Greater Roman Britain - Alternate History Discussion - Main Discussion Forums - alternate history fiction - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Greater Roman Britain

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
miketr	Greater Roman Britain		Lead	[-]
Posts: 508 05/02/08 05:30:22	Tags : None Some time ago on another list the idea of a stronger Roman Britain was traded about. Since then I have from time to time thought about the idea again. Below is the result. Between the year of the 4 emperors in 69 AD and the Batavi revolt in 70 AD a fair number of Legions had been out right destroyed and or disbanded. Legio I Macriana liberatrix raised by Lucius Clodius Macer a governor in North Africa who tried to revolt against Nero in 68 AD was disbanded in 69 AD. Legio IV Macedonica but relived as Legio IV Flavia Felix by Vespasian because it backed the wrong side in the Year of 4 Emperors Legio V Alaudae and Legio XV Primigenia were destroyed by the Balgae after surrendering on terms. Legio I Germanica and Legio XVI Gallica joined the Belgae in revolt against Rome; were disbanded in disgrace as a result. In way of replacement Vespasian raised two other legions Legio II Adiutrix raised from Marines of the Roman Fleet based out of Ravenna Legio XVI Flavia Firma raised from some of the disgraced legionnaires of the Batavia Revolt Even if we ignore Legio I Macriana liberatrix Rome is short two legions. At the same time, of the lost legions only two were truly destroyed and most of the rest just disbanded but the manpower not fully reused. So instead Vespasian raises another legion using the most unreformed of the manpower not going into the rebuilt legions; from what I can find that would be Legio I Germanica. We will call this new unit, Legio I Flavia Infragilis, "Unbreakable Flavian Legion." Sorry to any people who offended by my pig Latin; I am not sure if Infragilis is what I want or not. Legio I Flavia Infragilis is shipped off to Britain to help with the continued fighting vs. various tribes; this would act as a replacement for Legio XIV Gemina that got shipped off to southern Gaul in 68 AD. Vespasian wanting a firm hand on the new legion appoints Gnaeus Julius Agricola as its commander and he soon gets the legion well ordered and trust worthy. In 78 AD Agricola is made governor in England and would have at this time the following historic legions Legio II Augusta, IX Hispana and Legio XX Valeria Victrix plus the fictitious Legio I Flavia Infragilis. At some point in the early 80's Agricola scouts Ireland and believes it could be taken easily but for now his focus is still on Britain. With 1/3 more troops than historic Agricola is able to make a more complete conquest of Caledonia (Scotland). The battle of Battle of Mons Graupius in 84 AD is an even more crushing defeat than historic. With the Caledonii defeat a total one, figure for the border to be pushed north to the Firth of Forth at least, site of the historic Antonine Wall. Historically at this point Agricola was recalled, suggested reason being that the unpopular Domitian was afraid of Agricola's prestige from his victories. So instead let's have Domitian's elder brother Titus (79-81 AD) live on a few more years and keep Agricola in Britain. Then some time in the late 80's Agricola leads an invasion of Hibernia (Ireland). From what I have been able to find Irelands population was very small. Small enough, a few hundred thousand and so one legion plus auxiliaries would be a powerful force relative to the number of available Celtic warriors to appose it. Perhaps Legio I Flavia Infragilis or one of the other legions gains a new cognomen of Hibernia and becomes the local garrison. What long term effects would there as a result of the above changes? Michael Just my $0.02 worth
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Abdul Hadi Pasha II		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 919 05/03/08 11:56:52 Administrator	I guess that depend on what happens for the next couple of centuries. How deeply does Roman civilization seep into the isles? When do they become Christian? Do they? Is there a polity extant when Barbarians invade that is strong enough to beat them back? I tend to think it unlikely that Germanic invasions can be completely kept out, but maybe they could be prevented from becoming overwhelming, and like the Norman invasions of France, able to assimilate newcomers. That could leave you with a totally different world, in which the British Isles speak a Romance language. Somewhat insulated from invasions, you might see British polities that are much more important in European history.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
TomB1	One of my AH rules	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2684 05/07/08 12:44:31 Administrator	You need to work out the short term consequences before you work out the long term consequences. Britain was not unimporant in Roman history. Let me give an example let us assume that because Turbo Brittania is stronger that OTL Carausius has more forces to play with and so defeats Constantius Chlorus. Wouldn't that cause immense changes in the TL?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
