r/HistoryWhatIf • u/chavvy_rachel • 2d ago
What if the Romans never invaded Britain?
If Rome doesn't invade Britain does that free up more resources for advances into germania. Or is the gaulish coast vulnerable to raids from Britain? Would trade links led to Britain becoming part of the roman world regardless? How would a celtic Britain develop, would the tribes eventually unite? After the fall of the western empire would the british celts expand into France, assuming that the Western empire still falls, maybe it doesn't if the germanic tribes are subdued earlier and more completely. Where would hadrian build his wall?
9
u/Scholasticus_Rhetor 2d ago
Even if Rome never invaded Britain, they would still interact with Britain after the conquest of Gaul and this would probably lead to Roman culture spreading into Britain to some extent, albeit lesser than what came from occupation.
As it was an important source of tin, I wouldn’t be surprised if the Romans manipulated British politics from time to time to safeguard their access to this resource and keep friendly partners in place.
I frankly would also be shocked if this did not lead to Rome militarily intervening in Britain at least once in a while. It’s hard to imagine Rome not sending even one expedition to Britain honestly. It’s ultimately not that far away from Gaul and the Romans had fairly active and diverse interactions with pretty much every one of their border regions. Rome recruited auxiliary troops from pretty much every one of these borderlands, so it’s easy to imagine they would use Britons as auxiliaries from time to time. To whatever extent that Rome committed themselves to “amicitia” with certain British kings, which they almost certainly would, they’d be picking sides in British politics and doubtless forced to back those allies up at least once in a while between 0 and 476 AD.
I could easily see the island Romanizing to a decent extent even without ever turning it into a province.
And then in the end, you have to consider the whole knock-on “butterfly effect”…who knows what ultimate repercussions this would have for the precise way that Roman history played out in the long run…
3
u/HoppokoHappokoGhost 2d ago
Britain would be almost identical to what it is today, except without the original Roman settlements with their Latin derived names. London would still exist where it does today under a different name even if not as the capital
1
u/caiaphas8 2d ago
Would the Saxons invade if there’s no Roman land to raid or settle? Britain would be less rich, less appealing to them
1
u/TheAsianDegrader 2d ago
How rich did you think Celtic Britain was after the Romans withdrew? Britain would still have bountiful land, which was the main source of wealth it possessed.
0
u/caiaphas8 2d ago
The Saxons began raiding before the romans withdrew. But you need towns to raid and towns require farmland, the celts of Britain did not have towns of that scale so the raiding opportunities would be limited
0
u/KennethMick3 2d ago
Britain was rich before the Romans arrived, which is why the Romans wanted it.
0
2
u/Power2the1 2d ago
The Britons were called over by the Gauls to fight in the Gallic War. Gaulish society valued power and prestige through the number of vassals, dependents, etc. At the time Gaul had a proto-feudal society similar to the Middle Ages. The largest blocs had what could be called established states.
Over in Britain the farther north one went it appears it was structured more on a typical tribal society. In southern and middle areas of England things show similar organization to that of the continent and had links to social sophistication of the continent. So the Britons were catching up to the continent it their societal norms.
The Anglo-Saxons never truly "invaded" as we think of the word. Graves showing Celtic men with Germanic women (based on grave goods, brooches, personal items, etc) and and the opposite have been found more and more in digs. The early Anglo-Saxon kings had Celtic names which could point to them being vassals or men-at-arms of the powerful Briton chieftains. Another possibility is that some A-S chiefs took Celtic names as that was the majority culture and they were settling among them and taking up their language, culture, etc. Signs of widespread destruction, warfare, and general invasion are few and far between. However, archaeology does show that A-S pottery, items, and cultural signs did halt for 70-100 years it's estimated. This could be a sign of Arthurs legendary victories against the A-S. Or not. We don't know. But something did stop the expansion of germanic items for several generations.
I can't see the Briton tribes invading the continent. The Celts weren't conquerors per se but more so raiders and migrants. When they expanded to foreign areas they took up the position as the aristocratic elites (Galatia, Tylis, N. Italy, Iberia, etc) over the inhabitants and freely mixed in with thero society. Hybrid cultures popped up. Gallothracians (Celt and Thracian), Gallograecians (Celt and Greek), Celtiberian (Celti and Iberians). These terms denote rh borrowing and adopting of the La Tene "technology." One source I read stated ironworking of the Celts and Dacians weren't surprised until the 16-1700AD. And we know virtually the entire Roman panoply originated from their encounters and defeats against the Celts (if you can't beat, them join them).
If there wpukd be attempts at a long-term subjugation of areas on the continent (and not just raiding), it would only be done by tribes that were heavily centralized and could field thousands of warriors and vassals.
Hope this helps answer some of your questions 👍
3
u/The_Frog221 2d ago
I think a more reasonable course is "what if Caesar invades germania instead if Britain" since britain was going to be invaded at some point for tin and proximity.
In that case, they'll probably be pretty effective in germany. They were for 200 years after caeser, until the population and migratory waves got to be too much. It's pretty likely that if they get started earlier, and driven by someone like caeser (the world is not enough mentality) they take over most of it. This probably has pretty serious effects later on.
2
u/Mikhail_Mengsk 2d ago
Germany was not worth it, so I don't see Rome pushing further than historical. The expenses of keeping the occupation of the British isles were substantial, but maybe the tin extraction covered them, I don't know.
The anglo Saxons would have an easier time invading, but that's not a very significant change from historical.
Overall, I don't see much changing.
1
u/ArticTurkey 2d ago
Anglo Saxons would’ve invaded earlier, leading to war, maybe Rome intervenes, it depends on the state
1
u/makerofshoes 2d ago
Maybe they never invade. The first Angles and Saxons on the island were invited by the Romans as auxiliaries to help defend against the Picts, weren’t they?
0
u/ArticTurkey 2d ago
They were, but I still think they would’ve invaded had they not been invited, maybe the local tribes would’ve invited some
-3
u/GustavoistSoldier 2d ago
Boudicca could've unified the Celtic tribes
10
6
u/Henk_Potjes 2d ago
Bouddica. One of the most overrated military commanders and historical figures ever.
0
u/tiberius_claudius1 2d ago
If the storms were bad enough and enough toman ships kept sinking before they made any meaningful progress on island I can see them not pursuing the island. The mineral wealth the island had made sure rome would always have coveteded it. Romans feared the sea though so I could see an alternate universe where that makes it so they don't take over brittian. If that was the case I don't see much changing though.
1
u/DaddyCatALSO 1d ago
Also the British raided th e Gaullish coast, made it a headache to maintain order there
30
u/AppropriateCap8891 2d ago
The conquest of Britain was important to Rome for one reason if nothing else.
Tin.
Even though it was well into the Iron Age, Britain was one of the largest suppliers of tin for making bronze. And that metal was still high in demand, just as it is even today in the modern era.