Got this idea from a kids TV show I saw back when I was a kid, with the premise being a Roman longship discovered in some remote place Down Under. Now, WI somehow Romans had managed to go all the way over to Australia at some point in ancient hist ? How would hist have been affected had Rome managed to reach out that far across the world ?
Romans discover Australia !!
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
I suspect, not much. It would have been too far away to be worth conquering.
I attended a talk several years ago by an astronomer who said he believed that Odyseus and his crew visited North America. There are detailed descriptions in the Odyssey about how they navigated by the stars, and the only way the descriptions make sense is if at one point in the voyage they ended up in the Bay of Fundy (between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick). And in order for them to have known how to get home again, they would have had to have information fom previous travellors. I have no idea - knowing little abou astronomy and less about Homer - whether or not he was right, but it was an interesting idea.
I attended a talk several years ago by an astronomer who said he believed that Odyseus and his crew visited North America. There are detailed descriptions in the Odyssey about how they navigated by the stars, and the only way the descriptions make sense is if at one point in the voyage they ended up in the Bay of Fundy (between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick). And in order for them to have known how to get home again, they would have had to have information fom previous travellors. I have no idea - knowing little abou astronomy and less about Homer - whether or not he was right, but it was an interesting idea.
There's supposedly ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs somewhere in australia. Really primitive ones, but definately egyptian. I guess the theory is that some ship got lost at sea and ended up in australia, never to be heard from again.
Anyone else ever hear of it?
Anyone else ever hear of it?
Diamond
Banned
Ancient Romans... even if they could get there, probably no great change.
Byzantines - that might be a possibility, if they stay strong enough to invest in voyages of discovery. I guess that probably means no Islam, or a scenario like the one in my TL, where they relocate the seat of the Empire to Carthage from Constantinople and control most of Africa, including Egypt and Axum, giving them the ports with which to launch voyages to (Lemuria?)
Byzantines - that might be a possibility, if they stay strong enough to invest in voyages of discovery. I guess that probably means no Islam, or a scenario like the one in my TL, where they relocate the seat of the Empire to Carthage from Constantinople and control most of Africa, including Egypt and Axum, giving them the ports with which to launch voyages to (Lemuria?)
Leo Caesius
Banned
You may be interested in this:
Phoenicians in Australia
I first heard about this from my friend Amelie Beyhum, who works for the Dept. of Antiquities. She heard it from the Lebanese ambassador to Russia. This ambassador is an incurable insomniac, and happened to catch the "archaeologist" who claims to have discovered Phoenician ruins in Australia on late-night Russian television.
Phoenicians in Australia
I first heard about this from my friend Amelie Beyhum, who works for the Dept. of Antiquities. She heard it from the Lebanese ambassador to Russia. This ambassador is an incurable insomniac, and happened to catch the "archaeologist" who claims to have discovered Phoenician ruins in Australia on late-night Russian television.
I read somewhere that there was an Indian port city, Conchin if I'm not mistaken, that recieved a few boatloads of Judean refugees after the Jewish war in 70 AD. Maybe that ship could get stuck in a current and end up in Perth? Nothing important would change, but Australian archaeology could get a little weirder.
Flocculencio
Donor
Alasdair Czyrnyj said:
Cochin- and there were jews there before that too. I'm partially descended from them
Hendryk
Banned
The following passage from Herodotus ("History", book 4) may be of interest to you:
42. For my part I am astonished that men should ever have divided Libya, Asia, and Europe as they have, for they are exceedingly unequal. Europe extends the entire length of the other two, and for breadth will not even (as I think) bear to be compared to them. As for Libya, we know it to be washed on all sides by the sea, except where it is attached to Asia. This discovery was first made by Necos, the Egyptian king, who on desisting from the canal which he had begun between the Nile and the Arabian Gulf, sent to sea a number of ships manned by Phoenicians, with orders to make for the Pillars of Hercules, and return to Egypt through them, and by the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians took their departure from Egypt by way of the Erythraean Sea, and so sailed into the southern ocean. When autumn came, they went ashore, wherever they might happen to be, and having sown a tract of land with corn, waited until the grain was fit to cut. Having reaped it, they again set sail; and thus it came to pass that two whole years went by, and it was not till the third year that they doubled the Pillars of Hercules, and made good their voyage home. On their return, they declared - I for my part do not believe them, but perhaps others may - that in sailing round Libya they had the sun upon their right hand. In this way was the extent of Libya first discovered.
This reference to the sun could probably not have been made up, so we have to assume that the Phoenicians did on at least one occasion sail past the southern tip of Africa. From there it isn't so much of a stretch to imagine them blown off course and drifting all the way to the Australian shores.
42. For my part I am astonished that men should ever have divided Libya, Asia, and Europe as they have, for they are exceedingly unequal. Europe extends the entire length of the other two, and for breadth will not even (as I think) bear to be compared to them. As for Libya, we know it to be washed on all sides by the sea, except where it is attached to Asia. This discovery was first made by Necos, the Egyptian king, who on desisting from the canal which he had begun between the Nile and the Arabian Gulf, sent to sea a number of ships manned by Phoenicians, with orders to make for the Pillars of Hercules, and return to Egypt through them, and by the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians took their departure from Egypt by way of the Erythraean Sea, and so sailed into the southern ocean. When autumn came, they went ashore, wherever they might happen to be, and having sown a tract of land with corn, waited until the grain was fit to cut. Having reaped it, they again set sail; and thus it came to pass that two whole years went by, and it was not till the third year that they doubled the Pillars of Hercules, and made good their voyage home. On their return, they declared - I for my part do not believe them, but perhaps others may - that in sailing round Libya they had the sun upon their right hand. In this way was the extent of Libya first discovered.
