New patially asb Tl What if the Romans discovered america

This Tl will assume that the romans had boats able to go their and back and vested interest in the west. However this tl is NOT a roman wank, as it will collapse around the same time
 
OK, let's not get our butterflies ahead of our quinqueremes

We don't know that Rome will collapse at the same time as OTL

Initially we could see a couple of things, based on
1) Rome traded with peoples of the Indian Ocean down towards Mozambique, and in doing this they were just traders, drawing their ships up on the beach and wintering, and their voyages tended to take a couple of years but were so profitable this was worth it (as well as seeming natural)
2) Rome had warehouses in some Indian states' ports (as in India), which were the result of arrangements with civilised states, and long-distance trading on a settled pattern, often taking several years in a round-trip.

So, Roman discovery of the Americans does not automatically necessitate any sort of conquest or settlement. For nomadic or barbarian peoples it could be the boats on the shore, wintering in encampments example. For more civilised states with their own organisation the aim would be the warehouses, but it depends on how the latter react to the arrival of the Romans.

On the Western, Pacific shore we can be pretty certain that coastal trade went from as far South as Peru to as far North as the gulf Baja is on. The peoples on this coast were used to traders appearing in ships. Whether any of this would carry over to the Eastern, Caribbean, shore I don't know
 
The First contact.

AUC 870: Swayed by mysterious men claiming to behold a large island full of gold and fertile land Trajan authorizes a fleet to be sent to make contact. He uses their port on the Azores as resting points. Trajan's successor Hadrian takes command of this fleet. Meanwhile Hadrian while preparing his fleet stumbles upon hero's Aeolipile and decides to take it to Trajan, who soon dismisses it. However Hadrian would continue to be fascinated by it.

AUC 871 Hadrian and a fleet of 10,000 roman soldiers and settlers arrive in the Americas. Minor roman settlements are founded in the Yucatan. Hadrian meets the leader of a native american protomaya city. However when he observes human sacrifice, he is disgusted, and attacks and kills the temple priest. The city leader promptly declares war on him, however his army of less than 1000 is easlily defeated by the roman's better tech and 4,000 soldiers. Hadrian subjugates the Yucatan and converts there temples into Hellenic temples. He allows the natives to follow whatever religion they want but outlaws all types of human sacrifice.

AUC 872 A roman governor in Mesopotamia incites a hellenic revolt against the Parthian regime, strugling with multiple civil wars Parthia is unable to stop it and it breaks free becoming a Roman buffer state against Parthia.
 
Last edited:
I'm not an expert on Mayan warfare, but would they really be outclassed by the Romans? They might have metal armor, but than might be an disadventage in warm, humid, Yucatán.
Also, 20.000 Roman soldiers heading info the unknown and facing only 1000 nativas sean to be severely skewed numbers.
 
I'm not an expert on Mayan warfare, but would they really be outclassed by the Romans? They might have metal armor, but than might be an disadventage in warm, humid, Yucatán.
Also, 20.000 Roman soldiers heading info the unknown and facing only 1000 nativas sean to be severely skewed numbers.
you are right however they are not facing some kind of empire these were basically all the men in a city who went to fight the romans. there were not really many as they ere not facing some organized kingdom but a tiny state about the size of a ck2 county
 

Philip

Donor
Swayed by mysterious men claiming to behold a large island full of gold and fertile land Trajan authorizes a fleet to be sent to make contact.

AUC 871 Hadrian and a fleet of 20,000 roman soldiers arrive in the Americas.

That's not making contact. That's an invasion. Even if we pretend that Rome had the technological wherewithal to cross the Atlantic, I can't buy Rome dedicating 20k troops and hundreds of ships based on the tales of some mysterious men.
 
That's not making contact. That's an invasion. Even if we pretend that Rome had the technological wherewithal to cross the Atlantic, I can't buy Rome dedicating 20k troops and hundreds of ships based on the tales of some mysterious men.

Exactly - that was my point which got ignored

The Romans are not going to start off with an invasion. Its HUGELY unlikely that any time soon (1 or 2 centuries) they are going to launch an invasion]]

I COULD see them taking advantage of a succession crisis or an invasion of a trading partner to get more concessions

These MIGHT include the right to establish colonies in areas outside the prime control of the political entity

But this would be decades down the line from initial contact and not an invasion
 
Edit I had an idea. these are not just soldiers but also settlers who came to live in this new land. so like 1-5k soldiers and 5k settlers
 
Last edited:

AUC 871 Hadrian and a fleet of 20,000 roman soldiers arrive in the Americas. Minor roman settlements are founded in the Yucatan. Hadrian meets the leader of a native american protomaya city. However when he observes human sacrifice, he is disgusted, and attacks and kills the temple priest. The city leader promptly declares war on him, however his army of less than 1000 is easlily defeated by the roman's better tech and 20,000 soldiers. Hadrian subjugates the Yucatan and converts there temples into Hellenic temples. He allows the natives to follow whatever religion they want but outlaws all types of human sacrifice.
Protomaya? This is around 100 AD, these are just plain Maya we should be talking about here, "proto-Maya" is only an appropriate term if you're talking about centuries (at least) before Rome was even founded. 20,000 or even 2,000 is an absurd "expedition" to be sending out into the blue when there's problems on Rome's borders (a legion isn't something that can be spared for such a nebulous purpose as a sea-voyage to nowhere). And the reason you give for this war is completely asinine, the Romans are offended and horrified by people practicing human sacrifice? Sure, Caesar made a big deal about (likely fictitious or exaggerated) Gaulish sacrifices as part of his propaganda but it was never a casus belli, and Maya sacrifice around this time generally amounted to killing captured enemy warriors, usually nobles or leaders, something the Romans were very familiar with as a part of their triumphs.
 
