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

To bother finding Iceland they'd first have to start from Scotland or north Ireland, places outside the Roman dominion and as far as they are concerned are at the end of the earth. Iceland, Greenland, and Vinland were discovered and settled by increasingly desperate bands of sailors from the North Sea desperate for farmland (and maybe some Celtic monks, although why they went to Iceland is unknown AFAIK). Romans don't have that sort of desperation that would drive them to explore so far north beyond what they believe is likely to be the northernmost lands. The more daring Greek and Roman explorers still generally stuck to land routes or coastal waters, even Scandinavia isn't very remote in comparison to Iceland, let alone Greenland.
yeah, the odds are greatly against it... I'd think that the Romans wouldn't go exploring on their own, I was thinking something along the lines of 'following in the footsteps of others, hearing rumors about a land out there somewhere, going to see if it was there'. And it wouldn't be a major military expedition, just some curious Romans and locals. Granted, the odds are waaaaay against anything like that happening, but hey, crazier things have happened...
 
yeah, the odds are greatly against it... I'd think that the Romans wouldn't go exploring on their own, I was thinking something along the lines of 'following in the footsteps of others, hearing rumors about a land out there somewhere, going to see if it was there'. And it wouldn't be a major military expedition, just some curious Romans and locals. Granted, the odds are waaaaay against anything like that happening, but hey, crazier things have happened...
Seems like the earliest people to reach Iceland were Celtic monks around 800 AD though, and the only reference to them is from Norse sagas so apparently there were only a handful and they didn't make their voyage known to other Irish if indeed they went there at all. So the Romans would be waiting a good long while to be following any rumors.
 
Seems like the earliest people to reach Iceland were Celtic monks around 800 AD though, and the only reference to them is from Norse sagas so apparently there were only a handful and they didn't make their voyage known to other Irish if indeed they went there at all. So the Romans would be waiting a good long while to be following any rumors.
true, it would take another POD in that 'someone' earlier had gone out and glimpsed Iceland from afar and lived to come back and tell about it. Again, greatly against the odds, but not impossible...
 
They'll die out or be absorbed. The diseases brought by them might be the sort of boost needed by the Native American population to help deal with the later epidemics brought by Europeans. The problem with roman survival is that they too are going to be exposed to the diseases in the Americas. Most likely it will have a fairly high mortality rate in their numbers.
 
I'm just curious about how large the fleet would have to be to carry 3 or 4 legions and how many of those ships would survive, it any. What is the capacity of the various types of vessels being discussed?

Thank You,
MrBill
 
15.000 MEN as soldiers plus probably the same amount of rowing slaves-all male too... I think they die out real quick unless they magically develop cloning, or come across a tribe of 30.000 all female Amazons...

Then again, here's where you find out how gay those ancient Romans really were.
 
If that is the case, then everyone in here is arguing about the wrong thing.

Indeed. The invasion fleet is the nearest possible historical event to the OP's scenario. They might have been using ships of the VenetI. Even so, if a massive storm had blown them into the Atlantic (think the Armadale, only worse) it is highly unlikely that any of them would have made it to America. But that's not the interesting question. It's unlikely that many of them would have made it home either.

The interesting question is - what happens in the Old World?
 
15.000 MEN as soldiers plus probably the same amount of rowing slaves-all male too... I think they die out real quick unless they magically develop cloning, or come across a tribe of 30.000 all female Amazons...

As noted, that's when you start wars with the locals to steal their women.

The interesting question is - what happens in the Old World?

It would be a disaster almost unparalleled in Roman history, and bound to cause problems at home.
 
As noted, that's when you start wars with the locals to steal their women.

The important question. Will the wars be known as the vagina wars!?!?

In all seriousness they would probably try. Likely killing any men of fighting age that don't submit or enslaving them in horrifying conditions.

At least in the short term women would be incredibly valuable, and may be given special rights as a result
 
15.000 MEN as soldiers plus probably the same amount of rowing slaves-all male too... I think they die out real quick unless they magically develop cloning, or come across a tribe of 30.000 all female Amazons...

Then again, here's where you find out how gay those ancient Romans really were.
Romans didn't have galley slaves. Too unreliable in terms of efficiency and training.
 
Last edited:

Kaze

Banned
That's why I imagined a massive invasion of Hibernia or perhaps a quixotic and grandiose Roman emperor seeking to conquer Thule.

