Celts Triumphant?

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I was doing a bit of reading, and wondering if there was a way to limit or avoid the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the British Isles and have Britain by and large retain more of a Celtic cultural identity. It's apparently difficult to find any good sources on when and how the Anglo-Saxon invasions began, so I'm not fussed on what POD you might choose.

I'm also not to fussed on Paganism; the spread of Celtic Christianity from Ireland can continue as normal, but basically I'm looking for a way to give the Celtic identity more power and avoid too much foreign influence, so that Britain is a wholly unrecognisable place.

 

[Salvador79]

I´m not sure if I understand what you mean by Celtic identity. Romano-British society was markedly different from Hibernian and/or Pictish society. What would count, in your view, as a "Celtic identity"?

Limiting or avoiding the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the British Isles is possible by a major Roman-screw since it was Roman influence what started off Anglic, Saxon, Jutish, Frisian etc. naval raids and later settlement as defense against said fellow raiders, but then you won`t have Celtic Christianity, or any Roman Christianity. If you want to keep continental Europe Roman-influenced and the British Isles "Celtic", then you`re walking a tight rope. Have the Empire collapse as OTL invites the vultures in, and Britannia is always bound to be an easy victim. Have the Empire endure for a few more centuries might Romanise the British Isles.

 

[LSCatilina]

I was doing a bit of reading, and wondering if there was a way to limit or avoid the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the British Isles and have Britain by and large retain more of a Celtic cultural identity

That's really, really unlikely : Celtic entities in Late Antiquity Britain were mostly peripherical : Ireland, north-western and western Scotland, western Wales, western Cornwall. While not piss poor, they didn't have the resources Romano-Brittons had IOTL, so I'm not sure how they could not only stand on their own,let alone swallow up Romano-Brittons and then defeat Anglo-Saxons in the process.

While a Romano-Britton victory may be doable (depending on what you'd describe as victory) a Gaelic or Brythonic victory is way out of reach.

Celtic Christianity

"Celtic Christianism" is mostly a concept born out of English Reformation and the need to have "clean" religious ancestors, supposedly fighting Rome tooth and nails.
In reality, you could discern "national" churches, such as Irish church, Mercian church etc. as the temporal power had a great role when it came to councils or establish ritual/pastoral features.

Depending on how the TL could go (but again, I'm not too sure if it could go in first place), it might be more or less distinct than IOTL, while still being likely part of an overall Latin Christianity.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I´m not sure if I understand what you mean by Celtic identity. Romano-British society was markedly different from Hibernian and/or Pictish society. What would count, in your view, as a "Celtic identity"?

The identity of the Celts? I understand that the Celts weren't a unified polity, but it should be fairly obvious that I'm looking for a culturally more or majority Celtic Britain.

Limiting or avoiding the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the British Isles is possible by a major Roman-screw since it was Roman influence what started off Anglic, Saxon, Jutish, Frisian etc. naval raids and later settlement as defense against said fellow raiders, but then you won`t have Celtic Christianity, or any Roman Christianity. If you want to keep continental Europe Roman-influenced and the British Isles "Celtic", then you`re walking a tight rope. Have the Empire collapse as OTL invites the vultures in, and Britannia is always bound to be an easy victim. Have the Empire endure for a few more centuries might Romanise the British Isles.

What if the Romans never hold Britain in the first place? Throughout Roman history Britannia was fairly backwater anyway, was it not? Centuries of losing and retaking the island occurred. Is it not plausible then, that the Romans soon give up on the whole idea, perhaps after a spectacular military defeat somewhere, and the British Isles do not succumb to foreign influence as much?

As for Christianity, it would happen eventually if Christianity still arises. I'm not to bothered by religion, anyway. If keeping the Romans out/down means less or no Christianity, then fine.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

While a Romano-Britton victory may be doable (depending on what you'd describe as victory) a Gaelic or Brythonic victory is way out of reach.

Is it really? What if, as I said, Rome never reaches Britannia, or fails entirely to hold it?

