WI: Romans Discover the New World in the 2nd Century

At the point of Spartacus, Rome had yet to conquer more than a thin strip of coastland in present day france, and most of it more by alliences than actual holding. So they'd have two options both much more likely than making a faraway travel, given that they'd had the boats from the pirates (how-to unmentioned, commandeered or not)

1. Penetrating the Coastland of Gaul, usurping one of the smaller tribes stealing their lands

2. Settling somewhere between Romish Africa (around Tunis and Tripoli at this point ) and Cyrenaica

But they'd still have the problem of being in late autumn and they need to get to somewhere, where theres food for the winter ASAP, so they're unlikely to travel futher, and Rome would probably still chase them next year, just to prove a point
 
We have also a large number of men with, at best, some individuals more or less able to know how a ship is working.

An excellent way of getting lost, yes. Good point.

Not talking of how much ship would be needed (that can be, unlikely still, obtained), but also of food, water avaible for a 3 months trail at best.

There was never enough ships for all the men. Even assuming Spartcus can swell the number of ships in other ways, there won't realistically be enough for everyone. As for food and water, a planned setting out into the unknown will involve supplies. An accidental crossing will need rainwater, fish and probably cannibalism.

No they wouldn't. The Romans were particularly reluctant to fight slaves, because it was a shameful and humiliating task : it's why Spartacus (and the other revolts before him) managed to last this long : nobody wanted to be the one that would fight them.

I suspect you're being negative because you got an investment in it now:)

The Romans were letting slave revolts rampage across the properties of the rich and influential because no-one wanted to fight them? Showing reluctance to fight and defend Rome against rabble was honorable?

When Crassus detached his legate Mummius to encircle Spartacus, he gave him orders not to engage, but Mummius were to eager to fight and attcked anyway.
When Pompey were ordered by the senate to aid Crassus, Crassus feared losing the credit, according to Appian. Glaber, Publicola and Clodianus showed no reluctance to march against Spartacus.

You are just not going to be able to run a dominion with that amount of slaves in if you're not willing to fight them when they revolt.

You mean, by not noticing the coast to follow to coming back home?

Perfectly plausible that. I've been a sailor, and there are quite a few ways for even a close coastline to drop out of sight. Your point about the slaves including few competent sailors is a good one, it would be quite easy for them to lose sight of the coast in poor visibility. There is no way the entire fleet would survive such a crossing after a storm but a number of ships is possible.

This does give us a West Indies landing most probably, because both the trade winds and the Canary current will take them there. A decision to go north to Gaul is probably not a good one for our purposes. Nether difting nor sailing across the Atlantic is easy from that starting point. Going south from the pillars, though, it would be quite easy with poor navigators, even without a storm.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that if Spartacus got ships, he'd set out straight for the unknown. I am saying tht if he got ships we have a large body of men with ships in the western med with a burning desperation to get far away from Rome and poor navigation skills. It is a good starting point.
 
At the point of Spartacus, Rome had yet to conquer more than a thin strip of coastland in present day france, and most of it more by alliences than actual holding. So they'd have two options both much more likely than making a faraway travel, given that they'd had the boats from the pirates (how-to unmentioned, commandeered or not)

1. Penetrating the Coastland of Gaul, usurping one of the smaller tribes stealing their lands

2. Settling somewhere between Romish Africa (around Tunis and Tripoli at this point ) and Cyrenaica

But they'd still have the problem of being in late autumn and they need to get to somewhere, where theres food for the winter ASAP, so they're unlikely to travel futher, and Rome would probably still chase them next year, just to prove a point

The pirates ships were not enough to transport more than a a fraction of the total forces. If Spartacus intends to get his army out of there (rather than just skipping out on them) he'll need to take more time to swell the number of ships. Which puts any move into winter.

I don't think anywhere close to Roman Africa would be a popular idea. The Punic wars showed Romes ability to project power there. The interior of Gallia seems far more sensible. So if any butterfly or reason exists to rule the area out, going outside the pillars and south to one of the places founded in the days of Cathage might seem a good idea. (Ironically becuse the navigators might be hesitant to try to circumnavigate Spain).

