The Britsh Isles ISOT'd from 1485 to 42 AD

Which is without getting into their internal political problems well as the problems in Ireland and the long on going problems with Scotland or what havoc the transference has likely done to the English economy.
Actually, the ISOT would probably end a lot of the internal strife and problems with Scotland and Ireland. Once they realize what year it is anyway. As was mentioned up thread, to them, Christ was killed less than 10 years ago. The apostles are STILL ALIVE. And the people that killed him are literally right there. Up to and including the very same people who actually executed Jesus. To the inhabitants of the British Isles, this would be the ultimate holy war. They aren't just fighting over relics and lands. They're fighting to execute God's vergence on the vile scum who murdered his son. To people in the 1400s, that would be the ultimate unifier.
 
Actually, the ISOT would probably end a lot of the internal strife and problems with Scotland and Ireland. Once they realize what year it is anyway. As was mentioned up thread, to them, Christ was killed less than 10 years ago. The apostles are STILL ALIVE. And the people that killed him are literally right there. Up to and including the very same people who actually executed Jesus. To the inhabitants of the British Isles, this would be the ultimate holy war. They aren't just fighting over relics and lands. They're fighting to execute God's vergence on the vile scum who murdered his son. To people in the 1400s, that would be the ultimate unifier.
Maybe, except that they don't have the capacity to invade anywhere. If they tried to attack mainland Europe, they would be crushed. All the technological advances in the world don't matter if they have 10x your troop count.
 
Maybe, except that they don't have the capacity to invade anywhere. If they tried to attack mainland Europe, they would be crushed. All the technological advances in the world don't matter if they have 10x your troop count.
Agreed. With one caveat: yet. The minute the British realise what year it is, they will devote themselves entirely too carrying out "God's Will." From their point of view, why else would they have been sent back? Figure it's going to take between 6 months and a year for them to realise that it really is 42 AD. Another 6 months to a year to unite England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (even if only temporary for this one purpose). One to two years to prepare to launch their holy war. And then it's on. So within 2-4 years after arriving in 42, the British will be attacking Rome.
 
Beyond just the wool trade which was major chunk of the English economy or the still lingering manpower issues caused by the previous century's plagues and famine I seem to recall England during this time imported a lot of timber as far away as the Baltic region as the royal forests were in decline and the south of England apparently imported stone from Caen because it was much cheaper and easier to get to and transport.
 
England and wales during this time apparently did have wineries much of which was used as communion wine however the English were extremely fond of wine especially claret which was primary imported from France during this time and was widely consumed across England.
 
More important than the minutia of fighting, the Romans and Germans, and later Balto-Slavs get the heavy plow, double entry book keeping, three field farming, lenses, distilleries, banking, credit letters, carracks, blast furnaces, overall better metallurgy and the thousand plus years of technological transfer that comes with bringing the English state into the past.

This means Gaul, Germania, and Eastern Europe undergo population booms that transform their lands from periphery to core states within 2 centuries, probably more given already how the Romans transformed Germany historically through trade.

Expect a political revolution as Gaullic patricians start bargaining for more power sharing with Italy.
 
The English aren't gonna be pushing into continental Europe any time soon.

They don't have anywhere near the manpower or logistics to even begin to attack Roman holdings.
Yes, but... Do they need to? Like, the British invented the chevauchée, the approach of landing a force, pillaging the area with great vigour and thoroughness, while denying battle at every turn. That method successfully crippled the French for decades, despite their numerical superiority. Yes, if the Romans can catch a British force in the field they'll crush it under weight of numbers, but... can they catch one? Forcing an unwilling enemy to give battle was no easy thing even when that enemy doesn't have an explicit goal of stealing everything of military use and scarpering with it to starve the enemy unto collapse.

Rome had vast armies, yes, but they also had vast borders which required the employment of those armies. It's not like they can just garrison everywhere in Gaul.
 
