Roman Iceland : Effects if Any?????????

If sometime between 0001, and 400 AD the Romans chanced [very unlikely..But] to establish a small colony on Iceland before the Empire Fell.

Assuming they survived in Isolation till the Vikings arrive 500 years later, ?anyone see any Butterflies flapping away?.
 
No effects. The Vikings encountered (probably Irish) anchorites on Iceland and it didn't particularly bother them. Of course this assumes the Roman Empire just imported local specialties for a while and when that stopped, the merchants were stuck and had to adapt. If (borderline ASB, in my opinion) we have a systematic Roman settlement, that would most likely lead to an earlier Germanic settlement of the island and stop the Viking 'virgin soil' colonisation.
 
A roman colony might have been better able to resist the vikings. Then again, probably not. After centuries of isolation, I suspect the fighting skills would have been pretty athropied. Unless we got a lot of internal strife.

What I don't see is a reason for the Romans to settle there.
 
A roman colony might have been better able to resist the vikings. Then again, probably not. After centuries of isolation, I suspect the fighting skills would have been pretty athropied. Unless we got a lot of internal strife.

What I don't see is a reason for the Romans to settle there.

I agree... its just too far away for Romans to care... Plus i dont recall Iceland having any resources that interested Roman Empire...
 
I think the big problem, as previously mentioned, is there is nothing in Iclenad that the Romans would want enough to establish a colony. I suppose you might just be able to advance an outpost if they decided to go into North Sea fishing and whaling for some reason.

I suppose the other issue might be Roman sailing skills. I seem to remember JC ships had a lot of problems even with the English Channel and even though later fleets did transverse the British Isles on occasion, I'm not sure the Romans were really confortable operating in the rougher seas that they were have to cross.
 
A roman colony might have been better able to resist the vikings. Then again, probably not. After centuries of isolation, I suspect the fighting skills would have been pretty athropied. Unless we got a lot of internal strife.

What I don't see is a reason for the Romans to settle there.

There may be a misunderstanding of the 'colony' concept here. The Romans didn't put troops somewhere to secure their trade and they had no poulation surplus to get rid of, especially not late in the empire. A Roman colony (in the sense of settlement) on Iceland would consist, at best, of some entrepreneurs from Britannia or Germania Inferior who produced or harvested something they could sell profitably and lived there because it made economic sense. It is very hard to see what that could be, but the Roman economy could sustain a luxury demand for centuries if necessary, so it might be nothing more than a fashion for white gyrfalcons or some kind of specifically Icelandic wood.

Anything more than that is out of the question without a very radical POD.
 
I suppose the other issue might be Roman sailing skills. I seem to remember JC ships had a lot of problems even with the English Channel and even though later fleets did transverse the British Isles on occasion, I'm not sure the Romans were really confortable operating in the rougher seas that they were have to cross.

Julius Caesar wasn't exactly a sailor in the blood, though. The Roman navy operated mkostly in ships that would have had big problems making the crossing, but that is because they relied on large crews and oars for combat operations. Cargo ships, on the other hand, were perfectly seaworthy. Any vessel that safely can cross the Bay of Biscay or navigate the Irish Sea can make a summer journey to Iceland (and only a madman would have tried in winter). You wait for good weather, pray for no storms and lose a couple every time - that's how the Vikings did it, too.

Which leaves the problem how the Romans find out the place exists and what they could possibly want there. I was going to say eider downs, but sadly, in the first millennium AD eider ducks were still widespread in Germany.
 
Good point, don't know much about the Roman merchant shipping of the period though I assumed it had the same problmes as the navy.

Thought-the Romans liked a strange (and I think revolting) fish sauce, used as a food flavouring (or was it a drink?). If we could imagine a change in fish stocks (perhaps similar to during the 18th C when I undestand fish stocks in the Baltic dropped dramatically, forcing fisherman to go further out into the North Sea and North Atlantic), could the Romans have to search for fresh fishing grounds to get hold of the sauce? In the search for new fishing grounds, they come across Iceland-and for reasons best known to themselves, decide to establish an outpost there to produce the suace as well as moke fish caught to preserve them before taking back for selling in markets (did the Roman smoke fish like this, I have no idea).

Julius Caesar wasn't exactly a sailor in the blood, though. The Roman navy operated mkostly in ships that would have had big problems making the crossing, but that is because they relied on large crews and oars for combat operations. Cargo ships, on the other hand, were perfectly seaworthy. Any vessel that safely can cross the Bay of Biscay or navigate the Irish Sea can make a summer journey to Iceland (and only a madman would have tried in winter). You wait for good weather, pray for no storms and lose a couple every time - that's how the Vikings did it, too.

Which leaves the problem how the Romans find out the place exists and what they could possibly want there. I was going to say eider downs, but sadly, in the first millennium AD eider ducks were still widespread in Germany.
 
Good point, don't know much about the Roman merchant shipping of the period though I assumed it had the same problmes as the navy.

