-Saxon raids had been happening anyway. Are you also assuming the Romans conquer Hibernia too?
 
When I was doing the Viking expansion map (pg. 3) I postulated that the Norse, being 'denied' the (OTL names) English and most of the Brittany coasts due to better Romano-Briton sea defense, would establish colonies in Cordoba, Sevillia, etc. to shorten their supply lines from Scandanavia to the Med, similar to how they colonised Sicily. They were rich areas, and so a tempting target.

But that was not-fully-thought-through while I was map-making, so I certainly can't say it was 'bound to happen'.

Well, actually the vikings went to the med via constantinople not via Gibraltar.
 
Well, actually the vikings went to the med via constantinople not via Gibraltar.

Yes, but again I'm postulating that the north sea raiders from Scandanvia (as opposed to the Baltic side of Scandanavia that went south and east) would push south to the Bay of Biscay and Gulf of Cadiz once they met the better organized resitance in the Isles. Those areas of Andalucia were very rich and a tempting target.
 
Yes, but again I'm postulating that the north sea raiders from Scandanvia (as opposed to the Baltic side of Scandanavia that went south and east) would push south to the Bay of Biscay and Gulf of Cadiz once they met the better organized resitance in the Isles. Those areas of Andalucia were very rich and a tempting target.

Well actually I looked a bit into it and it turns that OTL lots of raids happened in north of Spain and even some in Portugal... So yeah, why not.
 
Why wouldn't there be separate kingdoms? The breaking up of Romano-Britain wasn't occasioned by the failure to conquer Scotland. Further, the invitation was a catalyst but Anglo-Saxon raids had been happening anyway. Are you also assuming the Romans conquer Hibernia too?

Actually, that's the basis for our entire discussion here - that the conquering of the Picts and Caledonians does prevent the break-up of Romano-Britain. Did you read through the Thread?

The Angles and Saxons, much like water, would take the path of least resitance - if they found a united population in the Isles resiting them, they would have stayed on the continent and squabbled over the spoils of Gaul with the other Germannic tribes. It's not that small a thing to cross the North Sea in small boats with enough of your friends to supplant the culture on the other side. There would be raids, sure, but small numbers of warriors that would either come and go, or mix into the existing population and settle with local wives. Some funny dialects for the N/E coast of the Isles, but the established culture would remain much stronger.
 
Top