Alternate timeline of ancient rome

The roman naval technology was really not very advanced. But perhaps we overestimate this fact. The keel trended to break in rough sea. That was one reason why roman ships usually just sailed from Mai to August in the Mediterrenean Sea. Just bigger ships were a bit more robust and started to sail already in March. But they had the same construction flaw, and usually prefered to sail near to the coast. These are no good terms to cross the Atlantic.

However, roman ships made it to India, the Canaries and the islands north of Scotland. So I would not fully exclude, that it could happen. But surely not the route Columbus used. Other than Columbus the romans believed, that the size of the earth is 40.000 km. So they would not try to cross the Atlantic.

But I see 2 opportunities, how it could happen by accident:

1. If Agricola conquers entire Caledonia and the islands north of it, the romans might meet local fishermen, which tell them about a land in the north (Iceland). The romans believe it is the legendary Thule and start an expedition under good weather conditions. So they use the route the Vikings used. Again, the Vikings had the better ships. But perhaps the people on the northern islands have better ships, too?

2. The romans explore the west african coast down to South Africa. On their way back, they land in Brazil. This is not very unlikely, if they just do it often enough. Because ocean drift and wind often leads from South Africa to Brazil. The Portuguese used this route regulary on their way back home.
The problem is, why should the romans be interested in West- and South Africa at all? We discussed this already in this other thread and the conclusion was, that the trade at the east african coast was more than enough from a roman point of view.

And finally, whatever route the romans take. If they do not find the gold in Mid-America, they would loose interest pretty soon, like the Vikings.
 
Last edited:
The roman naval technology was really not very advanced. But perhaps we overestimate this fact. The keel trended to break in rough sea. That was one reason why roman ships usually just sailed from Mai to August in the Mediterrenean Sea. Just bigger ships were a bit more robust and started to sail already in March. But they had the same construction flaw, and usually prefered to sail near to the coast. These are no good terms to cross the Atlantic.

However, roman ships made it to India, the Canaries and the islands north of Scotland. So I would not fully exclude, that it could happen. But surely not the route Columbus used. Other than Columbus the romans believed, that the size of the earth is 40.000 km. So they would not try to cross the Atlantic.

But I see 2 opportunities, how it could happen by accident:

1. If Agricola conquers entire Caledonia and the islands north of it, the romans might meet local fishermen, which tell them about a land in the north (Iceland). The romans believe it is the legendary Thule and start an expedition under good weather conditions. So they use the route the Vikings used. Again, the Vikings had the better ships. But perhaps the people on the northern islands have better ships, too?

2. The romans explore the west african coast down to South Africa. On their way back, they land in Brazil. This is not very unlikely, if they just do it often enough. Because ocean drift and wind often leads from South Africa to Brazil. The Portuguese used this route regulary on their way back home.
The problem is, why should the romans be interested in West- and South Africa at all? We discussed this already in this other thread and the conclusion was, that the trade at the east african coast was more than enough from a roman point of view.

And finally, whatever route the romans take. If they do not find the gold in Mid-America, they would loose interest pretty soon, like the Vikings.

The periplus was a Greek, not a Roman, concern, even under the Empire. The basic question here is ASB. It takes no account of Roman culture or history. To achieve it, you would need violent manipulation of the possible and probable. Major Roman expansion would have been over land and towards India, following the example of Alexander. They just weren't sailors. Let me at this point state my credentials. I am a tenured professor of Roman history who has studied them for over thirty years.
 
The periplus was a Greek, not a Roman, concern, even under the Empire. The basic question here is ASB. It takes no account of Roman culture or history. To achieve it, you would need violent manipulation of the possible and probable. Major Roman expansion would have been over land and towards India, following the example of Alexander. They just weren't sailors. Let me at this point state my credentials. I am a tenured professor of Roman history who has studied them for over thirty years.

I fully agree. And as stated above, it is highly unlikely that the romans discover the Americas. Definately not due to expansion. As you mentioned, roman expansion would ever go to the east and perhaps a bit to the north.

But it might happen that a single person discovers northern Canada. And disappears again in the dust of history as Leif Eriksson did. Perhaps it really happened, but nobody was interested in this discovery and wrote it down, or the source is lost. Actually Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland are not that interesting form a roman point of view. Not worth further expeditions.
 
Last edited:
I fully agree. And as stated above, it is highly unlikely that the romans discover the Americas. Definately not due to expansion. Roman expansion would ever go to the east and perhaps a bit to the north.

But it might happen that a single person discovers northern Canada. And disappears again in the dust of history as Lars Eriksson did. Perhaps it really happened, but nobody was interested in this discovery and wrote it down, or the source is lost. Actually Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland are not that interesting form a roman point of view, that they are worth a line.

Yes, I saw that and thought your response informed and measured.
 
I am a tenured professor of Roman history who has studied them for over thirty years.

You're a loony.


Edit: You do realize it was a joke? A Monty Python one at that, something a man of your years could appreciate. But I concede, it had poor setup and context, also I apologize for the upsetting on any infant sea lions, may they have a successful future.
 
Last edited:
You're a loony.


Edit: You do realize it was a joke? A Monty Python one at that, something a man of your years could appreciate. But I concede, it had poor setup and context, also I apologize for the upsetting on any infant sea lions, may they have a successful future.

Try using smiley faces to indicate intent in the future.
 
Top