Boudica drives the Romans out of Britain

Toltec · Oct 11, 2009

Boudicca Wins

THis is inspired by another post on the forum. Tacitus mentions that Boudicca's revolt very nearly lost the province for the Romans, lets image it did.

Some people wil speculate the Romans are gone for good, others that they would return, this is not what I want to go into.

For a while at least Britain would be without Romans, what happens then?

Boudicca's strategy during the revolt was pretty much not to attack Romans, but traditional enemy tribes and slaughter them. Presumably with a victorious army at her back Boudicca would have gone on a bit of a rampage across Britain, wiping out other tribes.

The Iceni were a collaberator tribe and most of the people Boudicca killed from a tribe that fought the Romans. In fact from Rome's Implacable Foe, Caractacus's very own tribe.

Nick · Oct 11, 2009

Re: Boudicca Wins

Anarchy. The various tribes would be in a continuous fight for dominance.

gaius valerius · Oct 11, 2009

Re: Boudicca Wins

Nick said:
Anarchy. The various tribes would be in a continuous fight for dominance.

... and honour, and prestige, etc.

It was their way of life;

Salah · Feb 5, 2010

Let's say in 61 AD, the rebellious Queen of the Iceni, Boudica, manages to defeat Suetonius Paulinus at "Watling Street", and with a year or two all Roman presence in Britannia, both military and civilian, has either been destroyed or evacuated.

How would British, and world, history be different?

A better way to word the question would be: how much influence on history did the Roman presence in Britain really have? Would free Britons have ever launched an attack on the mainland Empire? What would the Saxons in the 5th Century come across when they sailed over to what would become England?

NewModelSoldier · Feb 5, 2010

I don't know how much influence they did have on Britain, certainly some, and perhaps London wouldn't be around, or as great. If they kicked then out somehow, I don't think they'd ever attack the Empire across the sea, and if they did, I don't think it would last.

okamido · Feb 5, 2010

At that time, would Rome have allowed that slight. I could see Corbulo being recalled from Syria to handle that debacle.

Salah · Feb 5, 2010

okamido said:
At that time, would Rome have allowed that slight. I could see Corbulo being recalled from Syria to handle that debacle.

Honestly, I don't see how Britannia would be worth all that fuss for Rome. I think if Boudica had won any serious victories with long-term consequences the Romans would have said heck with it and left Britannia to its tribal anarchy.

Salah · Feb 5, 2010

...another one of my threads turns out to be lacking in originality...

okamido · Feb 5, 2010

Salah ad-Din said:
...another one of my threads turns out to be lacking in originality...

????

okamido · Feb 5, 2010

Salah ad-Din said:
Honestly, I don't see how Britannia would be worth all that fuss for Rome. I think if Boudica had won any serious victories with long-term consequences the Romans would have said heck with it and left Britannia to its tribal anarchy.

Well, I think that since this province was farther along than say, what they were attempting in Germania when Teutoberg occured, I just don't see them allowing it to slip away. How does it look if the Empire just allows a province to rebel and go unpunished?

Also, recall the amounts of minerals being extracted from Britannia that was essential to the Empire. Lead, gold, tin, silver, and iron were all heavily mined from Brittania. At this early stage, I think the financial benefits of keeping the province would be realized by the Empire, and if all else, dignitas had to be preserved.

Sargon of Akkad · Feb 5, 2010

Salah ad-Din said:
Honestly, I don't see how Britannia would be worth all that fuss for Rome. I think if Boudica had won any serious victories with long-term consequences the Romans would have said heck with it and left Britannia to its tribal anarchy.

I don't see how Boudica could have driven the Romans out. She was a terrible general...

Comnena · Feb 6, 2010

The Romans would have come back at some point. Maybe they would have waited a bit, but probably they would have mobilized forces rather sooner than later, even if only to show other subjugated provinces that rebellion would not be a good idea...

Salah · Feb 6, 2010

okamido said:
????

They merged my new thread with an older one that Toltec had started, on the same topic.

Toltec · Feb 6, 2010

Rome tried to invade Britain, I forget how mamy times, but a lot. The only major source of tin in Europe for millenia and rich in other minerals. Because of its lack of infrastructure was arguably the most expensive and difficult to Romanised of any province. My guess is the Romans would have been back, typically when they lost a province their culture demanded retribution too.

Sargon of Akkad · Feb 6, 2010

Either that, or a new emperor who needed some military conquest to legitimise his reign.

Paulinus · Feb 13, 2010

But let's just pretend they wouldn't or that they wouldn't have succeeded. for one thing there's no reason so imagine there would have been future angle, saxon and jute invasions becasue the former were originally invited in by the Romano British as mercenaries to support the Romano-British state after the legions withdrew. Might a single group have emerged victorious within Britain and unified the isles under a single authority? Might Britains have become sea bourne raiders a la the Vikings?

Nikator · Feb 15, 2010

If the Romans were driven out by Boudicca then Britain would most likely be reconquered by another glory seeking Emperor, the main reason it was invaded in the first place, at a later date. If that wasn't to happen, then all you could really predict would be that Britain would develop quite uniquely in relation to the rest of Europe. It would probably speak a Gaelic tongue for much longer than previously which would have an interesting effect on the English language. I would also think that Britain would probably be able to hold off the Saxons much better than previously, considering they would have kept a martial culture and probably have been better equipped to fight off the Saxons. Whether they would or not I don't know though, but if they did British history would be incredibly different to what it is now.

CrescentFenix · Jun 25, 2013

My one question is HOW could she have won Watling Street against Paulinus?

Dreamhunter · Jun 25, 2013

Britannia was too remote, and not profitable enough for Rome in terms of cost versus benefit. Tin and other minerals could be sourced in relatively nearer regions. Rome would have been better off reserving its remaining resources in case any more uprisings around Rome proper needed to be smashed. The advent of Christianity into Britain, and conversely the decline of paganism, would have been significantly delayed.

Louise C · Jun 25, 2013

i don't think it would have made that much difference to most people, they would just have gone on as before. and presumably the Saxon invasion would still have happened, so we would have still ended up with the same Saxon kings, etc.

Search

Search

Boudica drives the Romans out of Britain

Toltec

Nick

gaius valerius

Salah

NewModelSoldier

okamido

Salah

Salah

okamido

okamido

Sargon of Akkad

Comnena

Salah

Toltec

Sargon of Akkad

Paulinus

Nikator

CrescentFenix

Dreamhunter

Louise C

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions