What if Rome Never Conquered Britain?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- Roman Plushes Available For a Limited Time At Makeship: www.makeship.com/products/rom...
Rome went to the edge of the known world, an island in the North Sea and took a large portion of it. We call that island Britain today. Yet what if in an alternate timeline, Rome never colonized or conquered this land? How does this change British history?
Twitter: / althistoryhub
Patreon: / alternatehistoryhub
It's weird to think that if the Ancient British didn't get conquered, I would be speaking Gaelic
It’s likely some other group or even the Saxons would invade at some point
More accurately you’d be speaking some derivative of Brythonic, basically another Celtic dialect
Your lineage wouldn't exist. You wouldn't exist because there would be no anglo saxons
@@warlordofbritannia With a name like "Mitchell", it all depends. Some Mitchells trace their name back to Surrey, others to Ireland, where an Irish surname that roughly translates as "Follower of (Saint) Michael" got anglicised as "Mitchell" because it sounded close enough.
@@warlordofbritannia Also Brythonic is a whole language family, not a "dialect".
Biggest one: the economic growth of the UK is alarmingly based on Roman roads and specifically how the lead to and from London. Say York instead (the Viking capital) becomes the largest city of this land, changes the north/south divide, maybe more looking more to Denmark than France for kinship etc.
Though my boring general guess would be basically the same except the Vikings win and the become assimilated. Britain becomes more Nordic, but probably still ends up splitting from the church of Rome , becoming a seafaring nation etc
I actually doubt that the vikings would establish much of a presence at all, since I think the island would be quite poor. More attention would instead be placed on mainland Europe for the spoils to be found there. With the vikings barely establishing themselves on Albion, the Britons instead keep warring with each other with possibly a unifying king coming along and establishing something similar to the HRE, albeit maybe even more decentralized, and since it would be poorer and more out of the way (while still fighting endless wars among the little tribes/earldoms), it would become very isolated from the rest of Europe.
The Normans were surprisingly unique and had a far deeper influence than people often given them credit for (with many of them misattributed to Anglo-saxons, who were themselves quite something but in large part that is how alien they are to post conquest Britain's society and culture, a shared origin certainly but one that diverged wildly). A Scandinavian Britain would likely be very very different, the English at least would be culturally, socially and govermentally something completely different.
@@vorynrosethorn903 Well yes, the Norman conquest led to centuries of French dynasties squabbling over the English throne. The biggest example for the effect on the people is the Doomsday book.
@@ukmaxi The Norman conquest also lead to the Harrying of the North which was a genocide/expulsion of the people living north of The Humber resulting in the north of England being significantly poorer than the south from then on.
I've long felt that we should maintain a closer relationship with the Scandanavian countries. Might be my Northern heritage speaking, since my dad's side of the family comes from County Durham and Sunderland, where the Nordic influence is stronger. My mum's side is more Irish.
Just to correct some of the people in the comments:
*Celtic is a language family, like Romance or Germanic.
*Gaelic or Goidelic refers to the branch of Celtic languages traditionally spoken in Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Mann. In Ireland, the preferred name for their language when speaking of it in English is, 'Irish'. The dialects of English spoken in Ireland are called, 'Hiberno-English'.
*Brythonic or Brittonic is the name for the branch of Celtic languages spoken on the island of Britain, traditionally in Wales and Cornwall but includes Breton, which is spoken in Brittany (the first Bretons were refugees who came from the southwestern part of what we now call England.
The Gaelic languages and Brythonic languages are not mutually intelligible, but speakers of Gaelic languages can understand each other with some ease.
Speakers of Brythonic languages can also understand each other to a certain degree, with Breton being the outlier due to the French influence on the language. A dialect of Welsh was also spoken as far as Carlisle and the territory of the Otadini (Which lends its name to the name of the oldest poem in Welsh and thus the oldest poem in Britain, Y Gododdin) until around the 11thC AD.
Welsh is the healthiest of the Celtic languages with over 800,000 speakers in Wales alone, but a couple thousand in England and a handful in a province of Argentina also speak it.
These are not mysterious, elf languages used by old folks to communicate in secret, they are living languages used to talk about our day-to-day lives, at school, at home, at the shops, even in our devolved parliaments. Movies, games, TV shows etc are made in these languages. They're not just spoken by nationalists either, and wanting to preserve them isn't a nationalistic thing. (By this I mean that even the most staunch British unionists will still seek to preserve Welsh and S.Gaelic.
They are alive, in the case of Welsh, Irish, Breton and Scots Gaelic, and are being revived in the cases of Manx and Cornish, and they all deserve respect. Not that Cody disrespected them in this vid or anything (everything he said in regards to Brythonic history was accurate).
Also, in Welsh, w and y are vowels, just as they are in English words like: noW, and partY. Before anyone makes any dumb comments.
I love the Irish language. It sounds like you're slurring when speaking it so it's easy to speak and understand while drunk
Whether you like it or not, keeping your national identity ie language is in fact a nationalistic idea. Especially if you had to revive it,
Cymru am byth
@@urubissoldat5452 As with all national ideas, it can fall into two categories depending on whose spreading them. If you're a member of a marginalized ethnic group, good luck keeping your culture alive! If you're a member of the dominant group, quit whining and making up problems, the English language isn't in any danger.
