WI : Romans integrate the Druids rather than destroying them

So with a friendly and largely cost free client state, dealing with its own problems by and large, what does this free up? Forces to invade Germania? Or is Mesopotamia more likely?

Mesopotamia probably, but that Rhine border is going to be under threat from the German tribes, the same goes for if they somehow push the border to the elbe or oder rivers. In the long run, that german border will always under threat, and likely to face problems from those steppe peoples in the future
 
Okay, so the Druids are not going to get slaughtered by Julius Caesar, and he will not include said slaughter in his Gallic Wars, the book that launched his public political career. Anybody gotta POD for this development, in the form of STRICT orders from the Senate for him to ACTIVELY SEEK DRUID ALLIES and also provide LIBERAL funding (40 talents of silver. COUGH.) OR, are we gonna perform a Caesarian on Caesar's brain and get him a Druid girlfriend. A DRUID CLEOPATRA. AHEM. (CHEAPER).
 
Okay, so the Druids are not going to get slaughtered by Julius Caesar, and he will not include said slaughter in his Gallic Wars, the book that launched his public political career. Anybody gotta POD for this development, in the form of STRICT orders from the Senate for him to ACTIVELY SEEK DRUID ALLIES and also provide LIBERAL funding (40 talents of silver. COUGH.) OR, are we gonna perform a Caesarian on Caesar's brain and get him a Druid girlfriend. A DRUID CLEOPATRA. AHEM. (CHEAPER).
Even if Caesar didn't specifically target druids, they'd still be a roadblock to roman rule/authority in the region. They have too much power for him or any future gallic governors to let be.
Secondly we don't know if there were female druids. Irish myth mentions them, but they might have been unique to Ireland

The british druids would get a better deal from Claudius than they would from almost anybody else anyways.
 
Okay, so the Druids are not going to get slaughtered by Julius Caesar, and he will not include said slaughter in his Gallic Wars, the book that launched his public political career. Anybody gotta POD for this development, in the form of STRICT orders from the Senate for him to ACTIVELY SEEK DRUID ALLIES and also provide LIBERAL funding (40 talents of silver. COUGH.) OR, are we gonna perform a Caesarian on Caesar's brain and get him a Druid girlfriend. A DRUID CLEOPATRA. AHEM. (CHEAPER).

Nobody is suggesting Caesar leave the Gallic Druids. We're talking Britain. Not Gaul.

Even if Caesar didn't specifically target druids, they'd still be a roadblock to roman rule/authority in the region. They have too much power for him or any future gallic governors to let be.
Secondly we don't know if there were female druids. Irish myth mentions them, but they might have been unique to Ireland

The british druids would get a better deal from Claudius than they would from almost anybody else anyways.

Ireland had female Druids? Awesome. That is probably one of the roots of Morgan Le Fey and the various Morrigan myths.

What if we have a different cause - Verica isn't exiled, but is killed - so the Romans have no puppet to support, instead one of the druids in the south, sick of disunity in the isle (i.e. a Druidic Isocrates), calls on the Romans for assistance after failure from within Britannia. Similar events take place, but the Pro-Unity Druids, backed by Romans, can make the unification much smoother, perhaps even providing significant extra forces as allies.

So yeah, I guess two/three PoDs

1) Pro-Unity Druidic Movement (this may have existed, but I don't think anyone has evidence) - so essentially a United Britain Movement in the Druids.
2) Ambitious Pro-Unity Leader takes action and leadership.
3) Romans send forces to assist - similar timeframe, but different nature of invasion.

I won't lie, I personally love the idea of the Druids of Britain developing a reputation equal to that of the Philosophers of Greece. It'd be pretty damn cool.
 
Recall seeing something once, think it might have been firm one of the Pythons, about groups the Romans labeled Barbarians. He suggested that the Celts do Switzerland were attacked and slaughtered partially so Julius Caesar and others could seize their gold. Which gets some reinforcement from one of the other episodes, in which it should genocide being committed against Davian's for the same reason.
 
Nobody is suggesting Caesar leave the Gallic Druids. We're talking Britain. Not Gaul.



Ireland had female Druids? Awesome. That is probably one of the roots of Morgan Le Fey and the various Morrigan myths.

What if we have a different cause - Verica isn't exiled, but is killed - so the Romans have no puppet to support, instead one of the druids in the south, sick of disunity in the isle (i.e. a Druidic Isocrates), calls on the Romans for assistance after failure from within Britannia. Similar events take place, but the Pro-Unity Druids, backed by Romans, can make the unification much smoother, perhaps even providing significant extra forces as allies.

So yeah, I guess two/three PoDs

1) Pro-Unity Druidic Movement (this may have existed, but I don't think anyone has evidence) - so essentially a United Britain Movement in the Druids.
2) Ambitious Pro-Unity Leader takes action and leadership.
3) Romans send forces to assist - similar timeframe, but different nature of invasion.

