Romans cross the Atlantic

Suppose an ancient civilisation would initiate the age of discoveries, sailing to India and the Americas...

Did they have the technology to build such ships?

Would their ocean going ships tend to look the same as the 15th century portugese sailing ships or would they row, in galleys?
 
Would their ocean going ships tend to look the same as the 15th century portugese sailing ships or would they row, in galleys?

This answers your question. Any trans-oceanic transit would be purely coincidental (some crypto-historians argue for this occurring vis a vis Roman ships washing ashore in the Americas - I think some of these claims have been adopted by some mainstream historians). The ships couldn't have looked like the 15th century ships just by the virtue that the technology wasn't there. The development of the Caravel was years in the making, and a product of Europeans adopting technologies from throughout the world, in addition to some native technological developments. It's very unlikely the Romans could have built anything like it.
 
Suppose an ancient civilisation would initiate the age of discoveries, sailing to India and the Americas...
Well, Age of Discoveries happened for a reason after all : to get an easier way to Indias and monopolize the trade as much as possible.

In Ancient Times, however, or this trade was almost inexistance by lack of clients; or great empires managed to get the direct way to that (Rome, by exemple, using the greco-egyptians traders).

You might simply not have an incitative for that.

Did they have the technology to build such ships?
Yes and No.

No as they didn't technology for long, plain sea maritime expedition, as crossing the Atlantic regularly.

On the other hand, Necho II's expedition could indicate that long expeditions as long they were able to ravitail regularly wasn't out of reach.

Would their ocean going ships tend to look the same as the 15th century portugese sailing ships or would they row, in galleys?
Neither.
Galleys and Trirems could arguably reach Atlantic by accident (tempest, really lousy captain, etc.) but being able to do twice (not talking about regular crossing) seems basically out of reach of their time, without real incitative to have technological advance on that matter.
 
I don't know about the polynesians, but Viking ships were pretty good, and even then, they had to hop to Iceland, then Greenland, to get to Newfounland and the Hudson bay. Furthermore, they were a sea going people which the Romans were not.
 
On the other hand, vikings and polynesians could cross the oceans with even less?

First, they had immaterial technology.
For the case of Polynesians, centuries if not millenias of practice.
For Vikings, a bit less but still good practice.

Then, they had the motivation : migrations, settlements, long range trade.

Romans didn't have the first, and had more close regions for the second.
 
No as they didn't technology for long, plain sea maritime expedition, as crossing the Atlantic regularly.
>
>
>
Judging by found wrecks, some Roman ships were larger than the 1492 Spanish ships. Size isn't the main problem, boats down to a couple meters have crossed. Roman ships could have been blown off course going to England and wound up in the Americas. They would have had the same fear Columbus had, running out of food. But once they got there, what was worth taking back to europe and then sailing back and forth to the Americas repeatedly?
 
^True, the Romans were adept at incorporating the skills of of their subjects.

And you make another good point. There isn't really any reason for the Romans to care about America. They have plenty of people close to home that they can trade with. They don't have the advantage of gunpowder over the natives, which will even up any fights, especially given the political and logistical difficulties of sending even one legion to campaign so far from home. And what do the Americas have that they need? They don't need the land, persecuted groups have places to flee without abandoning civilization like that, they don't need the wood for ships, the cost of finding and transporting gold and silver from Mexico or South America is prohibitive, I just don't see a motivation.
 
Judging by found wrecks, some Roman ships were larger than the 1492 Spanish ships.

It's not the size that matters, or so she said.

It's how its built : roman-era ships fit well mediterranean context, a bit less atlantic (and certainly not too much far from the coast: hence the number of shipwrecks).
I think we can rule out row-propelled navies, as they asked for quite large number of people and such a crew would have likely died out.

"Round" roman ships, for trade and sail-propelled could be a better choice, critically considering their maneouvrability. Their speed is estimated to somewhere around 4 knots if the wind is favourable.

So, considering the wind is always favourable (something that in Atlantic is not really certain), a roman ship from Betica would take approximatly 40 days to reach Americas.