Ok nerd
@@matthewlo55 You're watching an alternate history video. It's not even a trendy alternate _modern_ history video. We're all nerds here.
One minor thing is that bagpipes would likely not become a part of Scottish culture like they are today. Some historians say that bagpipes were brought to Britain by the Romans.
greeks in anatolia had them.maybe it came from pontic anatolia. Search "tulum müziği"
Hard to say. Bagpipes became popular in Europe during the middle ages and spread to England and the rest of the British Isles. The Irish developed their own version for using in battle and later these Irish war pipes developed into the Highland bagpipes. At the same time the lowland Scots would have been playing the Northumbrian pipes which were based on the more common pipes being used across Europe. Bagpipes then fell out of fashion but were retained in the Highlands where they even replaced the traditional harp.
I along with several others would very much like to see the continuation of this episode to the worldwide impact, provided it isn’t to much trouble or in the way of other plans
It’d be too much guessing that it would just be a fantasy world
A world without england is always a welcome one.
@@azahel542 seethe + cope + savage + colonial + inferior
Same, a second longer video would be awesome
@@azahel542 Don't worry. That's going to happen by the end of the century.
I visited Hadrian’s wall for the first time a couple days ago. It’s kind of insane to think about just how far the Romans made it from home, even by modern standards, that’s one hell of a distance.
Sometimes we can take for granted the actual huge scale of the roman empire. From mesopotamia and egypt to scotland, think about it
@@KILLRAPEDIE Even though its not even at the same magnitude, its wild that we dont even think of the US or Canada in the same aspect/
It could just be that Native Americans in the north never had a big centralized empire, in comparison to the Mayans and Aztecs in the south, and thus, it never felt like America actually spanned across alot of land, as in reality, its mostly just one giant monoculture.
The Romans built a road to Stirling in Scotland.
Hadrians wall was how they kept the English serfs in place.
@@honkhonk8009 they had some massive cities, for the time but disease destroyed their economy and lifestyle.
i live about 20 minutes from it, mad to think that a city in Italy controlled this far away
As a welsh girl, yeah, most of this is fairly spot on, and our timeline's Ireland makes a good comparison for what probably would have happened if we were still independent and all that when christianity rocked up...
But that probably means Ireland stays a lot more pagan a lot longer, perhaps up until the period where Scandinavia is christianised. Which it's a LOT more likely that it got documented and preserved. So, you'd likely see in the modern day, a pop culture variant of celtic mythology similar to the way we often see Norse and Greek myth today, and a larger reconstructionist movement of people reverting to practice the old faith since it's easier to learn about.
Eh it depends on if they decided to write it down themselves, or if the later arriving monks cared as much as the ones in our time.
Rwy’n dy garu ti
@@thecloudpeople7465 Thanks~! Unfortunately I don't know the language very well because I'm diaspora (Parents moved to australia before I was born.) I am trying to learn, but... It's hard to get my hands on resources for that down here.
As a Celtic Recon (Gaelic specifically) I just scream every fucking time I think about all the stuff I have to sift through whenever I do actually manage to focus on studying.
5th comment
As someone that's been learning German and Italian, being able to partially understand the plush plug was a ride.
@@repentandbelieveinjesuschr9495 i already believe you can take your business elsewhere
@@repentandbelieveinjesuschr9495 dude. uncool.
hell yea dude, keep studying. or repent to Jesus. lol
isnt the roman one speaking latin?
@@a-e3654 There are a surprising number of similarities between Italian and Latin, both originating from the same peninsula and all of that. Also a surprising number of similarities with other languages, on account of Latin being dang near EVERYWHERE at one point and bleeding in through one way or another.
This scenario could've been more likely than you think. In an Arthurian timeline, you would see the Jutes, Angles, & Saxons still invade; however, they'd lose key battles with the confederated tribes (here an "Arthur" would appear a la Vercingetorix & unite a large number of smaller groups) resulting in them either being kicked off the island or relegated to the southwest of England. The Romans didn't really play a special role here though & it's more a question of victory over Anglo-Saxons rather than not having Caesar cross the channel. Still, the result i.e. a mostly celtic British culture is tantalizing to think about.
The smaller Anglic invasions would perhaps therefore be more like the Norse invasions - they had an effect on language and place names to a degree, but the influence didn't replace the language of the natives.
*southeast
@@thetexanhusky Thanks, that's what I meant
@@robtoe10 That's what I'd reckon too, but seeing as many brought over their families as well they would still have at somewhat of a presence on the island. I guess the Danelaw was like that too, so you might be onto something; however, I'm not sure exactly how a 100% celtic England would ever exist even if they were the dominant ethnic group. If the Norman conquest happened like in our timeline then who the hell knows anymore.
Well and the Normans would still invade too and conquer.
No Britannia also means less British Generals would try to claim the Imperial Throne.
Maybe that would create less chaos on Rome, and give a breather for them to last some more centuries on the West
Not to mention it doesn’t stretch Rome’s coffers as much as it did in our timeline. This would be interesting for sure.
Also displaces the number of pretenders and the potential extra coffers & opportunities among the traitors of the Gallic Empire during the 3rd Century.
In effect, perhaps the Roman Empire might outlast it’s disasters in this timeline, only if it means that the Constantinian dynasty must surpass it’s destined downfalls and bolster the eastern borders against the Sassanians and the Western & Eastern Goths
Most notably it would butterfly away Constantine the Great leading to the Empire possibly not accepting Christianity for another century or so.
