What if Roman Britain followed the Vikings' route to the New World?

Dutchie

Idea came to me from the post on Carthaginians in the New World. My speculation is that it's easier to 'island hop' (Caledonia, Faroes, Iceland, Greenland, Labrador, voila!) across the North Atlantic than across the mid-Atlantic. The Canaries and Bermuda are just too small and remote to make for a reliable sea-route in small, ancient mediterranean ships.

So, Brittania in N. America in AD 300-400? What happens?
 
Last edited:

Tyr

They didn't even get to northern Scotland and barely touched Ireland let alone doing all that.
And whats in it for them anyway?
 

Dutchie

They got to Scotland and Ireland, just didn't get around to subjugating them...

Just idle speculation on plausible, potential ways for the Ancient World to discover the New World.
 

Umbral

The Romans were well ahead of the Vikings in most areas.

But when it comes to sailing, north atlantic seamanship, open-ocean shipbuilding, climate adaption and navigation in the north atlantic the Vikings were ahead by a very large distance.

However,as the initial post says rather than the initial Romans, Roman Britain? A slightly more maritime and fishing tradition in Roman Britain, leads to the vague knowledge of places like Iceland,and better suited ships.

When the legions withdraw, and the reivers start to come, it may start to look more attractive.
 

Alcuin

Banned
Farley Mowat, in "The Alban Quest" (I've never seen it titled 'the Farfarers') suggests a crossing by Armorican-Pictish refugees.

Whoever wrote the attached wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farfarers:_Before_the_Norse didn't read the book all that closely. He said it was ICELAND the Picts/Broch Builders discovered in the seventh century BC, they reached North America around the second century AD. (they were already Christian when they went to Labrador and Baffin Island)...

...but the wiki gives some odea of what might have happened in OTL.
 

Dutchie

Umbral said:
The Romans were well ahead of the Vikings in most areas.

But when it comes to sailing, north atlantic seamanship, open-ocean shipbuilding, climate adaption and navigation in the north atlantic the Vikings were ahead by a very large distance.

However,as the initial post says rather than the initial Romans, Roman Britain? A slightly more maritime and fishing tradition in Roman Britain, leads to the vague knowledge of places like Iceland,and better suited ships.

When the legions withdraw, and the reivers start to come, it may start to look more attractive.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking... some experience with ocean travel through sailing the North and Irish seas, plus less distance for fisherman to be 'blown off course" to discover the stops on the route.
 

carlton_bach

Flocculencio said:
Isn't the N. Atlantic far too rough for Roman seafaring abilities?
Click to expand...

Not really. The romans adapted local technologies, and their transports, traee ships, and even oared warships of the northern fleets did well on the North sea and in the Bay of Biscay. It's more a matter of incentive, experience and happenstance connecting. The Romans thought of Britain as the edge of the world. It's unlikely they ever really cared about anything beyond. So even if a Romano-British sailor came back with news of the Faeroes or Iceland (as they probably did at some point), what of it? Why explore it further? It stood to reason that there'd be land somewhere out west, but it was easier to go to India via the Monsoon route.

The Vikings, on the other hand, regardeed seabourne expeditions as elite pursuits with high potential rewards in land, wealth and power. They'd put in the effort and amass the experience needed to get there reliably.
 

MerryPrankster

Perhaps the Romans make more effort in Scotland post Mons Badonicus and we have Pictish/Caledonii refugees fleeing to the Orkneys and eventually to Iceland. The Picts-in-exile set up shop there and eventually discover North America on their own (fishing and the like).

Once Roman power in Britain starts to crumble, the exiles begin returning to Britain and when the Romano-British begin to crumble, they know of a place to go besides Wales or Armorica.
 

Skarion

MerryPrankster said:
Perhaps the Romans make more effort in Scotland post Mons Badonicus and we have Pictish/Caledonii refugees fleeing to the Orkneys and eventually to Iceland. The Picts-in-exile set up shop there and eventually discover North America on their own (fishing and the like).

Once Roman power in Britain starts to crumble, the exiles begin returning to Britain and when the Romano-British begin to crumble, they know of a place to go besides Wales or Armorica.
Click to expand...