"Celtic Christianism" is mostly a concept born out of English Reformation and the need to have "clean" religious ancestors, supposedly fighting Rome tooth and nails.
In reality, you could discern "national" churches, such as Irish church, Mercian church etc. as the temporal power had a great role when it came to councils or establish ritual/pastoral features.

Depending on how the TL could go (but again, I'm not too sure if it could go in first place), it might be more or less distinct than IOTL, while still being likely part of an overall Latin Christianity.

As said, I'm honestly not too worried about Christianity. Normally when one presents a timeline of pre-Roman indigenous people surviving or thriving (such as the Germanics) with the goal of Paganism remaining at large, they get told that the Pagan kings would have to Christianise eventually. Which is why I added that footnote - it doesn't matter to me whether the Celts worship God or trees. I'm basically after a Britain which retains Celtic languages with less influence, and Celtic cultural norms with less influence.

 

[LSCatilina]

Is it really?

Mostly so, yes.

What if, as I said, Rome never reaches Britannia, or fails entirely to hold it?

If Rome fails to take Britain (or is simply not interested taking it) you'll likely sill have Roman client-states in southern Britain, more or less romanized : it would still attract mercenaries, raiders and eventually a bunch of Barbarians would settle there (probably as early as IOTL, the IIIrd or IVth century) because these roman client-states would be as fragilized as the ones that existed along Romania borders (such as in Black Sea).
At best, it would look like a vague regional hegemony as it may have been the case in Crimea for a while; but I rather think about Barbarians just "fitting in" the local polities.

It's true that such entities may be more prone to be used as jumpgates towards the continent, but I think you may end with a strong Barbarisation of southern Britain, with admittedly the rest of the Island basically looking like a giant Scotland (more or less germanized, but with strong celtic presence).

(I'd point that it's what not your OP asked for, tough)

 

[Salvador79]

OK, so no Romans in Britain, but Romans all over Gaul and Germania like IOTL? Certainly not impossible, but then it might look like LSCatilina pointed out, and still invite Anglo-Saxon invasion, although maybe regionally more limited.
I´m wondering how no provincialisation would affect population levels.
If the rest of the continent proceeds more or less as IOTL, the Vikings will be the next wave after Anglo-Saxons in the South, non-Romanised or Romanised ones.

I am still not clear what you mean by Celtic identity. Just the language? How much of what OTL`s Celtic groups had in common has to be there? Does "no centralised state" belong there? If yes, then big problems down the line. If no, then maybe you come up with some Brythonic / Gaelic / Pictish Charlemagne who unites both islands and acquires land on the continent, too, creating an Empire whose legacy will be prestigious and thus preserved throughout time. But that`s almost certainly not looking like the Celtic world we know from OTL in many ways.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

It's true that such entities may be more prone to be used as jumpgates towards the continent, but I think you may end with a strong Barbarisation of southern Britain, with admittedly the rest of the Island basically looking like a giant Scotland (more or less germanized, but with strong celtic presence).

(I'd point that it's what not your OP asked for, tough)

That's exactly what I asked for; a more Celtic Britain, not necessarily the whole thing. Very interesting.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I am still not clear what you mean by Celtic identity. Just the language? How much of what OTL`s Celtic groups had in common has to be there? Does "no centralised state" belong there? If yes, then big problems down the line. If no, then maybe you come up with some Brythonic / Gaelic / Pictish Charlemagne who unites both islands and acquires land on the continent, too, creating an Empire whose legacy will be prestigious and thus preserved throughout time. But that`s almost certainly not looking like the Celtic world we know from OTL in many ways.

I'm not asking for a Celtic state, just more Celtic cultural artefacts. OTL, Britain (especially England) is more associated with its Germanic roots due to the Anglo-Saxon invasions, and its Norman routes (for the obvious Norman invasion). I'm looking for a Britain that would be more associated with its Celtic origins. Whether this is one state or several, in a world vaguely recognisable, or not, does not matter.