@@shinsenshogun900 Except that the Constantinian Dynasty possibly now doesn't exist as it was largely the British legions that backed Constantine the Great to succeed his father as Caesar of the West
@@myrddinemrys1332 any legion stationed in Roman Britain at that time could not be entirely Briton-Romans, as based on the quartering rotation commands of the High Roman Empire & the Tetrarchy meant to reduce the chances of pretender mutinies as demonstrated by the naval admiral Caurasius and the inept actions done by the western Augustus Maximian.
Likely the provincial recruits of the mainland dioceses would make up this alternate legion that hails Constantine as Caesar and Augustus in another designated frontline, as the Late Empire is yet to install and produce the Valentinian and Theodosian dynasties of that timeline.
Speaking of changing Britain's history, here's a fun idea:
_What if the Island of Sodor Really Existed?_
This island from a series of children's stories about talking trains actually has a surprisingly detailed history, going all the way back to the days of Rome. It also has a very detailed account of its geography, culture, industry, with so much more. The Reverend Wilbert Awdry has actually been compared to Tolkien in terms of his world-building.
Like seriously, forget the talking trains, what would change about Britain if the island of Sodor, its people, and its non-living railway really existed?
I just looked up the Isle of Sodor, and my mind is blown
I knew it it's about Thomas the Talking Train lore
@Jack Der Hauptmann💀 Thomas would be found guilty at Nuremberg for "just following orders"...
It is actually scary how much back history Wilbert Awdry put into the Island of Sodor.
Hail King Godred.
Loved that show growing up!
It definitely would have been worth looking at the effects on Rome of not conquering Britannia. less wealth flowing in from the north could easily have sped up the collapse of Western Rome. Or did spending less effort on keeping it allow the the heartland to last longer? There were a lot of legions up there for a fairly small area.
Brittania was a very poor province that constitently rebelled, if anything it would have slowed the fall of rome
I believe that Rome lost money as a result of the conquest as they had to station legions there and didn’t tax products from the isles in the same way as when it was outside of the Empire.
Britain was more profitable to Rome as a trading partner than as a province due to tarrifs and needed 3 legions as garrisons (as comparison, Hispania only needed 1 legion). Especially during the crisis of the third century and at the End of the Western Roman Empire Britain was a constant target for raids and a source of pretenders, without even having any strategic value for Rome. Britain as a province has never been worth it for Rome.
I think the Norman invasion was far more influential than the Roman invasion as the Norman's directly took the seat of power and fundamentally changed English culture from a top down level. Whilst Norman's considered themselves nobles and very rarely mixed with the peasant population, it had a much more dramatic effect on how England evolved as a nation.
Britannia was if anything a drain on Rome due to the constant raids and revolts. Rome would frankly have been better off without it. Any potential profits from resource extraction could've been gotten from trade more than likely.
Are we just not going to mention how a Roman soldier and a German soldier (I'm assuming WW1 by the chest patch) are speaking two different languages and yet still understand each other right off the bat with no hesitation?
@1min ago finally you are gone.
? What do you mean?
@@user-uh7cb3vy4v If I spoke to you in Spanish and you spoke in French, would you understand what I'm saying?
@@JYAF no?
@@user-uh7cb3vy4v Exactly.
One interesting historical parallel that comes to mind is what we see with Japan. Like Britain in this alternate scenario, Japan is an island nation just off the coast of a much larger continent which has managed to nonetheless remain unconquered by any major power from the mainland.
Obviously I'm not trying to claim that we can look to Japan to find some kind of roadmap for what an un-romed Britain looks like, but I do think it's interesting that this version of Britain would be in a broadly similar situation in it's geopolitical relationship to Europe.
very cool
The brittish celts might have been more isolationist like the Japanese even
Said the Yayoi who crossed the strait and conquered Japan from the Ainu
@@cudanmang_theog True, but I don't think the Yayoi remained connected to mainland powers after they invaded Japan. In fact, from my research (looking at a couple Wikipedia articles), it looks like the Yayoi didn't have any central authorities until after they came to Japan. At the very least, none wealthy or influential enough to leave their mark on the archaeological record.
Portugal actually annexed some Japanese islands that were South West of the mainland. I'm unsure if they were annexed by Japan or it's predecessors before however. They're pretty far out.
Still shocked me.
Probably won't be seen but, since we've had a 'What if Rome never Conquered Britain', what about a 'What if the Normans never Conquered Britain?'
or even 'What if Harold Hardrada Conquered Britain?'
Without Rome no British empire
I think it's important to remember that, after Rome pulled out of Britan, the collapse was *not* instantaneous. Things kept on being done as they were under Rome for a good while, but without the political, military and financial influence of the empire, Romanesque settlements gradually fell into disrepair, and people either packed up and left those places, or attempted to seek allies in the form of foreign mercs, who would eventually settle... and then bring word to others of their kind to come over, which turned into invasions.
There were actually still a lot of Latin speakers in Britain for a while
I feel like you skipped out on something important in this video. Not having Britain would have probably had effects on the Roman empire as well. England was at times a very troublesome area for the Romans, in large part because they never managed to fully lock it down. So it was at risk from the Picts, from germanic sea raiders, and even the Irish now and then. They had to sink alot of resources into holding it which otherwise may have been allocated elsewhere. Resources that would have been sorely needed in places like Germania or perhaps Dacia.
