Ancient Greek colonies that could have been.

Where in the med or black sea could the Greek have colonise but didn't due to any number of reasons, and if these reasons could be fixed (e.g. potential colony abandoned due to lack of population so more people migrate their) which areas could have be developed and how that have effected antiquity.
 
I think the Greeks pretty much expanded everywhere they could in the Mediterranean. If I remember correctly, they also had small colonies across the Atlantic Europe. Maybe they could have sailed up the rivers?
 
The main Mediterranean areas the Greeks didn't settle was due to competition, mainly with the Phoenicians. I.e., western Africa/western Europe.

Ancient_colonies.PNG


Greek colonies in blue
 
They might try moving into the Atlantic, Ireland or coastal France or Iberia might work. A Spartan colony infused with Viking blood could prove a terror Hollywood would nod to.
 
They might try moving into the Atlantic, Ireland or coastal France or Iberia might work. A Spartan colony infused with Viking blood could prove a terror Hollywood would nod to.
They can't. The Phoenicians made sure that no Greek colonial expeditions could get beyond the Pillars of Hercules.
 
as mentioned, the best bet would probably be if they started going up the rivers with estuaries in the Mediterranean/Black Sea, say moving up Don, Dnieper, Po or Rhône.

Specially Greek colonization of Po Valley might have interesting consequences given Roma's expansion
 
What about the Italian side of the northern Adriatic? Could the Greeks have settled at or near OTL Venice?
 
as mentioned, the best bet would probably be if they started going up the rivers with estuaries in the Mediterranean/Black Sea, say moving up Don, Dnieper, Po or Rhône.

Specially Greek colonization of Po Valley might have interesting consequences given Roma's expansion

The Danube is probably one of the better waterways for accessing inland trade.

Also, the Greeks might have run the Varangian road in reverse, up the Dnieper. (There, you have your Greekings.) They could go up there because of inaccessibility of the Tauris grain (for political/climatic reasons).
 
The Danube is probably one of the better waterways for accessing inland trade.

Also, the Greeks might have run the Varangian road in reverse, up the Dnieper. (There, you have your Greekings.) They could go up there because of inaccessibility of the Tauris grain (for political/climatic reasons).

Reason why i didn't mention the Danube is that Dacians and Thracians sit at it, glaring at each other over it, so while it might be a good waterway for accessing inland trade, question is if it would be accessable for Greeks looking to establish cities
 
Reason why i didn't mention the Danube is that Dacians and Thracians sit at it, glaring at each other over it, so while it might be a good waterway for accessing inland trade, question is if it would be accessable for Greeks looking to establish cities

What about the ebro river its very navigable and the locals colonist can hold their own against the locals since unlike thr Dacians and Thracians their numbers are low.
 
As the ancient writers seen to have had some knowledge of Iceland (Thule), I've always been curious about the establishment of a Greek or Roman settlement there, long before the Celts or the Norse arrive. All you need is one ship of colonists and then what? The cultural development in such isolation would be fascinating. Would they maintain some semblance of their language or culture, or eventually find themselves entirely assimilated into arriving Celtic or Germanic culture?

Of course, there's not much reason for Greeks to settle such a far-flung, empty, cold land.

The Sub-Saharan African coast is another interesting direction.
 
As the ancient writers seen to have had some knowledge of Iceland (Thule)

They were shooting blindly at guesses, as long as it was in the general direction, but i think the primary contender, tended to be either the southwestern Norway, Orkney/Shetland/Faroes (one or more of them), or some indeterminate area north of Scythia (around old Rus?), and at least the last one was somewhat merged with Hypeoborea which was placed all over everywhere north/northeast of Caspian Sea
 
How about a Greek Cornwall? Pytheas mentioned in their trips, as a place rich on tin, and habitants relatively civilized.
 
it still runs into the issue of getting through the Phoenician gauntlet at the Pillars. the Greek was more or less locked up and forced to stay within the mediterranean by Phoenician control of the Strait of Gibraltar
 
it still runs into the issue of getting through the Phoenician gauntlet at the Pillars. the Greek was more or less locked up and forced to stay within the mediterranean by Phoenician control of the Strait of Gibraltar

Then they have either to destroy the Phoenician colony at the pillars, or be faster and build the first city at Gibraltar.
 
What about the Italian side of the northern Adriatic? Could the Greeks have settled at or near OTL Venice?

I read a study long ago that looked at the types of 'ecosystems' that were colonized by the Greeks. They preferred coastlines with a high ratio of coastline to area (lots of islands or fjords, etc.) The only shoreline in the Mediterranean or Black Sea that was not already occupied by a militarily significant people, that the Greeks failed to seriously colonize, was that of the northern Adriatic, which would have been perfect for their lifestyle.
 
How about a Greek Cornwall? Pytheas mentioned in their trips, as a place rich on tin, and habitants relatively civilized.

The Isles of Scilly would make sense - even IOTL. Evidence suggests that they were all one island at one point, and this might make sense of one of the British mysteries - we know from written history and from archaeology that highly extensive mining took place - but where is the infrastructure? Where are the docks? Where were the stables?
 
There are several failed Greek colonies reported in ancient sources. Foremost Alalia in Corsica, where the Focean colonists were expelled by joint Etruscan-Carthaginian action because, hey, that was their turf, and unspecified Greek settlements in "Elisha" (likely to be North Africa) mentioned by Ezekiel and probably also absorbed/expelled by the Carthaginians. You also have Greek settlements in Cilicia that failed to mantain their Greek ethnic character (Adana I think).
By the way, the Greek seemingly DID settle the North Adriatic, although much more lightly than other areas.
 
as mentioned, the best bet would probably be if they started going up the rivers with estuaries in the Mediterranean/Black Sea, say moving up Don, Dnieper, Po or Rhône.

Specially Greek colonization of Po Valley might have interesting consequences given Roma's expansion

Po is unlikely. That's in the Etruscan sphere. They already were beginning colonization of the area, and then of course the Gauls pushed in and overran most of the northern colonies.
 
Then they have either to destroy the Phoenician colony at the pillars, or be faster and build the first city at Gibraltar.

Neither is really possible. The Phoenicians started colonizing first, and it was really the Phoenicians that gave the Greeks their new script and brought them back into exploring and colonizing for the first time since the Myceneans.

The second, isn't really feasible, because it's not as simple as destroying one colony. Nor does it really worth the effort-why try so hard to break out of the Mediterranean when there are plenty of lucrative locations for establishing colonies already in the western mediterranean?
 
Top