I imagine it would be ironic if something similar to the English language arose anyway, perhaps in Frisia, with French/Germanic languages intertwining there. I don't think that's likely or even possible, of course, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Alternatively, what are the odds of a Celtic revival of sorts? A Britain that, even after various invasions and what-not, goes back to its roots to some degree, earlier and to a greater extent than OTL? Ireland and Scotland did, with Gaelic languages being revived and used in more frequency, and today both are very proud of their Celtic origins. I wonder if something similar could occur in parts of England.

 

[Salvador79]

Celtic cultural artefacts? Like what?
The whole concept of a "Celtic identity" is a romantic thing, and its revival in OTL is quite impressive, I think. Not in terms of how many people speak Gaelic, but in terms of how popular the idea is. (See this thread as just one example.) And it´s popular in large parts of the world where historical Celts never had any of their civilizations. People are producing and buying what they think looks Celtic in admirable quantities (I had something looking similar to this:

hanging over my bed, too, when I was in my late teens).
Thing is, that is all modern projection.

I suppose this is not what you want.
But what else do you mean when you say "Celtic cultural artefacts"?

 

[LSCatilina]

I'm not asking for a Celtic state, just more Celtic cultural artefacts.

Does a PoD with different romanticism or proto-romanticism in Britain in the XVIIIth could count? You could technically have more things as neo-druidism, an equivalent of Gallicanism leaning heavily towards a fantasmed Celtic Christianity, some (more or less) reintroduction of celtic (or, in fact, seen as celtic) loanwords, etc.
Granted, it's going to be as much authentic than Plastic Paddies, but it would be somehow Celtic-looking. If you look a certain way. With eyes squinted. And looking the other side. But, still!

More seriously, you could have Celtic (if heavily romanized) substructures with a Britto-Roman victory : I'm especially thinking about a romanized form of high-kingship that might have existed IOTL both in Northern and Southern Britain during the Vth/VIth centuries.

I'm looking for a Britain that would be more associated with its Celtic origins. Whether this is one state or several, in a world vaguely recognisable, or not, does not matter.

Oh, then go full romantic and revolutionary on Britain until all they know about their origins are "Our ancestors the Brittons".

 

[LordKalvan]

It is not a historical map (it is taken from The Shadow of the Lion), but the League of Armagh is an example of surviving Celtic polity

 

[Imladrik]

I don't see what is the problem. Romano-brittish culture might not be purely celtic, it still was very much celtic, even if if it had large roman influence (especilaly among the nobility). A smaller germanic invasion even if not beaten might follow a similar pattern as France where the leaders are slowly culturally assimilated into the General populace.

 

[David Flin]

I was doing a bit of reading, and wondering if there was a way to limit or avoid the Anglo-Saxon invasion of the British Isles and have Britain by and large retain more of a Celtic cultural identity. It's apparently difficult to find any good sources on when and how the Anglo-Saxon invasions began, so I'm not fussed on what POD you might choose.

I'm also not to fussed on Paganism; the spread of Celtic Christianity from Ireland can continue as normal, but basically I'm looking for a way to give the Celtic identity more power and avoid too much foreign influence, so that Britain is a wholly unrecognisable place.

Frank Stenton's imaginatively entitled: "Anglo-Saxon England" is usually a good place to start. His first section covers the migrations.

One query that I would have would be: "What about the Norse activities?" One can set up a situation where Britain, or parts of Britain, have a stronger Celtic influence, but the Fury of the Northmen is still going to come along to disturb things. I don't know if that will interfere with what you're trying to do, but the raiding and later settling, along with the Danish involvement, French and Norman influences, and so on, are still likely to come into play.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Frank Stenton's imaginatively entitled: "Anglo-Saxon England" is usually a good place to start. His first section covers the migrations.

One query that I would have would be: "What about the Norse activities?" One can set up a situation where Britain, or parts of Britain, have a stronger Celtic influence, but the Fury of the Northmen is still going to come along to disturb things. I don't know if that will interfere with what you're trying to do, but the raiding and later settling, along with the Danish involvement, French and Norman influences, and so on, are still likely to come into play.