Yes, but... Do they need to? Like, the British invented the chevauchée, the approach of landing a force, pillaging the area with great vigour and thoroughness, while denying battle at every turn. That method successfully crippled the French for decades, despite their numerical superiority. Yes, if the Romans can catch a British force in the field they'll crush it under weight of numbers, but... can they catch one? Forcing an unwilling enemy to give battle was no easy thing even when that enemy doesn't have an explicit goal of stealing everything of military use and scarpering with it to starve the enemy unto collapse.

Rome had vast armies, yes, but they also had vast borders which required the employment of those armies. It's not like they can just garrison everywhere in Gaul.
Of course they can make Rome hurt a ton- but raiding doesn't line up with holy war terribly well.

If they were to start crusading against the Romans, they wouldn't want to just raid and pillage- they'd want to defeat the Romans, and I can't see that happening any time soon.
 
Of course they can make Rome hurt a ton- but raiding doesn't line up with holy war terribly well.

If they were to start crusading against the Romans, they wouldn't want to just raid and pillage- they'd want to defeat the Romans, and I can't see that happening any time soon.
Yes, but who gives a shit about a crusade? A ton of the British nobility were basically robber barons and bandits made good - it was a major element of how Britain recruited enough hard-bitten fighting men to contend with the more prosperous and numerous chivalric classes of mainland Europe. Parliament was repeatedly petitioned in the 14th century to stop groups of Gentry like the Folville Gang from raiding the countryside, yet many of them, the Folville's included, ended up receiving pardons and dying as 'respectable' men, after accepting military service that allowed the king to harness their violence for the good the realm. There's a reason the story of Robin Hood resonates so strongly in Britain - it's the tale of so many real outlaws, reimagined and rehabilitated from murderous bastards out for themselves to wild men acting in the cause of their country and people.

Now, granted, Henry Tudor made efforts to bring the British aristocracy to heel, but all the same if you present this bunch of hooligans with the wealth of 42 C.E. Gaul, relatively quiet and lightly defended as it was, their eyes are going to light up as they all mutter excitedly to each other about all the swag they can nick, and before you can say, "hey, if you want to hop across the Channel and live out all those teenage Black Prince fantasies you had, go for it me old muckers," the great hall will be empty as everybody rushes off in their eagerness to put the Vikings to shame in the scale and prosperity of R A I D A N D P I L L A G E.
 
Last edited:
Well, that's one way to guarantee Christianity never takes off outside of Britain: make it best known as the Official Barbarian Pirate Religion the way Norse Religion is IRL.

Eh, as long as Rome is too busy dealing with the barbarian raiders and crusaders at the Northwest end of the empire to devote much force to the southeast end (while also successfully serving as a buffer to keep said crusaders from reaching their destination) by the time 71 CE rolls around it works out for the best as far as I'm concerned.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but who gives a shit about a crusade? A ton of the British nobility were basically robber barons and bandits made good - it was a major element of how Britain recruited enough hard-bitten fighting men to contend with the more prosperous and numerous chivalric classes of mainland Europe. Parliament was repeatedly petitioned in the 14th century to stop groups of Gentry like the Folville Gang from raiding the countryside, yet many of them, the Folville's included, ended up receiving pardons and dying as 'respectable' men, after accepting military service that allowed the king to harness their violence for the good the realm. There's a reason the story of Robin Hood resonates so strongly in Britain - it's the tale of so many real outlaws, reimagined and rehabilitated from murderous bastards out for themselves to wild men acting in the cause of their country and people.

Now, granted, Henry Tudor made efforts to bring the British aristocracy to heel, but all the same if you present this bunch of hooligans with the wealth of 42 C.E. Gaul, relatively quiet and lightly defended as it was, their eyes are going to light up as they all mutter excitedly to each other about all the swag they can nick, and before you can say, "hey, if you want to hop across the Channel and live out all those teenage Black Prince fantasies you had, go for it me old muckers," the great hall will be empty as everybody rushes off in their eagerness to put the Vikings to shame in the scale and prosperity of R A I D A N D P I L L A G E.
That's fair- I was more addressing @dylanredefined and @SSgtC 's point that the English would be motivated to Crusade, what with this being so close to the death of Christ.
They absolutely could(and would) raid Gaul, and maybe Hispania as well.
 
