Roman Fleet stranded on the shores of the New World massive Storm

in 54 BC, Julius Caesar launched a raid with five legions, and in 43 AD, Claudius launched his with four legions. Now you just need a plausible way to get a force of boats in the English Channel to get royally blown out to sea, and not starve to death.
The Julius Caesar alternative would be something that almost has the chance to reach Seelöwe status as a topic - I want to read that timeline. The republic survives in Rome for the moment, but a semi-Roman state, on its (very long) way to become an Empire, is created in far off America.

How much supplies did they have historically when they set off from Gaul? They must have had something to start a campaign with, so perhaps they did have enough food to get them over the Atlantic. And humans can live for two months without food, if they have fresh water.
 
Last edited:
Tell that to the Vikings then. Their ships were not designed for long open ocean travel, but somehow they managed to carry Lucky Leif all the way to the New World. Of course Lucky Leif did have some help with the fact that Norway to Iceland - you have Scotland to stop in; then Iceland to the New World - you have Greenland to stop in.

The Romans can in theory get to the Canaries, but why go to the New World in the first place? At the time the Pharaoh's canal was still in operation - going to India, Vietnam, or China is far more useful for the Romans.
Many misconceptions here. First off, Norse shipbuilders were rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for and likewise they were great navigators over open ocean, vikings after all being people who made a habit of crossing the violent North Sea. Secondly, he wasn't hopping from landmass to landmass, Leif Erikson was living in Greenland at the time he made his famous trip to Vinland. And Greenland to Helluland isn't nearly as much of a stretch or a long-haul as from Britain or Spain to New England or the Caribbean.

In any case, a storm strong enough to somehow pull all those Roman ships from Europe to America is a storm strong enough that at the very least most of the Romans would be dead. People on this site have for years had the bad habit of assuming transoceanic voyages are as simple as being pulled adrift by a strong wind with no regard to rations, seaworthiness, navigation (these people are never finding their way back), and wind speed. Most likely the storm drops them more towards the middle of the Atlantic, the Romans have literally no idea where they are, and they either kill each other in mutinies or die of dehydration.
 
We are forgetting that a legion is just a bunch of dudes, do we even know how they'll react to the natives? In order to colonize they'll need women, won't they? It wouldn't be the first time a civilization/colonial effort was ruined due to unwillingness to learn from and adapt with natives.
 
Many misconceptions here. First off, Norse shipbuilders were rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for and likewise they were great navigators over open ocean, vikings after all being people who made a habit of crossing the violent North Sea. Secondly, he wasn't hopping from landmass to landmass, Leif Erikson was living in Greenland at the time he made his famous trip to Vinland. And Greenland to Helluland isn't nearly as much of a stretch or a long-haul as from Britain or Spain to New England or the Caribbean.
Many Viking fleets were sunk by storms, in this case particularly the fleet whose people told the Greenlanders about the existence of Vinland, that they had seen from afar.
 

Maoistic

Banned
Tell that to the Vikings then. Their ships were not designed for long open ocean travel, but somehow they managed to carry Lucky Leif all the way to the New World. Of course Lucky Leif did have some help with the fact that Norway to Iceland - you have Scotland to stop in; then Iceland to the New World - you have Greenland to stop in.

The Romans can in theory get to the Canaries, but why go to the New World in the first place? At the time the Pharaoh's canal was still in operation - going to India, Vietnam, or China is far more useful for the Romans.
Yes, Viking technology of 1,000 years later proves that Roman ships can cross the Atlantic.

Moreover, this guy wants us to believe that a storm takes them all the way to freaking North Carolina. Even 16th century Europeans had trouble getting to North Carolina. This whole scenario belongs in ASB so much that it is obscene the mods haven't moved it to that section.
 
It would take a galley moving at 8 knots about 8 and three-quarter days to move from Ireland to Newfoundland. That's nearly nine days of a storm blowing them at top speed straight, not sideways or bobbing in the choppy waters created by said storm just straight. It's a hard sell from the storm lasting eight days over all the Atlantic to the Romans even surviving the trip. This is on top of the fact that the place where such a fleet would be gathered would definitely not be western Ireland but the Channel which is certainly not a straight sail, well it is at the very least stretching it.
 

Maoistic

Banned
It would take a galley moving at 8 knots about 8 and three-quarter days to move from Ireland to Newfoundland. That's nearly nine days of a storm blowing them at top speed straight, not sideways or bobbing in the choppy waters created by said storm just straight. It's a hard sell from the storm lasting eight days over all the Atlantic to the Romans even surviving the trip. This is on top of the fact that the place where such a fleet would be gathered would definitely not be western Ireland but the Channel which is certainly not a straight sail, well it is at the very least stretching it.
A storm like that would destroy and sink their fleet to begin with.
 
Viking ships was much more advanced than Roman ships, they was made to deal with much more hostile weather than Roman ships. Their main weakness was a smaller size limit than Mediterranean ships, but pretty much no Roman ships would be able to deal with North Atlantic, which they thrived in.
 
