Was there any rulers who wanted to form such an empire throughout history and how far that any of them go towards achieving that goal?
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Boudica comes to mind. She united most of the Celtic tribes in Britannia and almost managed to defeat and drive out all of the Romans from there island by genocide and battles.
But that would be a kingdom then a empire at most.
But that would be a kingdom then a empire at most.
Most of the tribes? Do you have a source on that? As far as I know only the Iceni and Trinovantes are recorded as joining. We can assume that others did as well but ”most” would be a stretch.
It is also questionable that a victorious coalition of tribes would have stayed united after Rome was kicked out.
It doesn't matter because with even only the Iceni and Trinovantes she had enough manpower to subdue all Britannica anyway if the Romans disappeared.
No, because the idea of "Celts" (as a grouping including all speakers of Celtic languages) being a unified category is an 18th/19th century thing - by which time, Britain already existed as a unified state.
That they didn’t recognize themselves as a single group wouldn’t necessarily prevent one King from conquering them all into an empire.
Forming and maintaining large realms seems rare among Celts though. The expansionist Welsh kings tended to have their realms divided between their sons while the Irish High Kings rarely had all that much real authority. Alba is the largest Celtic realm I can think of.
Yes. In post-Roman Britain during a period of internecine fighting amongst the Anglo-Saxons, a British leader from northern Wales named himself as the prophesied re-conqueror of the British isles (even naming his heir apparent after king Arthur) and after heavy fighting managed to seize control of all of England. This king's successors would go on to declare their realm to be an imperial one and build one of the most successful and prosperous states in history.
His name? Henry Tudor.
It was not really a celtic empire though and he didn't even control Scotland. -_-Yes. In post-Roman Britain during a period of internecine fighting amongst the Anglo-Saxons, a British leader from northern Wales named himself as the prophesied re-conqueror of the British isles (even naming his heir apparent after king Arthur) and after heavy fighting managed to seize control of all of England. This king's successors would go on to declare their realm to be an imperial one and build one of the most successful and prosperous states in history.
His name? Henry Tudor.
His granddaughter handed it over to the Scots when she died.
The one thing that could have created a unified Celtic empire would have been a more prolonged Roman occupation. Without the Roman threat, there was no common enemy to unify against, and it would have taken several more generations to develop the foundations of a central authority to coordinate military operations, possibly leading to an actual government. Once the threat was gone, the tribes resumed infighting among themselves, and there was little hope of unification without another outside impetus to cooperate (which the French provided close to a thousand years later).
Welsh and Irish aren't even very related languages, so what would actually bind this empire...?
They are more related than the languages of pre-Roman Italy. Empires have bound together and assimilated groups with greater differences.
Even if say... Boudicca were to throw out the Romans (and keep them out) or some pre-Claudian ruler had defeated Caesar or Claudius' invasions, that doesn't lead to some Brittanic Empire. It took centuries (and Danish invasion) for the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms to unify. Centuries more for the gradual take over not only of Britain but also Ireland.
The Scots are far away, mean, and poor. The Welsh are closer, but pretty much the same. One might envision a Briton/Celtic kingdom allied to the Romans occupying most of what one might consider "England". But that would require keeping out the grasping hand of Roman Imperium, which isn't the easiest thing.
The Scots are far away, mean, and poor. The Welsh are closer, but pretty much the same. One might envision a Briton/Celtic kingdom allied to the Romans occupying most of what one might consider "England". But that would require keeping out the grasping hand of Roman Imperium, which isn't the easiest thing.
The Roman Empire wasn't an "Italic empire" like is being proposed here, it was a network of client city states.
Welsh/Britons and Irish/Gaels never considered themselves part of the same people, so what is the basis of this empire?
Last edited:
As in the Roman case the basis would be the military strength of whichever tribe or kingdom starts establishing the empire. A few centuries of being part of the empire could then create a common identity. It would not be called the Celtic Empire unless that title was adopted later.
A few centuries... which means being right next door to Rome for a few centuries. Which means that the Germans are coming over the Rhine. Which means that the Picts are stirring up trouble in the North, and the naked Welsh are all up to no good in the West. Meanwhile, you, King Celt-man, have to deal with being a client king of Rome and not getting swallowed by the Empire, which will eat its clients if there's a hint of unrest.
Sorry, but it's not going to happen.
What about after the Romans leave? A series of Celtic warlords gradually uniting the former province of Britain in opposition to the Anglo-Saxons. Once that is done they could begin the step by step conquest of Scotland and Ireland.
It's called "the Arthur Legend"
Merlin, Sword in the Stone, Round Table, Camelot...
didn't work out in the end, but it sure makes for fine fantasy fiction.
There may be more truth to the Arthur legend than people think. One means of producing steel from iron involved setting an object on a hilltop or other place frequently hit by lightning, and hope that a lightning strike would happen to hit it and convert some of the iron into steel. If Excalibur had been placed on a hilltop, stuck between a couple of rocks with the faint hope of it being turned into a steel blade, it makes sense. Now, if the strike were recent enough, and the original owner hadn't yet returned to check on it, picture Arthur and his buddy strolling up the hill, and spotting a sword sticking upright. Arthurs friend beats him to the sword, and grabs it, only to be knocked back on his posterior by the residual electric charge. Arthur then picks up the blade without any problem, thanks to it already being discharged. Of course, the blade is "magical" in comparison to all of the other local swords, being partially converted to steel.
I can’t seem to find a online source on this method of creating steel. Is the carbon supposed to come from the CO2 in the air?
Even if possible, the sword in the stone tale seems to have been introduced for the first time in the 12th century by a French poet. If there was a historical Arthur, Welsh tales are likely better sources on him than French poets.