What if the Romans Never Invaded Britain?
video description
On the first one, you don't seem aware that Germanics had been expanding against the Celts for centuries already, destroying their towns and taking their lands. Germanics were actually invading Gaul when Caesar intervened, also for political opportunism of his own but in broad agreement with the general interest of Rome. The very Helvetic migration that served as pretext for Caesar's intervention was caused by Germanic pressure. The Germanics never ceased to be expansionist and several times they breached the heavily defended borders of the Roman Empire until, centuries later, they actually took over, quite messily. So that pressure was not going to vanish and you should integrate an active Germanic pressure also heading quite probably to the point of least resistance (i. e. Britain) if Rome was not there to defend it.
So IMO the equivalent to the Saxon invasion and the Danelaw and maybe even the Normans (romanized Vikings after all) would have surely happened centuries earlier. The tribal names would be different but the process roughly the same.
As for unification, Britain is not Japan, even if they may share some vague geographical similitudes. It's history shows a tendency to division (Heptarchy) and it was only unified with great difficulty and always overshadowed by continental interventions of all kinds. until it went heavily naval. So the only realistic option for Britain would have been, not just to get united through intestine war but to go naval, maybe even go Viking before the Vikings did. Sadly for this daring conjecture, the fact is that Britons effectively stopped eating fish with the arrival of Neolithic and, in spite of various cultural and probably also demographic changes, they remained land-lubbers, eating cattle and drinking milk, along with cereals and veggies, until the Vikings changed that and reintroduced fish n'chips (without the chips, of course.
So my impression is that, albeit an island, Britain did not look much to the sea until the Danelaw and the Normans changed that, and that was a clear weakness. There's no particular reason to imagine the Celts going naval either: they never did anywhere, actually Celtic expansion seems to end the rather thriving pre-Celtic Atlantic interactions (Megalithism, Bell Beaker, Atlantic Bronze.
One of the differences between Britain and Japan is that this one did never have continental neighbors going naval. They had barbarian neighbors in Manchuria but these never went anything Viking-like or even Anglosaxon-like. The closest it gets was the Yuan invasion attempt that failed miserably. Britain on the other hand was all the time being invaded from the continent: Celts, Romans, Anglosaxons, Danes, Normans, even the Spaniards tried that although it was already a time when England had definitely already gone naval and they fought back and won.
So my overall prospect is that Britain would have been invaded by Germanics, plausibly the same Saxons and Frisians (Angli) that did anyhow later on, or maybe some other tribe, and would have been similarly Germanized. Now this opens the possibility for early unification of England and maybe some seagoingness even, but even the Angloaxons don't seem to have been too interested in the sea (maybe it was some sort of technological impediment only really overcome by Vikings, so I'd bet for an approximate repetition of history just with the Saxons conquering Britain centuries earlier, assuming that Rome would not feel threatened by such a move and react.
Date: 2022-07-15
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Frank
Nice analysis. But I guess you underestimate the impact of 4 more legions plus the biggest auxiliary force of the empire on the Rhine-Danube border.
Claudius needs a victory. So if not Britannia, Germania comes in handy. Galba actually had beaten the Chatti twice in 40 AD. In 41 Gabinius beat the Chauci at the north sea. Claudius whistled them back, in order to focus on the campaign in Britannia.
But now, with more legions and auxiliaries than ever, and no reason to stop his generals, the romans would steamroll Germania up to the Albis (Elbe. Teutoburg was not forgotten. Even if in 40 AD the Cherusci are just a shadow of their former self. And this time the romans are not weakened by the pannnonian revolt. This time they have a chance to stay and cosolidate the province of Germania Magna.
In Bohemia the romans had already installed a client king named Vannius, who gets into trouble end of the decade. But this time, Claudius would not ignore his cry for help. This time he takes the chance to invade Bohemia. Longterm the border of the roman empire would be Elbe - Sudeten Mountains - Carpathian Mountains.
You said, that the roman empire collapsed by internal reason. This is half wrong and half right. At least as important as internals structural issues were external threats. In the north due to the consolidation of german tribes into supertribes: e. g. the Franks and the Allemans. But these guys are now citizens of the roman empire, as about 80% of the german population. They now fight for the empire not against it. The small rest of the german population north of the Sudetes and East of the Elbe are not a real threat for the empire like the much stronger western and southern tribes have been. This northeastern german region is rather infertile and not appropriate for any dangerous population growth.
So the roman empire will fall, yes. Perhaps 100 years earlier, perhaps 1000 years later. But fully differently. And the impact on the now british Britannia would be fully different than in OTL. Just because the romans had 4 legions more at the Rhine.
reply
Nice analysis. But I guess you underestimate the impact of 4 more legions plus the biggest auxiliary force of the empire on the Rhine-Danube border.
Claudius needs a victory. So if not Britannia, Germania comes in handy. Galba actually had beaten the Chatti twice in 40 AD. In 41 Gabinius beat the Chauci at the north sea. Claudius whistled them back, in order to focus on the campaign in Britannia.