Imagine 3 entire legion free to be dispatched in Gallia, probably the Barbarians mass migration would have had not only less influence but stopped for the most part.
Probably no Teutoburg and most likely no Gaul rebellion in the 3rd century.
So the Western Roman Empire would have lasted a lot longer.
Sadly the split between east and west was pretty much inevitable imo
“Imagine of Wales sort of Extended”
Me a Welshman
“Yes”
Lol. Yma o Hyd
Well why did you Welsh people reconquere you lands during the viking invasion.
@@alexanderi1183 because Vikings are cringe
Cody, please keep making little Plush toy stories at the end of every video, and please make them connected somehow. It would be hilarious to see the Latin Plush going through every stage of acceptance over his existential crisis and meet with the Soviet Plush who is just accepting the fall of the Soviet Union
No i want Italian plushy meeting Roman Plushy explaining how the Barbarians eventually became richer than Italy in 1600
I think Rome would have lasted longer in this scenario. Britain was a massive drain on resources, having to keep a whole Legion to control it. And every so often the governor of Britain would take that legion and start a civil war to become Emperor, like 3 times
Highly doubtful. Rome simply couldn't sustain its slave based economy and its penchant of bleeding occupied territories dry. Why? They made many enemies. Those enemies started revolts and uprisings. To strike down those local Roman generals needed lots of money and soldiers. If they *didn't* get this these generals could simply seize local power themselves and proclaim themselves emperors (and they often *did* ). So in order to both maintain the loyalty of these generals and stop or prevent uprisings LOTS of money had to flow from Rome to the colonies. As the number of enemies of Rome grew so did the vast expenditures of Rome. And HOW would they finance that? By plundering and bleeding conquered countries even more... which obviously led to more revolts. See where this is going?
"Britain was a massive drain on resources" False. In its final centuries it was the Huns, Goths and the Neo-Persians (Sassanids) which caused Rome constant headaches and woes.
"having to keep a whole Legion to control it." A whole *legion* ?? A legion consisted of around 4500 men during the prime of the Roman Empire following the Marian reforms of the Roman army. I'm afraid a single legion of at most 5000+ men isn't nearly enough to control a whole country.
The reason being that Britain was *sparsely populated* during those days.
Sorry, no conquest of Britain makes no difference. And seeing as the Romans always abandoned the territory which was too costly to occupy and subdue (Parthia and Germania for instance) it goes without saying that Britain was worth the effort and provided a valuable net income for the empire which was economically viable. Once the Goths had sacked Rome in 410AD the finances of the empire fell into seriously difficult times and there was no way to justify the continued occupation of the British isles. Hence the troops were called home. Still didn't save Rome from ending anyway in 476 AD.
Last of all. East-Rome (Byzantine Empire) had already replaced old Rome as the dominant economic and military power around the Mediterranean for almost century. Constantinople was the hub of the empire even before the split between west and east Rome came.
Three legions (30 heavy infantry cohorts) and a further 70 cohorts (various types including cavalry) of auxiliaries. It was one of the biggest concentrations of military power in the empire which is why so many governors of Britannia tried to make themselves emperor.
I’d love to see a Plushie of the stock “Germanic/Norse” character you use; that’s probably my favorite of all of the more recent designs; it looks cool as hell
Idk the Saxons and Angles, Frisians and Danes would probably still invade west and maybe even form some kingdoms in the south considering the island might be still divided in that timeline causing the instability required to call upon foreign mercenaries I doubt it would result in as much land being taken but most likely the southern coast would be Celtic with a slight Germanic influence unlike the Celto-Germanic mix we got
I still think they'd just mop the floor with celtic blood.
@@azahel542 given in our timeline England is majority Celtic, that seems unlikely
Britain may have been more self dependent and able to defend themselves. As it was, they still held out for a few decades
@@godlovesyou1995 Id agree probably bigger post roman kingdoms unlike our timeline which is why I think it'd not result in a true hybrid culture, most likely a few settle maybe a small kingdom producing something like a Germanic Cornwall in Kent being resubsumed later into one of the major celtic kingdoms
To be completely honest. Non-existence would be more preferable than being neighbors to England.
I'm disappointed you didn't say the reason the Rome couldn't keep Britain was because Neptune smashed all their ships because Caligula took his sea shells.
What if Eastern Rome Collapsed sooner? Around the time of the Western Empire so to say would diffidently change a lot of European history since they kept out Islamic invasions into Europe till their collapse in the 15th century
A lot more Islamic influence, a lot less trade with the east. Hispania, the Balkans and Eastern Europe all become Islamic. I could see Islam becoming the world's largest religion instead of Christianity
@@Zeerich-yx9po That is, assuming ofcourse, that there isn't any significant power in the region. Perhaps the first Bulgarian empire was strong enough to keep the Arabian cavalry out of the Balkans. The Balkans with its mountain ranges also wouldn't be very advantageous to the cavalry of the Arabs.