Well if nothing I suppose the Romans would likely strengthen their northern fleets and station a few more armies in the north to fend off the raiders and of course launch puntive raids into the british isles at least until they get annoyed enough to throw lets say hundred or two hundred thousand troops at the problem like they did during the Dacian wars.
 
That's fair- I was more addressing @dylanredefined and @SSgtC 's point that the English would be motivated to Crusade, what with this being so close to the death of Christ.
They absolutely could(and would) raid Gaul, and maybe Hispania as well.
They would, IMO, be motivated to crusade. At least the commoners, the priests and the more devout Lords. Eventually, I think you're right. Rome would crush Britain. They have the will power to take the time to adapt to and adopt for their own use new technologies, they have the wealth to completely reequip their Legions and Navies and they have the man power to flood the British Isles with a sea of men. That won't change the will to crusade.

Interestingly, a Britain hell bent on a crusade of vengeance, probably unites the Jews with Rome and butterfly's the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This Britain wants to kill both the Romans and the Jews. Having a common enemy, and having the Jews willingly supporting the Romans, is going to drastically change the course of history in the Middle East. With no expulsion of Jews from Judea, that entire region will look different.
 
Well if nothing I suppose the Romans would likely strengthen their northern fleets and station a few more armies in the north to fend off the raiders and of course launch puntive raids into the british isles at least until they get annoyed enough to throw lets say hundred or two hundred thousand troops at the problem like they did during the Dacian wars.
I... can't imagine triremes doing terribly well against the Royal Navy. At all.

And the Romans can't just... thrown a hundred thousand men at an island. Not unless they all want to starve to death. Organizing a logistics train across a hostile sea that is very much not under your control is a stupid idea at the best of times.

Triremes vs. cannons is not going to go well for the triremes.
EDIT:
They would, IMO, be motivated to crusade. At least the commoners, the priests and the more devout Lords. Eventually, I think you're right. Rome would crush Britain. They have the will power to take the time to adapt to and adopt for their own use new technologies, they have the wealth to completely reequip their Legions and Navies and they have the man power to flood the British Isles with a sea of men. That won't change the will to crusade.

Interestingly, a Britain hell bent on a crusade of vengeance, probably unites the Jews with Rome and butterfly's the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. This Britain wants to kill both the Romans and the Jews. Having a common enemy, and having the Jews willingly supporting the Romans, is going to drastically change the course of history in the Middle East. With no expulsion of Jews from Judea, that entire region will look different.
I don't think the Romans will crush England. The logistical difficulties of invading England have existed since England itself has existed, and that's not going away any time soon. If anything, it'll get harder as the English get better at making cannons.
 
Last edited:
There is no standing royal navy at this point in English history, the current standing royal navy was established by Henry VIII and at this point of English history the English royal navy consisted of whatever merchant ships the english crown pressed into service. Its sort of why the English had such trouble stopping french raiders from raiding southern England.
 
There is no standing royal navy at this point in English history, the current standing royal navy was established by Henry VIII and at this point of English history the English royal navy consisted of whatever merchant ships the english crown pressed into service. Its sort of why the English had such trouble stopping french raiders from raiding southern England.
I thought that they did have a standing(but small) fleet, but pressed merchant ships into service to pad out their numbers?
 
I thought that they did have a standing(but small) fleet, but pressed merchant ships into service to pad out their numbers?

That came under the Tudors. Now the Kingdom of Scotland on the on the other hand did have two small warships in its royal navy but they were more used in fending off the English to protect the Forth and aiding the scottish kings against the scottish nobles as far as I can tell.
 
I think it should be pointed out that at the time we're talking about, there is no "British."

There are the English, Scots, Welsh, Irish and Manx , and many divisions within each. I'd be more of a mind that they'd be making alliances against each other with the Romans rather than each other. Wales and England are somewhat under the same government, but are still culturally very different. The British isles don't even have a common language like today. Any Latin (the closest to a lingua franca) they know would be medieval Latin which is close, but still more than a thousand years separate from what is spoken in Rome.