Edit I had an idea. these are not just soldiers but also settlers who came to live in this new land. so like 1-5k soldiers and 5k settlers

Why though?

"Hey, someone Said there's gold here, let's sent a bunch of people to chase a rumor"?

Even assuming they send that many people, how much are still going to be alive when they actually reach the Americas?
 

Philip

Donor
Look at Columbus's first voyage. He had a known destination. Success was guaranteed to open very profitable trade routes. These were not some fool's stories. He got three ships and less than (IIRC) 100 men.
 
Protomaya? This is around 100 AD, these are just plain Maya we should be talking about here, "proto-Maya" is only an appropriate term if you're talking about centuries (at least) before Rome was even founded. 20,000 or even 2,000 is an absurd "expedition" to be sending out into the blue when there's problems on Rome's borders (a legion isn't something that can be spared for such a nebulous purpose as a sea-voyage to nowhere). And the reason you give for this war is completely asinine, the Romans are offended and horrified by people practicing human sacrifice? Sure, Caesar made a big deal about (likely fictitious or exaggerated) Gaulish sacrifices as part of his propaganda but it was never a casus belli, and Maya sacrifice around this time generally amounted to killing captured enemy warriors, usually nobles or leaders, something the Romans were very familiar with as a part of their triumphs.

first i thought maya were 250-900 but maybe im wrong but we need some reason for the romans to attack the mayans. Also they need to bring some troops and apparantly this land is quite the bastion of wealth
 
first i thought maya were 250-900 but maybe im wrong but we need some reason for the romans to attack the mayans. Also they need to bring some troops and apparantly this land is quite the bastion of wealth
Why? Why to any of this? This isn't a TL, it's a Rome-wank, which you said it wouldn't be but you're reaching to have reasons to make Rome a transoceanic empire just for the sake of being one. Why do they need to attack the Maya? Why is the land such a bastion of wealth? Hell, the Maya didn't even use gold much if at all until the Postclassic Era which started around 900 AD. There are people with plenty of mineral wealth far closer to the Romans than the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. And Maya lords executing defeated enemy leaders in public ceremonies is a damned stupid reason for anyone to go to war.
 
Didn't someone find out that you could get to the Americas from North Africa using just an Ancient Egyptian ship? Would a Roman ship be able to do the same, assuming they went in the right direction?
 
Didn't someone find out that you could get to the Americas from North Africa using just an Ancient Egyptian ship? Would a Roman ship be able to do the same, assuming they went in the right direction?
The infamous Thor Heyerdahl did, and I say infamous because while he was a good sailor he was a crackpot when it comes to history and did voyages to prove that something was technically feasible but did so using modern knowledge and thus fully supplied for such a voyage and with proper use of modern navigational expertise. It's a far cry from this forum's typical lazy fallback of "WI Roman fleet gets swept up in a storm while inexplicably carrying a full army and colonization package that carries them all the way to America without anyone dying en route and knows how to get back somehow".
 
If I were to propose a more justifiable way to handle this:

Step 1: Romans land in America, against very long odds. Add whatever superlatives you want to that dependent clause there, and then accept that, since this timeline isn’t bound by such concerns, it happens.

Step 2: Romans trade with natives, trading their goods for gold. Gold is cheap enough to incentivize continued trips.

Step 3: ‘Columbian’ exchange happens, diseases, crops, and animals. Roman trading posts pop up along Mesoamerica.

Step 4: After a couple generations of this, the Romans have gotten better at shipbuilding, are richer for their access to such useful trading network and new crops, and are not happy to hear that some local rulers in the New World are not treating their merchants well. The locals are still recovering from the diseases introduced by the Romans, and a very small force is sent (heck, said force is probably there, garrisoning their trade posts) to help out a more pro-Roman leader, who they help overthrow the anti-Roman leaders, and set up a client state.

There we go, a Roman toehold in America. Its super unlikely, but I could buy it happening.
 
If I were to propose a more justifiable way to handle this:

Step 1: Romans land in America, against very long odds. Add whatever superlatives you want to that dependent clause there, and then accept that, since this timeline isn’t bound by such concerns, it happens.

Step 2: Romans trade with natives, trading their goods for gold. Gold is cheap enough to incentivize continued trips.

Step 3: ‘Columbian’ exchange happens, diseases, crops, and animals. Roman trading posts pop up along Mesoamerica.

Step 4: After a couple generations of this, the Romans have gotten better at shipbuilding, are richer for their access to such useful trading network and new crops, and are not happy to hear that some local rulers in the New World are not treating their merchants well. The locals are still recovering from the diseases introduced by the Romans, and a very small force is sent (heck, said force is probably there, garrisoning their trade posts) to help out a more pro-Roman leader, who they help overthrow the anti-Roman leaders, and set up a client state.

There we go, a Roman toehold in America. Its super unlikely, but I could buy it happening.

That makes sense. I will go with this
 
Top