Roman Aden and contact with China.

maverick

Banned
This is a continuation of the idea in which Alexander takes Western Arabia, including what is now Yemen.
Let's say that he did and that it became another Alexandria, forever disputed between the Seleucids and Egypt until it becomes sort of independent.
No reason for the romans not to conquer a strategic port that could be vital in the early trade in the Arabian and Indian seas.

Now, could Rome have made contact with the civilizations at India and maybe even China had one of the Emperors taken Aden? And what would have been the effects of that?
 

Cicero the Younger

I'm not sure there would have been any effects. The Romans already had limited contact with India, and though they didn't know much about China beyond "it's where silk comes from"--Pliny wrote a bit about how silk was made--they were aware that it existed. Marcus Aurelius even sent envoys there, as Chinese records attest to. Maybe a port in Yemen would have been treated as a jumping-off point for more direct trade that bypasses the long overland route and the Parthian and Indian middlemen. But possibly not.
 

carlton_bach

Southern India is full of Roman and Byzantine coins. As early as the Principate, someone wrote a 'periplous' of the Indian Ocean, a book for merchants plying these waters. There was a regular customs duty on the red sea trade that was collected by public officials, and the Egyptian seaports of Myos Hormos and Leuke Kome were major trade hubs. As late as the 6th century, a monk from Greece could develop an entire (completely wrong) cosmography based on his firsthand knowledge of India and Ceylon. Southern Arabian states continually changed allegiances between Rome and Parthia in a game of influence peddling in the region. I don't really see how this would make any great difference.
 

Flocculencio

Donor
As Carlton mentioned, there was already significant contact between Rome and the S. Indian maritime states. In fact I seem to recall reading somewhere that the spice trade from India was a significant drain on Roman gold reserves.
 

Archdevil

One of the first prefects of Aegypte tried to conquer both Arabia Petreae and Arabia Felix but failed. So the interest was there regardless of Hellenestic ties.
 

Faeelin

Banned
carlton_bach said:
Arabian states continually changed allegiances between Rome and Parthia in a game of influence peddling in the region. I don't really see how this would make any great difference.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

Let me toss this out here, and see what people think.

OTL, the Sassanids were able to become the predominant power in the Indian Ocean through bases in Arabia and Mesopotamia, and were even capable of sending fleets to raid Ceylon.

An actual Roman fleet in the Indian Ocean, saving merchants from piracy? An even larger India trade than OTL?
 
Rasputin

Rasputin

Just a...really really random thought. Islam as it arose in Arabia was heavily influenced by Judaism and Christianity as an 'Abrahamic' religion. If there's heavier contact with India through 'Arabia Felix', would this aid the spread of Buddhism or other religions of that ilk to the west? Even if eastern religions are never really adopted on a wide scale, could whatever emerges in Islam's place at least take in a heavier Buddhist/Hinduist element? Seeing as the people in the area will be lying along the east/west trading conduit?

That could be intriguing.
 

Wendell

An interesting thought based on this discussion...

Could this lead to the emergence of a lasting Roman polity in southern India?
 

Wendell

Faeelin said:
It didn't lead to a Sassanid one; so why would it?

I bet you might see more Christians along the coast, assuming Xianity still happens.
Click to expand...

The Sassanids and the Romans were not friendly with each other on a consistent basis, IIRC. Would this be the case with more of a Roman presence in Yemen and India?
 

Flocculencio

Donor
Wendell said:
An interesting thought based on this discussion...

Could this lead to the emergence of a lasting Roman polity in southern India?
Click to expand...

Why would it?

There's no real incentive for the Romans to attempt to go a-conquering at such a distance. Trade is more profitable than war. Besides, IIRC Roman naval skillzorz weren't particularly advanced. I doubt they could prosecute a war across the rabian Sea- this ain't the Med and they'll be coming up against seasoned mariners.
 

Homer

Flocculencio said:
Why would it?

There's no real incentive for the Romans to attempt to go a-conquering at such a distance. Trade is more profitable than war. Besides, IIRC Roman naval skillzorz weren't particularly advanced. I doubt they could prosecute a war across the rabian Sea- this ain't the Med and they'll be coming up against seasoned mariners.
Click to expand...

The whole idea about Roman Yemen ITTL is based on hundrets of years of hellenistic rule over Yemen. Greeks are skilled sailors, and I think a hellenistic Yemen would substantially increase seafaring in the Red sea, the Arabian sea and the Persian Gulf. Yemen would probably become a major trade hub, not only as a source of incenses, but as a seafaring nation connecting the Med, Arabia, Africa and India.

Increased contact of hellenistic Yemen would increase the incentive to conquer it, as it would increase contact with the Imperium. There were attempts IOTL to conquer Yemen by land, ITTL, the Romans might try to invade Yemen by sea and I think they could succeed. After all, given the fate of hellenistic states IOTL, Yemen would probably end as a Roman vassal and lateron become a province.

Now once Yemen becomes Roman - whether a vassal or a province - there'd still be centuries-old Greek trading routes to use and probably Greek colonies in the Indian ocean.
 

john

If the Romans had Arabia Felix, I think there would be much greater trade/contact with Africa. Perhaps even the first circumnavigation would have gone from east to west (I guess depending on currents and winds).

Animals as well as gold, ivory and slaves would be hot commodities. Perhaps even Roman settlements in East or South Africa...
 

Faeelin

Banned
Flocculencio said:
Why would it?

There's no real incentive for the Romans to attempt to go a-conquering at such a distance. Trade is more profitable than war. Besides, IIRC Roman naval skillzorz weren't particularly advanced. I doubt they could prosecute a war across the rabian Sea- this ain't the Med and they'll be coming up against seasoned mariners.
Click to expand...

The Sassanids seem to have managed it, as did the early Islamic empires.
 

mishery

Would this lead to greater roman trade with Axum and Punt? Trade down the E. Coast of Africa?

Also, would greater trade with India lead to a greater transfer of ideas? Buddhism?
 

Homer

mishery said:
Would this lead to greater roman trade with Axum and Punt? Trade down the E. Coast of Africa?

Also, would greater trade with India lead to a greater transfer of ideas? Buddhism?
Click to expand...

I'd bet on both. In case of east Africa and Ethiopia I could even see Roman provinces. As was stated above, ivory, wild animals, slaves, spices and gold would be very valuable for Rome. Furthermore, there would be well established trade of Greek Yemen along the East African before the Romans arrive!
 

ericams2786

I like the comments about the possible spread of Buddhism if the Romans controlled Yemen or all of Arabia. In my TL Rome conquers Arabia and with increased trade/contact with India and eventual conquest, Buddhism spreads west into the Roman Empire. Also, contact with Axum and other African states occurs quicker as well and later the Roman conquest of Arabia has a huge impact on the development of Islam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top