Romans cross the Atlantic

First, considering that establishment is the one that brought luxury products, their reject of everything not romans or not interesting at their eyes *does* impact.
Roman population itself, though, seems to have reflected that as well : Octavius used these feelings when arguing that Marcus Antoninus was egyptianized and no longer a true roman.

Second, the cults were accepted only if thoroughly romanized and emptied of everything made them exotics : If you find a real similarity between ancient egyptian cult of Isis, and what answered to this name in Roman Italy, kudos.
Interpretatio romana was a tool of cultural domination, and to say it bluntly, imperialism. Certainly not a sign of exoticism.

Finally, Romans weren't maybe the fathers of xenophobic litterature, but they were good challengers. Anti-judaism, anti-barbarism (With descriptions of germans as in the linkess of bugs, being to tall and with too clear hairs), you name it.

So, no, Romans didn't LOVED new things : they made others adopted their customs (being usually a prelude to economical and political takeover), couldn't denigrate more "barbarian" customs. as long they couldn't use it for their own business.

Just sayin'.

All of this coexisted. Both xenophobia and the Roman equivalent of "orientalism". But the Principate and the Empire were intensely mercantile. I would argue that the growing Med-wide commerce (and beyond) made Romans less provincial and xenophobic than they were during Republican times (in a relative sense). Particularly once they had knocked off their principal competitors in the Mediterranean.

Ultimately, I don't think that the Romans were appreciatively greater xenophobes than any other culture of the time. Athenian xenophobia was incredibly pungent, to cite but one example.;) I give the Achaemenid Persians and the Kushans props for being probably the most cosmopolitan cultures of the ancient world.
 
All of this coexisted.
Not because they had a choice : when controlling a multi-cultural empire, you have to tone down at some moment. But eventually, prejudices over conquered cultures were maintained if in a more paternalist sound, particularly against orientals (there's some anti-persian litterature that is almost magnificent in this regard).

I would argue that the growing Med-wide commerce (and beyond) made Romans less provincial and xenophobic than they were during Republican times (in a relative sense).
Yes and no : I propose you to read Juvenal (particularly in his satires) to have a sight of Patriciate upper class feelings over some people.
And up to Diocletian's reign (more or less), senatorial elite was really wary against these foreigeners that wanted to take their places : conquering people didn't meant they were to be treated as Romans.

(You could argue of "provincial" emperors. I'll point out, though, that they were essentially issued from roman colonies in provinces, and not from romanized natives.)

Athenian xenophobia was incredibly pungent, to cite but one example.;)
Well, I would not be so sure. Many Athenians were deeply admirative of Persian culture : Herodotus, Xenophon are probably the most known, but they were others. Eventually the maintained presence of pro-persian factions in all Greece should temper this feeling.

They seem to have been more present and more influents than romans as Tacitus with a relativly neutral view of Germans for instance (there's a reason why there is far more Greek historians that are considered good than Romans after all)

Now, yes, Greek authors could be as well extremly virulant against Persians.

give the Achaemenid Persians and the Kushans props for being probably the most cosmopolitan cultures of the ancient world.
Probably, indeed.

---
Back to the OP, my original point being (sorry I drifted away) : More lasting Romania wouldn't equal more important and more diverse trade per se. They generally let that to provincial communauties (Greco-Egyptians; Syrians; Jews, etc) rather than leading themselves. An earlier or later collapse would have as incidence the collapse of an economical continuum (and that would have been important) but not of the trade roads per se.
 
Last edited:
---
Back to the OP, my original point being (sorry I drifted away) : More lasting Romania wouldn't equal more important and more diverse trade per se. They generally let that to provincial communauties (Greco-Egyptians; Syrians; Jews, etc) rather than leading themselves. An earlier or later collapse would have as incidence the collapse of an economical continuum (and that would have been important) but not of the trade roads per se.

True that most trade was provincially driven (within the context of a more or less stable polity). Although there can be (and was) Imperial patronage, as well. Maintaining the economic continuum is key to maintaining viability of many of those trade routes, I believe.
A longer-lasting Rome (perhaps with a partially deflected 3rd C. crisis) without the prolonged economic interregnum of the WRE collapse aftermath, could have seen the possibility of trade and (suitably motivated) technical expansion that would have played better with the scenarios we've been throwing around on this thread. A tall order, I know.
 