@@martijn9568 the first bulgarian empire Just settled at the time not to mention would get into crisis later on and did not become a great power until the 9th century and i doubt the arabs would bother conquering mosea as the bulgarian empire would Just accept islam out of fear of being conqered
@@Zeerich-yx9po looking how overstreched the caliphate was becoming at this point im sure they would convert the bulgars instead not to mention the avar khagate Just to its north one more thing, roman identity remaining in the balkans and most of greece is simply absurd slavs overan the balkans and most of greece at the time the only reason there is no slavic nation in greece is because of the e.Romans assimilating the tribes or settle with greeks from anatolia
It would be more interesting to see what if it fell during the Islamic invasions. The Greeks/Rum could become another Islamic power like the Persians became
Thank you Cody. Love the roman plush 🤩
And as many others my suggestions for what I will like you to explore for your alternate scenarios
- Maximilian keeping Mexico as part of France.
- what if Stauffenberg succeed in killing Hitler and control the Reich.
@Primo that’s an awesome answer, thank you.
I agree with you about the US intervining eventually and that’s the scenarios played out.
- not doing nothing as you mention
- through support of different anti-empire factions or remnants of the Republic
- direct military intervention (less likely if you ask me)
Fantastic comment btw.
This was a great video and I’d definitely want to to see a part 2!
I would absolutely love if you did a larger series on this concept. You’ve given me a taste and I want more.
Make a sequel to this one where Boudicca succeeds in expelling the Romans, that would be extra cool !
One possible and MASSIVE butterfly effect is that Constantine never conquers the whole empire with his legions from Britannia, assuming he isn't too a victim of the effect. Meaning the empire becomes Christian later, if at all.
Constantine wouldn’t exist
Interesting butterfly effect to pick up on... perhaps it could be handwaved away by him having legions from elsewhere? I suspect there would be quite a few unforeseeable effects on the wider Roman empire from not having Britain.
No Constantine would mean no Western Christianity, Rome probably would've fallen a lot earlier in the mid 300s, dark ages would hit a lot harder. Islamic caliphates, assuming they still rise, would expand from North Africa into southern Europe. Maybe the former Roman empire ditches Paganism for Islam?
@@precariousworlds3029 I doubt Islam would rise without Christianity being so prevalent
@@precariousworlds3029 Islam is literally a Christian heresy (or evolution depending how you want to view it), simple reality is that without Christianity becoming the dominant religion in the Middle East via the Roman Empire Islam wouldn't exist and the region would likely be dominated by another religion, most likely (IMO) Zoroastrianism from Persia (modern Iran).
Man, Cody’s gotta make a full length series about Plushy Rome finding his purpose in life while befriending German Empire Plush, USA Plush, Soviet Plush, and British Plush on his journey
Edit: Also make the glow in the dark plushies evil or something
Loved the video, as always. The only sad part is that once again, I've run out of videos to watch on the channel since I've seen them all lol. Great job Cody.
Of note: something that might have also happened is that if the Romans hadn't poured resources and troops into Britain, there's a possibility the Western half might have lasted longer.
No Roman Britain would mean no St Patrick. The Christianisation of Eire meant that the church kept its influence after the Romans left Britain. That would have a big impact
Christianity would probably still find its way on Ireland
Britain would still become Christian, just in a way similar to Scandinavia/Eastern Europe rather than the more domestic/internal Christianisation of IRL.
"Eire" is not a country. The name of the country is simply Ireland when using the English language and Éire in Irish. Note the accent.
"Eire" is a word used by the British government and its media as a petty way to avoid acknowledging the country's independence. It has mostly fallen into disuse since the Good Friday Agreement.
@@gavinhillick Not all people have accents in their keyboards or the will to open another tab to copy paste something rather than simply typing it in UA-cam.
@@gokbay3057 You don't need an accent to spell "Ireland", which is its name in the English language Read my comment again.
Roman plushie ordered. Keep up the good work, really looking forward to it. Showed pics to friends, they love it!
Thank you for doing this one. I love when you do subjects on the Celts. Keep them coming.
I don't know much about history but I love how these videos are good jumping of points to what I should look up
Here's something to look up... Try and find when the Anglo Saxons invaded... All archeological evidence pointed to migration rather than invasion.
While counterfactuals are always speculative, I do disagree with a few conclusions, hinging on the ability of the Britons to resist the subsequent invasions.
Firstly, given the fraticidal civil wars of Medieval Wales, I doubt that the non-Romanized Britons would have been much more cooperative with one another. Thus, unified resistance to the invaders would have been rare, just like it was in our timeline. (Indeed, this is one of the things that Gildas bemoans, the kings fighting one another rather than the Saxons.) Also, assuming that the Britons would use the Welsh inheritance mode of splitting up the kingdoms between the sons, any hegemony would be very fleeting and just lead to another round of disunification and civil wars, even within a single kingdom. Also, given the pro-/anti-Roman split, it is even more likely that they would be more fractured than the Romano-Britons who at least had a similar cultural background and religion; it would be easy to posit that the pro-Romans would get Christianized while the anti-Romans would view it as another Roman thing that they want nothing to do with.
Secondly, the Saxon invasion (or encroachment) didn't really get going until the 6th century, about a century after the Romans already left. There were plenty of independent Briton kingdoms by then, accustomed to fending for themselves. It had already been several generations. These were not disarmed civilians that the Saxons were fighting, but able warriors, having done so for several generations. Hence I don't see why there would be a huge improvement on their martial skills if they had not been conquered by Rome in the first place.
