|
I believe, in order for an Irish-esque Britannian *empire* to exist, the Romans would have had to conquer the whole of Britain in order to completely eliminate any sort of *regional* culture clash that could supplement any other conflicts there would be in a united Britannia.
North & South was the main issue behind Roman Britain and Celtic Britain (main reason Britain could not unite as early as other modern "nations" did [differences between Scotland and England]) as North & South was more obviously seen as the central issue in the United States’ Civil War. Believe it or not, a regional culture clash is the worst kind of conflict that can exist within a nation since it divides sociopolitical and even economic aspects affiliated with the regions themselves.
If the Romans did successfully conquer the entirety of Britain and maybe even Ireland for some time, I’m sure they would’ve been unable to completely exterminated the Celtic culture. Since all of it would be under Roman control, at least the Celts living in a Romano-Britain would be equally influenced and/or maltreated by the Roman conquerors, therefore making it slightly easier for a Celtic rebellion to begin and succeed in order to form a loosely united Celtic state. At the very least, the Roman Civil War would have done much to damage the Roman political organization system of Britain allowing the Celts to slowly rise to the point that the Celts gain control of themselves through the system set up by their former oppressors.
Upon full realization of the fall of the Roman Empire and the loosened state tightens following whatever crises that may result directly from it is when I believe they would have likely taken up the name “Britannia”.
A huge problem, however, is pretty much how the Anglo-Saxon invasion would have played out around what we know as the 1000s A.D., because that would a determine a big deal of how exactly Britannia would progress afterwards.
Religion is also a big issue. Apparently the Spanish would’ve still held a grudge against Britain sometime around the discovery of the New World for some reason and difference of religion would have been the only thing to authorize such a conflict. It’s kind of awkward to look at since the majority of Irish people in general were then and are Catholic now. Since we have deformed the history of Britain, it’s quite indistinguishable.
Apparently, whichever religion prevailed in Britannia would have been greatly accepted so that the colonization of the New World would be purely economic and strategic with the majority of the colonists having no reason to dislike Britannia and for no reason for Britannia to dislike the colonies (as long as they impose taxes extremely early on in the colonization game to eliminate most of the problems that escalated the Revolutionary War).
I guess the rest is history from there? I’m sure, though, that there is much, much more to address.
|