Maintaining the economic continuum is key to maintaining viability of many of those trade routes, I believe.
It's easier to make a newer continuum being more strong than maintaining a failing ensemble.

For instance, an ERE dominance over Mediterranea, while hard, strikes me as more doable (especially by a short Gothic War instead of 20 of ruin and plunder in Italy) whatever by conquest or by proxy.

As we know the trades roads didn't decided to vanish in meanwhile, it would have interesting consequences.
 
It's easier to make a newer continuum being more strong than maintaining a failing ensemble.

For instance, an ERE dominance over Mediterranea, while hard, strikes me as more doable (especially by a short Gothic War instead of 20 of ruin and plunder in Italy) whatever by conquest or by proxy.

As we know the trades roads didn't decided to vanish in meanwhile, it would have interesting consequences.

Well, yes, if that system is in a state of terminal decay.
For the purposes of the subject of this thread, the ERE would need to retain dominance in the Western Med. (and a gateway to beyond) --particularly the Iberian Peninsula, the Straits and a deal of the Maghreb.

Yes, Justinian and Maurice had transitory control of all three areas.
 
Getting to Justinian and Maurice takes us out of the classical period.

Justinian cannot be included in the same moment of time as Hannibal. A time frame for this event must be set...by say 100 AD at the latest.
I think we are too hung up on Rome. Rome is not the only thing that happened between creation and the middle ages.

Again, I think this sounds like a wonderful opportunity for Carthage. Even if the outcome of the Punic wars is not affected.

regarding the Romans acceptance of the new and unusual...They never backed away from something that gave them an advantage. Official Rome and Real Rome were, as so many nations currently are...not the same, witness Mythras as an example, Foreign cult, adopted by the legions.

Their Xenophobia was official, not cultural. Agustus was acknowledged to be very conservative and not in tune, culturally, with Rome. As imperial as he was, his values harkened back to a simpler time, the Republic.
 
Last edited:
Getting to Justinian and Maurice takes us out of the classical period.

Justinian cannot be included in the same moment of time as Hannibal. A time frame for this event must be set...by say 100 AD at the latest.

Poking around a bit, the options for original discoverers/colonists are as follows:
1) Early Phoenicians, circa 1200 BC, which seems unlikely, but the Phoenician city of Cadiz in modern Spain was founded by Phoenicians from Tyre around that period.
2) The Expedition to circumnavigate Africa, ordered by the Pharaoh Necho II, and peopled by Phoenicians, circa 600 BC
3) Hanno the Navigator of Carthage, circa 450 BC
4) Juba II, of Mauretania, circa 50 CE

Complicating factors on the one side is uncertainty over the presence of indigenous people There is evidence of occupation at least intermittent going back to 1000 BC. However Hanno apparently visited the place around 450 and found it uninhabited, but for some ruins. Juba II of Mauretania was supposed to have used the islands as a prison, dropping inconvenient people off there. The Guanches have been shown to be closely related to the Berbers of the Atlas mountains. And Romans are definitely known to have traded with the Islands.

If you wanted my dime. The most likely prospect for the discovery and recognition of the coffee/mastic potential is Hanno the Navigator, which would put the beginnings of the Canary economic complex around 450 BC.

To my thinking, if there's regular steady sea traffic to and from the Canaries from the Med, and significant economic value, I'd bet that the rest of the Macaronesias would be discovered and settled in a 150 to 200 year time frame.

This would put us comfortably before the second Punic war, around 300 to 250 BC. By the time the first Punic war rolls around, the Canaries are an economic/political metropolis, with the rest of Macaronesia and an indefinite portion of the African coast as hinterland.

We can expect coffee production and consumption to become significant perhaps 400 BC, and perhaps fully mature around 200 BC.