From there on, if they at any point get lost, winds and current takes them to the West Indies. or the Canaries.
 
I suspect you're being negative because you got an investment in it now:)
No, just because Romans were extremly reluctant to fight slaves :)

The Romans were letting slave revolts rampage across the properties of the rich and influential because no-one wanted to fight them? Showing reluctance to fight and defend Rome against rabble was honorable?
Not really. If you read Plutraque, Sallustus or Titus-Livius, it's quite clear.

Not only they had nothing to gain (no glory by fighting less than men, no loot, and no slaves as they would have to be executed) but it was particularly shameful.

When Crassus detached his legate Mummius to encircle Spartacus, he gave him orders not to engage, but Mummius were to eager to fight and attcked anyway.
Precisely : eager to finish. If you HAD to fight slaves or to some disgusting task, you probably would want to end it the quickest possible.


When Pompey were ordered by the senate to aid Crassus, Crassus feared losing the credit, according to Appian.
Of course, Crassus gained some credit as "the man with the dirty hands that doesn't avoid making the dirty work". But as Pomey defeated definitly Publipor, he didn't even had that.

Glaber, Publicola and Clodianus showed no reluctance to march against Spartacus.
Not exactly, they didn't rebelled against the senate order.
But,

Glaber : preferred surrounding the slaves rather than attack them, hoping they would starve rather than engaging the fight whereas he had a clear numerical and quality advantage

Publicola : Again, the defeat he had against Spartacus is partially due to the reluctance of the roman general to engage fight with gladiators (maybe the lowest form of life for Republican romans) and to consider them as "serious" opponents.

You are just not going to be able to run a dominion with that amount of slaves in if you're not willing to fight them when they revolt.
But it's what happened, even during the earlier servile wars : the kingdom Eunous even lasted more time than Spartacus's army and while Eunous didn't moved his forces.

In Sicily, you had this reluctance but aslo the fact it was far from Rome, and the roman senators and land-owners didn't cared that much.
I'm pretty sure that fugitive slaves outside Roman "Empire" would be even less cared about, or maybe with a "Good riddance" reaction.


Perfectly plausible that. I've been a sailor, and there are quite a few ways for even a close coastline to drop out of sight. Your point about the slaves including few competent sailors is a good one, it would be quite easy for them to lose sight of the coast in poor visibility. There is no way the entire fleet would survive such a crossing after a storm but a number of ships is possible.
But what about a whole fleet didn't noticing the coast?
I don't put your experience in doubt, but the Hercule's Pillar are a tiny, tiny straight. You can't just miss the coasts as they're just before you.

And I'll point that fugitive slaves would have totally the possibility to make stops in Spain without too much danger, at it was during this time in rebellion against Rome.

This does give us a West Indies landing most probably, because both the trade winds and the Canary current will take them there. A decision to go north to Gaul is probably not a good one for our purposes. Nether difting nor sailing across the Atlantic is easy from that starting point. Going south from the pillars, though, it would be quite easy with poor navigators, even without a storm.
A landing in West Indies would imply people to land. Without enough food, enough water and enough motivation ("hey, what about being in the total blue ocean for 3 months without the slightest clue about where we go"), maybe the ship could reach some island, but most probably no people aboard.
 
For the sake od argument lets say that the slaves or at least a large group of them made it to the Americas, but this discusion should be moved to the right forum.
So the slaves make it. Do they land in the caribean or have made the crossing at the end of the hurricane season? Do the end up on the main land.
This could be any where from mexico to Nova Scotia given the path of the storm.
 
Why not slaves escaping from a failed revolt? Broad spectrum of skills, led by an Africa, who proposes to take them to maybe the Nigeria area. Bad storm, three hour tour, a three hour hour tour......
 
Why not slaves escaping from a failed revolt? Broad spectrum of skills, led by an Africa, who proposes to take them to maybe the Nigeria area. Bad storm, three hour tour, a three hour hour tour......