Thought-the Romans liked a strange (and I think revolting) fish sauce, used as a food flavouring (or was it a drink?). If we could imagine a change in fish stocks (perhaps similar to during the 18th C when I undestand fish stocks in the Baltic dropped dramatically, forcing fisherman to go further out into the North Sea and North Atlantic), could the Romans have to search for fresh fishing grounds to get hold of the sauce? In the search for new fishing grounds, they come across Iceland-and for reasons best known to themselves, decide to establish an outpost there to produce the suace as well as moke fish caught to preserve them before taking back for selling in markets (did the Roman smoke fish like this, I have no idea).

They did, but I can't see the Roman Empire even at its height being able to actually destroy the Mediterranean fisheries. Garum was made from all manner of fish (mackerel and sardines apparently were preferred), but it works best in a warm climate. It would probably be doable on Iceland, but only with lots of heating. Also, AFAIK there are plenty of good and at the time underused fishing grounds between the Med and Iceland - the Romans barely fished the Atlantic.

Maybe the Roman upper classes develop a fashion for giant cod? If you are going to have salt fish (poor man's food in Rome), then at least make it very special, honking big salt fish. That could do the trick - cod grow a lot bigger in the North Atlantic than the North Sea or Baltic.
 
Maybe the Roman upper classes develop a fashion for giant cod? If you are going to have salt fish (poor man's food in Rome), then at least make it very special, honking big salt fish. That could do the trick - cod grow a lot bigger in the North Atlantic than the North Sea or Baltic.

This sounds like a interesting possibility. A food fashion that leads to the need to develop a new industry, which includes a processing facility on Iceland (discovered by a fishing vessel blown off course?).
 
Even if Iceland was inhabited by Roman descendants after a few hundred years in isolation up there they would more closely resemble otl Icelanders than Romans.
Would be cool but nothing much to happen except perhaps Norse expansion that way is slowed quite a bit.


On food fashions: Surely whale would be the best choice? Some Roman naturalist writes all about them and how they're special and they're mammals- everyone will want to eat this Neptunian super cow!


I'd think getting a Roman Iceland would be one of those things where the changes need to reach it (better ships) would result in far greater changes than the one in question (Roman colonies up and down Africa, perhaps in India...)
 
Suppose Iceland supported a stable Roman-derived society up until the time the Vikings arrived. Now, suppose, the Romans and Vikings jointly continued west to the new world. In OTL, the Vikings apparently arrived but never sent the information back to benefit Europe. Romans might give the world a different result. Also, you have the combined advantages of two different types of sailing societies.
 
Hmmmm... I think Iceland could be a perfect dumping ground for indesirables. Vanquished rebel tribes with their chiefs and so on. They'd use it for deportation, being careful to deport only non-seafaring people to ensure effective insulation for all foreseeable time to come.

Ultima Thule,
exsilium extremum boreale,
tristitia tenebrarum
sex menses in die repetita,
a frigido mari segregata,
nulla terra alia adsistens,
a pallenti sole despecta...

(I beg your pardon for my Pig Latin:D but last time I studied it seriouslt was almost half a lifetime ago).
 
Last edited:
How about a POD where the Vikings or their equivalent arise 500 years early and begin raiding along the Empire's northern borders. The Romans decide that Britain is too far south to be an effective staging ground for Arctic patrols. They learn of a mythical northern island and decide to investigate, thinking that it might be a good spot for a naval base that could be used to control shipping between Roman Britain and Barbarian Scandanavia.
 

Ak-84

Banned
When is the POD. If say its in Ceaser's time then its (very minutley) possible. After that esp from Trajens time with most of the army deployed in the east, there is little the Romans can do.
 
I agree that this is one of the extremly unlikly Time Lines, this one is way out on the bell. But still possible.
Even if Iceland was inhabited by Roman descendants after a few hundred years in isolation up there they would more closely resemble otl Icelanders than Romans.
Would be cool but nothing much to happen except perhaps Norse expansion that way is slowed quite a bit.

?Would Expansion have been slowed or speeded?. A larger Base in Iceland, after it's capture by he Norse, may lead to a larger base in Greenland.
100 years later.
 
The Celtic church in Britain, and their tradition of pilgrimages and isolated monasteries gets established earlier. They go sailing for fish and discover Iceland, and establish monasteries there, and begin selling their fish.

It has abundant geysers. There are geysers in Turkey, but the abundance in Iceland is more impressive, and just because it's far away, Icelandic geyser water might have a cachet.

The geyser water would be pretty minor, but I felt like mentioning it. :):rolleyes:

Anyway, the Vikings could encounter well-established Celtic monasteries.

After that, I dunno.
 
I agree that this is one of the extremly unlikly Time Lines, this one is way out on the bell. But still possible.


?Would Expansion have been slowed or speeded?. A larger Base in Iceland, after it's capture by he Norse, may lead to a larger base in Greenland.
100 years later.

Its a long way to Iceland...I wouldn't see many all out invasion fleets heading that way. I don't think they would conquer it.
Its too out of the way and it has nothing of worth.
 
Top