Thirdly, there is absolutely no reason to assume that even if the Saxon invasion would be unsuccessful, the Briton kingdoms would be able to beat back the Vikings. Heptarchy kingdoms were generally bigger than the (pre-Roman) tribes, and they failed. Why would the smaller, less united Briton kingdoms fare better? Especially given how the Frankish kingdom had trouble with the Vikings enough to give them Normandy to settle and act as a buffer against other Vikings.
Fourthly, the Norman Conquest hinged significantly on the personal politics of Edward the Confessor and William the Bastard. But geography is geography. It is almost guaranteed that there would be dynastic links and relationships across the channel anyway.
Yeah that idea of his that the non-britons would somehow fare better against the germanic invasion seems pretty weak
The Medieval Welsh were Roman influenced but I don't disagree that non-Roman Britons would still have many internal disagreements and that stopping the Saxons wholesale seems unlikely (maybe Germanics have less influence on Britain however).
(It was the Heptarchy btw, not Hexarchy)
I also agree that they would be dynastic, political and economical links with the mainland. Thought without Normandy and territories in France Britain is probably less involved in the Continent and vice versa.
These sets are incredible! Keep it up!
I forgot I suggested this.
Great job, Cody!
Another one already? What have we done to deserve such wonderful content?
Shout out for Kernow! Cornwall, the forgotten Celtic people.
You Kernow get a shout out from Cymru
Good news: studies have shown there are no longer any pure Cornish folk left; only varying degrees of half or less.
Kind regards,
Devonshire.
@@SportyMabamba good news also: Celtic and many other identities do not hinge on DNA (pretty old fashioned and mostly pointless identity marker anyway)! Most celtic identities are now national/cultural/linguistic ones much like many other people groups!
@@MrSlyGamer Celtic in that sense refers to the original inhabitants of Cornwall/south west England before the Germanic invasions from the continent, but you knew that already lol.
We love you Kernow !!! Shout out from a fellow breton of Brittany 😎
a full vid would be amazing!
Wonderfully crafted, great job on this "What If?" scenario!
5:25 I just went on holiday to Cornwall and it makes me really happy to see the revival of their language and identity that's happened in the past few years. In some ways, it was never really tamed in the same way the rest of the country was, with many roads barely wide enough for a car. Also 25% of global internet traffic goes through Cornwall, which I didn't know
Actually, an unexpectedly deep scenario with lots of rabbit holes to explore.... This one really got my brain churning. Good thing you had the plushie segment at the end, adorable and hilarious!
Nicely done! 💜🌎✌️😎🍀
PS. YT ghosted all 1.1k comments for me?! Just wow YT. Seriously?!!!
Would love to see more of this scenario in the future
Noooo, please make longer videos. I'm English and I'm a massive fan. I remember learning about all this in school and it seems spot-on.
After you do a Part 2 of this, could you do a video on what if the entire ocean was freshwater (mostly focusing on the human side, not the environmental and marine catastrophe it would be).
7:53 Galicia was already an independent kingdom when the bretons came, their influence was pretty small and localized, unlike in Britanny.
I remember watching Merlin (BBC) and hearing the Arthurian characters referring to the kingdom as “Albion”, this video explains why. Thanks Cody
great vid man, loved it
For some reason, this made me wonder what would happen if the Sengoku Jidai lasted centuries longer than in our timeline.
I could see this as a potential proxy war between the Dutch, the Spainish, and the Portuguese if the Sengoku Jidai lasted by around the 1700's.
By Bashemonten, NOOO!!!
Psychiatrist: cursed alternate history hub figures aren't real, they can't hurt you.
cursed alternate history hub figures: 0:09
Cody, please make an extended episode on this topic
Great video I definitely find the plush Roman and Germania hilarious now I got to figure out how to get one
I'd love to see a part 2 of this on an alternate Britain on the global stage. 😊
Yea I wonder if there would've been some parallel universe Margaret Thatcher that was a hippy or something
@@globaladdict Margaret thatcher is actually the USSR first female president in this timeline
Have you thought about doing an episode over “Noughts and Crosses” ? It’s a pretty interesting alternative history for Europe where Africa conquered Europe like in the medieval times ?? There’s a tv show about it but it would be awesome to get your own thoughts on it !!
Roman Plush Bought! Thank you for these. I have all of them so far.
Looking forward to the next one 🙂
Kinda weird we don’t celebrate independence day from Rome, like they’re the only civilization that has truly conquered and colonised us
Because the Romans never conquered all of britian anyway , Britian has never actually been conquered by an outside force, and the home nations didn't even exist at the time.
I had a high school history teacher who claimed that the British were the greatest people because Britain was never conquered...
How the hell did he get that job in the first place
Japanese "Hold my sake"
Well it's roughly true that Britain has never been conquered, depending on where your goalposts are. No invader ever conquered all of Britain. England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland have all been individually conquered at various points in their history but never all of it except by Brits themselves.
However, using that to say that Brits are the greatest people is obviously ridiculous.
The british are the bottom of the scale
The French (though called Normans that time) conquered England in 1066. If anything, England was a French colony gone wrong.
Also, there is some truth in that. Britain as a nation was never conquered ever since its inception in 1707. But calling it the 'greatest' people is a long stretch.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
Cody uploading within a week of posting another video? That's pretty cool
Two vids in one week!! You’re a gem Cody!!