Because slaves in a failed revolt won't be in any position to escape, because they won't have ships, because they won't have seamen among them, because they won't have the provisions for such a voyage, because a bad storm is more likely to cause drowned slaves and lost ships than landing in the West. . .
 
Roman conquest of America.
There are richer, more developed and easier to attack lands far closer. Depending on when, there's Gaul, Egypt, Dacia, the Daidochi states and then Parthia - all of which offer a real benefit much closer to Roma and the markets for slaves and exotic goods, and the place. Remember that the Aztecs, Mayans and Incans are not around by the time of the late Roman Republic or early Empire.

Roman Colonization of America.
Early European colonisation failed before the natives were devasated by disease - and this did took about a hundred years to spread over the continent. The vikings failed in face of native resistance, as did the first English colonies. Local diseases also helped a lot. Scottish settlements in Panama mostly died out by disease and fevers. If the Romans suddenly start thinking colonization is a good idea, there's plenty of places close-by to colonize. The coast of Marocco, Frisia, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, the Baltic, the Black Sea, all places where you can control an established good that has a proven value, fight known natives over MUCH shorter distances than going to America and back.
 
Roman conquest of America.
There are richer, more developed and easier to attack lands far closer. Depending on when, there's Gaul, Egypt, Dacia, the Daidochi states and then Parthia - all of which offer a real benefit much closer to Roma and the markets for slaves and exotic goods, and the place. Remember that the Aztecs, Mayans and Incans are not around by the time of the late Roman Republic or early Empire.
Yes, the Maya totally were around at the time of Rome. They didn't just sprout out of nowhere in 500 AD or something. And there was an empire in Mexico as grand as that of the Aztecs at the same time as well.
 
In Sicily, you had this reluctance but aslo the fact it was far from Rome, and the roman senators and land-owners didn't cared that much. I'm pretty sure that fugitive slaves outside Roman "Empire" would be even less cared about, or maybe with a "Good riddance" reaction.

I really don't see that a slavery-heavy setup like Rome could afford to let slaves get away with a revolt. Its the top one thing you'd want to discourage in a slave-using nation. The slaves have too little to lose and too much to gain.

But what about a whole fleet didn't noticing the coast?
I don't put your experience in doubt, but the Hercule's Pillar are a tiny, tiny straight. You can't just miss the coasts as they're just before you.

It is possible, although not easy. When you normally sail for pleasure it is easy to forget how many sorts of unpleasant weather you may have to sail in when you do it for a living. A heavy rain can cut visibility to a couple of meters. As can fog. (And a proper snowfall can do worse, although that shouldn't be an issue here). A moonless night can be pitch-black, you'd be entirely dependent on there being settlements with lights on the shore. And even a moderate rain could obscure them.

In daytime you can get an overcast so thick, you cannot see where in the sky the sun is.

However, I am not advocating that the fleet get lost in the straits of Gibraltar :) That is a bit like getting lost on the stairs in a two-floor building. Leaving the straits of Gibraltar, sailing along the coast and then losing it due to poor visibility, poor navigation or poor weather is more reasonable.

Now, I must quite agree that on the face of it, sailing up the coast of Spain to Gaul seems a far more sensible strategy. So we need a reason or a butterfly for that. Perhaps if Spartacus obtains his ships, Pompey is never asked to return from Spain to support Crassus?

Or Spartacus tries to throw Rome of the scent by sailing through the pillars in broad daylight, and turns south for the cities of north Africa. But then turns west as soon as he is out of sight, intending to double back and sail north below the horizon, returning to the coast once he is north of Gibraltar again? It is a Spartacus sort of move, except he'd be overestimating the ability of his navigators...

A landing in West Indies would imply people to land. Without enough food, enough water and enough motivation ("hey, what about being in the total blue ocean for 3 months without the slightest clue about where we go"), maybe the ship could reach some island, but most probably no people aboard.

