Germ of an AH Idea: Roman Empire fails 1st-2nd centuries AD

I've got an idea for a de-Latinized world puttering around in my head, but I don't think I have the energy or the will to make a full TL out of it (aside from which I still have some stuff for my computer industry TL that I'll eventually put up).

There's basically a double/triple/quadruple POD, relating to the Romans in the 60s-70s AD:


First, the Battle of Watling Street goes the other way. Boudica and her forces are triumphant over the Romans. The Britons become such a problem that Nero decides to give up Britain (as he considered doing OTL - or was it Claudius?). Somehow (handwave) Boudica manages to establish a semi-unified Brittanic Kingdom ruling about half of England, passing it on to her most promising daughter. Although it isn't so simple, there are quite a few civil wars and rebellions and dynasty changes and such, there remains a semi-unified Brittanic kingdom controlling at least some parts of England for a few centuries.

Second, the Romans have another failure: Judea. OTL it was a pretty tough cookie, with an initial stalemate and years of bloody sieges including Jerusalem and Masada.

Let's say that after Nero's death there is an even more convoluted and bloody succession crisis, causing the Roman response to stall somewhat. Also, credit the Judeans with some more military luck than OTL. Judea quickly becomes a Vietnam/Afghanistan for Rome - a long and bloody mess. It doesn't help matters when, not far north, the Parthians leap into the fray, leaving much of the east in shambles. Throw in a few barbarian incursions from Germania and the Roman situation is a bit tricky, at best.

I'm not sure how to spell out exactly what happens, but throw in a few more political crises and rebellions and, by sometime in the 2nd century,
the Roman Empire is no more (although Italia, Dalmatia, Iberia, and parts of Africa and southern Gaul remain under a government ruled by Rome), with independent Greek states in Greece/Anatolia and Egypt. Judea flip-flops between independence, being a Parthian puppet, and being dominated by the Greek states.

Fast-forward a few centuries. The Parthians, much stronger than OTL and not falling to the Sassanids, expand northward into Central Asia, pushing even more barbarian tribes westward. They mostly carve into the western Empire, almost replacing them utterly. There's quite a bit of shuffling, the 'Germanic' peoples live in southern Europe and northern Africa, the 'Slavs' are in central/central-eastern Europe, and the 'Turks' and many other groups are in far eastern Europe. Latin culture is mostly assimilated or dismantled by the invaders - the majority of western Europeans pray to Wotan, people speak German languages, etc. Most of the Middle East is Grecophile and monotheistic (Following Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or some strange variants of Christianity). Most of the Scandinavian Germanics ended up in France or the low countries or western Germany, leaving most of Norway and Sweden under Suomi/Sami/Eesti control, with Finland being Baltic. (Basically, everything is jumbled). Britain remains largely Brittanic; the Jutes or someone manage to gain a toehold in northern England, but not enough come in to displace the dominant Celtic culture.

Latinate culture has had far less influence than OTL, "English" is spoken in Portugal if anywhere, there's no Islam whatsoever, Greek and Persian culture are preeminent in the Middle East, and the Turks never end up anywhere near Turkey. Is this in any way sensible?
 
Don't forget the 'invasion' of the Teutans and the Cimbri, I think they took place about 100 AD. As I recall, if the tribes had been a bit bigger and more cohesive, they might have done real damage.

You can also thrown in Spartacus' Slave revolt. Have him go north to the border instead of south.
 
Well according to the POD of danielb1 is around 60-70 AD, the teuton and cimbri invasion of Italia is 100 BC and the same for Spartacus, correct 71-70 if I remember well but is BC.

although naturally you can choose a different fall of Rome situated in I Century BC combining: a) sucessful invasion of cimbri and teuton of Italia although Rome is not conquered, the effects of the invasion are a little version of Hannibal campaigns in Italy, so destruction although not so far dangerous as Hannibal invasion of Italy but if you combine this with b) far sucessful Social War with the efective secesion of an Italian confederation and c) weakened with this secession Rome loses wars against Mithridates Eupator and against the ibers we would have a possible fall of Roman imperial system of the Republic in I Century BC.

In any case the POD of danielb1 is I century AD not BC.

Respect to the POD as you say Daniel one of the things importants would be to create a bloodier and longer struggle for the power after the death of Neron, hmm how about this?

