Roman Britain ?
Ok , let's just say the fall of Rome never happened. All invaders decided that it was a much better idea to hang up their swords and sit down for a few thousand years.
What would of happened to Britain ? Would of it advanced, stayed the same , erupted into a fiery conflagration ala teh pitz of HELL ! ?
General ramifications would be nice please 😄
Seeing as all of the invaders would have stopped invading Rome would probably have lapsed into one civil war after the other for new rule, religion and what not would have created more and more problems, so we would either have a new strong Roman leader standing up leading Rome into more glory and that includes Britain, or of course the Empire would collapse anyway and much the same would have happened as has happened only later.
Assuming the Roman's continued past Hadrian's Wall, they would have likely ended up slaughtering quite a few Picts and Saxons, subjugated the land and what not. Though likely emerging Muslim powers in Asia, and possibly even a rise of an Oriental power (Chinese, Mongol), combined with Barbarian attacks, would still have forced Rome to withdraw its legions from Britain, or depending on when that happens, perhaps withdraw legions TO Britain.
Originally posted by grey fox
Ok , let's just say the fall of Rome never happened. All invaders decided that it was a much better idea to hang up their swords and sit down for a few thousand years.What would of happened to Britain ? Would of it advanced, stayed the same , erupted into a fiery conflagration ala teh pitz of HELL ! ?
General ramifications would be nice please 😄
There was nothing of interest to Romans in Britain. Julius C only invaded Britain because...it was there.
Sure Britain would have progressed. Just under Roman watch.
If they had stayed Anglo-Saxon would not have occured and we would be speaking Latin or an off shoot of a Romance Language. If Rome continued the dark age would never have happened and the world would be far more advanced considering that they didn't have to re-discover classical ideas over a 400 year period or so.
Originally posted by RaventheOnly
If they had stayed Anglo-Saxon would not have occured and we would be speaking Latin or an off shoot of a Romance Language. If Rome continued the dark age would never have happened and the world would be far more advanced considering that they didn't have to re-discover classical ideas over a 400 year period or so.
Thats what I'm mainly wondering. How would medicine, culture, technology ect have advanced ?
I think if the Romans had continued to rule, then at some point the romanised Britons would have crossed Hadrians wall and romanised the Picts. I also think the "New World" would be different as it could have been found a lot quicker. And native Americans wouldn't have been so badly discredited.
I also think that racism would be a lot different, because the Roman slave trade was different to the trans-atlantic slave trade because Romans didn't say "right you're white you can't be a slave but you're black you have no rights". They just thought "right you're bugging me SLAVE!"
However as far as culture goes I reckon that it wouldn't be as diversified as it is now. I mean you know the way you can say France is famous for crossiants, Britain is "snobbish", Italy makes good pizza and the Spanish and Portuguese discovered most of the new world. (sorry for being sterotypical) Whereas all 50 states of America are (forgive me) the same. I think the Roman Empire would have ended up something like that.
Personally I'm English and I think it is better this way because in Europe we all speak different languages and have different mannerisms.
However if the Romans had kicked back and relaxed then there would have been serious civil wars and the Empire would not have collapsed it would have been dragged down with all the bloodshed.
(sorry that was so long, it's just I do a class on this at school and we had an essay question asking about this.)
ye the only reason the British Empire "collapsed" was because all of these third-world countries which WE civilised decided to revolt, and look where most countries who did have ended up. zimbabwe is in chaos since we left. but it kinda work for USA, but that was basically just british people who lived in america and started an anarchy.
Originally posted by deathbunnyman
ye the only reason the British Empire "collapsed" was because all of these third-world countries which WE civilised decided to revolt, and look where most countries who did have ended up. zimbabwe is in chaos since we left. but it kinda work for USA, but that was basically just british people who lived in america and started an anarchy.
Civilized? Most colonies were left in ruins and were never much more then ruins. The people there of course had access to some things they would have never seen if it weren't for their masters, but they certainly weren't treated like equals. A revolt is only logical.
With the revolts however the knowledge and money would leave, leaving a country devastated and weak. Apparently however freedom is more important then that. Kinda sucks for them that many of them lost their freedom again anyways, or are now living in some of the most unstable country's in the world...
ye.
maybe i exaggerated my point.
i agree with yours. but would most of these third-world countries be in as much starvation and poverty if european countries didnt "rule them with an iron fist" as they did, but just governed them and taught them how to manage a country, which most third-world politicians certainly do not.
Originally posted by deathbunnyman
ye the only reason the British Empire "collapsed" was because all of these third-world countries which WE civilised decided to revolt, and look where most countries who did have ended up. zimbabwe is in chaos since we left. but it kinda work for USA, but that was basically just british people who lived in america and started an anarchy.
You have to understand that the british empire didnt just rule them, they took their wealth as well and totally left it in ruin when they did gain independence. I dont know much on africa, but india was certainly civilised before british rule, probably more so than the british, but didnt have the same military might.
Originally posted by deathbunnyman
ye.maybe i exaggerated my point.
i agree with yours. but would most of these third-world countries be in as much starvation and poverty if european countries didnt "rule them with an iron fist" as they did, but just governed them and taught them how to manage a country, which most third-world politicians certainly do not.
They certainly wouldn't be, on the other hand Europe would have never gone there if they had nothing to gain from them. And the only way to do that was to take everything they had. Or at least a huge part. What was left for them when Europeans left, were the remnants of European power and what they had build for themselves. Nothing to be to happy about I guess.
You have to understand that the british empire didnt just rule them, they took their wealth as well and totally left it in ruin when they did gain independence. I dont know much on africa, but india was certainly civilised before british rule, probably more so than the british, but didnt have the same military might.
That would very much depend on your definition of civilized.
good point
but what i meant was that a lot of aid ends up in the pockets of greedy presidents of these countries. surely with all the aid we have given more of a difference would have been made by now. not just brits, but every rich country ahs given billions, and still only a small change, if that. #
without these asses who drive around in limos whilst their people starve and die. i know the brits sort of did that but not anymore. weve realised, but they wont.
Originally posted by deathbunnyman
good pointbut what i meant was that a lot of aid ends up in the pockets of greedy presidents of these countries. surely with all the aid we have given more of a difference would have been made by now. not just brits, but every rich country ahs given billions, and still only a small change, if that. #
without these asses who drive around in limos whilst their people starve and die. i know the brits sort of did that but not anymore. weve realised, but they wont.
True, but to be honest we should have seen it coming. Thinking that those country's could suddenly take care of themselves after we left was a huge mistake. Really naive of the governments back then to just let it happen I guess.
I mean just look at the richest country in Africa, South Africa, it's still a shit hole compared to pretty much any western country. Problem is though that a country like South Africa could really improve with more money and become a good country to live in... But we can't send money over there because there are other country's out there that have more to offer for us and that have even less money. So we invest in a hell hole, hoping it will one day become better instead of investing in something that is at least somewhat livable and improving that first.
Then again if SA would become to rich you would have huge immigration problems and unless the country was really strong it would probably drag it back down again.
Bah, I guess there just isn't a lot we can do over there.