Although a local metropolis, the Canaries were probably subordinated or hinterland to either Cadiz or Carthage. How that politics shakes out would be interesting, given that geographically and politically, it's likely that the Canaries would be seeking autonomy or independence, perhaps as early as 350 - 300 BC. Even if Carthage maintained control, its almost certain that hegemony would end around 200 BC with Roman victory in the second Punic war.

But would Rome go down and take over? Or would they simply take the Canary metropolis as a client state. I think Client state most likely.

Of course, if the Canary metropolis seemed wealthy and influential enough, then its possible that some greedy or expansionistic Roman might decide to incorporate it into the Empire, one way or the other.

If Juba II isn't butterflied away, we could also expect a big throw down the the Mauretanians around 50 CE.

Given the 'neo-colonial' nature of the Canary metropolis 'coffee economy' based on producing and selling a scarce high value commodity that they have an effective monopoly on, whatever the technical independence, they would almost certainly be highly dependent on mediteranean economies.


I think we are too hung up on Rome. Rome is not the only thing that happened between creation and the middle ages.
True enough. But there's a period from about 200 BC to 300 CE when its basically the only game in town.


Again, I think this sounds like a wonderful opportunity for Carthage. Even if the outcome of the Punic wars is not affected.
Interesting to speculate on butterflies there.
 
Just so its on the record. I reserve the right to contradict myself.

Ahem....

So, if we get to the point of establishing a Macaronesian cultural/economic/sailing complex, centered around the Canary Islands as metropolis, and with the remainder of the Islands and some part of coastal Africa as a hinterland, with the most likely configuration being a former Carthage/Cadiz colony, most likely following the 2nd Punic war as either an extremely far flung minor roman province, or a roman oriented tribute state.

Well, that gives us a sailing culture which could conceivably make it to the Coast of Brazil. The big nut to crack, as I keep saying, is getting back. The return voyage is extravagantly difficult and improbable, and almost certainly not economic.

Is there any way we can push this a little bit further? If economics don't work, what about cultural factors?

One thing that strikes me that might be at work, particularly during and lingering after the discovery phase, is 'gamblers fever.' I'm sure that there's another term for it - intermittent reinforcement. The fact that a chance pays off once in a while, or might pay off persuades people to keep playing. This is why people buy lottery tickets or throw their life savings away at a casino (well, there's also the doubling down phenomena - basically, when someone's made the mistake of throwing a lot of money down the well there's a strong impulse to keep throwing down money, otherwise you have to admit that all your time and money and effort up to that time has been for nothing).

So the continuing discovery of a handful of Macaronesian archipelagos, about 30 islands, and the potential wealth that comes from a virgin new Coffee Island probably inspires a lot of fortune seekers.

There's soothsayers giving the locations of new Islands and new fortunes, smugglers and pirates claiming that their coffee comes from previously unknown and still mysterious islands, learned men of letters proving to each other that there must be more islands out there. There's dreams, dreamers and half ass lunkheads. There's the desperate, gambling on that incredibly long shot. The ambitious seeking to make their fortune, etc.

So, during the period of exploration, they keep setting out to sea... and it works to some extent, they find the Azores and Cape Verdes.

Mostly, they just die at sea. They die a lot. Their ships founder in bad weather, they spring a leak and sink, the crew mutinies, they get lost. Basically, they die in profusion, in numbers. Many of the ships that go out don't come back. Of those that do, many come back empty handed. And a favoured few, the ones who find the Azores or Cape Verdes, might come back with something. But after that, it's a lot of dying at sea or coming back busted.

Now under those circumstances, I expect two things to happen.

Some of those who don't come back will make it to the coast of Brazil. The currents are right, the winds are right, and presumably they've brought a modicum of skill and preparation. And mostly, they die there. It's really really hard to get back.

I suppose that there's some possibility of a Phoenician settler colony composed of stranded sailors, that merges with the locals. It might last fifty or a hundred years, unless its very lucky. But I'm not going to worry about that for now.

The second thing is that the seamen who come back empty handed will come back rich in knowledge. Mostly that knowledge will be that spending three weeks bopping around the empty ocean really sucks. But there'll be a modicum of accumulated awareness of winds and currents. So it's likely that they'll figure out the Volta, and perhaps develop that as an institutional knowledge - ie, the traditions and insights that everyone defaults too.