I won't lie, I personally love the idea of the Druids of Britain developing a reputation equal to that of the Philosophers of Greece. It'd be pretty damn cool.

The only problem with all of this is that the Druids didn't command any secular power. They were much more akin to Buddhist monks than warrior kings despite what recent TV series on Sky might say.

You would need a Druidic evangelism to make your scenario work and that is difficult in a polytheistic society. Either way it's unlikely to attract support from the Romans.
 
The only problem with all of this is that the Druids didn't command any secular power. They were much more akin to Buddhist monks than warrior kings despite what recent TV series on Sky might say.

You would need a Druidic evangelism to make your scenario work and that is difficult in a polytheistic society. Either way it's unlikely to attract support from the Romans.

My understanding is that they were important enough to talk before Kings - and the idea is that they could literally walk onto a battlefield to end a battle (which is pretty epic IMO).

In terms of secular power, I guess they didn't have much, but the ability to essentially excommunicate people is pretty damn powerful. It appears they were easily the most educated group of people, acting as adjudicators, legal authorities, etc.

But their religious power isn't meaningless, and if that means they can combine their religious power, knowledge of law, and marshal military support from the Romans that invasion can be how they attain secular power.
 
My understanding is that they were important enough to talk before Kings - and the idea is that they could literally walk onto a battlefield to end a battle (which is pretty epic IMO).

In terms of secular power, I guess they didn't have much, but the ability to essentially excommunicate people is pretty damn powerful. It appears they were easily the most educated group of people, acting as adjudicators, legal authorities, etc.

But their religious power isn't meaningless, and if that means they can combine their religious power, knowledge of law, and marshal military support from the Romans that invasion can be how they attain secular power.

It will go all ASB then. The reason why they have all this respect is precisely because they didn't get involved in politics. If one of them sets themselves up as a secular leader a) he would be opposed by other druids and b) he would lose the respect of other secular leaders as he would become just like them.

Just imagine the equivalent in Christianity - a Pope allies with a heathen power for political gain in Italy. Just how long would he last before an anti-Pope is elected in his place. Hell, it happened in Christianity when a Christian power got to close to the Pope and we had the Avignon papacy.
 
I think the better odds would be keeping the British Isles out of the Roman Empire. The Druids represent a power structure that would be a threat to any local rule. Integrating them wouldn't work, not unless Julius Caesar for whatever reason converted (borderline ASB). Otherwise the best option is for the British Isles to have been unified prior to Roman contact and have them agree to be a tributary state of the empire.
 
It will go all ASB then. The reason why they have all this respect is precisely because they didn't get involved in politics. If one of them sets themselves up as a secular leader a) he would be opposed by other druids and b) he would lose the respect of other secular leaders as he would become just like them.

Just imagine the equivalent in Christianity - a Pope allies with a heathen power for political gain in Italy. Just how long would he last before an anti-Pope is elected in his place. Hell, it happened in Christianity when a Christian power got to close to the Pope and we had the Avignon papacy.

The problem here is we have no idea how integrated with politics the Druids were. It could be that they were entertained by secular powers, or were a higher authority. Each presents a drastically different scenario. So I can't say I agree with your analysis, because how do you know they have respect for that? Rather than just general utility and spiritual authority.

In regards to a) If the Druids are in on it (or a significant number), then that may not be a problem, as we're looking at a scenario where the Druids become the ruling class. b) That may not be the case, look at the Papacy, and specifically look at Julius II. The Pope had the Papal States. He was both spiritual and had secular authority. But under Julius II the Papacy was both marshalling its secular power, but its diplomatic and spiritual soft power to bring major powers into Italy.

I think the better odds would be keeping the British Isles out of the Roman Empire. The Druids represent a power structure that would be a threat to any local rule. Integrating them wouldn't work, not unless Julius Caesar for whatever reason converted (borderline ASB). Otherwise the best option is for the British Isles to have been unified prior to Roman contact and have them agree to be a tributary state of the empire.

True, and I'd love to see that TL personally, but I'm focusing on a Roman-Druidic alliance/partnership.
 
The problem here is we have no idea how integrated with politics the Druids were. It could be that they were entertained by secular powers, or were a higher authority. Each presents a drastically different scenario. So I can't say I agree with your analysis, because how do you know they have respect for that? Rather than just general utility and spiritual authority.

In regards to a) If the Druids are in on it (or a significant number), then that may not be a problem, as we're looking at a scenario where the Druids become the ruling class. b) That may not be the case, look at the Papacy, and specifically look at Julius II. The Pope had the Papal States. He was both spiritual and had secular authority. But under Julius II the Papacy was both marshalling its secular power, but its diplomatic and spiritual soft power to bring major powers into Italy.