Keep it mind that such crew wouldn't be used to atlantic winds, would have no compass, in a word would be lost in something they don't know at all. 40 days becomes a minimum in this situation.

If the crew is able to take the lead at some point, considering that they tought there was *nothing* eastwards, they would have eventually turned back before.

Colombus beneficed from material and immaterial technology, as well from being conviced that land was near, but not Romans.

Roman ships could have been blown off course going to England and wound up in the Americas. They would have had the same fear Columbus had, running out of food.
But once they got there, what was worth taking back to europe and then sailing back and forth to the Americas repeatedly?

I don't exclude accidentals arrivals, as I said above. It could easily have arrived OTL, but eventually unconsequentials.

Admitting that a living crew (that something already challenging of its own) arrives in America, they would be lost. No map, no direction, no knowledge of atlantic winds.

Even if they come back alive (the scenario becomes more and more challenging), they wouldn't have a clue about what it was (some distant island, too far from anything to be worthwile, probably) or how to come back.
 
Suppose an ancient civilisation would initiate the age of discoveries, sailing to India and the Americas...

Did they have the technology to build such ships?

Would their ocean going ships tend to look the same as the 15th century portugese sailing ships or would they row, in galleys?

As it was said in this thread OTL ancient civilizations, meaning the Romans mostly had almost zero probability sailing to the Americas.
But hey, we are in alternate history forum! Let us imagine that Rome was strangled in the cradle by the Celts and some other surrounding local tribes. So no Rome.
In this ATL Carthage will prosper. The Phoenicians were a seafaring civilization. It is almost certain that they were doing just fine with exploring West Africa and trading gold there. Which was brutally ended by the Romans. But if we give them a few hundred years they would surely find immense gold deposits of West Africa and so that stimulates further exploration.
The idea which drove the Conquistadors was "the gold is out there". The same idea would drive the Carthaginians into new lands, seas and oceans. And if you explore Africa there is a good chance that you will find America, almost inevitable.

And in the world without Romans the Celtic Veneds of Gaul are surviving. In Julius Caesar times they had huge oceanic vessels made especially for the Atlantic Ocean. Give these guys a few hundred years of development and I will not be surprised if they stumble upon America as well, probably from the North or New Found-lend bank.

At some point the oceanic ships of the Celtic Veneds and vessels of Carthage meet in battles over control of trading routs to Britain and Scandinavia and there might be exchange of technologies and ideas and that might add some synergy to the process of developing ships and navigation.
And without Rome we would have prospering Hellenistic civilization with Archimedes living a little bit longer and Greek scientists and engineers living and creating like free men, not as Roman slaves. I would not be surprised if this ATL equivalent to Columbus will be a Greek navigator from the Indian Ocean at the service of Carthage.
 
As it was said in this thread OTL ancient civilizations, meaning the Romans mostly had almost zero probability sailing to the Americas.
But hey, we are in alternate history forum! Let us imagine that Rome was strangled in the cradle by the Celts and some other surrounding local tribes. So no Rome.
In this ATL Carthage will prosper. The Phoenicians were a seafaring civilization. It is almost certain that they were doing just fine with exploring West Africa and trading gold there. Which was brutally ended by the Romans. But if we give them a few hundred years they would surely find immense gold deposits of West Africa and so that stimulates further exploration.
The idea which drove the Conquistadors was "the gold is out there". The same idea would drive the Carthaginians into new lands, seas and oceans. And if you explore Africa there is a good chance that you will find America, almost inevitable.

And in the world without Romans the Celtic Veneds of Gaul are surviving. In Julius Caesar times they had huge oceanic vessels made especially for the Atlantic Ocean. Give these guys a few hundred years of development and I will not be surprised if they stumble upon America as well, probably from the North or New Found-lend bank.