Ah yes, Alternate History Hub coming through once again with the video that you didn't know you wanted, but click on right away.
No no I wanted this. Reason? I need some advice for a project lol.
It's always fun to see one of these that is more close to home~
The PLUSH convo at the end lol🤣🤣 I can see the potential to make a little series with them.
Would Rome last longer since they don’t have to waste 3 legions on an island that isn’t particularly useful in the grand scheme of things? (At least from a Roman Perspective)
Would those legions be used to tip close conflicts in there favor? Maybe conquer part of Germania or part of Arabia?
I doubt it. Rome would still fight itself like it always did
Three legions would not be enough to stop the systematic decline and fall of the Western Empire
One thing is for certain: the Christianization of the Roman Empire would be very different because Constantine's original power base was in Britain. If Britain wasn't in the empire, the first Christian emperor wouldn't have had an opportunity to take power.
@@warlordofbritannia I’m not saying the Empire would be saved from its systemic problems. But I think Western Rome might last about fifty to a hundred years more, since instead of developing Britain. Some of those resources would be spent on Rome proper, maybe Gaul would be further developed. Maybe Hadrians wall might be along the Danube or Rhine. I’m just speculating and that’s part of the fun.
@@Zhtrik
Ah, when you put it like that I kinda see where you’re going with this…I think, in that case, it’s less about what if Rome didn’t bother with Britannia and more “what if Rome actually conquered Germania”
Which is too big and uncertain for me (at least) to ponder 😂
I think it's interesting the extent to which the Romans (and by extension the Greeks) define the Anglo idea of 'civilisation' - Probably because of the massive contrast between the relative prosperity of Roman Britain and then the dark ages that followed. Without any lasting Roman presence in Britain, I wonder if Alternate British people would still trance some cultural heritage back to Classical Rome, or if they would feel that they were outside of that cultural sphere.
Most of what we consider to be the "western" cultural sphere is really rooted in catholicism (Roman or Orthodox) and it's descending cults (the protestant ones.)
So by virtue of being or having been catholic they would still see themselves as descending from Rome.
Can’t wait for the continuation of this scenario!
Dam Cody on a roll, 2 vids on a week?
i just like to imagine what it looked like to watch a grown man playing with a roman and ww1 german soldier plushie next to a tree, gently shaking them while imagining some conversation about merchandise
The note that wales may have been able to expand more fills my Welsh heart with pride.
Please do a part 2
I like the videos very much. A Big Fan of You.
*VIDEO SUGGESTION:*
What if King Henry VIII never divorced his first wife (Catherine Of Aragon)? Say she managed to give him a son. Would England have remained Catholic?
Probably.
The English Reformation was the rare top-down Revolution, one imposed by authorities rather than with popular backing
Henry VIII was a devout catholic until the pope showed him the middle finger, given no need for divorce or even the divorce being granted would mean no need for a new head of religion
@@pieeater957 I don't think the Pope is at blame here, it was Charles V who sacked Rome in 1527, and pretty much forced the Pope to rubber stamp his religious policies, including stalling Henry's annulment from his aunt Catherine
Maybe a little strange but what if the first civilisations were swapped with places that didn’t really take off
(i.e Australia, Siberia, South Africa, Northern America and Scandinavia)
Probably the funniest merch plug that I've seen. Nice video too.
I had a long day, man. This was nice.
Two Alt History Hub vids in a week? We're blessed by the gods!
Huzzah!
Huzzah!
I feel you man. I had to do a double take when I saw the notification.
Huzzah!
10:53 If I ever have an existential psychotic break, I'm going to blame this moment. I've been traumatized, and anything in my life could be a lie. Argh!
Now; buy a plushie.
Love the music used in this video!
Excellent vidéo, merci! 💯
Fun facts: "Éire" is pronounced "AY-ruh", & it would probably be more accurate to call it "Goidelic" instead of "Gaelic". "Gaelic" comes from an older Irish word that means something like "foreigner", as far as I'm aware
No it doesn't Gaelic comes from Welsh meaning something along the lines of Barbarian,Savage,wild man, woodmen
Not quite, Gaelic is actually just an Anglicisation of Gaelig, itself a Modern Irish varient of the same Scots Gaelic word Gàdhlig, and though the dh is now more of a y sound, that Gàdhlig is the same root as that Goidelic word. Sometimes another ancient spelling is Gaidhealig, if that helps picturing the transformation. The word Gal, however, does indeed mean foreigner, like Donegal, Dún of the foreigners.
7:10 Pictish is generally considered to be one of the Brittonic languages.
It is today.
But a few decades ago people be like "no" for some reason.
@@noahtylerpritchett2682 If you think that's nonsensical, look at some of the Indian Nationalist takes on the Indo-Aryan languages and migration.
@@Oppetsismiimsitsitc lol
Hey, I love this! What a cool channel!
that at the end has to be one of the top five best ads ever. It feels like a DonHertzfeldt cartoon.
I seriously love this channel
Compared to casually loving it?
As a Galician for future reference you say gah-lee-thee-an. Thee as in the number 3 without an r.
Spanish is a phonetic language so you pronounce all the letters all the time. Makes it super easy to read.
At 4:58 is a picture of a Scottish castle used to film parts of the movie Highlander
I like your time traveling outfit for this expedition.
