What would have been the effects of Rome conquering all of Britain
- Thread starter Fabilius
- Start date
Winnabago
Banned
Is Ireland a client state, or directly controlled?
Anyway, after Britannia was overrun by pagans, a large number of England’s Christian priests and such fled to Ireland (which is why they are Catholic today).
If there was a significantly Romanized populace there, you could probably expect a Romano-Celtic empire based in Ireland and the Irish sea, especially if Ireland was run by a semi-independent king.
Anyway, after Britannia was overrun by pagans, a large number of England’s Christian priests and such fled to Ireland (which is why they are Catholic today).
If there was a significantly Romanized populace there, you could probably expect a Romano-Celtic empire based in Ireland and the Irish sea, especially if Ireland was run by a semi-independent king.
Which would be awesome.
I´m pretty sure England gets overrun no matter what pretty much. But they won´t be inviting them over if Scotland and Ireland are fairly friendly.
I doubt you´d ever get a really big romanic population in either Scotland or Ireland though. Most probably Ireland would be more akin to a client state.
But a more united Ireland could be interesting. I´ve always been into the idea of Ireland invading England and setting up a dynasty.
The British Isles where backwaters in Antiquity - it is something that may shock somes, but they where poors, isolated, and well...
A drain on roman economy and army, maybe.
A drain on roman economy and army, maybe.
I am fully aware of that. I think most people realize that. (on this board, I mean)
Interesting idea 
I think the consequences of this would be more long-term, then short-term.
England/Scotland would still be overrun by Angles and Saxons, of that I am sure.
Ireland could as suggested become a safe haven for the romanic population of E/S and should survive more or less intact perhaps as a untied kingdom,
But with roman administration/archiecture/agriculture etc. still in place could we look at a "poor man's" Byzantine Empire?
Of course it would lack manpower to do anything big, but in terms of culture and civilisation/knowledge Ireland could shorten the dark ages by centuries.
England and Scotland would be one nation or at least have the same (romanic) history and (anglosaxon) culture which would most likely avoid the century long conflicts in OTL.
Also the Normans would never get the English crown.
This could mean a strong German/British alliance down the line...
I think the consequences of this would be more long-term, then short-term.
England/Scotland would still be overrun by Angles and Saxons, of that I am sure.
Ireland could as suggested become a safe haven for the romanic population of E/S and should survive more or less intact perhaps as a untied kingdom,
But with roman administration/archiecture/agriculture etc. still in place could we look at a "poor man's" Byzantine Empire?
Of course it would lack manpower to do anything big, but in terms of culture and civilisation/knowledge Ireland could shorten the dark ages by centuries.
England and Scotland would be one nation or at least have the same (romanic) history and (anglosaxon) culture which would most likely avoid the century long conflicts in OTL.
Also the Normans would never get the English crown.
This could mean a strong German/British alliance down the line...
Last edited:
Someone BTW made a 'romance Welsh' alternate language on the web, it is interesting...
I think history proceeds much the same until the mid 7th century or so outside of Ireland. Within Ireland there's a good chance of seeing a single kingdom emerging as the framework will already exist during Roman occupation. It's likely the island would be ruled as a singular entity with a central authority and capital. This would have a long term effect in that a Kingdom of Ireland with likely compete with the Saxon kingdoms in carving up Britain.
Interesting idea
England/Scotland would still be overrun by Angles and Saxons, of that I am sure...
England and Scotland would be one nation or at least have the same (romanic) history and (anglosaxon) culture which would most likely avoid the century long conflicts in OTL.
Why would a Roman British Isles lead to the Saxons taking all of Scotland? If anything, what is now England would be less susceptible to Germanic invasions since the Scots and Picts aren't as big of a threat. I do see the Saxons making progress in Southern and Eastern England similar to OTL however, just not over the more western parts of England. Scotland however is completely out of the question.
Sior
Banned
Prydain's Christian priests; the proto English livestock botherers were still Angles, Saxons and Jutes at that time.
Alex Richards
Donor
The Irish or Celtic Church was already responsible for preserving a lot of stuff from antiquity OTL, and it operated on something more akin to the current Orthodox system, with priestly functions frequently running through a family either father-son or uncle-nephew. Potentially political unification could see this expanded, and other texts preserved in like manner.
It also seems likely that Christianity makes more inroads into Scotland earlier, and we could even see a sort of 'Celtic Orthodoxy' where the Celtic Church, with stronger political backing, manages to substantially out compete centralised Church authority from Rome within Britain in similar manner to the East.
It also seems likely that Christianity makes more inroads into Scotland earlier, and we could even see a sort of 'Celtic Orthodoxy' where the Celtic Church, with stronger political backing, manages to substantially out compete centralised Church authority from Rome within Britain in similar manner to the East.
MONEY! or better wealth!
If the Romans are everywhere, then there is a lot more to loot and by boat it is easy to invade. The whole british eastcoast would be one giant playground. Settling in Scotland would also be more attractive as the though work would have been done by the Romans.
