WI: The ancient Greeks colonize the British Isles by 310 BCE

WI: The ancient Greeks colonize the British Isles by 310 BCE

Pytheas of Massalia in 330 BCE launched an expedition to explore the British Isles. His adventure was funded by the Greek colony of Massalia’s ruling council. He went there in search of tin, amber and curmi. When he arrived back in Massalia many years later he wrote two books on his adventure. So, my question is what if Pytheas’s journey sparked a Greek interest in Britain, lead to more expeditions being launched and the eventual colonization of the British Isles.

Source
The DK book "Explorers" by Sir Ranulph Fiennes
 
WI: The ancient Greeks colonize the British Isles by 310 BCE

Pytheas of Massalia in 330 BCE launched an expedition to explore the British Isles. His adventure was funded by the Greek colony of Massalia’s ruling council. He went there in search of tin, amber and curmi. When he arrived back in Massalia many years later he wrote two books on his adventure. So, my question is what if Pytheas’s journey sparked a Greek interest in Britain, lead to more expeditions being launched and the eventual colonization of the British Isles.

Source
The DK book "Explorers" by Sir Ranulph Fiennes

The Greeks will then have to deal with the Celts on the British Isles.
 

Abhakhazia

Banned
You have to take logistics into account. The thing is, that Britain is a long way from the Greek homeland. Only the most adventurous of traders would travel there.
 
You have to take logistics into account. The thing is, that Britain is a long way from the Greek homeland. Only the most adventurous of traders would travel there.

thought about this, and searched for a distance calculator. Going from Massalia to the western tip of Britain would be 800km more than sailing from Phoceea to Massalia (the trip the massalian settlers took when founding the city).

Sailing from their colony of Emporion in Spain to Britain would be roughly the same distance as the one initially undertaken by their ancestors.

Probably difficult, but there is precedent, so not impossible.
 
I think another problem here people are forgetting is that the Phoenicians, or at this point Carthaginians, control the Straits of Gibraltar, and aren't likely to let a massive Greek colonist population pass without a severe toll.

The only way I see this really working is if Massalia somehow manages to defeat Carthage and takes Gadir and Tangis, (which is unlikely at best, but anyway) from there setting up colonies along the Atlantic coastline. They'd set up colonies along islands off the coast like they did in most instances to avoid conflict with the inland inhabitants. Perhaps the Isle of Wight would be an option for a Greek colony.
 
Also Massalia eventually had to turn over to Rome because otherwise they were going to be completely destroyed by those Celts. This is even more unstable, and unlikely to get larger than a city or two.
 
I think another problem here people are forgetting is that the Phoenicians, or at this point Carthaginians, control the Straits of Gibraltar, and aren't likely to let a massive Greek colonist population pass without a severe toll.

The only way I see this really working is if Massalia somehow manages to defeat Carthage and takes Gadir and Tangis, (which is unlikely at best, but anyway) from there setting up colonies along the Atlantic coastline. They'd set up colonies along islands off the coast like they did in most instances to avoid conflict with the inland inhabitants. Perhaps the Isle of Wight would be an option for a Greek colony.


Pytheas cut through Germany using the Rhine and Elbe rivers and got to Britian during one of his travels, so the Greeks may not have to deal with Carthage.

On another note Pytheas traveled to Belerion, Cantion and Unst island so lets start with the Greeks colonizing those areas.
 
Pytheas cut through Germany using the Rhine and Elbe rivers and got to Britian during one of his travels, so the Greeks may not have to deal with Carthage.

On another note Pytheas traveled to Belerion, Cantion and Unst island so lets start with the Greeks colonizing those areas.

But that's just one explorer. A whole crew of colonists need to travel by ship unless they want to be seen as a threat to the Celts further inland and be thusly slaughtered.
 
But that's just one explorer. A whole crew of colonists need to travel by ship unless they want to be seen as a threat to the Celts further inland and be thusly slaughtered.

Pytheas traveled in a trireme with a crew of 174 men, not that impressive but better than solo. Also I'm not so sure the populace will be that hostile, when Pytheas and his crew arrived they were able to inspect farming methods, eating habits and they were even given tips on locations to explore. So i'm not sure but wouldn't farming mean he explored more inland or are you talking deeper? I suppose he meat coastal farmers probably,not the inland ones, what do you think?
 
Pytheas traveled in a trireme with a crew of 174 men, not that impressive but better than solo. Also I'm not so sure the populace will be that hostile, when Pytheas and his crew arrived they were able to inspect farming methods, eating habits and they were even given tips on locations to explore. So i'm not sure but wouldn't farming mean he explored more inland or are you talking deeper? I suppose he meat coastal farmers probably,not the inland ones, what do you think?

He went on a ship meant for trading, not multiple ships meant for colonizing. It would be seen by the tribes either as a migration, or an invasion. Not to mention the logistics of it going over land are immense to begin with.

But, supposing the Greeks did attempt to go overland through Gaul's river-systems to Britain, en masse, what makes you think it would not be seen as a potential invasion? Recall, Celtic migrations were often very violent ordeals, so why would they believe that a Greek migration would be any different? It's all in the numbers.
 
He went on a ship meant for trading, not multiple ships meant for colonizing. It would be seen by the tribes either as a migration, or an invasion. Not to mention the logistics of it going over land are immense to begin with.

But, supposing the Greeks did attempt to go overland through Gaul's river-systems to Britain, en masse, what makes you think it would not be seen as a potential invasion? Recall, Celtic migrations were often very violent ordeals, so why would they believe that a Greek migration would be any different? It's all in the numbers.

I suppose your right, unless the Greeks want to either battle a Gallic horde or run the Carthagian blockade. I preffer the latter at this point maybe they can sneak past if they stay close to the coast and sail at night. What do you think?
 
I could see them trying to colonize Cornwall and maybe making a fortress wall to separate from the rest of the island. I could also see them taking random islands as Greek city-states, maybe even lasting into Roman times. Greeks in Ireland could also result as populations expand.
 
In some ways, it could almost have been easier during the bronze age, as tin was sort of the ultimate strategic metal in those days.

However, neither the greeks nor the phoenicians were significant in the western Med that early. The iron age started ~1000 bce, while Carthage wasnt founded until ~800 and Massilia ~600.

By the 500s, say, when theres a base you could hope to use, there just isnt the pressing need.

If the Mycaenean civilization had been more successful and spread west, that might do it.
 
I suppose your right, unless the Greeks want to either battle a Gallic horde or run the Carthagian blockade. I preffer the latter at this point maybe they can sneak past if they stay close to the coast and sail at night. What do you think?

Sailing (more accurately, rowing, if it matters) at night is a rather bad idea. And staying close to the coast is normal in these days, so it doesn't really surprise anyone.
 
Top