You are overestimating the time it'd take for a crossing. Of course, any fleet of Spartacus is going to be a pretty ragtag collection of ships, most of which we do not know the speed or abilities of.

We do know, however that the winter speed of the Canary current mean that the time to drift from the Canaries to the West Indies is about 78 days. That is no sails, no rowers, just drifting, so it'll be the absolute maximum.
You average war galley can do a fairly sustained speed over time of 4 knots on rowers alone. That'd mean 26 days to cross. The Trade Winds winds here go exactly the same direction as the current and are strong and sustained. Most of the ancient writers indicate an average speed of 4-5 knots under favorable winds (Transactions of the American Philological Association Vol. 82 (1951), pp136‑148).

So an undamaged ship could cross in 3-4 weeks. The distance would be about 2,5 times as long as the longest Mediterranean trip directly referenced historically.

This is not ASB. We may have left the placid sea of the Highly Probable here, but we're not quite into the choppy waters of the Highly Implausible. Going back, though....thats a different kettle of fish.

Of course, the above assumes that the ships will continue to follow the winds and current once lost. Ships that try to return, or otherwise go off in a different direction are in even worse trouble. Now if the ships are lost, following the prevailing winds makes sense. Its how you cover the greatest distance, and hence maximizes your chance to find land. I don't see anyone trying to fight wind and current, but I could see ships being lost trying to go south or north.
 
I really don't see that a slavery-heavy setup like Rome could afford to let slaves get away with a revolt. Its the top one thing you'd want to discourage in a slave-using nation. The slaves have too little to lose and too much to gain.

Simple : Good-Riddance. As you said, not all the slaves could hope take the ships. Simply not enough. They would crush the remnants, claim to have crushed Spartacus and be glad that he would left away.

Again, I'll point the apathy of Romans during the 1st and 2nd Servile War, and the same apathy up to Crassus deciding this shit have to be ended.

Furthermore, Spartacus' revolt was in great part based on free but poor peasants or free clientele of great roman demesnes.

However, I am not advocating that the fleet get lost in the straits of Gibraltar :) That is a bit like getting lost on the stairs in a two-floor building. Leaving the straits of Gibraltar, sailing along the coast and then losing it due to poor visibility, poor navigation or poor weather is more reasonable.

But, as said, Western Spain offer large possibility of unloading everyone on the coast for the night. You add that to an heavy use of cabotage, you'll have really really small odds of getting lost.

Now, I must quite agree that on the face of it, sailing up the coast of Spain to Gaul seems a far more sensible strategy. So we need a reason or a butterfly for that. Perhaps if Spartacus obtains his ships, Pompey is never asked to return from Spain to support Crassus?
Well, that could be a thing.
But maybe that Spartacus would prefer to sail north then, with the possible help of western Mediterranean Pirates or at least their neutrality, and reach Provence to head north following the Rhone river (I don't remember if Arleate had already river fortifications. If they didn't had that, Spartacus could have landed in Arles)

It is a Spartacus sort of move, except he'd be overestimating the ability of his navigators...
I'm not sure he would have chosed that. Remember they would have really, really limited food and water and they would need to take it regularly on the coast.

He would have been forced, if going south, to stop regularly on the coast.


You are overestimating the time it'd take for a crossing. Of course, any fleet of Spartacus is going to be a pretty ragtag collection of ships, most of which we do not know the speed or abilities of.

We do know, however that the winter speed of the Canary current mean that the time to drift from the Canaries to the West Indies is about 78 days. That is no sails, no rowers, just drifting, so it'll be the absolute maximum.

That's probably on the best conditions : no tempest, nothing happening during the whole trail.

You average war galley can do a fairly sustained speed over time of 4 knots on rowers alone. That'd mean 26 days to cross.
Again, you can't expect making men row, critically a galley without giving them enough water and enough food. And they would have an issue by being not able to reapprovisioning themselves.

That the ships could trail to Americas isn't ASB. That an army of slaves, poor peasants without real navigation knowledge, dispersed in different ships and without enough food and water could survive the trail is another thing.
 
Top