At that point, late, very late in the age of exploration and consolidation, you might have, a really gifted and unlucky fool who ends up in Brazil, and in one of those 'Incredible Voyages' which we usually associate with team ups of wily cats and broken down dogs travelling thousands of miles to find their absent minded owners, he has the combination of hunch, competence and foolhardiness to assume that there's a way to get back into the Volta and get home... all he has to do is follow the coast far enough north...

Aaaand..... he makes it home.

Aaaaaannndddd..... nothing comes of it. It's like the circumnavigation of Africa, or putting a man on the moon. Impressive, dramatic, thought provoking, awesome... and futile.

Now, I imagine anyone who makes a journey like this is going to talk it up the wazzoo, so the stories will be amazing and epic and all that, extravagant as hell.

But he's probably not come back with his cargo hold full of trade goods. That's not sensible. Sailing in unknown territory, crossing indefinite expanses of water. Priority will go to provisions for survival, not booty to impress the hometown folk. You want to get there alive, not die in the middle of the atlantic with a hold full of gold.

There's probably a few barrels of trinkets, perhaps a small supply of chocolate as proof, things like that. But not big.

There might be some talk about more voyages, now that it's been done. The second time is easier. And there might even be visions of wealth - gold and silver, chocolate or tobacco or coca leaves as hot commodity, perhaps the rumour that the far land is the source of coffee and there's a bonanza waiting to be claimed.

And at that point, it should go nowhere. The talk will be just talk. No matter how much hypothetical wealth is out there, the difficulties of getting it back, and the exponential costs of setting up a trade network would be outside the economic capacity of the Canary metropolis. There's just not enough wealth to make that kind of investment and no real motivation to do so. In particular, the Canary metropolis might want to have a whole new supply of coffee... but on the other hand, it doesn't want competitors, or the price to collapse.

The only state that might have the resources to set up such a trade network - including posts and resupply stations, would be Rome. And there's no military or political reason to do so. It's certainly not a paying proposition. So what it comes down to is boondoggle, the senseless whim of a some crazed emperor, pouring the wealth of the state into such a venture. You'd need a lot of money, a lot of wealth and input, for very little to show for it. So the only reason it would happen would be misinformation, skewed assessments, really bad decision making and an immense fortune disposed of recklessly.

So you could, hypothetically see a Roman presence and a series of Roman outposts, way stations, trading stations and resupply depots from the coast of Brazil to the Caribbean and beyond, established and maintained at ruinous expense, so some goof of an emperor can impress his friends with chocolate malt.

That will probably last until the change of Emperors.

And its unlikely to have much of a meaningful effect. After all, Rome and China knew of each other, and there was some limited exchange through the silk road. There was some contact between Meso-American and Andean cultures. But in each case, the contact was mostly insignificant. This would be the same... only more so.

Archeologists would find a few roman trade goods in American sites. But that's about it.
 
As I was writing this, I see some crossover with your last post, DValdron, although I was riffing from your previous post.
(on the necessity of Romans:) But there's a period from about 200 BC to 300 CE when its basically the only game in town.
I might slow down the evolution of development a little.
I could possibly see the Phoenicians/Carthaginians as beginning the process (unless butterflies see a continued Carthaginian power and/or a thwarted Rome) --- the discovery and settling of Macaronesia, the "discovery" of Coffea liberica, an initial limited high-end trade of the item, eventual cultivation of and establishing plantings of a hardy strain suited for island cultivation.

Perhaps, more towards the end of the Carthaginian hegemony of the Western Mediterranean, an established and expanded trade, as both supply and consumption go up. Rome, after the defeat of Carthage, clientizes and eventually annexes Macaronesia. The trade continues in the hands, essentially, of the same sailors and shipping.

Mastic becomes increasingly scarce and expensive in the Mediterranean as the resource is over-exploited and more uses of mastic come into being. This drives the exploitation of Mastic in Macaronesia as it has been discovered in the Canary Islands and eventually stock is planted on the other islands.