In OTL Scotland was absolutely uninteresting for settlement and that was the main reason for the Angles, Saxons and Jutes to leave Germany/Denmark.
If the Romans had been in Scotland, the migrating tribes would have followed.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
It wouldn't make much of a whiff of difference. Britain was one of the least Romanized regions of the Empire.
MONEY! or better wealth!
If the Romans are everywhere, then there is a lot more to loot and by boat it is easy to invade. The whole british eastcoast would be one giant playground. Settling in Scotland would also be more attractive as the though work would have been done by the Romans.
In OTL Scotland was absolutely uninteresting for settlement and that was the main reason for the Angles, Saxons and Jutes to leave Germany/Denmark.
If the Romans had been in Scotland, the migrating tribes would have followed.
I'm sorry, but things just aren't going to work that way. As pointed out by Cuauhtemoc Britannia was one of the least Romanized regions of the empire, especially in the northern portions. The Roman presence doesn't immediately bring wealth to an area. Highland Scotland is uninteresting for settlement to the Angles, Jutes, and Saxons regardless of who controlled it. The area near Hadrian's wall had plenty of Roman contact and influence despite not being under Roman authority, but it didn't lead the Angles to settle in the Lowlands in the numbers comparable to the other regions settled by the Germanic tribes (there was some Angle settlement in Southern Scotland but Roman control would not have provided a significant incentive to increase settlement in this area). The Roman presence in Scotland and Ireland doesn't change anything in the draw on Anglo-Saxon settlement, and probably reduces the pressure on the Britons to bring over these German mercenaries to defend against marauding Scots and Picts. If anything it would strengthen the Roman culture of the tribes in modern England resisting Anglo-Saxon incursions, and allow Celtic culture to be more resilient throughout the isles in the face of the Germanic incursions. It also presents the opportunity for interesting exchanges of culture between emigres from England and the greater Romano-Celtic world.
Last edited:
Winnabago
Banned
What I was saying was, if Christian refugees converted Ireland (which they did OTL, so shouldn’t be a problem), then that coupled with a now-independent client king who was probably friendly to Rome (and thus, Christianity) means Ireland now has a state that supports Christianity.
Expect a somewhat unique form of Irish Christendom (until someone comes along and destroys it, of course) and a mostly united Ireland thanks to the church. I suspect such a state, if it became civilized enough, would be supported among England’s Roman/Christian sympathizers.
Perhaps Ireland would dominate the British Isles rather than England
Expect a somewhat unique form of Irish Christendom (until someone comes along and destroys it, of course) and a mostly united Ireland thanks to the church. I suspect such a state, if it became civilized enough, would be supported among England’s Roman/Christian sympathizers.
Perhaps Ireland would dominate the British Isles rather than England
I disagree. The main reason Roman Britain broke off from the empire in 410 was because the empire couldn't and wouldn't spare the troops to defend it from the Gaels and the Picts. Without this threat, everything changes.
One, no Hadrian's Wall, which means more cohesiveness through out the island. This seems like a minimal change, but it really means a lot when you consider the raiding tribes who climbed over said wall and lead to...
Two, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes would not be hired as mercenaries to defend the Romano-Brits against the Gaels and Picts because-- THEY WOULD BE SUBJUGATED!
What's more, if there is never an official break away from the Romans in 410, that means that the island(s) will be less likely to break up into the petty micro-kingdoms it did when the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes invaded. More political unity, plus more man-power from Hibernia and Caledonia means that a possible invasion from these tribes, or similar tribes of similar number, can be rebuffed or held off more affectively. Best case scenario for an invading tribe is that they populate Mercia and Northumbria, possibly Kent. Over the centuries, they would likely become the cultural equivalent to the Welsh in OTL Great Britain/ England before union with Scotland.
Rather than an Anglo-Saxon dominated island, it is more likely that the island be dominated by the Britons. Also, it is unlikely that Pictish will be replaced with Gaelic, because Gaelic colonization of Caledonia will probably be different, and certainly won't result in Gaelic domination of the region.
However, invasion from outside forces does seem inevitable. The Franks may very well invade, but so will the vikings. Will the Norse and/or Danes create their own kingdoms, becoming the Norman analogue?
Also, with the flight of the Angles and Jutes from Juteland, this brings the question of what will occur in Scandinavia? Will the Danes come to prominence, or will the Jutes and/or Angles? How will this affect the political climate of the region. How will having more Saxons in Saxony affect their war with the Franks?
So, IMO, everything changes.
ahh but that is 1500 years of history Scotland is Scotland anything can happen ....
Scotland wouldn't be Scotland, it would be Alba, Caledonia, or Pictland. The Scots didn't invade the area until the 6th century from Ireland (which would presumably be under Roman rule as well).
I'm going to sound like an ass, but am I the only person here who actually knows anything about this subject?