Ancient ships trend to break their keel easily if heavy swell. Therefore they did not sail during winter and always tried to stay near to the coast. Especially in the Atlantic Ocean. No way a roman ship can survive a storm on the Atlantic. Only chance is, to reach land before the storm reaches the ship and the keel breaks.
A viking longboat is absolutely superior to a roman trireme, a wet dream and a masterpiece of alien technology from a roman point of view.
 
Yes, Viking technology of 1,000 years later proves that Roman ships can cross the Atlantic.

Moreover, this guy wants us to believe that a storm takes them all the way to freaking North Carolina. Even 16th century Europeans had trouble getting to North Carolina. This whole scenario belongs in ASB so much that it is obscene the mods haven't moved it to that section.
Hey, woah, dude I agree with you on the North Carolina bit, just chill out some...
 
Actually a Viking long ship is far more primitive than even a 1st Century BC Roman Galley , however they were actually built for far more exposed waters so much tougher and more sea worthy. The trips to Greenland/Iceland were done by people deliberately exploring so had far smaller crew's and a lot of supplies ( they also had better navigation methods but that is mainly for getting back ).
A Roman Galley would normally beach overnight or at the very least shelter in a bay, they had great issues going out of sight of land for any real distance. As such the supplies they carried in terms of food/water were normally only for a couple of days and had limited means of cooking without landing. There is no way one could cross the Atlantic even if they had perfect conditions, not enough supplies and not sea worthy enough.
The problem is no one in the Roman world needed ships that went out of coastal waters so they did not build them to do it. The Viking ships only could do it as the sea's they traveled in around Norway for example were so rough and exposed even coastal traffic needed ocean capable vessels, so that's what they unknowingly built.
 
Roman ships were designed for the kinder sailing environment of the Mediterranean. Viking vessels were designed for the North Atlantic. I think Norse ships were also faster, and so could carry less provisions. Also, I am not sure what 4 legions would be doing out in the Atlantic. As pointed out, a single storm could not last long enough to drive them all the way. You'd need something that makes them go in the wrong direction.

If they got there with significant manpower, I think they could do well. Roman legions were pretty heavily supplied with crafts and skills. I could see a problem feeding that concentration of manpower if enough people survived though. I suspect they were much better suited in terms of skills than the early English and Spanish settlers.
 

Md139115

Banned
Here’s a question:

For the British invasions, did the Romans use Mediterranean galleys, or local boats built for the Atlantic?
 

Kaze

Banned
Has someone actually succeeded crossing the Atlantic in a roman-style ship?

In 1969 and 1970, Heyerdahl built two boats from papyrus and attempted to cross the Atlantic Ocean from Morocco in Africa. He failed in his first attempt and in the second, he was successful. So a roman style ship could be possible.

Yet I still ask why?
 
Tell that to the Vikings then. Their ships were not designed for long open ocean travel, but somehow they managed to carry Lucky Leif all the way to the New World. Of course Lucky Leif did have some help with the fact that Norway to Iceland - you have Scotland to stop in; then Iceland to the New World - you have Greenland to stop in.

Many misconceptions here. First off, Norse shipbuilders were rather more sophisticated than you give them credit for and likewise they were great navigators over open ocean, vikings after all being people who made a habit of crossing the violent North Sea. Secondly, he wasn't hopping from landmass to landmass, Leif Erikson was living in Greenland at the time he made his famous trip to Vinland. And Greenland to Helluland isn't nearly as much of a stretch or a long-haul as from Britain or Spain to New England or the Caribbean.


Actually a Viking long ship is far more primitive than even a 1st Century BC Roman Galley , however they were actually built for far more exposed waters so much tougher and more sea worthy. The trips to Greenland/Iceland were done by people deliberately exploring so had far smaller crew's and a lot of supplies ( they also had better navigation methods but that is mainly for getting back ).

Plus, the Vikings wouldn't have used longships for the Vinland journey. Longships were for raiding, for shipping cargo they used the knarr, which was a bigger, tougher ship as I understand.
 

Deleted member 97083

Here’s a question:

For the British invasions, did the Romans use Mediterranean galleys, or local boats built for the Atlantic?
They Romans acquired the fleet of Veneti tribe in modern Brittany. According to Wikipedia, the Veneti built their ships of oak with large transoms fixed by iron nails of a thumb's thickness. They navigated and powered their ships through the use of leather sails. This made their ships strong, sturdy and structurally sound, capable of withstanding the harsh conditions of the Atlantic.

Caesar may have later built ships based on Gallic designs in his campaigns in Spain.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Plus, the Vikings wouldn't have used longships for the Vinland journey. Longships were for raiding, for shipping cargo they used the knarr, which was a bigger, tougher ship as I understand.

The knarr and longship was pretty much equal in seaworthiness, but the longship was longer, thinner and faster, while the knarr was shorter, bulkier and could have a heavier load and smaller crew.
 

Maoistic

Banned
In 1969 and 1970, Heyerdahl built two boats from papyrus and attempted to cross the Atlantic Ocean from Morocco in Africa. He failed in his first attempt and in the second, he was successful. So a roman style ship could be possible.

Yet I still ask why?
1) Those aren't Roman style ships.
2) I imagine Heyerdahl used more modern ship building techniques than those used by the Egyptians which is why he was more successful. I wouldn't put him as an example of how ships in antiquity worked.
 
Top