Roman Madagascar
- Thread starter el t
- Start date
What would be the attraction? The coast doesn't have a particularly hospitable climate, and I'm not sure there are resources which would lead them to desire a foothold.
I do not think this is plausible, but it must be noted that many experts believe that Madagascar actually was not settled by humans at all until centuries after the birth of Christ. Depending on when this colonization happens, if the Roman Empire had been able to get a relatively small number of colonists to the island when it was entirely uninhabited, and if these colonists and their descendants maintain a high birth rate in the same way that early British settlers in the Americas did, then you could see a firmly ethnically Roman Madagascar before anyone else arrives.
Leaving the plausibility (or lack thereof) aside.
I think it would depend on how much the Madagascar colony grows and when it is settled.
If we assume it happens early after 0 AD and nothing extremely bad (like a plague) happens then this means they could serve as a post for further exploration into Africa and the east.
Also, it means roman naval technology is waaaay more advanced than OTL.
When they eventually go independent (because they will) they could try to carve their own empire in the easter4n coast of Africa, something that will make even more butterflies down the line.
I think it would depend on how much the Madagascar colony grows and when it is settled.
If we assume it happens early after 0 AD and nothing extremely bad (like a plague) happens then this means they could serve as a post for further exploration into Africa and the east.
Also, it means roman naval technology is waaaay more advanced than OTL.
When they eventually go independent (because they will) they could try to carve their own empire in the easter4n coast of Africa, something that will make even more butterflies down the line.
Skallagrim
Banned
Greeks and Romans traded with the coastal cities of "Azania" (East Africa) in OTL. The thing is, they usually just traded with merchants who came to Egypt, and didn't really venture into the trading network for themselves. The best way to change this is to have Augustus succeed in his ambitions to essentially found mercantile colonies along the Arabian coast. If those ventures can be stabilised, and more Romans are directly present as far south as Yemen, the chances for a more active role in the Indian Ocean trade vastly increase. If this is successful, Alexandria could rapidly become the wealthiest city in the Empire. The OTL divide between the urbane, wealthy East and the relatively poor West is going to be even greater. You could easily end up with an empire that moves its focus ever more to the East. (Maybe even a fall of the West, with the East just cutting its losses since "who gives a damn, Alexandria alone is literally three times richer than the entire Western Empire!") And ERE centred on Alexandria, deriving its wealth from the Indian Ocean, and uninterested in what's happening in the West, could easily end up actively strengthening its position in East Africa.
A more mercantile kind of empire could come to be, interested in being the great thalassocracy of the region. With that set-up, Roman Madagascar becomes possible.
A more mercantile kind of empire could come to be, interested in being the great thalassocracy of the region. With that set-up, Roman Madagascar becomes possible.
Okay. I don't know much about the topic, but I actually really like this idea!
As probably the loudest Malagasy subject poster in here I'm just gonna say this is an impossibility.
Roman Aeulis Gallus failed taking on Arabia. Miserably might I add.
However, there was Himyarite and Saebaen King Charibael at the time of Periplus of the Erythraean who was friendly with Rome and whom supported and patronized Roman traders in his kingdom. It is Charibael who's domain stretches into the last marketplace of Azania (believed to be around Mafia Island or in the nearby delta).
But he nor his subjects controlled the land. At any case any Romans who didn't die along the east african coast would surely die from malaria and other diseases on the Malagasy coast. If by magic they survived they'd not have the women to repopulate into more than a camp that at any case would in time die off when the first Austronesian traders landed.
There is also the proposition that proto-malagasy used Azania and Madagascar for a lucrative cinnamon trade that they monopolized, if thats true then romans would be dead just to keep that cargo movement a secret
Roman Aeulis Gallus failed taking on Arabia. Miserably might I add.
However, there was Himyarite and Saebaen King Charibael at the time of Periplus of the Erythraean who was friendly with Rome and whom supported and patronized Roman traders in his kingdom. It is Charibael who's domain stretches into the last marketplace of Azania (believed to be around Mafia Island or in the nearby delta).
But he nor his subjects controlled the land. At any case any Romans who didn't die along the east african coast would surely die from malaria and other diseases on the Malagasy coast. If by magic they survived they'd not have the women to repopulate into more than a camp that at any case would in time die off when the first Austronesian traders landed.
There is also the proposition that proto-malagasy used Azania and Madagascar for a lucrative cinnamon trade that they monopolized, if thats true then romans would be dead just to keep that cargo movement a secret
Good luck trying to make the Romans figure out where Madagascar even is, let alone colonizing it. People in ancient times had a rather incomplete knowledge of what the world looked like. Though if settlers from Southeast Asian islands can reach Madagascar before Africans do, who knows how differently the history of Madagascar could go. Though I still find it kinda ridiculous to have the Romans settle down in Madagascar of all places, they were more of a land-based empire and weren't really in the habit of trying to conquer distant, unknown islands way down another continent. It would be much more plausible to have Madagascar colonized by any various peoples of the Indian Ocean.