I am not convinced the Normans wouldn't have invaded though. I mean, you had a rather warlike mix of Franks and vikings with ships very close, the official reason of William the Bastard being named successor to the English throne is a bit suspicious. It is not impossible that the invasion would have happened even earlier if the British were less united. Rollo himself were a man of great ambition and so was his later kin.
The Anglo Saxon's not invading seems logical. As for the vikings, it is a bit hard to say. It is not impossible that the Norwegian vikings who invaded Ireland and Scotland might have gone further south as well if the Danes were occupied with the Angles.
It is not unlikely that things would have turned close to what it became but the exception is a lot of cities including London that the Romans built. If the Norse took over the country York would have been a likelier capital and if the Normans still invaded they could have used another capitol too.
Perhaps instead of the England we see today, we'd see brythonic states based around later invasions. Jorvick/York becoming one such state, and another to the south after the Norman invasion. Essentially closer to a Danelaw sort've situation but preserved to the modern day to one extent or another.
I was just thinking wouldn't the Angles conquer the Danes then invade Britain during the Viking age instead of 3 centuries earlier?
Well the Norman's invaded because they were the heirs to the kingdom of england. William didn't just get up one morning and decide to invade england. Without that claim he'd no real reason to do it
@@RoyalRegimentofScotland Well, maybe... William's claims are just like Harald Gowdinson's a bit dubious.
Neither claims were solid and both of them were rather greedy.
We can honestly blame the Confessor for that, he didn't exactly set things up well for what would happen once he died.
Both did act on circumstances that could give them the throne and it was a coin toss who would win, Harald Hårdråda had also a likewise dubious claim.
But if you make a massive change in history, like taking out the Romans, it is unlikely those exact circumstances would repeat themselves.
Then again, the Normans did enjoy conquering so it might have made things similar even if the time scale probably would be different.
@@loke6664 @loke6664 William was actually the only claimant with a legitimate claim. He was the actual blood relative of Edward and was already the heir to the kingdom, edward had no other available male heirs. Harold, in every real definition, was a usurper and an oath breaker. Without the claim, it doesn't really make any sense for William to just randomly get up and claim a whole kingdom. The only reason Harold ever became king in the first place was simply because he could force the claim by being closer and being part of England's strongest house at the time. If we removed the Romans it's unlikely the saxons would've been there in the first place since they arrived originally as mercenaries then took the opportunity to conquer the land which was only a possibility because the Romans literally de armed the british. If the Romans never conquered half of britian, the biggest change would probably be the road system, which was very useful for England, but apart from that off pure estimation history probably would've just been relatively the same. With Great Britain eventually being united anyway and the construction of the empire during the age of colonisation. The real differences would probably be no 100-year dynastic war with France no wide spread English and instead wide spread bryhronic languages.
The vikings would still be able to invade and conquer large parts of albion like they did in our timeline. This is because albion would most likely be very divided as there would be no reason to unite before the invasion. It would be similar to ireland and we know how divided it was right up till the norman invasions. After the viking conquest history would probably go in a similar direction albeit with some changes. Albion in this timeline would have a celtic base instead of an anglo-saxon base as England has in our timeline.
Ireland wasn’t really conquered by the Vikings though, they would come and conquer and get pushed out. Hence only trading cities being established and not a danelaw
Likely. Vikings would still settle the islands. Likely way more because there would be lesser resistance. Instead of fight 4-5 large kingdoms you'd be fighting a bunch of small tribes and chiefs. Probably similar to how the Vikings settled Russia. Where one or two dynasties come in and completely settle and conquer the entirety of atleast England and Scotland.
Doubtful with the saxons you had a similar cultural connection their languages were mutually intelligible for the most part, that cut down on some of the strife. Again I’ll refer you to Ireland, Vikings would come conquer get beat back to the ports then kicked off or assimilated into the Gaelic culture. The Vikings weren’t the Roman’s they didn’t have the manpower to maintain holdings.
They might’ve conquered a good chunk of Britain but then they would have a non Germanic speaking underclass constantly trying to push them out. They would diminish and in time assimilate. Remember in this timeline you have a culturally unified Britain.
The vikings never conquered Ireland fully, and I think in this timeline Britain would be similar. This would be a far more agricultural and poorer Britain, so the Vikings don't have as much incentive to come to Britain en masse and pillage and conquer as they did irl. They still come and set up trading posts on the East coast, but eventually become assimilated fully into the local celtic culture, like in Ireland in our timeline.
@@tomosprice8136 agreed
Nice one Cody
A Celtic and Pictish rather than Romano-Saxon Britain would have been awesome. 💯
Thanks Cody👍
Well the picts are celts. Without the Romans you'd never use the name pict because that just mean british barbarian living outside roman territory. Until the kingdom the term pict was more of an insult and really britian isn't Romano saxon anyway it's celto-germanic. Mostly Germanic/Latin language and culture with british blood
ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!
ALL HAIL LELOUCH!
I like how about half of the subtitles in the end actually matched up to what was said xD
"Imagine if Wales just sort of extented..." YEA BOI!!! Nice touch with the anthem :)
What if Rome held onto the Britain even after the fall of Rome itself and resisted the angles invasion to become kinda like a Roman Taiwan.
That's what should've happen instead of losing non stop all the way to Rome..