This reference to the sun could probably not have been made up, so we have to assume that the Phoenicians did on at least one occasion sail past the southern tip of Africa. From there it isn't so much of a stretch to imagine them blown off course and drifting all the way to the Australian shores.
I imagine a Roman discovery of Australia might be much like how the Romans got to China.
During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, some Romans came to the court of the Chinese Emperor, claiming to bei Aurelius's ambassadors. I don't know how much was accomplished, but I imagine the reports those brought back from China made the country (somewhat) known in the West, and I believe knowledge remained in the medieval times ("Cathay").
If some Romans were trading in SE Asia and commented about a "vast desert continent," I imagine people in later Europe would know vaguely about Australia, just as they vaguely knew about China.
During the reign of Marcus Aurelius, some Romans came to the court of the Chinese Emperor, claiming to bei Aurelius's ambassadors. I don't know how much was accomplished, but I imagine the reports those brought back from China made the country (somewhat) known in the West, and I believe knowledge remained in the medieval times ("Cathay").
If some Romans were trading in SE Asia and commented about a "vast desert continent," I imagine people in later Europe would know vaguely about Australia, just as they vaguely knew about China.
Roman crops grow well in South Africa and Australia. Exploration ships would have to be sailboats for that distance if you tried to make it directly.
But the island of Madagascar does have some sort of Mediterranean parts on the southern end. The Romans could find that huge, unexplored, uninhabited island pretty quickly if they went south along the coast and got blown off shore or were exploring for trade partners.
Mauritius and Reunion are farther off shore. So are the Seychelles. Socotra, maybe. It had some dye and incense woods that might get some Roman emperor interested in going until they found South Africa and decided to trade. Carthago was more trade oriented, though.
Alternatively, they could just start working their way along the coast, sending trade groups and ambassadors as far as they could, to Indonesia and New Guinea. Then there is Australia a bit farther along.
If the Romans grabbed the Red Sea exit to levy tolls, they could have a start along the way. If they got Muskat after their temperary conquest of Mesopotamia they would have control of both chokepoints for Indian trade and hog it all for themselves. Screw the Parthians and the Silk Road!
The exploration process feeds on itself because the timber of Madagascar would provide lumber for the ships to dominate trade and piracy in the Indian ocean. The original reason for exploring Madagascar would be animals for the Emperor's circus. The lumber would just be something available. The spices would be a luxury good that would allow the Romans to conserve their silver coins from export to the East, a constant concern of theirs.
Once horses get wild in Australia they will go pastoral. Horse barbarians are hard to conquer. Look at America. It took us rifles and railroads to get the job sone. In Australia there were too many places along the coast that the aborigines could buy gunpowder in trade for wool or leather. It would be Algeria in wide screen, rather than a easy job to kill them all. Probably it would still be aboriginal except for Tasmania.
But the island of Madagascar does have some sort of Mediterranean parts on the southern end. The Romans could find that huge, unexplored, uninhabited island pretty quickly if they went south along the coast and got blown off shore or were exploring for trade partners.
Mauritius and Reunion are farther off shore. So are the Seychelles. Socotra, maybe. It had some dye and incense woods that might get some Roman emperor interested in going until they found South Africa and decided to trade. Carthago was more trade oriented, though.
Alternatively, they could just start working their way along the coast, sending trade groups and ambassadors as far as they could, to Indonesia and New Guinea. Then there is Australia a bit farther along.
If the Romans grabbed the Red Sea exit to levy tolls, they could have a start along the way. If they got Muskat after their temperary conquest of Mesopotamia they would have control of both chokepoints for Indian trade and hog it all for themselves. Screw the Parthians and the Silk Road!
The exploration process feeds on itself because the timber of Madagascar would provide lumber for the ships to dominate trade and piracy in the Indian ocean. The original reason for exploring Madagascar would be animals for the Emperor's circus. The lumber would just be something available. The spices would be a luxury good that would allow the Romans to conserve their silver coins from export to the East, a constant concern of theirs.
Once horses get wild in Australia they will go pastoral. Horse barbarians are hard to conquer. Look at America. It took us rifles and railroads to get the job sone. In Australia there were too many places along the coast that the aborigines could buy gunpowder in trade for wool or leather. It would be Algeria in wide screen, rather than a easy job to kill them all. Probably it would still be aboriginal except for Tasmania.
If The romans COULD get to australlia, it would be no use to them, except to be a place to send convicts to
In Rome, convicts were called 'slaves'. They would be sent there after being captured from ships that were caught by the Roman navy in the Indian Ocean. They can't escape into the interior because the interior is full of Aboriginal tribes to hunt them down for trade goods.WngMasterD said:
Leo Caesius
Banned
wkwillis said:
Do any of you remember the film Joe vs. the Volcano, staring Tom Hanks? He is brought to an island, Waponi Woo, which was settled by the descendants of a lost Roman Galley filled with Jewish and Druid slaves. In the scene where they're marching up to the top of the volcano, they sing a kind of Polynesian version of the Hava Nagila.
Scarecrow said:
Well actually in 1921, I think it was, Western Australia had a referendum to secede from the Commonwealth & the "yes" vote won. So what are you Sand Gropers waiting for?
Needless to say, out of 20 million Australians, 19 million of us decided to live in the East. I guess most of us prefer not sharing life with 100 million blow flies
There was some belief in a southern landmass, Antichthon, I believe, to balance out the northern landmass.Matt Quinn said: