Do you think the Greeks could have arrived to and colonized the Americas? If so, which would have been the consequences of that encounter?
Ancient Greeks in the Americas
- Thread starter FernandoPerla
- Start date
Albert.Nik
Banned
I am tempted to talk about an earlier colonization of the Americas but I can't say about the Logistics of transport from Europe to Americas back then.
yeetboy
Banned
It would be irresponsible to not look at Greek colonisation of Black Sea and south Italy where smalling trading ports were settled lead by State run expeditions.
In the more likely of the 2 scenarios where a Greek ship blows wildly ofcourse and lands somewhere in South America, you would see the establishment of a small port that wouldn't amount to anything more. The descendants of this city would be heavily mixed with native and Greek ancestry, and if any extended territory were to be formed via the use of superior Greek technology you would see a hellenic styled kingdom with a native population.
The less likely of the 2 is one where a Greek explorer returns to Greece with knowledge of South America, you could see huge voyages carrying settlers which would settle trading cities dotted around the Amazon and Venezuela. This would have the effect of destroying the native population via introduction of diseases, and during a rise of Rome scenario you could see an influx of people escaping Latin persecution end up in these colonies. Going further with a similar Roman rise timeline, it wouldn't be out of this world to assume a Roman emperor would be interested in conquering South America, leading to a conquest of the Greek city states, expansion into Columbia/Amazon and latinisation of the subjected areas. The eventual spread of Roman technology will impact Mesoamerica and North Americans reaction to the Romans in the south, and a collapse of the Roman empire in the old world could be mirrored in the new world where native Kingdoms occupy previous Roman lands, but form latinised kingdoms.
EDIt: In the first scenario you would see a much more favourable outcome for the natives come European colonialism. If the Greek technologies were to successfully spread across the Americas, Europeans would arrive in the New World with a very different first contact. I doubt that the small number of Greek castaways would of been enough to build disease resistances in the entirety of the Americas, so that would still play a significant role in European colonisation of the Americas.
In the more likely of the 2 scenarios where a Greek ship blows wildly ofcourse and lands somewhere in South America, you would see the establishment of a small port that wouldn't amount to anything more. The descendants of this city would be heavily mixed with native and Greek ancestry, and if any extended territory were to be formed via the use of superior Greek technology you would see a hellenic styled kingdom with a native population.
The less likely of the 2 is one where a Greek explorer returns to Greece with knowledge of South America, you could see huge voyages carrying settlers which would settle trading cities dotted around the Amazon and Venezuela. This would have the effect of destroying the native population via introduction of diseases, and during a rise of Rome scenario you could see an influx of people escaping Latin persecution end up in these colonies. Going further with a similar Roman rise timeline, it wouldn't be out of this world to assume a Roman emperor would be interested in conquering South America, leading to a conquest of the Greek city states, expansion into Columbia/Amazon and latinisation of the subjected areas. The eventual spread of Roman technology will impact Mesoamerica and North Americans reaction to the Romans in the south, and a collapse of the Roman empire in the old world could be mirrored in the new world where native Kingdoms occupy previous Roman lands, but form latinised kingdoms.
EDIt: In the first scenario you would see a much more favourable outcome for the natives come European colonialism. If the Greek technologies were to successfully spread across the Americas, Europeans would arrive in the New World with a very different first contact. I doubt that the small number of Greek castaways would of been enough to build disease resistances in the entirety of the Americas, so that would still play a significant role in European colonisation of the Americas.
there is a sort of 'crypto-history' field that speculates a lot about pre-Columbian contacts with the New World. Greeks, Romans, and Carthaginians show up a lot in it. The main sticking point I have with the idea is 'do the Greeks have ships that can actually make the voyage?'
The answer is generally no. While its not outright impossible, their ships arent well suited to Atlantic travel or long sea voyages in general. There will be a lot of ships lost.
I know caesar had a lot of trouble even with just the english channel, though whether that was due to having the wrong ships or just romans being poor seamen is a mystery to me. If the latter Classis Britannica, or the fleet used by Constantius Chlorus against it, used different ship designs than the other roman fleets would be interesting to know
I hate to be that person, but this is practically impossible. Let alone sustained contact between the two continents.
This scenario is extremely improbable and unlikely, this reminds me of the thread asking about Romans colonizing Madagascar for no reason.
For one thing, people of the ancient world had a very limited understanding about geography. Greeks and other Mediterranean peoples would not know too much about distant lands outside of Europe, Western Asia, or Northern Africa. Good luck with having them somehow accidentally stumbling upon a very faraway, unknown continent on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean that none of them have even heard of.
Even if they were given a good motivation to start sailing out west to only Zeus knows where, well as someone else said, they lack the logistical capabilities to make such a long journey, let alone survive it. Even if some Greek sailors were somehow able to land on America's coast, they'll probably just remain stranded there for the rest of their lives, rather than starting a trend of colonization. After all, why would most people risk their lives just to move into a mysterious place at this point in time?
For one thing, people of the ancient world had a very limited understanding about geography. Greeks and other Mediterranean peoples would not know too much about distant lands outside of Europe, Western Asia, or Northern Africa. Good luck with having them somehow accidentally stumbling upon a very faraway, unknown continent on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean that none of them have even heard of.
Even if they were given a good motivation to start sailing out west to only Zeus knows where, well as someone else said, they lack the logistical capabilities to make such a long journey, let alone survive it. Even if some Greek sailors were somehow able to land on America's coast, they'll probably just remain stranded there for the rest of their lives, rather than starting a trend of colonization. After all, why would most people risk their lives just to move into a mysterious place at this point in time?
It's truly amazing what people have managed to cross the Atlantic in, Thor Heyerdahl's Reed boat comes to mind.
However. Those modern crossings happened knowing weather patterns and ocean currents and some were very much one way.
Could a Greek, Roman or Phoenician ship surive the
That was the pacific, though you may be thinking of the more recent An-Tiki trip from the canaries to the bahamas. While he and similar expeditions show that a one way trip could be done using period tech of South America, they also show that the wear and tear of the journey was significant enough that they couldn't completely repair it at sea.
For comparison, i recall a group recreated an old irish currach to demonstrate the technical feasibility of St. Brendan traveling to the Americas, beating out the leif ericson centuries beforehand on the same route. We already know that irish monks reached Iceland before the norse so it seemed physically possible. They hit a small iceberg and were able to repare it easily just by sowing it.
Either way, they both relied on a lot of luck and modern navigational methods. Im not saying that it was impossible for them, or the greeks for that matter, to each the Americas, but that they couldn't do it reliably or safely enough to make such a crossing regular.
Yeah i dont buy Pytheas going to greenland, let alone that last leg straight across the Atlantic in the open ocean. That flys completely against Mediterranean sailing traditions that not only prefer but requires regular landfalls.
Deleted member 114175
Everything in the world would be different, except Syracuse, New York which would remain exactly the same.
They could have arrived in the Americas, and for all we know they did, but "colonize" anything, nope. Their entire legacy would be a small genetic lineage and some artifacts.
Aside from this ruler and their soon-to-be-legendary foolishness, this would actually be a plausible way to get your first scenario to happen. These Greeks will quickly fall out of contact and will never amount to much, but they'd have the numbers and base to actually get established.
What technologies do the Greeks have which would be useful for the Amazonians to adopt? A civilization of terra preta farming rainforest dwellers is literally a world away from a civilization of metalworking farmers in a Mediterranean environment.
The best case would be the East Coast, somewhere you'd have bog iron for the natives to use. Metal deposits in Amazonia exist but not near the coast.
They'd revert to a "primitive" lifestyle just to survive, their superior tech would break down with no way to replace it, and they die/are assimilated by the locals.
What are they trading? Brazilwood? There's literally nothing in the Americas, not even gold, that would make sense to trade at such a vast distance and high risk. Any ruler which organized such expeditions would be better off just dumping his money to the bottom of the Mediterranean along with thousands of people.
Aside from this ruler and their soon-to-be-legendary foolishness, this would actually be a plausible way to get your first scenario to happen. These Greeks will quickly fall out of contact and will never amount to much, but they'd have the numbers and base to actually get established.
What technologies do the Greeks have which would be useful for the Amazonians to adopt? A civilization of terra preta farming rainforest dwellers is literally a world away from a civilization of metalworking farmers in a Mediterranean environment.
The best case would be the East Coast, somewhere you'd have bog iron for the natives to use. Metal deposits in Amazonia exist but not near the coast.
A more likely discovery by the Greeks is the Azores or Greenland, but the Azores are more likely. The archipelago is basically the same distance from Europe and NA and I'm not sure what continent it's in.
???
The survivors could well have someone who knows iron working. Maybe not an actual smith, but someone who knows enough of the basics to become one. And iron ores are widespread - especially if you can get started with small, not very good ones. In particular, the natives will know about ochre, which they use to paint (probably themselves), and that works.
Once you have a smithy going, even if no one recognizes copper ores, per se, they should know said ores are green or blue. Eventually they'll find one.
They probably had grain on board as provisions for the trip. If some survives they can plant that. If not, the locals had some agriculture (partly depending on where they land).
Sure, the likelihood of enough people surviving with enough cohesion to stick together, with enough initial skills is low. It most assuredly is not ASB.
The answer is arguably yes but you have to go to the Hellenistic era, when you get to both crossing the Indian ocean without hugging to the coast after Hippalus and merchant ships both in the Mediterranean and the Indian trade quite a bit larger than what was being used in the early age of exploration.
On the other hand the Western Mediterranean and points west of the pillars of Hercules remained Carthagian controlled for a long time. You need both to replace Carthage with a Greek state (or conquer it early say at the time of Alexander and Agathocles) and have someone like Eudoxus of Cyzicus trying to circumnavigate Africa and end up blown off to Brazil probably.
the 'usual suspects' for Greeks/Roman/Carthaginians/etc. in the new world are older books and authors; "Long Before Columbus" by Hans Holzer, "America BC" by Barry Fell, "Columbus Was Last" by Patrick Huyghe, and "They All Discovered America" by Charles Boland. A lot of them discuss the Mystery Hill site in New England, as well as assorted other supposed stone artifacts. Needless to say, none of them are considered to be correct by the vast majority of historians...