I really think people are underestimating how much hate the Irish had for the English historically.

I don't think a vaguely common religion would unite them. If anything I think it would divide them more as each one tries to get more religious "currency" than the other nations.

Add in you should never meet your heroes. The early christian churches are vastly different to that engineered to become the Roman Catholic Church. There was a lot of revision and some writings specifically excluded. The real apostles are going to be very different from what they're written as. Medieval bibles were basically a thousand+ years of fanfiction based on other works of fanfiction based on mistranslated original writings.

And then the average Joe is illiterate and only knows as much of the bible as the local priest tells them.
 
Yeah there wasn't exactly love lost between the English and Irish or the Scots and Irish, or the Scots and English or the English and Welsh.

I think about the only peoples in the isles who don't have a problem with any other group on the Island was the Cornish and the Manx who while under English rule were much treated better than the Irish or Welsh were.
 
I don't think Ireland would be that important in this scenario there pretty going to be doing the exact same thing they have been doing since Gaelic Ireland existed, which is fighting each other, occasionally fighting interloping foreigners, using said foreigners to fight there rivals and fighting each other. Though I think the Romans might find the Irish and the Scots more familiar I guess than the English due to being well Barbarians but upteched.
 
One thing thats also not mentioned- expect large amounts of brain drain from British craftsmen, merchants, artisans, and so on as their comparative advantage from 1000 plus years of technological and economic developments gives them immense competitive advantages to their Roman neighbors and a vast untapped market thats ripe for selling. Because why bother being constrained by the guild system and local monopolies at home?

I would not be shocked if a few thousand quickly leave to all over the imperial coasts, offering their superior services after learning the language and becoming wealthy men in the process as local elites and settlers spend their surplus income recreating the luxuries of Italy. This spreads technology and again, rapidly transforms local economies and regions from pure extraction as Gaul and Hispania were at this time to manufacturing hubs to compete with the imperial centers of Italy and the Greek East.

For England, this is kind of a double edged sword. Sure, competitive advantage is lost and the crown loses some important men, but at the same time it weakens the ability of vassals to maintain their autonomy and so the crown can leverage that into centralization.
 
You are of course thinking of Willie the Groundsman, aren't you?


But you are correct - give the Romans a few years and they will be baiting one bunch of British Isles' dwellers against another.

And by "a few years", you mean "however long it takes to get in contact with Edinburgh and Dublin plus about a week", correct?

The English have never been particularly well liked by their neighbors. Even being willing to crusade with them has been no obstacle to actively warring with their crusade partner neighbors.
 
One thing thats also not mentioned- expect large amounts of brain drain from British craftsmen, merchants, artisans, and so on as their comparative advantage from 1000 plus years of technological and economic developments gives them immense competitive advantages to their Roman neighbors and a vast untapped market thats ripe for selling. Because why bother being constrained by the guild system and local monopolies at home?

I would not be shocked if a few thousand quickly leave to all over the imperial coasts, offering their superior services after learning the language and becoming wealthy men in the process as local elites and settlers spend their surplus income recreating the luxuries of Italy. This spreads technology and again, rapidly transforms local economies and regions from pure extraction as Gaul and Hispania were at this time to manufacturing hubs to compete with the imperial centers of Italy and the Greek East.

For England, this is kind of a double edged sword. Sure, competitive advantage is lost and the crown loses some important men, but at the same time it weakens the ability of vassals to maintain their autonomy and so the crown can leverage that into centralization.
Language would be a massive issue.

There's plenty of money to be had, sure, but there's over a thousand years of linguistic drift from English, let alone Latin. Not speaking the language is... kinda a big turn-off.
 
Language would be a massive issue.

There's plenty of money to be had, sure, but there's over a thousand years of linguistic drift from English, let alone Latin. Not speaking the language is... kinda a big turn-off.
You'd be surprised at how quickly people picked up languages in the premodern era, before the homogenization of school and media killed that skill off.

It took the Spanish less than a few years before they had enough dedicated translators to feel confident sending feelers in their expeditions with the Maya and the Aztecs.
 
Back
Top