At what point in time could Britain have defeated the Roman invasion?

[Maladict]

Well in that case you've already answered the question yourself. 

[Martim Silva]

He successfully completed his objective of restoring an allied tribe to power and left.

He had far fewer men in his expedition than in the 43AD invasion.

It was a different force with different objectives, it's comparing apples to oranges.

Hold a minute, Tim.

While the invasion force of 55 BC was indeed just two legions and was meant as a reconaissance in force (and was not successful), the second invasion of 54 BC was comprised of FIVE legions and 2,000 auxiliary cavalry - larger than the force sent in 43 AD.

And indeed, Caesar did more than just place a friendly king ahead of the Trinovantes, he also managed the recognition of Cassivelaunus, the British Cingetórix. From a vassal standpoint, he did win.

The real reason why Britain was not incorporated by him in the Roman sphere was the fact that Gaul was still too unstable at the time, and those legions really could not be spared for duty in Britain. If Gaul was as romanized in 54 BC as it was in 43 AD, Caesar would have conquered it.

(besides, the second invasion had better ships than the first, better able to cross the channel)

So, realistic British ability to defend against the Romans was totally dependent on the conditions in the continent and the political climate in Rome. On their own, they could only hold places where Roman logistics would be too stretched to go to.

[alfred russel]

The Romans had a very significant impact on Britain. I assume the question is asking when Britain would have been able to resist the invasion absent a successful invasion in the 1st century (otherwise the answer would be soon after the invasion when Roman troops were stationed in Britain, as they could have resisted a similar invasion).

This is almost as bad as asking when the Iroquois could have fought off the Europeans. Wft does that even mean? Being conquered brought them into the Roman world.

[The Brain]

The question isn't about anything. It just is.

[alfred russel]

The question isn't about anything. It just is really fucking stupid.

I finished your thought.

[Agelastus]

While the invasion force of 55 BC was indeed just two legions and was meant as a reconaissance in force (and was not successful), the second invasion of 54 BC was comprised of FIVE legions and 2,000 auxiliary cavalry - larger than the force sent in 43 AD.

Only thing I'd disagree with in your post is here, Martim - the 54BC invasion may have had five legions to the four of 43 but the 43 invasion had a far larger number of auxiliaries and was thus far larger in total size (even discounting the probability that the 43 legions were at full strength whereas Caesar's were probably already somewhat depleted.)

[jimmy olsen]

The Romans had a very significant impact on Britain. I assume the question is asking when Britain would have been able to resist the invasion absent a successful invasion in the 1st century (otherwise the answer would be soon after the invasion when Roman troops were stationed in Britain, as they could have resisted a similar invasion).

This is almost as bad as asking when the Iroquois could have fought off the Europeans. Wft does that even mean? Being conquered brought them into the Roman world.

The Romans don't count, they're not British.

I thought the time travel nature of my question was clear.

[CountDeMoney]

Britain could easily defeat the Roman holiday.

[alfred russel]

The Romans don't count, they're not British.

Why not? It isn't as though most of the Roman military in Britain was from Italy. In other eras it isn't as though the British/English military was all from Britain.

[grumbler]

The Romans don't count, they're not British.

I thought the time travel nature of my question was clear.

The Anglo-Saxons and Harold weren't British, either.

I'd say the answer to the question "what was the earliest non-Roman army in England that could have successful defeated the Roman invasion of 43AD?" I'd say it likely had to have been one with stirrups for their horses.  There probably was never, before the gunpowder era, an infantry army in England that could defeat that Roman army.

[Ed Anger]

Millwall hooligans from the 1970's

[jimmy olsen]

The Romans don't count, they're not British.

I thought the time travel nature of my question was clear.

The Anglo-Saxons and Harold weren't British, either.

I'd say the answer to the question "what was the earliest non-Roman army in England that could have successful defeated the Roman invasion of 43AD?" I'd say it likely had to have been one with stirrups for their horses.  There probably was never, before the gunpowder era, an infantry army in England that could defeat that Roman army.

An excellent answer to the question.

I thought the infantry of the later Anglo-Saxons were quite disciplined, but I suppose there weren't enough of them.