miketr		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 509 05/07/08 18:27:06	200 years is short term Tom? As to the good emperor of Britain and Northern Gaul, assuming he isn't butterflied away totally. One would assume his treasurer Allectus puts a knife in his back on que. Michael Just my $0.02 worth
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
borys68		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 471 05/07/08 21:55:43	Ahoj! The wild bogs of Albion were not very deeply Romanised. It is true that the most developed parts of Roman Britain - the south-east, were thoroughly Germanised, so any Latin speaking pockets there were destroyed. Anybody know anything about Latin use in Britain c.350-400? Still, all three parts of Roman Britain not conquered by the Saxons and Angles were Celtic speaking. And the refugees to the continent also must had been partly/largely Celtic speaking as well. All in all, I do not believe a Roman Hibernia and the Limes across Lanark would change anything much. The insular provinces were simply too poor, distant, primitive to have an impact. The Irish monastic brand of Christianity looks odd only when viewed through a purely late Western Christian perspective. If one looks at it from an Eastern Christian perspective, the predominance of monasteries is not so unusual. Borys
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
miketr		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 510 05/08/08 07:03:25	borys68 wrote: Ahoj! The wild bogs of Albion were not very deeply Romanised. It is true that the most developed parts of Roman Britain - the south-east, were thoroughly Germanised, so any Latin speaking pockets there were destroyed. Anybody know anything about Latin use in Britain c.350-400? It was a total cultural replacement of most of what is today England after the fall of Roman Britain. From what I read of Britain of this time period it was about as Latinized as Gaul was. The local language was Brythonic; which was destroyed totally and had almost no effect on modern english which is a West German offshot. In a sense English sounds like the way German did before the 12th century sound shift. Gaelic Irish and Scottish, Danish and Norman French had way more of an impact on modern English in terms of loan words, grammer, etc. borys68 wrote: Still, all three parts of Roman Britain not conquered by the Saxons and Angles were Celtic speaking. And the refugees to the continent also must had been partly/largely Celtic speaking as well. Brythonic speakers a type of celtic. Brittianny is were a lot of the Roman British ended up, the name of the region and some cultural and language artifacts can be found in the French of there to this day. borys68 wrote: Ahoj! All in all, I do not believe a Roman Hibernia and the Limes across Lanark would change anything much. The insular provinces were simply too poor, distant, primitive to have an impact. The Irish monastic brand of Christianity looks odd only when viewed through a purely late Western Christian perspective. If one looks at it from an Eastern Christian perspective, the predominance of monasteries is not so unusual. Borys The limes father north might have shifted the natural boundary of England. Roman historic divisions lasted for years and years. Note that Roman Limes along the Rhine is a cultural break, ditto else where. Also Roman Hibernia might never be conquered at all by the Germanic invaders and we would see England re-Christianized not from Gaul but from Hibernia in later years. England had lots of monasteries before Henry of the many wives decided to use them to refill his treasury. Michael Just my $0.02 worth
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Vordarian		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4 05/08/08 08:36:31	I don't think Romanitas in Britain would survive. On the contrary, Romanisation of Ireland and the Lowlands would only ensure that it falls quicker. Before I elaborate this, a quick aside. The Rhine is a cultural break today. French has spread eastward due to French conquests from the XVI century onward, but there were some Romanic pockets throughout the German-speaking areas west of the Rhine, for example along the Mosel. As for the Hadrian's wall and the 'natural' border of England, that was established comparatively late. Edinburgh, for example was in Northumbrian hands from the early 6th to the 10th century. The Lowlands and Borders were constantly in flux between Brythons (Strathclyde), Scots, Picts and Anglosaxons. Late and especially sub-Roman Britain depended on Mercenaries and Federates for their defense. Of the former, tribal Irish in the West, especially Dyfed and a few other, smaller Kingdoms, mutated in a few generations into a thoroughly Brythonised warrior aristocracy. In the east, the Saxon (or Angle) federates rebelled and plundered wide areas. I won't mention Hengist and Horsa in that context, they are mythological ancestor-figures and of comparable historicity to Aeneas or Brutus of Troy. But the most important