Probably this occurs by the late Republican, early Empire period of Rome.
Empire-wide demand of both coffee and mastic drives increased commerce between Rome, Macaronesia, and Africa.

Beyond this, butterflies both minor and major, may or may not occur as the fortunes of the Empire wax and wane.

Do we see this the coffee, mastic commerce enough to drive a greater interest in the Atlantic for more commercial and perhaps Imperial expansion?
Perhaps driving advance in shipcraft, navigation, and nautical technology in general?
Do we get someone before the end of the Classical period to the New World? Do we get anyone who returns to tell the tale?
Does the story of that journey lead to other journeys or is it relegated to the tall-tale and unexploitable facts department?

But, I don't see this line of development inevitably leading to Roman colonies in the New World or ongoing trade between the hemispheres.
That will probably have to wait for a different world although it is quite conceivable that this scenario has sped up the eventual sustained colonization of the Western hemisphere by Europe somewhat. Maybe even measured in centuries.
 
Last edited:
As I was writing this, I see some crossover with your last post, DValdron, although I was riffing from your previous post.

I might slow down the evolution of development a little.
I could possibly see the Phoenicians/Carthaginians as beginning the process (unless butterflies see a continued Carthaginian power and/or a thwarted Rome) --- the discovery and settling of Macaronesia, the "discovery" of Coffea liberica, an initial limited high-end trade of the item, eventual cultivation of and establishing plantings of a hardy strain suited for island cultivation.

Perhaps, more towards the end of the Carthaginian hegemony of the Western Mediterranean, an established and expanded trade, as both supply and consumption go up. Rome, after the defeat of Carthage, clientizes and eventually annexes Macaronesia. The trade continues in the hands, essentially, of the same sailors and shipping.

Mastic becomes increasingly scarce and expensive in the Mediterranean as the resource is over-exploited and more uses of mastic come into being. This drives the exploitation of Mastic in Macaronesia as it has been discovered in the Canary Islands and eventually stock is planted on the other islands.

Probably this occurs by the late Republican, early Empire period of Rome.
Empire-wide demand of both coffee and mastic drives increased commerce between Rome, Macaronesia, and Africa.

Beyond this, butterflies both minor and major, may or may not occur as the fortunes of the Empire wax and wane.

Do we see this the coffee, mastic commerce enough to drive a greater interest in the Atlantic for more commercial and perhaps Imperial expansion?
Perhaps driving advance in shipcraft, navigation, and nautical technology in general?
Do we get someone before the end of the Classical period to the New World? Do we get anyone who returns to tell the tale?
Does the story of that journey lead to other journeys or is it relegated to the tall-tale and unexploitable facts department?

But, I don't see this line of development inevitably leading to Roman colonies in the New World or ongoing trade between the hemispheres.
That will probably have to wait for a different world although it is quite conceivable that this scenario has sped up the eventual sustained colonization of the Western hemisphere by Europe somewhat. Maybe even measured in centuries.

Concurr....
 
They certainly had the means to do it, they just didn't have the economic incentive. As far as they knew there was nothing between Hispania and China, just endless ocean. They knew the size of the Earth accurately and were not morons.
 
what about a divergence in 9 AD : Augustus sends a different general, perhaps his good friend Agrippa instead of Varus and better intelligence on what the Germans were up to in the Teutoburger Wald with Hermann; maybe Hermann has a fight with someone, and they go tell the Romans. Agrippa seems to have been more experienced and he conquers and holds Germania. And after a while the Romans come in Contact with Vikings in Scandinavia and learn how to build longships and increase their trade and seek the Baltic amber and furs and it may be a Viking crew from Miklagard under the commands of the Emperor's Varangian guard and the Rhoman general Nikephoros Phokas, the White Death of the Scraelingioi that dtscover Terra Nova :D
 
I highly doubt conquering Germany would be as easy as sending a different general there, especially since the Romans were never able to do that after however many centuries. And the Viking Age started in the 700's AD. Also, butterfly effect. Besides, you seem to have skipped over all the important points made in this thread, namely motivation.
 
There are 2 opportunities for the Romans to discover America.

