In 43 AD, the Romans invaded Britain with four legions totaling about 20,000 men, plus about the same number of auxiliaries. The legions were:
Legio II Augusta (led by Vespasian)
Legio IX Hispana
Legio XIV Gemina
Legio XX Valeria Victrix
What's the earliest point the island of Britain, if thrown backward in time to the day of the invasion, could successful defeat the Roman invasion?
Would Anglo-Saxon Britain, with Harold king of England, prior to the twin Norse and Norman invasions, been capable of it? If not, how much further in the future do we have to go before finding a Britain strong enough to do so.
2222 A.D.
Merlin and the knights of the Round Table could have done it. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-basic%2Fknight.gif&hash=05a9b809155f01324dcf439bb844f30ddb0ebe8c)
44 AD, assuming they remember what is going to happen.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 26, 2014, 04:20:58 AM
Merlin and the knights of the Round Table could have done it. (https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Fsmiley-basic%2Fknight.gif&hash=05a9b809155f01324dcf439bb844f30ddb0ebe8c)
Ambrosius Aurelianus, the leader of the Roman stay-behind-army (much more romantic than Gladio), fighting the Romans??? Unpossible!
Romans fought Romans all the time. :P
Not Ambrosius Aurelianus, too busy.
Sigh.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 04:05:26 AM
What's the earliest point the island of Britain, if thrown backward in time to the day of the invasion, could successful defeat the Roman invasion?
Oh wait, it was a trick question. The answer is 55 BC.
OK, this appears to be a new kind of Timmay fail. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mongers on May 26, 2014, 07:25:04 AM
OK, this appears to be a new kind of Timmay fail. :rolleyes:
Yeah. :(
Raz awoke the alt history monster. The next wave is maps. Stupid multicolored maps
Quote from: Maladict on May 26, 2014, 07:17:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 04:05:26 AM
What's the earliest point the island of Britain, if thrown backward in time to the day of the invasion, could successful defeat the Roman invasion?
Oh wait, it was a trick question. The answer is 55 BC.
Caesar didn't intend to conquer the island, so no it isn't.
The Royal Navy of 1815 could have defeated the Roman invasion force.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 10:37:03 AM
Quote from: Maladict on May 26, 2014, 07:17:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 04:05:26 AM
What's the earliest point the island of Britain, if thrown backward in time to the day of the invasion, could successful defeat the Roman invasion?
Oh wait, it was a trick question. The answer is 55 BC.
Caesar didn't intend to conquer the island, so no it isn't.
You didn't say anything about intentions, so yes it is.
Quote from: Maladict on May 26, 2014, 07:17:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 04:05:26 AM
What's the earliest point the island of Britain, if thrown backward in time to the day of the invasion, could successful defeat the Roman invasion?
Oh wait, it was a trick question. The answer is 55 BC.
Only if the University of Miami Hurricanes were aged, and still waiting for Montgomery to take Caen.
Only if they had allied with the giant ants of Brest-Litovsk.
Quote from: Valmy on May 26, 2014, 12:17:15 PM
Only if they had allied with the giant ants of Brest-Litovsk.
Would the ancient Britons have gotten torpedo-boat technology from the Inca?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.floatingcubans.com%2Ftruck_behind.jpg&hash=62cb157662ff5dadaebcacad4442db9211d0e85b)
Quote from: Siege on May 26, 2014, 10:38:42 AM
The Royal Navy of 1815 could have defeated the Roman invasion force.
Yes, had Operation Sea Lion been attempted, Horatio Nelson and the RN would have isolated the invading Romans.
Which side gets the dino cavalry?
Quote from: Maladict on May 26, 2014, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 10:37:03 AM
Quote from: Maladict on May 26, 2014, 07:17:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 04:05:26 AM
What's the earliest point the island of Britain, if thrown backward in time to the day of the invasion, could successful defeat the Roman invasion?
Oh wait, it was a trick question. The answer is 55 BC.
Caesar didn't intend to conquer the island, so no it isn't.
You didn't say anything about intentions, so yes it is.
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 06:32:33 PMIt was a different force with different objectives, it's comparing apples to oranges.
Which is perfectly fine when the premise of the question is to compare apples to underwear.
Quote from: Jacob on May 26, 2014, 10:01:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 06:32:33 PMIt was a different force with different objectives, it's comparing apples to oranges.
Which is perfectly fine when the premise of the question is to compare apples to underwear.
he's like a kid crying that people aren't following the rules of his made up game :lol:
Quote from: HVC on May 26, 2014, 10:04:04 PM
he's like a kid crying that people aren't following the rules of his made up game :lol:
He would've made an awful Dungeon Master. Ed would've punched him straight through the DM screen.
:menace:
I think by the time Brits had bolt action rifles, they could've repelled the invasion, assuming that Romans didn't develop technologically past what they achieved historically.
It's obvious the Zulus didn't possess enough Incan torpedo boats at Roark's Drift, either.
Quote from: HVC on May 26, 2014, 10:04:04 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 26, 2014, 10:01:02 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 06:32:33 PMIt was a different force with different objectives, it's comparing apples to oranges.
Which is perfectly fine when the premise of the question is to compare apples to underwear.
he's like a kid crying that people aren't following the rules of his made up game :lol:
All games are made up, so I'm not sure what your point is?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 06:32:33 PM
Quote from: Maladict on May 26, 2014, 11:03:00 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 10:37:03 AM
Quote from: Maladict on May 26, 2014, 07:17:19 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 04:05:26 AM
What's the earliest point the island of Britain, if thrown backward in time to the day of the invasion, could successful defeat the Roman invasion?
Oh wait, it was a trick question. The answer is 55 BC.
Caesar didn't intend to conquer the island, so no it isn't.
You didn't say anything about intentions, so yes it is.
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.
That's not the point. Your question is "What's the earliest point the island of Britain (...) could successful defeat the Roman invasion". The only possible answer is the date of the first Roman invasion, hence 55 BC.
I said the Roman invasion and specified a date and the forces involved.
I didn't say a Roman invasion and leave it up in the air as to which Roman invasion I was talking about.
Well in that case you've already answered the question yourself. :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 26, 2014, 06:32:33 PM
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.
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 question isn't about anything. It just is.
Quote from: The Brain on May 27, 2014, 02:28:07 PM
The question isn't about anything. It just is really fucking stupid.
I finished your thought.
Quote from: Martim Silva on May 27, 2014, 11:51:39 AM
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.)
Quote from: alfred russel on May 27, 2014, 02:24:00 PM
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.
Britain could easily defeat the Roman holiday.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 27, 2014, 08:53:55 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 27, 2014, 08:53:55 PM
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.
Millwall hooligans from the 1970's
Quote from: grumbler on May 28, 2014, 10:16:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 27, 2014, 08:53:55 PM
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. :hug:
I thought the infantry of the later Anglo-Saxons were quite disciplined, but I suppose there weren't enough of them.