Romans land in New World

[Emperor Qianlong]

Probably right, but it sure is a pretty sailing picture. And the sea worthy qualities of the ships was the issue to this thread.

Well, yeah, I see your point.

By the way, was the account I read some 40 years ago incorrect about how the Phoenicians recorded words had them see the sun reverse sides (rise in the southern side, not the northern part, as indicating going below the equator, and switching on the other side)? Or that they each year went ashore to plant grain for sustainance? It was a questionable source, a Reader's Digest supposed to be factual book, but where are the actual translations located online and how did they survive to present day?

Well, I don't know if that specific annecdote is incorrect or not (the bit about the sun rising on the southern side probably is incorrect), but what is correct is that the expedition of Hanno the Navigator in the 5th century BC reached as far as the Gulf of Guinea. Ptolemy has a surprisingly extensive entry on the coastline of western Africa, and this only makes sense if he incorporated Hanno's travel journal.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

While a Roman convoy being blown to North America is very improbable due to the prevailing winds, as mentioned above, if one DID arrive, I think they might just survive.

1) the roman ships would have grain on board

2) roman soldiers came from all walks of life, so there would be ex-farmers certainly. And current blacksmiths.

3) the romans would build a fort that could likely protect them from the locals (who are pretty thinly spread, as agriculture hasn't arrived there yet).

4) iron would a HUGE trading item. So they could easily convince local women to join them/convince local men to marry their daughters off.



Of course, this would likely require them to arrive in the spring early enough to get a crop planted and harvested. (Not likely, but possible)

It would require them to survive the first winter. (Probable, IMO, especially if they have good relations with the local tribes - see iron trade goods above.) OTOH, 'survive' might mean half of them survive.

Once they get past that first year, they'll likely do fine.

100 years later, they'll be a thriving civilization speaking a local language with dozens of Latin loan words, genetically native and with only stories of 'Rome' across the ocean.


Improbable as all get out (to get them there in the first place, especially early enough to get the crops in), but if they get there I suspect they have a 50% chance of making it, say.

 

[Elfwine]

Colonizing America is Hard link *here*. And what iron trade goods? What grain (after the long Atlantic voyage)?

 

[Hyperbolus]

While there might be smiths among the shipwrecked Romans, I don't think there'd be any miners. So provision of iron ore, tin and other minerals would constitute quite a bottleneck.

 

[Siculi]

A few notes, even if the premise is a bit odd
- It would predate the rise of Mississippian civilization by centuries, and be in its precursor culture; romans in north american winter won't last very long without a supply chain anyway.
- A landing going to eastern Brazil would predate the easternmost Tupi-Guarani migrations by centuries (based on Métraux who is probably a bit outdated though) - they were recent and still going on when the Portuguese landed. There aren't many people in the southern cone at this point and most of them are small bands like the Athabaskans in the north, a single cohort would largely outnumber any such band.
- Malaria in the American continent came with Europeans. Of course, it goes without saying that, they being romans, they come from Europe's #1 malarial shithole region.

 

[MattII]

You can go west from Mauritania-Senegal way, but from Europe you've got no chance, the North Atlantic Drift would keep you firmly pinned against Europe.

Even if it did work out, it wouldn't last, the Atlantic would be too big a gap to cross, and the Romans wouldn't have the advantage of guns the way the Spanish had.

 

[Henriksson]

You can go west from Mauritania-Senegal way, but from Europe you've got no chance, the North Atlantic Drift would keep you firmly pinned against Europe.

Even if it did work out, it wouldn't last, the Atlantic would be too big a gap to cross, and the Romans wouldn't have the advantage of guns the way the Spanish had.

Why would the use of guns (never mind that 16th century muskets were incredibly poor) be a decisive factor here?

 

[MattII]

Guns produce lots of sound and smoke, and you can't see the bullets coming, so anyone not familiar with them could be forgiven for thinking that the people using them have some sort of divine power.

 

[Siculi]

Guns produce lots of sound and smoke, and you can't see the bullets coming, so anyone not familiar with them could be forgiven for thinking that the people using them have some sort of divine power.

Yes but it's the roman 11th century, not the christian 16th century, not even China has firearms at that point.

 

[MattII]

Yes but it's the roman 11th century, not the christian 16th century...

Actually it's the Roman 2nd century.

...not even China has firearms at that point.

No, but the Spanish did in the 16th century, and it was, as I understand it, to their advantage.