The Roman historian Tacticus mentions that Agricola, while governor of Roman Britain (AD 78–84), entertained an exiled Irish prince, thinking to use him as a pretext for a possible conquest of Ireland. Meanwhile an Irish legend has Tuathal Techtmar in exile, gathering mercenaries in Britain in order to have him restored to the throne. Some archaeological find suggest there was Roman and Romano-British artifacts have been found primarily in Leinster - where according to legend Tuathal Techtmar landed with his foreign mercenaries.


------
But let us go further than some random objects found in Ireland...

An emperor adding Ireland or Thule, is not without pretext. Caligula planned to re-invade Britannia but instead told his army to collect sea shells for his victory parade. He was followed by Claudius, who needed a military victory to legitimize his usurpation - he successfully invaded Britannia. Now let us skip ahead to after Nero and the Four Emperors - there are quite a few emperors that might want some glory.

If I would go for a glory seeking insane emperor, I would go Commodus.
 
The Roman historian Tacticus mentions that Agricola, while governor of Roman Britain (AD 78–84), entertained an exiled Irish prince, thinking to use him as a pretext for a possible conquest of Ireland. Meanwhile an Irish legend has Tuathal Techtmar in exile, gathering mercenaries in Britain in order to have him restored to the throne. Some archaeological find suggest there was Roman and Romano-British artifacts have been found primarily in Leinster - where according to legend Tuathal Techtmar landed with his foreign mercenaries.
Funny, they never found any evidence of Roman military camps in Ireland. Artifacts can travel far regardless of time period, remains of settlements don't. There's a Roman ceramic found in Mexico but that doesn't prove a thing aside from that some archaeologist was being an unprofessional prankster.
An emperor adding Ireland or Thule, is not without pretext. Caligula planned to re-invade Britannia but instead told his army to collect sea shells for his victory parade. He was followed by Claudius, who needed a military victory to legitimize his usurpation - he successfully invaded Britannia. Now let us skip ahead to after Nero and the Four Emperors - there are quite a few emperors that might want some glory.

If I would go for a glory seeking insane emperor, I would go Commodus.
And how did those insane emperors meet their ends? Caligula, Nero, and Commodus, three of the biggest candidates for "eccentric emperor ordering quixotic expedition", all seem to have died violent deaths after upsetting someone. What army is going to go "well, this nutcase who happens to be named Caesar is telling us to travel over the open ocean to some made up place, guess we have to do it even though we can easily arrange to have him killed, or just kill him ourselves. Too bad us Romans have never been known to stab people..." The Emperor isn't some divine being whose authority is so supreme they have no choice but to obey their every whim. They're basically more akin to the president, and here's still a Senate, and the Senate still has some power and a voice. No senator is going to approve this. And an emperor who threatens the senate is an emperor who finds themselves to be the victim of Praetorian knives.
 
And how did those insane emperors meet their ends? Caligula, Nero, and Commodus, three of the biggest candidates for "eccentric emperor ordering quixotic expedition", all seem to have died violent deaths after upsetting someone. What army is going to go "well, this nutcase who happens to be named Caesar is telling us to travel over the open ocean to some made up place, guess we have to do it even though we can easily arrange to have him killed, or just kill him ourselves. Too bad us Romans have never been known to stab people..." The Emperor isn't some divine being whose authority is so supreme they have no choice but to obey their every whim. They're basically more akin to the president, and here's still a Senate, and the Senate still has some power and a voice. No senator is going to approve this. And an emperor who threatens the senate is an emperor who finds themselves to be the victim of Praetorian knives.

I’ll point out that all three of these emperors were killed after not successfully invading anyone. Hell, Commodus wrapped up a war his father was winning. And if you throw Caracalla into that batch, you have the same dynamic.
 
I’ll point out that all three of these emperors were killed after not successfully invading anyone. Hell, Commodus wrapped up a war his father was winning. And if you throw Caracalla into that batch, you have the same dynamic.
It wasn't going to war at all that's the problem, it's illogical edicts and the like. A war on the Empire's borders makes sense and yields loot with which to pay the troops. Ireland does not, Iceland does not, and America does not.
 
It wasn't going to war at all that's the problem, it's illogical edicts and the like. A war on the Empire's borders makes sense and yields loot with which to pay the troops. Ireland does not, Iceland does not, and America does not.
Ireland does, especially as a prestige project combined with stories of 'gold' but it does for at best one legion of 5000, not 35,000 and all naval activity is going to be on the Irish Sea not the open Atlantic.
 
Top