source of military strength were the barely romanised, but christian tribes between Hadrians and Antonine wall. They were the muscle the Britanniae brought in to contain the Saxons, which they did. In fact, they transformed the whole Britain in the process. By Gildas' time, the 2nd half of the 6th century, educated Britons were able to write in a very good Latin, superior to writers from, say, Frankish Gaul, but their worldview was Celtic, with nary a shred of Roman mentality surviving. And they boiled out of Britain to conquer and settle in northern and western France, far beyond the borders of modern Brittany and even to northern Spain. What a lasting Roman rule over Ireland and lowland Scotland would accomplish, is ruining those areas economically during the late Empire, as well as leaving them unable to defend themselves, far less the rest of Britain. The Britons, by lack of alternatives forced to import more Saxons than OTL, will be conquered in the 440s instead of the 590s. As for the rest, while Brythonic left little traces in the English language, in the veins of 60% of the English flows British blood.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Abdul Hadi Pasha II		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 920 05/09/08 20:42:29 Administrator	While you make a lot of good points, I don't think you're addressing the impact of the POD, which posits additional military forces permanently assigned to Britain, and the subjugation of a lot of the forces that later helped to tear down Roman Britain. While being an island doesn't make Britain immune from invasion, it certainly helps, and I'm not sure you can say that it would ever fall. The Byzantines survived way worse threats (way, way, way worse threats) than Roman Britain did - why not an enduring Romano-British polity?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
TomB1	Short Term	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2692 05/10/08 10:42:05 Administrator	Touche. Of course you've seen Alternate History that posits some POD in the ancient world and then asks "Now how does this effect the Second World War?" My main point is that Britain was not an obscure backwater with a negligible impact on the rest of the Empire. Changes there could result in different Emperors down the road. As for Hibernia I think the Romans would not try to occupy the entire island. I see their main presence in counties Waterford and Wexford probably with a garrison at Kilkenny which is one of those natural locations for a trading town. Much of Ireland would never see a Roman soldier. There is some mineral wealth in Waterford which started to get exploited big time in the late 18th century. It became known as the Copper Coast (though it also included some lead). I am not an expert in mining to say whether it was within the prowess of the Romans to develop this but even if a fraction of it is available I think it would provide an incentive for them to remain but again not moving too far inland. Tom
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Vordarian		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5 05/10/08 17:07:20	Problem is, the forces that tore the Roman Empire down are also strengthened. In the OTL 4th century, the Britanniae were a breeding ground for Usurpers, more than any other area, until at last Honorius had enough and kicked Britain out of the Empire in 410. I don't see this changing. The Pictish incursions of the 430s will be worse without the semi-civilised tribes of the North, as those tribes will have become just ordinary Romano-British. Britain was rich, but it simply couldn't defend itself without outsiders. The cities had been ruined by the late Roman taxation system, there was little tradition of military service among the senatorial/landowner class, which wasn't numerous enough anyway, and those landowners would never have armed their colones. With the Romano-British being their usual fractuous and backstabbing selves, sub-Roman Britain would have fallen apart quicker without the strengthening by resettlement of Northern and Irish tribesmen. One possibility, though, would be that the British wouldn't dare to rip off their Saxon mercenaries due to the lack of alternatives. But still, once the Saxons felt they were strong enough there would be grief for the British. And as OTL plenty of British leaders would side with them. (In Wessex laws until the 8th cent. Welsh noblemen are mentioned that later merged into the Saxon nobility. Not to mention the first 3 kings there having British or part-British names.)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Greater Roman Britain	05/02/08 05:30:22	miketr
Re: Greater Roman Britain	05/03/08 11:56:52	Abdul Hadi Pasha II
One of my AH rules	05/07/08 12:44:31	TomB1
Re: Greater Roman Britain	05/07/08 18:27:06	miketr
Short Term	05/10/08 10:42:05	TomB1
Re: Greater Roman Britain	05/07/08 21:55:43	borys68
Re: Greater Roman Britain	05/08/08 07:03:25	miketr
Re: Greater Roman Britain	05/08/08 08:36:31	Vordarian
Re: Greater Roman Britain	05/09/08 20:42:29	Abdul Hadi Pasha II
Re: Greater Roman Britain	05/10/08 17:07:20	Vordarian