The Picts idea of shipboats I thought was disproven as a later innovation of national minds?
 

MerryPrankster

Skarion said:
The Picts idea of shipboats I thought was disproven as a later innovation of national minds?
Click to expand...

Even if they didn't have naval tech of their own in OTL, the need to escape the Romans by relocating to the Orkneys could lead to them developing it on their own or copying Roman designs.
 

orion900

Questions about Rome and Sail the British Isles..

Didn't Celtic Monk from England sail north and start sites in Iceland before the Vikings, at around 700 AD, so it wouldn't be that hard for the Roman/Celtic Britians to sail to Iceland and then to Greenland, and later to North American. Didn't a Roman General sail around the Whole Island of Britian around 120 AD? Wasn't there Roman Trade in Norway?


Orion
 

Calgacus

orion900 said:
Didn't Celtic Monk from England sail north and start sites in Iceland before the Vikings, at around 700 AD, so it wouldn't be that hard for the Roman/Celtic Britians to sail to Iceland and then to Greenland, and later to North American. Didn't a Roman General sail around the Whole Island of Britian around 120 AD? Wasn't there Roman Trade in Norway?


Orion
Click to expand...

Yes, there were supposedly Irish monks on Iceland and the Faeroes. St Brendan was claimed to have travelled to America. He certainly visited quite a few islands, given his story, but by the standards of the day, that might just mean he took a week's cruise round the Hebrides!

A Roman admiral took his fleet round the coast of Scotland, as part of General Agricola's campaign against the Picts (don't remember the year). However this means little, as it was coastal sailing and a voyage across the Atlantic is obviously a different prospect. Even on a coastal trip, the waters of the Pentland firth and Cape Wrath must have been pretty terrifying to Mediterranean sailors, so I can't see them having stomach for more.

As for trade with Norway, sure the Romans had trading routes with many areas outside the empire, Ireland as well (they may even have invaded Ireland at one point) but the trade would be carried out by local craft, probably not dissimilar to the Viking trading ships of a few hundred years later.
 

nunya

Nah,thing about the Romans is,they never conquered anything uninhabited.There empire wasnt based upon colonizing and Romanizing virgin areas,it was subjugating and incorporating local cultures,often with keeping local provinical establishments intact,witness Egypt with Cleopatra still in power therein,or the various Germanic kings still in power in northern Europe.
 

nunya

Calgacus said:
Yes, there were supposedly Irish monks on Iceland and the Faeroes. St Brendan was claimed to have travelled to America. He certainly visited quite a few islands, given his story, but by the standards of the day, that might just mean he took a week's cruise round the Hebrides!

A Roman admiral took his fleet round the coast of Scotland, as part of General Agricola's campaign against the Picts (don't remember the year). However this means little, as it was coastal sailing and a voyage across the Atlantic is obviously a different prospect. Even on a coastal trip, the waters of the Pentland firth and Cape Wrath must have been pretty terrifying to Mediterranean sailors, so I can't see them having stomach for more.

As for trade with Norway, sure the Romans had trading routes with many areas outside the empire, Ireland as well (they may even have invaded Ireland at one point) but the trade would be carried out by local craft, probably not dissimilar to the Viking trading ships of a few hundred years later.
Click to expand...
Ireland was uninhabited when the Vikings found it FYI,noone else had ever discovered its existence.
 

MerryPrankster

nunya said:
Ireland was uninhabited when the Vikings found it FYI,noone else had ever discovered its existence.
Click to expand...

You must mean "Iceland," not Ireland. Ireland was inhabited for centuries before Christ.

And there were some Irish monks in Iceland who IIRC got chased off by the Norse settlers.
 

Calgacus

nunya said:
Ireland was uninhabited when the Vikings found it FYI,noone else had ever discovered its existence.
Click to expand...

Yi[, MerryPrankster got there before me, but I'll just 'ditto' what he said, although I like the idea that Ireland was uninhabited!

FYI though, it should be noted that no land was undiscovered, anywhere. The Chinese discovered all of it (and invented it).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top