1. As we know from Tacitus, Agricolas fleet discovered most probably the Shettland Isles North of Scotland. So if, the Romans conquer Scotland, there is a chance, that some fishermen report about Iceland.

But even if the romans discover Iceland, Greenland and New Foundland, nothing would happen, because there is nothing of interest. Due to the very unroman climate, they would never consider a colony over there. And going South from there, were the gold is.

Think about it. If Columbus would have known about the Viking Route and used it, nothing would have happened. At least not that soon. Columbus comes home with nothing.

2. The Romans decide that there is something worthful at Africas west-coast. We already dscussed in this other thread, that this is highly unlikely, because there was nothing of interest from a roman point of view.

Now by accident they discover the route to Brazil. Which could happen pretty soon, if a lot of sailing ships are traveling south. Again there is nothing worthful in Brazil. Perhaps the romans would decide about a supply outpost in Brazil and use this route regulary. But from Brazil to Chile or Mexico is a long long way. But over time ....

So find a case for regular and massive trade with West-Africa and from there go America. But it would take much longer than with Columbus and the gold. And again, there is really no good reason to go West-Africa.

The 3rd option to go straight West like Columbus did is highly unlikely. The romans knew, that the world is round. But without the Caliphates controlling the trade-route to India, they had absolutely no reason to go straight West. The romans controlled the Red Sea, and the Sassanids never blocked trade for the other mainroute via the Persian Gulf
 
Last edited:
The 3rd option to go straight West like Columbus did is highly unlikely. The romans knew, that the world is round. But without the Caliphates controlling the trade-route to India, they had absolutely no reason to go straight West. The romans controlled the Red Sea, and the Sassanids never blocked trade for the other mainroute via the Persian Gulf

So this might beg the question: If we prevent any western oriented empire (doesn't necessarily have to be the Romans) from gaining direct access to the Red Sea-and on top of that, have an eastern state such as Sassanian persia block off/making trading through their territory incredibly expensive.
 
So this might beg the question: If we prevent any western oriented empire (doesn't necessarily have to be the Romans) from gaining direct access to the Red Sea-and on top of that, have an eastern state such as Sassanian persia block off/making trading through their territory incredibly expensive.

Depends if the classical-era Western polity deems the eastern trade as important as the Eastern trade was perceived to, say, the later OTL Portuguese and Venetians.

I would venture to say, it wasn't perceived by the Romans as quite as relatively important. After the the end of the 3rd C. AD, the Eastern Trade with the West was essentially ended for several centuries, until the ERE became ascendant.
 
Depends if the classical-era Western polity deems the eastern trade as important as the Eastern trade was perceived to, say, the later OTL Portuguese and Venetians.

I would venture to say, it wasn't perceived by the Romans as quite as relatively important. After the the end of the 3rd C. AD, the Eastern Trade with the West was essentially ended for several centuries, until the ERE became ascendant.

If it is a trading one such as Carthage...possibly though I'm not sure how much Carthage valued eastern trade. Though that brings up the problem with the money and resources to sponsor such a long term investment that might have little return for awhile....
 
If it is a trading one such as Carthage...possibly though I'm not sure how much Carthage valued eastern trade. Though that brings up the problem with the money and resources to sponsor such a long term investment that might have little return for awhile....

Carthage? Not at all, at least directly, OTL. It would be a very different Carthage that did. Probably one which is the dominant power in the Mediterranean (i.e. a Rome throttled in its crib).
 
The roman emperors knew, that the trade with the East led to a massive loss of silver and gold. And this happened just for luxury goods mainly. They would perhaps been happy, if this madness ends. But the emperor is not Rome.

It is possible, that some traders would try to go West or more likely South like Vasco Da Gama. South makes more sense. The romans knew, that the circumference of the earth is about 40.000km. Columbus believed in a later and totally wrong calculation. So from a roman point of view, it is impossible to cross this huge Ocean. They would rather follow the african coast to India.

But as mentioned above, there were times with very low trade with the East. And iirc in the 6th century the Sassanids even conquered Yemen and controlled the roman route for some decades. But the romans did not care.
 
Last edited:
Top