Albert.Nik
Banned
A bit difficult but possible. Romans could set up smaller bases in Horn of Africa,Yemen,Nubia by paying to the rulers there and get settlers to Madagascar and expand into the Indian Ocean too. They could even get some foothold on the coast of Southwestern India,Parts of Australia to build some small settlements by navigating the oceans well.
I was already aware that the Malagasy people are of mixed Afro-Asian heritage, though for some reason the first settlers on the island came from present-day Indonesia, while East Africans migrated a bit later.
You aren't listening to me.
The first people that settled the island were already mixed. They were not "pure" Indonesian.
You are saying they were already mixing with Africans since the beginning?
Yeah, you have several problems you need to resolve here.
1) You need to have the Romans aware of it.
For that you need
2) A Reason for the Romans to physically BE in East Africa
AND
3) The shipcraft for logistically supporting anything like this
For THAT you need
4) A time period the Romans could do this in, and a circumstance.
There are a lot of hurdles for this. Sadly I think you need to find a resolution for those first.
Like, lets just handwave a conquest of Arabia Felix/Yemen, just to simplify things. Not an easy task, but neither is it impossible. You then need to go south past Somalia - and a secure port would be worthwhile there because you could strengthen your control over the incense trade further. Yay for Rome!
But then still - why go south? Gold? Maybe. Is there gold in Madagascar? Don't think so. Naval base? Bit much. Maybe a small city in the north, but going beyond that screams problems. Allies as buffer states allowing access to the gold mines of southeastern Africa? That sounds far more Romes speed.
So yeah, at best a small chain of settlements to connect conquered gold mines in SE Africa to the Roman Empire via Madagascar, Zanzibar, Somalia and Egypt.
There however MUCH easier ways to get gold, so you'd really have to explain why this happened.
1) You need to have the Romans aware of it.
For that you need
2) A Reason for the Romans to physically BE in East Africa
AND
3) The shipcraft for logistically supporting anything like this
For THAT you need
4) A time period the Romans could do this in, and a circumstance.
There are a lot of hurdles for this. Sadly I think you need to find a resolution for those first.
Like, lets just handwave a conquest of Arabia Felix/Yemen, just to simplify things. Not an easy task, but neither is it impossible. You then need to go south past Somalia - and a secure port would be worthwhile there because you could strengthen your control over the incense trade further. Yay for Rome!
But then still - why go south? Gold? Maybe. Is there gold in Madagascar? Don't think so. Naval base? Bit much. Maybe a small city in the north, but going beyond that screams problems. Allies as buffer states allowing access to the gold mines of southeastern Africa? That sounds far more Romes speed.
So yeah, at best a small chain of settlements to connect conquered gold mines in SE Africa to the Roman Empire via Madagascar, Zanzibar, Somalia and Egypt.
There however MUCH easier ways to get gold, so you'd really have to explain why this happened.
Maybe a small fleet carrying the colonists for one of these trade cities is hit by a storm, Jupiter takes pity on them and they mostly survive but end up close to Madagascar, where they make landfall and decide to build a settlement. They are incredibly lucky (bordering ASB intervention) and manage to survive well enough.
Years later when they re-establish contact with thr Empire (through one of those trade cities maybe?) They are a small thriving community. IIRC Madagascar has big reserves of Saphires and considerable reserves of gold, so maybe they find either or both and use that as an incentive to keep commerce going and attract new people (there is always plenty of crazy people ready to go to weird places).
Your problem there is that you've not explained why that fleet is going. Are we building off of my scenario? In which case Madagascar isn't an accident. Otherwise you've got to explain how the Romans are surprised by the Monsoon (one of the most understood weather phenomena in history) and blown so far from what I expect is Arabia.
They mixed on the African coast as a foundational group, from there Africans came in several "waves".
There were other groups that came such as Arabo-Swahili who've been around for centuries in the Northwest and Southeast and southeastern Africans from the earlier time. To this day there are the more recently enslaved Makoa today for example from Mozambique.
The Asian component is related to four distinct waves; the foundational mixed group, the Merina ancestors that came about 500-600 years ago, then the South Indian men who settled along the coasts and the colonial era Chinese labourers
Last edited:
I wonder what would happen to the megafauna, like elephant birds and giant lemurs. Sorry for necroposting again, I just keep on missing out.
Last edited:
Ok, I don’t know a lot about East Africa, most definitely in this time period, but looking at some ideas I explored for some other writing, you’ve missed Mombassa.
As an entity, it didn’t afaik exist then, but the location has possibilities for a defendable settlement, and trading centre.
(and don’t ask about the other writing, it never went beyond the scribble notes research stage !!)