Â鶹ԼÅÄ

Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink

Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

• Message 1.Ìý

  Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Saturday, 24th December 2005

  Hi, im just wondering, what do you think would have happened if the Romans had half abonded the Western Empire and moved the capital to London. THanks in advance

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 24th December 2005

  It is unlikely that the Empire would have survived any longer. The Classis Britannicum (British Fleet) was too weak, and the coastal defences too few and far between to effectively defend the Mares (coastal frontier), and Britannia was too remote and inaccessible, especially during the winter, to make a suitable capital.

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Saturday, 24th December 2005

  Good point but i dont agree, the Romans, with thier new found smaller Empire, would have been able to increase thr the size of the fleet and build new defences, as for the capital, its worked fine for almost everyone else hasnt it? It is unlikely that the Empire would have survived any longer. The Classis Britannicum (British Fleet) was too weak, and the coastal defences too few and far between to effectively defend the Mares (coastal frontier), and Britannia was too remote and inaccessible, especially during the winter, to make a suitable capital.Ìý

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by NeoTheVampireSlayer (U2013076) on Saturday, 24th December 2005

  Hi, im just wondering, what do you think would have happened if the Romans had half abonded the Western Empire and moved the capital to London. THanks in advanceÌý
  
  Highly...improbable. Sorry. If they would've changed the capital, they'd moved it to Lutetia or Massilia or maybe Lugdunum. Londinium was too remote, it was the same if the Russians would decide to move their capital to Yakutsk; crazy. London worked as the capital because Britain has never had a better choice (strategically thinking).

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by desertfox (U2819982) on Saturday, 24th December 2005

  Yes but arent they in France, and barbarians were running through France killing people?, better remote than razed?
  Highly...improbable. Sorry. If they would've changed the capital, they'd moved it to Lutetia or Massilia or maybe Lugdunum. Londinium was too remote, it was the same if the Russians would decide to move their capital to Yakutsk; crazy. London worked as the capital because Britain has never had a better choice (strategically thinking).Ìý

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by NeoTheVampireSlayer (U2013076) on Sunday, 25th December 2005

  Yes, possibly in that case, but as it was pointed out, Britain had poor defenses and was as vulnerable as the rest of the empire so that wouldn't have helped much. Of course, this is about alternative history and we all have our own views on that subject.
  
  Yes but arent they in France, and barbarians were running through France killing people?, better remote than razed?
  Highly...improbable. Sorry. If they would've changed the capital, they'd moved it to Lutetia or Massilia or maybe Lugdunum. Londinium was too remote, it was the same if the Russians would decide to move their capital to Yakutsk; crazy. London worked as the capital because Britain has never had a better choice (strategically thinking).Ìý Ìý

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 26th December 2005

  Hi, im just wondering, what do you think would have happened if the Romans had half abonded the Western Empire and moved the capital to London. THanks in advanceÌý
  
  Hi Desertfox,
  
  The fundamental problem with this premise is that the military centre had shifted away from Gaul to the Balkans, with the Goths effectively cutting off the West from the Western Emperor. The Illyrian powerbas of the Western Emperor meant that if they had tried to move themselves towards the west they could have lost this area to the Eastern counterpart. The division of authority forced the focus of both upon the dividing line between them. Thus Romano-Britain was doomed once the imperial authority was irreparebly split by Diocletian.
  
  Elistan

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 26th December 2005

  Hi, im just wondering, what do you think would have happened if the Romans had half abonded the Western Empire and moved the capital to London. THanks in advanceÌý
  
  OK
  
  First question, What advantage would the Romans gain from moving their captial to an island on the edge of the world?
  
  An island that was not safe as there were barbarians to the north and the west and the natives had not all been civilised?
  
  How could the Empire survive being cut off from main land Europe? Could they have held onto the Gallic Provinces by being cut off from the continent?
  
  Also how does this help Rome? Remember that to the wetsern Romans Rome was everything. It was mother, father, it was the heart of everything. Not to mention that to give up Europe would mean giving up access to the Roman Provance, giving up access to the mines of Iberia. There was a lot to lose by moving to BRitian and not a lot to gain by the same token

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Monday, 26th December 2005

  Eric Brewster: Hummmmm you mean the local native Britons, Celts, (Dark Aged Irish and Scottish) Attacotti and Angies as well as the Vikings not being civilized?
  
  What level of "civilization" do you wish them to have? Need they have to build the great buildings of Rome just to think of them as being civilized? I find this as being a scapegoat for some to think that the Britons, Irish and others as not being "civilized" in the Dark Ages and Medieval Age.
  
  I should add here, as the Romans were leaving Briton, some Romans stayed in Briton, their families merging with the Celt Britons and Irish; many many modern historians neglect this event...
  .....nor wish to explore it. I ask you all, how did any of you get your Surnames? If they did not come from a very slow melting pot of many histories then you would not have your names......
  .....would you?
  
  There is enough information out there suggesting that some of the fantasy authors are right, yet most modern historians want to make out about things as being seen from the Romans's point of view. Rome was fading away to a smaller, christianized Holy Roman Empire, as we are familiar with today. Some people are putting on Roman Colored glasses and thinking that this is the only history that there was, they are wrong about that. Most importantly while the Romans were building then gradually right under their noses were the Celts Britons, Irish, Celts Wales peoples, Angies, Norse and others merging, creating and multiculturizing Briton, from the Dark Ages to the Medieval Age to the Victorian Age.......and how you know today is from your last name.

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 26th December 2005

  well actually my last name is an anglosaxon compound. My mothers maiden name is a Viking deritivtive. My maternal grandma's name is an anglosaxon place name derivative whilst my paternal grandma's name is a welsh patroyonic so I do kinda know where my surnames come from, but thank you for your concern.
  
  When the Roman legions left this isle and indeed our last contact with Imperial Rome, there were no Vikings here. The Irish and the Scotii were untouched by the Roman hand whilst the Britons were depending on where you were in these islands either highly Romanised or just surface-romanised. The cities had been shrinking for years (as they had throughout the western empire) and yes, in terms of "Civilisation" I do use the Imperial Era as the touchstone of example. Dark Age Britain was not as civilised as it had previously been. Advances in poetry and language but many a retrograde step was also taken,

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Tuesday, 27th December 2005

  Eric,
  
  The thread is about the Romans, so a claim of being 'Roman-focused' is hardly a fault.
  
  Also relying on 'fantasy authors' over historians is always going to lead you into trouble.
  
  Your post is so full of anachronisms I don't know where to begin. Firstly, most of the peoples you mention moved into the vacuum created by the Roman withdrawal. Secondly the Holy Roman Empire was a later construct by some of these thribes recapture the past glory of Rome. These developments took approximately four-five centuries after the Roman decision to withdraw its legions back to the Itaian pennisula.
  
  You claim on another thread to being a genealogist, but you need to sort out your timelines to do the title justice. Ambrosius Aurelianus was the last leader of the romanised british, against the onslaught of the saxons (and was probably the root of King Arthur), and with his passage the cilivisation (derived from civitas, meaning city) of Britain waned. It reverted to germanic tribalism, often termed the Dark Ages. It was not until the great building programs of Alfred that any part of Britain could be said to be truly an urban society again(open to criticism on that point, thojdolf, not my area of expertise).
  
  The roots of our surnames have little or no relevance to this topic, as most are post factum to the topic under discussion.
  
  Elistan

  Link to this forum: Should the Romans have stayed in Britian?

  Report message11

Back to top