Depending on the POD, of course. An early enough POD might see the French and Normans never exist, the Scandinavians never leaving their fjords and islands. I understand what you are saying, of course.

Just to be clear to everyone, when I say a Celtic identity, a Celtic culture, or a Celtic artefact, I am mainly referring to an island that identifies mostly with its Celtic origins, rather than with the origins that arose as part of later migrations. When I say 'Celtic', I do not intend to refer to all the separate Celtic cultures under a single umbrella; as I said earlier, there could be several nations, several nationalisms, all with common roots in the pre-Roman Celts.

 

[David Flin]

Just to be clear to everyone, when I say a Celtic identity, a Celtic culture, or a Celtic artefact, I am mainly referring to an island that identifies mostly with its Celtic origins, rather than with the origins that arose as part of later migrations. When I say 'Celtic', I do not intend to refer to all the separate Celtic cultures under a single umbrella; as I said earlier, there could be several nations, several nationalisms, all with common roots in the pre-Roman Celts.

As far as I can see, there are two issues that need to be addressed: reducing the influence of the Romans to ensure a stronger Celtic culture in Britain; and enabling this Celtic culture to be better able to resist the Germanic incursions.

If we manage that, then the culture is likely to be strong enough to withstand the later Scandinavian incursions.

By no stretch of the imagination am I an expert in this period, so treat the following with all due caution.

There are a lot of butterflies that would arise from no Roman invasion of Britain, to the extent that one would have to look at the impact on Gaul, and on Rome itself. To avoid this, and simplify our job, let the Roman invasion go ahead.

The main resistance to the initial Roman invasion in AD43 was by the Catuvellauni, involving what is described by unreliable sources as a two-day battle for the Romans to cross the River Medway. At the time, the Catuvellauni were fighting alone, because this was taking place during a “period of turmoil”, and the other Celtic tribes were only too happy to see the Romans chew up the Catuvellauni.

This is where we can change things. Bring the Celtic turmoil forward a year or two, and by 43AD, the tribes have kissed and made-up, and when the Romans come, other tribes come to the aid of the Catuvellauni, and the Roman invasion bounces after hard fighting.

Claudius tries again in AD44, with much the same result, this time with the Celts deciding to attack as the Romans are getting out of the boats.

By now, the Roman military is getting rather tired of facing British Celts. Luckily for the Romans, the Celtic inability to keep the peace between the tribes comes to the fore, and when the Romans invade in 45AD, they face a disunited enemy, and OTL result of 43AD comes about.

Romans settle down to rule in southern Britain, controlling up to (but not including) Devon, Wales, and Yorkshire. Influence spreads a bit further through trade and so on. The Roman military is a bit more wary of the Celtic warriors, and come to the predictable conclusion: “We want those bastards fighting for us.” Rather than disarming the tribes and stopping the constant raiding by force, they co-opt warriors into the army as auxiliary units. These do a fair amount of going off to far-off foreign fields, and meeting interesting local people, serving out their time and then coming home, often with goods and chattels and riches.

This is going to add a lot of little snippets of other cultural influences, which is likely to vary widely by region, but overall, the Celtic culture is dominant. The Romans are more cautious about offending the local culture.

In due course, the legions go home to Rome. The Celtic auxiliaries there decide to stay put, and no-one fancies persuading them otherwise. A few years later, the Germanic incursions start, but face significantly stronger opposition. They manage to make some inroads, essentially south east England and East Anglia, but that’s about it.

Northern England is much more Celtic, and there is a stronger tradition of fighting people with funny accents, so when the Norse come calling, they face stiffer resistance. There is still Norse influence settling down, but again, it is much more confined to the fringes.

We’ve got a situation where there are huge cultural variations throughout the country, which generally consist of Celtic + x. Celtic and Norse in Northumbria; Celtic and Angle in Anglia; Celtic and Saxon and Jute in south-east England; Celtic and Roman in southern England; and so on.

Thereafter, who knows?

As I say, this isn’t my period, so it may very easily be ASB territory, but I’m sure someone cleverer than me can tidy things up.