But now, with more legions and auxiliaries than ever, and no reason to stop his generals, the romans would steamroll Germania up to the Albis (Elbe. Teutoburg was not forgotten. Even if in 40 AD the Cherusci are just a shadow of their former self. And this time the romans are not weakened by the pannnonian revolt. This time they have a chance to stay and cosolidate the province of Germania Magna.
In Bohemia the romans had already installed a client king named Vannius, who gets into trouble end of the decade. But this time, Claudius would not ignore his cry for help. This time he takes the chance to invade Bohemia. Longterm the border of the roman empire would be Elbe - Sudeten Mountains - Carpathian Mountains.
You said, that the roman empire collapsed by internal reason. This is half wrong and half right. At least as important as internals structural issues were external threats. In the north due to the consolidation of german tribes into supertribes: e. g. the Franks and the Allemans. But these guys are now citizens of the roman empire, as about 80% of the german population. They now fight for the empire not against it. The small rest of the german population north of the Sudetes and East of the Elbe are not a real threat for the empire like the much stronger western and southern tribes have been. This northeastern german region is rather infertile and not appropriate for any dangerous population growth.
So the roman empire will fall, yes. Perhaps 100 years earlier, perhaps 1000 years later. But fully differently. And the impact on the now british Britannia would be fully different than in OTL. Just because the romans had 4 legions more at the Rhine.
reply
George
In your video on the Roman conquest of Britain you wonder why the Romans bothered with what you badly mischaracterized as a small island.
Britannia was anything but small. It was and is one of the ten largest islands in the world -- much larger than any other the Romans invaded or even knew about. Indeed the main island of the British Isles is not only the largest in Europe, it is larger than all the islands in the Mediterranean put together. Even Sicily the largest island in Mare Nostrum is only one eighth its size.
Even today only seven or eight islands are larger in area, but the ancient Romans knew next to nothing of Greenland and literally nothing of the three Arctic islands of Baffin, Victoria, an Ellsmere. Sumatra was just barely in their ken but not its true size. New Guinea, Borneo, and Madagascar were utterly unknown.
The Roman invasion may have started as a political project for emperor Claudius, but Britannia always was strategically important because of its proximity to Gaul. Hence Julius Caesar's two invasions intended to protect his recent conquests on the continent.
reply
In your video on the Roman conquest of Britain you wonder why the Romans bothered with what you badly mischaracterized as a small island.
Britannia was anything but small. It was and is one of the ten largest islands in the world -- much larger than any other the Romans invaded or even knew about. Indeed the main island of the British Isles is not only the largest in Europe, it is larger than all the islands in the Mediterranean put together. Even Sicily the largest island in Mare Nostrum is only one eighth its size.
Even today only seven or eight islands are larger in area, but the ancient Romans knew next to nothing of Greenland and literally nothing of the three Arctic islands of Baffin, Victoria, an Ellsmere. Sumatra was just barely in their ken but not its true size. New Guinea, Borneo, and Madagascar were utterly unknown.
The Roman invasion may have started as a political project for emperor Claudius, but Britannia always was strategically important because of its proximity to Gaul. Hence Julius Caesar's two invasions intended to protect his recent conquests on the continent.
reply
Steven
Roman Empire would have fallen anyway, due to the same factors in OTL. Their political system never got past that of a small republic, that failed to adapt to a continent spanning Empire.
Some part of the western empire may actually have survived. The Lombards may have been kept out of Italy. It and the North African provinces becoming the westernmost lands ruled from Constantinople.
Britain may have become something like Ireland, a number of kingdoms with a High King to act as a referee.
Or, as the video suggests, the south-east kingdom would culturally and politically dominate the smaller Celtics kingdoms, and be better able to resist Germanic invasions.
I also submit that Brittany (Lesser Britannia, being still largely Celtic, would ask for and receive aid to resist conquest by the Francs and other German tribes as the western empire was overrun. It would become eventually part of a strong Celtic confederation on the northwest of Europe.
reply
Roman Empire would have fallen anyway, due to the same factors in OTL. Their political system never got past that of a small republic, that failed to adapt to a continent spanning Empire.
Some part of the western empire may actually have survived. The Lombards may have been kept out of Italy. It and the North African provinces becoming the westernmost lands ruled from Constantinople.
Britain may have become something like Ireland, a number of kingdoms with a High King to act as a referee.
Or, as the video suggests, the south-east kingdom would culturally and politically dominate the smaller Celtics kingdoms, and be better able to resist Germanic invasions.
