Why didn't Britannia under went Romanization like all the

>>2749828
There was never really a strong Roman presence in Britain nor was there a united British nation at the time. It was also constantly under revolt and there's circumstantial evidence the Romans may have lost an entire legion there Teutoburg style.

There were a decent amount of Latinate words in early English, but the fighting between the Celts and the Germans meant that other languages won out

>>2749828
Britain did speak Latin to some degree during the Roman time. But this area was really a poor backwater and the Roman state was never as strong here as in other places. There is a reason that the western empire abondened Britain first. Also, the British wound up being assimilated instead of assimilating their conquerors like what happened to the other barbarian states did.

Because all the Roman influence got sacked by all the migranting barbarians into the area. It was very Roman in the cities before the fall, especially in places like York which was raising emperors and key figures constantly. But being the stomping ground for German/Nordicks dropped the infrastructure down terribly low from Roman times.

Most of Britain wasn't conquered by Rome and what they did have was tenuously held at best.

>>2749893

The pictish areas and Ireland having little to no cities or trade development confused the Roman legions greatly. In situations like that, they just were unsure how to conqueor and hold the area. In the Late Empire it could have easily been held by a field army moving around putting the area to the sword forcing the barbarians captured into servitude building up cities and having people colonize it.. But the Empire in general was falling apart so the highway that would be needed for colonizers didn't exist.

Y'all realize that Londinium was a miserable backwater, yeah?

>>2749906
Yes, the Late Roman Empire actually had mobile field armies, and specifically border armies. The concept would have probably allowed more expeditions into Caledonia and Hibernia, were it not for the Gothic, Vandalic, and Hunnic invasions, among other groups.

>>2750005

The WRE was in miserable shape which was the problem that Britain had. They wanted it so badly, but the west was decades behind the East in fortifying the border. The entire border with Germany was supposed to have as strong forts as along the Saxon Shore of Britains southern Coast.

>>2750008
Honestly, could the Western Roman Empire have performed any more efficiently, after having annexed Caledonian and Hibernian lands, for lets say a century? Could the WRE have been able to recruit a substantial amount of newly-subdued Celtic people into their armies, maintaining enough loyalty and fighting efficiency? I've been under the impression that the Romans originally stopped after there was little profit to be gained in obtaining those lands, after falling back from the Antonine Wall to Hadrian's.

>>2750021

Britain from the Middle Ages shows that it is a very wealthy land, with plenty ability to be tax farmed. Although not rich by any means in culture, it provided a substantial reserve in metals, grains, and wool.

Problem was the inability to administer the land because filthy fucking barbarians kept ravaging the land. They needed a higher level of civilization, as their rural nature made it a constant hassle to defend their colony in Britain. By eliminating the threat and civilizing them, and fortifying the Saxon Shore Romano-Britain would have been pretty safe and prosperous colony for the Romans to tax.