After the Roman invasion of the British isles a Roman Convoy was hit by an unexpected storm that blew them deep into the Atlantic. This resulted in the damaged ships suddenly appearing off a coast that they had never seen before. They had arrived at the entrance to a big harbor. There were no ships or building any where that could be seen. A decision was made to head to a large island to the port side as there appeared to be an area where the damaged vessels could be repaired and the soldiers and supplies landed. The Tribune aboard decided that a bade would need to be bult as it would take time to repair the ships.
Romans land in New World
- Thread starter chris N
- Start date
Why would Roman colonists suddenly develop medieval armor and gunpowder weapons?
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I didn't know we were posting ahistorical art from a (until now) new Americas expansion pack for Rome total War! Just no.
Here's the problem though: the galleys in the style the Romans used them were absolutely unsuitable for traversing the Atlantic Ocean.
The only way a Roman colonization could happen is, to have a surviving Rome advance it's ship-building techniques.
The only way a Roman colonization could happen is, to have a surviving Rome advance it's ship-building techniques.
Yeeeah that always appears to be the problem with Roman colonization. Course the ships of the Veneti in the Brittany region of France were apparently suitable for Atlantic conditions, if you want Romans in America, have an admiral take an interest in those ships (or rather have the Veneti join Rome peacefully and have a Romanized Veneti make the voyage accidentally perhaps?) and have him spread the idea around until it takes hold.
Sior
Banned
Roman merchant ships were huge, the average heavy bulk grain transports had 1,000-1,500 tons, while the largest ancient ships reported had 5,000-6,000 tons. The largest European ships at the time of Napoleon had about the same size.
http://seedsofchristianity.com/wordpress/?p=3605
http://seedsofchristianity.com/wordpress/?p=3605
Last edited:
Yes, the Romans were capable of building large vessels (but note that the lake nemi ships were operating on a freshwater lake), but with the Mediterranean conditions in mind, these really weren't suited for crossing the Atlantic Ocean.
Regarding the Aremorican ships (I actually mentioned those in Errnge's thread just earlier
) while they (overtly) were suitable for operating under Atlantic conditions, we do not know how well-suited they really were. If however they were anywhere close to the Knarr of the Vikings, they might be suitable. Again, like I said in the other thread, this ship-building technique seemingly got lost when the Romans conquered Aremorica.
Thande
Donor
EQ: a thought strikes me. While we can debate whether it is plausible for the Romans to have ships allowing them to get there, let's put that aside for a minute and just think about 'what if the Romans land there', say about AD 100. Given your knowledge of Roman place naming terminology and geography I'd be interested to see your guesses for what they might name places in the American continent--say the Caribbean, assuming they end up there like Columbus. Of course we don't know much about the native names they would be partially working off at that point in history, but still...
that is interesting indeed. I'd like to think Florida might actually have a similar name, cuz it was named for all the flowers there. I think naming systems might be similar in certain places, then there would be latinization of tribal names.
Olmecae?
Woohoo... that's a tough a challenge. Especially because it's 1400 years earlier than OTL, and a lot of history did happen in the meantime. It also doesn't help that most native american peoples were illiterate (even the Mayans, to my knowledge, were literate only for a few centuries by that time), so it's difficult to interpolate what the ethnic situation really was like in the 1st/2nd century AD at an awfully lot of places.
Regarding the Romans, there is of course the tendency to latinize local names (like they did with "Mediolanon" becoming "Mediolanum"
), but beyond that, it's really hard, hard to say. Incidentially, I was actually working on another update for that ancient geography thread.
You'd be wrong then. The earliest discovered Maya texts date from a couple of centuries before then, but were already at an advanced level and it's possible that the Mayans were the ones who invented Mesoamerican writing rather than the Olmecs as previously believed. And the political situation of the Maya is known by some degree at that time. Yax Ebh Xook is king of Mutul (known as Tikal to you unknowing ones) at around this time. The Kaan dynasty rules most of the area, they already have massive cities with monumental construction, etc. Ethnic situation of Mexico proper has always been a bit confusing, but I'm sure the Zapotecs still hold power there, from Monte Alban.
Colonizing America is Hard
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=180065
And doubly so for random voyages that land there with no plans of settlement.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=180065
And doubly so for random voyages that land there with no plans of settlement.
That thread needs to be stickied and all threads ignoring it be destroyed. Seriously, for a supposedly left-leaning forum you see the most blindly imperialist/colonialist people around here who thinks all non-colonizing people are inferior and irrelevant. Simple fact of the matter is, if a boat full of Romans lands in America randomly, they either live out a meagre existence in the middle of nowhere, die from disease or starvation or exposure or anything, or get brutally killed by the natives. They are not going to create an empire simply by virtue of being from Europe.
Sorry, I may have sounded confusing there: I meant that the Mayans were only literate for a few centuries by the 1st century AD (you do have a point about the origin of the writing system, however). But yes, you are in regard for the Mayans verymuch right, the political situation is well reasonably documented for Mesoamerica at the time. But basically for the rest of the Americas, it's mainly archaeology and a tad of guesswork, unfortunately.
I was actually going by Thande's premise that the Romans actually manage to colonize the Americas, not that some random boat manages to reach it. Also regarding the creation of an overseas empire, I would argue that the Romans wouldn't/couldn't do that by the virtue of being from Europe, but by the virtue of being Romans. What I mean by that is that the Romans destroyed like a dozen cultures / emerging civilizations in the Euro-Mediterranean area (which in my opinion have something in common with the natives of the Americas in that is that they had deserved a better fate), so with the intention to NOT sound like a "blind imperialist", I unfortunately do not see how the natives of the Americas would evade a similar fate as the Carthaginians, Dacians, Gauls, Etruscans, Iberians, Lusitanians, etc. etc. did suffer.
Last edited:
Again, while known Mayan writing dates from only around 100 BC or so, the level of the writing found (at San Bartolo if you don't believe me) is at an advanced level and suggests that its origin is many, many centuries older. And that's just Mayans, the oldest known Zapotec writing (and it is known that they were likely the strongest power in Mexico, or at least Oaxaca) dates from 500 BC, and the oldest known Olmec writing from 900 BC.