True, and I'd love to see that TL personally, but I'm focusing on a Roman-Druidic alliance/partnership.

Yes but you missed the point about a hypothetical Pope allying with a Heathen.

If Pope Julius had allied with the Ottomans to defeat France in Italy, just how long would he have lasted? The Romans have just eradicated the druids from Gaul - why should they be trusted?
 
Yes but you missed the point about a hypothetical Pope allying with a Heathen.

If Pope Julius had allied with the Ottomans to defeat France in Italy, just how long would he have lasted? The Romans have just eradicated the druids from Gaul - why should they be trusted?

Political Expedience. If Power is the goal, gambles are made.

I should say that I see nothing that states that their gods are exclusive. It isn't Henotheism (but it is close), rather than Monotheism, where that is a much bigger deal (hence why the Romans did adopt/merge a number of Gallic Gods, and Greek ones) France (scandalous as it was) allied with the Ottoman Empire on and off for 250 years! Mohammed did get sheltered by Aksum, Himyar was Jewish/Pagan and allied with the Zoroastrian Persians. It isn't insurmountable, I'm not handwaving it, it may happen as a result of lucky naivety, or a dangerous gamble. Or a shrewd one where the Legions are used whilst the Druids learn, mimic, and then field their own Legions. This is caste that understands that knowledge is power. Learning how to fight from the premier military power of the time is a damn good idea.

Heck, the Romans were good (to my knowledge) to those Druids who didn't oppose them, and those tribes that were allies, and that can be the comfort our PoDtanganist needs.

But lets go with "They don't trust the Romans", but instead get the Romans to supply the money to create and outfit a Druid-led army. Is that a more palatable scenario in your mind? Less "Trusting the Romans", but "Silent Partner"? The advantage for the Romans is a single friend that can end the raids on Roman Gaul, so it makes sense fiscally and strategically, especially if you're providing enough to achieve dominance of the south, but not enough to have them run rampant - and then you've got a major trade partner that is friendly.
 
France wasn't the temporal leader of Europe.

There is a difference with a temporary alignment of interests but what you are proposing is that a caste within British society conspires with an outside power who has just conquered their neighbours to overthrow multiple established kingdoms across Britain. I'm not even sure such a co-ordinated approach is possible in pre-Roman Britain -the distances and time to send messages would preclude it.

I get you want it to happen - but I don't think it's alternate history. Would work better in the writer's forum.
 
Even if Caesar didn't specifically target druids, they'd still be a roadblock to roman rule/authority in the region. They have too much power for him or any future gallic governors to let be.
Secondly we don't know if there were female druids. Irish myth mentions them, but they might have been unique to Ireland

The british druids would get a better deal from Claudius than they would from almost anybody else anyways.

Caesar can get involved with a woman from an influential Druidic family. And I don't see why the British Druids would be welcoming of any Roman representative in the era of Claudius once Caesar had estimated the Gallic Druids root and branch, literally.

Not trying to rain on your Druidic parade, but still, word travels.
 
Just imagine the equivalent in Christianity - a Pope allies with a heathen power for political gain in Italy. Just how long would he last before an anti-Pope is elected in his place

Except Rome, and its emperors, aren't comparable to the papacy, not yet at least.

For starters, the romans generally believed all people's God's were as real as their own. So merely working with the believers of other gods wouldn't automatically destroy someone's reputation.

Secondly, it was the duty of romans, but especially the emperor, to secure the blessings of the gods for the sucess of the state. So if working out a deal with british druids could stop their gods from opposing them, it'd be great. Of course, if human sacrifice really was a thing druids did, it would have to end for rome to be comfortable working with them at all.


And with regards to the druids political power, it definitely seems to me that they acted as judges, and learning the law by heart being part of their training. Thats in addition to the power they held as religious leaders. As mentioned before, they could exclude individuals from rituals and such, turning them into outcasts(or maybe even outlaws).
A lot of myths also have druids acting as advisers to kings/chiefs, which makes sense given they're legal experts.

That said, i don't think i ever saw anything about ruling directly, as a king would, so it may be that they were barred from such positions. But i don't think that would be too much of an issue.

As i said before, the Romans would prefer to have their own man in charge, and it seems likely that the britons wouldn't like being ruled directly by druids either.
So having a king of somesort, chosen by the emperor, with an advisory council of mostly druids and powerful chiefs/warriors, would be acceptable.

Britain would practically be a roman province, but without the costs to occupy and maintain it.
The britons maintain a degree of self rule, and enjoy the trade rights they get as a roman client/vassal state. And over time they'd come to adopt a number of roman customs and technologies.

Thats not to say there'd be no opposition, an either side of the channel, but its the most acceptable for most parties
 
Top