Because the defeat against Boudicca, Neron has more pression, in this case I think that more to make Boudicca chief of all England we could make possible that the south half of England remains a roman Province, more or less Londinium and the south of England could be roman, and Boudicca remains queen of the England norht of Londinium, this is thanks because Neron alarmed by the defeats has called his best general Cneo Domitius Corbulon to England in more or less 62 AD, Corbulon manages to make a stand against the Boudicca warriors and to establish some kind of truce in 63-64 AD (he pursued in OTL some kind of mixture between diplomacy and war in Armenia, in TTL is Britania the object of this politic, Corbulon althoug shocked by the bloody revenge of Boudicca understands perfectly what causes originated the rebellion so he works to solve the unjustices that originated the rebellion, this combined with his war skills manage to permit that Rome remain of control of Londinium and Southern England), Neron as in OTL has fear of the popularity of this general and call him to Rome 65 AD, but before Corbulon go to Rome he is informed of the true intentions of Neron when friends send him a serie of Neron writings that prove that he want to kill Corbulon, shocked by this Corbulon rebels against Neron in 66 AD and soon he find the support in Gaul of Julius Vindice and in Hispania of Galba, the three rebels under the flag of the restoration of the Republic, this is combined with clearly with such caotic situation the legions in Germania Superior rebels also but in TTL Virginius Rufus accepts the desire of his men to be named him emperor caused because in TTL the situation is more caotic than in OTL, caotic because while all this happens, Nero has died, the Senate has deposed him and he has suicided, the situation in Asia is also dangerous, Vespasianus has to confront a war against Partia in Armenia (Corbulon in TTL is in Britannia) and the jew rebellion in Judea (more succesful because the caotic situation and because Vespasianus has to confront the parts in Armenia), also the events in Britannia and Gaul and the fall of Neron has made him named emperor by their troops, to worse the situation Publius Clodius Macron has declared himself emperor in Africa obtaining the control of Sicilia and Sardinia, while Virginius Rufus gets the support of Fonteyo Capiton commander of Germania Inferior, so in this civil war initated in 66 AD 2 years before in OTL we have:

-Corbulon supported by Galba and Vindice that in name of the republic controls Hispania, the part of Britannia not ocuppied by Boudicca (Corbulon has made a definitive peace with her because the caotic situation, the roman frontier is now from Glevum- near Wales- to Londinium, north of this line is Boudicca kingdom, this effectively makes of this rump roman Britannia an apendix of the Roman GAul), and the Gaul.

-Virginius Rufus proclaimed imperator that with the support of Fonteyo controls all Germania.

- Publius Clodius Macron that controls Africa and Sicilia and Sardinia (the weakest of the candidates)

-Vespasianus that controls all the Roman Oriens excluding Judea controlled by the jews.

Truly a caotic situation.
 
I do not really see how the Greeks could reestablish their independence.

Judea does not have the necessary wealth or popuation to successfully defy Rome by itself. Roman fears were that the Parthians had encouraged the revolt and were prepared to invade to annex that whole region including Syria.

Boudicca succeeding is even more improbable. The British rabble was up against one of the best generals the empire ever produced in command of some of the best legionaries Rome possessed.
 
Just a thought, but if each earlier event is a bit stronger, then the cumulative effect might be enough to break Rome down in 100 AD. Two hundred years of hard fought wars might be enough to weaken the Roman expansion and resolve so that by Boudicca's time the Britains are able to succeffully resist the Romans.
 
I do not really see how the Greeks could reestablish their independence.

Judea does not have the necessary wealth or popuation to successfully defy Rome by itself. Roman fears were that the Parthians had encouraged the revolt and were prepared to invade to annex that whole region including Syria.

Boudicca succeeding is even more improbable. The British rabble was up against one of the best generals the empire ever produced in command of some of the best legionaries Rome possessed.

I actually think Boudica had more of a chance in real life. Remember, Britain was a fairly out of the way province, and early Roman attempts there failed. Had that "best General" been not quite so great or had he been unable to choose a great place to fight from, his outnumbered army would
have been crushed. Could the Romans, with all there resources, eventually destroyed Boudica's army? Sure. But would they have?

As for Judea, I imagined it being somewhat like Vietnam for Rome - a bloody mess that they are neither losing nor fully winning. Then the Partians come in and attack from the north in Syria and eastern Anatolia. The Romans are forced to abandon a good deal of their Asiatic toehold, resulting in Parthia taking the area and Judea fluttering between independence and Parthian vassaldom.

Butterflies, a succession crisis or three, and eventually the Roman Empire is split into Rome, Byzantium, and Alexandria-run areas. The Byzantine and Alexandrian parts might consider themselves "Roman", but they would culturally Greek and the elites at least speak mostly Greek.
 
Top