I also submit that Brittany (Lesser Britannia, being still largely Celtic, would ask for and receive aid to resist conquest by the Francs and other German tribes as the western empire was overrun. It would become eventually part of a strong Celtic confederation on the northwest of Europe.
reply
Aristocles
Roman rule meant serfdom in its later centuries. This tied peasants to the land and prevented them from building an army. That's why the Romans became dependent on barbarian mercenaries, especially in the west. A lack of Roman rule would have meant a continuation of slavery (probably, but little to no serfdom. This would have freed up manpower to resist an Saxon Invasion, which would likely have failed against any significant resistance. The Anglo-Saxons took centuries to advance across a country smaller than the state of Kansas, and they never conquered it all, as they never got Wales and barely took Cornwall. They were hardly great warriors.
reply
Roman rule meant serfdom in its later centuries. This tied peasants to the land and prevented them from building an army. That's why the Romans became dependent on barbarian mercenaries, especially in the west. A lack of Roman rule would have meant a continuation of slavery (probably, but little to no serfdom. This would have freed up manpower to resist an Saxon Invasion, which would likely have failed against any significant resistance. The Anglo-Saxons took centuries to advance across a country smaller than the state of Kansas, and they never conquered it all, as they never got Wales and barely took Cornwall. They were hardly great warriors.
reply
Joshua
Good assumption mate. However, the 2 main tribes in britain who were already expanding at the time were the Catuvelauni of the south and the Brigantes of the north; and possibly the Caledonii in the far north of Scotland. Just because the Canti had dealings with rome, would not mean that they were strong enough to expand, considering that they would eventually be invaded by the the Catuvelauni, which was romes justification for invading britain in the first place.
Infact im writing a book about this very topic. What would a celtic britain look like had it survived the roman empire.
reply
Good assumption mate. However, the 2 main tribes in britain who were already expanding at the time were the Catuvelauni of the south and the Brigantes of the north; and possibly the Caledonii in the far north of Scotland. Just because the Canti had dealings with rome, would not mean that they were strong enough to expand, considering that they would eventually be invaded by the the Catuvelauni, which was romes justification for invading britain in the first place.
Infact im writing a book about this very topic. What would a celtic britain look like had it survived the roman empire.
reply
EXTOL
Romans wanted to tax the people for the baalbylonian j ew( secret allies 70 A. D)
Rome could not control the 12 Tribes of Israel So, they tried to force thier pagan religion murdering millions of Christian Israelites who bow to no man or faulse god
You are mistaken it is us who introduced rome to Christianity.
Saxons = Sons of Isaac ISRAEL
We are the TRUE Lost Tribes of Israel.
Now there are two Israel's since 1945 one is true the other is faulse.
You will know them by thier deeds.
If you have UR in your nations name you are Us.
Know who you are.
reply
Romans wanted to tax the people for the baalbylonian j ew( secret allies 70 A. D)
Rome could not control the 12 Tribes of Israel So, they tried to force thier pagan religion murdering millions of Christian Israelites who bow to no man or faulse god
You are mistaken it is us who introduced rome to Christianity.
Saxons = Sons of Isaac ISRAEL
We are the TRUE Lost Tribes of Israel.
Now there are two Israel's since 1945 one is true the other is faulse.
You will know them by thier deeds.
If you have UR in your nations name you are Us.
Know who you are.
reply
JHAYKHAY25
There was what may have been the Justinian plague and a corresponding famine after weather problems (no summer) some time after the Romans pulled out in our timeline. Would the plague have gotten to Britain in this timeline? The famine definitely would have. There's a theory the corresponding climactic difficulties meant the Saxons had to invade or perish and the plague/famine had weakened the Celts to the point they could no longer defend the country. The Justinian plague reaching Britain or not may be the deciding factor in your time line working.
reply
There was what may have been the Justinian plague and a corresponding famine after weather problems (no summer) some time after the Romans pulled out in our timeline. Would the plague have gotten to Britain in this timeline? The famine definitely would have. There's a theory the corresponding climactic difficulties meant the Saxons had to invade or perish and the plague/famine had weakened the Celts to the point they could no longer defend the country. The Justinian plague reaching Britain or not may be the deciding factor in your time line working.
reply
Carniez
Good stuff. I don't believe the Celts would have conquered anything in this alternate timeline though. In real life, they had a generation to rampage around and burn stuff before getting pushed back out, but they didn't do a bit of actual conquering. In fact a hundred years or so earlier they had another nice long rampage around the British countryside (The great conspiracy) and The Britons were much more afraid of them than they were of any of the Germanic tribes. and for good reason. They would have been content to keep raiding.
reply
Good stuff. I don't believe the Celts would have conquered anything in this alternate timeline though. In real life, they had a generation to rampage around and burn stuff before getting pushed back out, but they didn't do a bit of actual conquering. In fact a hundred years or so earlier they had another nice long rampage around the British countryside (The great conspiracy) and The Britons were much more afraid of them than they were of any of the Germanic tribes. and for good reason. They would have been content to keep raiding.
reply
Dixie
Hadrians wall was built in the wrong location, if it had been built in italy it would have protected Rome because its design had forts along it and a standing army throughout much like a modern dmz zone if this had been used closer to where the roman empire had started it might have saved the empire although it would collapse lt would survive much smaller. Heres a fact the mediterranean sea was called a roman lake by the romans they didnt call it by its modern day name.
reply
Hadrians wall was built in the wrong location, if it had been built in italy it would have protected Rome because its design had forts along it and a standing army throughout much like a modern dmz zone if this had been used closer to where the roman empire had started it might have saved the empire although it would collapse lt would survive much smaller. Heres a fact the mediterranean sea was called a roman lake by the romans they didnt call it by its modern day name.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