At some point the oceanic ships of the Celtic Veneds and vessels of Carthage meet in battles over control of trading routs to Britain and Scandinavia and there might be exchange of technologies and ideas and that might add some synergy to the process of developing ships and navigation.
And without Rome we would have prospering Hellenistic civilization with Archimedes living a little bit longer and Greek scientists and engineers living and creating like free men, not as Roman slaves. I would not be surprised if this ATL equivalent to Columbus will be a Greek navigator from the Indian Ocean at the service of Carthage.

The key phrase here is "Give these guys a few hundred years of development". Something like the progressive and systematic explorations of the Portuguese during the early Age of Exploration that allows whoever to understand both the Canary Current and exploiting the "Volta do mar" maneuvre that allowed efficient and repeatable 2-way passage of the Atlantic in the mid-latitudes.
 
Well, I am sure that if the ancients knew about America they would travel there...I mean...just the choclate! mm..:)

Sure enough, the vikings, polynesians and the celts did have better oceangoing vessels. And the romans were not a seafaring people. However they had a history of quick and pragmatic adaptiveness. They knew that the world was a globe, and had a fair assessment how big it was.

Perhaps they were just afraid of the great seas?...Or did that early suezcanal make circling africa unnecessary, thus never sparking such a shipbuilding project.

This did not happen in europe until the turks captured Constantinople in 1453AD thus blocking the silkroad.
 
Sure enough, the vikings, polynesians and the celts did have better oceangoing vessels.
Venetic Celts? Not really : they just were better used than Atlantic than romans, and it didn't prevented the latter to inflict them naval defeats.

Perhaps they were just afraid of the great seas?...Or did that early suezcanal make circling africa unnecessary, thus never sparking such a shipbuilding project.
.

As said above, they just didn't had any reason to go westwards. Lands and wealth could be found closer to home, they had a direct maritime road with India.

Granted, Romans weren't great explorers (while they admittedly tried to know what existed south of Sahara), but if something was really *them* it was to explore new opportunities : Spain was their "Peru", Gaul their "Mexico".

This did not happen in europe until the turks captured Constantinople in 1453AD thus blocking the silkroad.

Even if the Ottoman takeover in Mediterranea provoked a real influx and more motivation to exploration, these began earlier.

One of the most used tradeways to India, Egypt, wasn't taken over by Ottomans before Portuguese ruined Islamic trade in India, for instance.

African trade (salt, gold, slaves) was for Portugal an earlier motivation, as well than a desire for continued Reconquista on the other side of the sea.
 
It's not the size that matters, or so she said.

It's how its built : roman-era ships fit well mediterranean context, a bit less atlantic (and certainly not too much far from the coast: hence the number of shipwrecks).
>
>
>
The Romans found the English building ocean going ships. Ceasar mentions it in his writings.
 
The Romans found the English building ocean going ships. Ceasar mentions it in his writings.

1) If we're taking litterally every part Caesar self-justification book, it's gonna be fun
2) Ocean going ship means ships sailing on Ocean Sea, including Channel, (basically what Romans tought being the Ocean that surrounded the emerged lands) rather than crossing Atlantic. These ships were essentially doing coastal navigation.

(On an unrelated note, could you please refrain yourself to write ">>>" each time you post?)
 
The key phrase here is "Give these guys a few hundred years of development". Something like the progressive and systematic explorations of the Portuguese during the early Age of Exploration that allows whoever to understand both the Canary Current and exploiting the "Volta do mar" maneuvre that allowed efficient and repeatable 2-way passage of the Atlantic in the mid-latitudes.

Well of course. They would need time but if any ancient mediterannean civilization is going to do it, it is going to be the Phoenicians. Carthage would be very interested in west Africa over time and they had periodically shown at least token interest in the area (Hanno The Navigator) before.
 
This has been covered in previous threads.

I think the consensus is it might be hypothetically possible, but for a number of reasons, extremely unlikely.

The bottom line is that the Romans simply never developed the accumulated tradition, lore and technology of Atlantic and mid-Atlantic seamanship. they weren't sufficiently active in the area, and they without that foundation, any trans-atlantic voyage was likely to be accidental and one way.

If you wanted this to happen, you would need to really establish a POD that lays the foundation.
 
Top