WI Romans were defeated in the battle of Medway in 43 AD?

[Don_Giorgio]

When Romans invaded Britain British resistance was led by Togodumnus and Caratacus, sons of the late king of the Catuvellauni, Cynobelinus. A substantial British force met the Romans at a river crossing near Rochester on the River Medway. The battle raged for two days. General Hosidius Geta was almost captured, but he recovered quickly broke away from formation and with a daring attack turned the battle tide so decisively that he was awarded the Ornamenta Triumphalia...
WI Hosidius Geta was captured or he didnt performed somehow the "shock" move that saved the Romans? How is a potential Roman defeat so early in British campaign altering History? Any thoughts?

 

[Norman]

I suspect that Rome would have tried again, after all, Britain had the tin mines that Rome wanted.

Regardless, it is my opinion that I seem to recall that a large part of Rome's power was economic and cultural. I wonder if the British Isles might not have become Romanized even if Rome decided against future military attempts to it over.

 

[zoomar]

Well, if the'y have deployed their carriers properly...oh.. Medway

 

[Atreus]

Depends on if the romans think it is worth the resources to try again. If they do, then even more legions will be commited, and the roman army will in all likelyhood triumph. otherwise, britain probably becomes a semi-romanized state from gradual cultural exportation.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

A potential defeat in such an early stage of the invasion i am sure that it would have shattered the Roman morale... Maybe Plautius would have assumed a defense positition fearing a counter-attack by British and the invasion halted at Rochester... After that Claudius position too would be weakened in Rome...

 

[Xenos]

The Romans were very vengeful people and would almost certainly return with more legions. The Britons would not be able to resist Rome for long as their tactics were somewhat disorganised. I have no doubt that the Britons were skilled and brave fighters, and were particularly effective in the use of chariots. But their culture produced warriors that fought on the battlefield as individuals and therefore they never really made effective use of their significant numerical advantages over the Romans.

 

[King Thomas]

The Romans were almost never put off from revenge, with the possible exception of Germany after the Varus disaster.

 

[Promethean]

The Romans were almost never put off from revenge, with the possible exception of Germany after the Varus disaster.

And Parthia and Dacia.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

And Parthia and Dacia.

Not really. Parthia was crushed by the Romans in the early 3rd century with Ctesiphon was captured, leading to the rise of the Sassanid Persians, and Dacia was successfully annexed in the 2nd century.

 

[Promethean]

Not really. Parthia was crushed by the Romans in the early 3rd century with Ctesiphon was captured, leading to the rise of the Sassanid Persians, and Dacia was successfully annexed in the 2nd century.

That is correct but both Trajans campaigns had reasons. Revenge was one of them.

Dacia:
Domitianus was defeated by the Dacians and was forced to pay tribute.

Parthia:
Obvious reasons.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

The Romans were almost never put off from revenge, with the possible exception of Germany after the Varus disaster.

Well Germanicus lead a somehow successfull campaign in Teutoburg retrieving 2 of the 3 lost aquilas... This counts as a slight revenge...

 

[Grey Wolf]

The Catuvellauni were already succeeding in uniting the tribes into a confederation against the Romans

If the Romans had been driven back to the continent, and had to start again some decades later, then they could well have found themselves faced with a politically united enemy

Then, you might end up with having to throw all their strength at them, or to make them a puppet kingdom (which the Romans don't seem to have initially minded in places like Pontus and Judaea)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Jason]

Well, we know the area around Chichester was pro-Roman, that a part of the Roman army may have landed there and infact it may have been the main landing site rather than Kent.

This means that even if the Romans were defeated at the Battle of Medway, they still have a secure base in Southern Britain along with quite possibiliy a large military force.

A defeat might mean the Romans decide to use pro-Roman tribes for the fighting far more than they did OTL I suppose.

 

[Don_Giorgio]

The Catuvellauni were already succeeding in uniting the tribes into a confederation against the Romans

If the Romans had been driven back to the continent, and had to start again some decades later, then they could well have found themselves faced with a politically united enemy

Then, you might end up with having to throw all their strength at them, or to make them a puppet kingdom (which the Romans don't seem to have initially minded in places like Pontus and Judaea)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Romans dont necessarily (sic) have to fall back in Gaul... Plautius could assume a defensive position waiting for reinforcements or try to buy some minor chieftain/king to fight with him...

 

[Grey Wolf]

Romans dont necessarily (sic) have to fall back in Gaul... Plautius could assume a defensive position waiting for reinforcements or try to buy some minor chieftain/king to fight with him...

Yes, but you have politics as well as military considerations in the mix

I didn't say my suggestion was THE answer to your question, just A POSSIBLE answer

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Max Sinister]

Unless the Britons had pulled off a victory similar to Teutoburger Wald, the Romans still would've won.

 

[Atreus]

The Romans were almost never put off from revenge, with the possible exception of Germany after the Varus disaster.

And Parthia and Dacia.

Not really. Parthia wound up being crushed by the romans, who tended to launch punitive expeditions against them every few decades. Dacia was eventually annexed by trajan around 100 CE. The Germans never faced the same sort of revenge after teutoburger wald, but the romans did strike back. Germanicus launched two major raids, in 12 and 16 CE. In them, he broke up the Germanic alliances, defeated Arminius at the weser river and angivarian wall, and recovered two of the three legionary eagles. However, around this time it became official roman policy not to muddle around with the barbarian tribes north of the border more then was necessary.

 

[Promethean]

Havent you readed my other post?

 

[Faeelin]

However, around this time it became official roman policy not to muddle around with the barbarian tribes north of the border more then was necessary.

While this is an option, I think you can also argue that the Romans stay out, aside from maybe a puppet king once in a while.

Fast Forward to the Third century Crisis: Gaul lies open, exposed. The East is under Zenobia.

Meanwhile, Britain itself has urbanized somewhat, under the High Kings. And so it is that King Artuiros of Britannia steps in...

 

[Don_Giorgio]

While this is an option, I think you can also argue that the Romans stay out, aside from maybe a puppet king once in a while.

Fast Forward to the Third century Crisis: Gaul lies open, exposed. The East is under Zenobia.

Meanwhile, Britain itself has urbanized somewhat, under the High Kings. And so it is that King Artuiros of Britannia steps in...

U mean Artorius Castus???? A Roman High King... Interesting...