|
feedmegin posted:Weren't 'Roman' sailors usually Greek once Greece became part of the Republic? Greeks were still pretty good at the whole sailing thing. Guess it depends what sailors you mean. Military crews would have been both citizen and not, though later on they did prefer to grab Greeks/Egyptians/Phoenicians as much as possible. The Navy was always considered lesser than what real men did. Civilian ships I assume would've been just everybody.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 12:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Why would you develop a skill that isnt required? While the Med is pretty big on a human scale the fact is if you accidently lose sight of land you'll still plow into a shore sooner or later(as in days not weeks or even months). Open ocean navigation and more importantly the supplies needed for it are simply not needed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
That's kind of my point. There's no need for ships that can stay at sea for very long. The thing that drove Europeans to start going real long distance in the 1400s was once the Ottomans took over they cut the trade links to Asia, so Europe needed another route. I could believe a ship going down west Africa got blown into the deep ocean in a storm, everybody dies and the leftovers eventually wreck somewhere in the Americas. Like all those rubber ducks that spilled off the container ship.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 14:33
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Why would you develop a skill that isnt required? While the Med is pretty big on a human scale the fact is if you accidently lose sight of land you'll still plow into a shore sooner or later(as in days not weeks or even months). Open ocean navigation and more importantly the supplies needed for it are simply not needed. Odyssey plot hole detected 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
House Louse posted:Odyssey plot hole detected The sea was so wine-dark back then that it was harder to spot shore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:45
|
|
|
The sea was actually wine and everyone was constantly so shitfaced they couldn't manage to hit land in a landlocked sea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
I just like how the article never bothers to raise the possibility of "eccentric rich guy with a Roman sword collection lost one overboard when sailing in the area".
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
There was trade routes running up to Cornwall from the Med in roman times, iirc, so they must have had good enough sailors to cross the bay of biscay/english channel fine and regularly enough to trade with it, or they took along the french coast their galleys all the way easy to Calais before sailing back to Cornwall. I don't know which one it is, but you can get some rough seas on the atlantic coastline which romans should have been used to sailing (not that that is the same as crossing the atlantic)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
I'm imagining Scrooge McDuck cruising around in his antiquity yacht and this was simply a case of the cannonball splash effect.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:There was trade routes running up to Cornwall from the Med in roman times, iirc, so they must have had good enough sailors to cross the bay of biscay/english channel fine and regularly enough to trade with it, or they took along the french coast their galleys all the way easy to Calais before sailing back to Cornwall. I don't know which one it is, but you can get some rough seas on the atlantic coastline which romans should have been used to sailing (not that that is the same as crossing the atlantic) Yeah you can literally see across that lane of water at certain points in that region. It was not exactly sailing into the unknown. Sailing from Italy to Africa is more treacherous. Due to shallow seabed the Med can be extremely treacherous. It's no joke and it's why just making a run for shore and beaching is a common practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
nothing to seehere posted:There was trade routes running up to Cornwall from the Med in roman times, iirc, so they must have had good enough sailors to cross the bay of biscay/english channel fine and regularly enough to trade with it, or they took along the french coast their galleys all the way easy to Calais before sailing back to Cornwall. I don't know which one it is, but you can get some rough seas on the atlantic coastline which romans should have been used to sailing (not that that is the same as crossing the atlantic) Hell, I feel like I've read that either the Carthaginians or people the Carthaginians traded with had trade routes leading to the British Isles for tin. I don't know if that's accurate though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Hell, I feel like I've read that either the Carthaginians or people the Carthaginians traded with had trade routes leading to the British Isles for tin. I don't know if that's accurate though. A lot came overland but if you stuck to the coast most of the way I don't see any reason they couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Elyv posted:Hell, I feel like I've read that either the Carthaginians or people the Carthaginians traded with had trade routes leading to the British Isles for tin. I don't know if that's accurate though. Yeah, Cornwall was the main source of tin in Europe. Part of the problem also would be supplies. Their ships didn't carry much in the way of provisions. Military ships would often beach every night and the crew would forage, so they might be carrying a couple days' supplies and that's about it. The grain ships from Egypt to Italy were probably about the longest voyage away from shore that people regularly took.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:I was about to post this and ask if it was as complete bullshit as it looks. nothing to seehere posted:There was trade routes running up to Cornwall from the Med in roman times, iirc, so they must have had good enough sailors to cross the bay of biscay/english channel fine and regularly enough to trade with it, or they took along the french coast their galleys all the way easy to Calais before sailing back to Cornwall. I don't know which one it is, but you can get some rough seas on the atlantic coastline which romans should have been used to sailing (not that that is the same as crossing the atlantic) If any Roman's touched the Americas it was more then likely one of these ships heavily pushed off course or even one of that ships that popped up to the western coast of Ireland in a good wind. Given the fact the Romans never even stepped foot on the Azores I'd say this is bullshit. I'm now wondering how much effect the Mali Empire had on the age of exploration as it's existence and maps kind of provided that Africa kept going to the Portuguese and Spanish.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Yeah you can literally see across that lane of water at certain points in that region. It was not exactly sailing into the unknown. Sailing from Italy to Africa is more treacherous. Due to shallow seabed the Med can be extremely treacherous. It's no joke and it's why just making a run for shore and beaching is a common practice. Sure: you can take the safe route, hug the Spainish/French coast till you get to a point in the English channel thin enough you can make a short hop across open sea. But thats alot longer than crossing the bay of Biscay itself, or hopping over the wider bits of the channel (still quite close to shore, mind you, just not in sight). If that was a trade route the romans sailed (instead of hauling stuff overland) then merchants probably would have had incentives to shorten the route by taking faster routes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
The sailing plans of ancient roman trade ships allow for a very slim margin of error. Just by thinking about it makes my balls shrivel. The "safest" trade route when you have the chance of getting swept out to sea would be running across the channel with oared boats. Totally doable with a good margin of safety and with slave labor and regular shipment most likely profitable. Not to say they didn't use Med style trading vessels but when the difference is falling off the edge of the earth or just getting blown off course and back onto land I'm sure careful traders didn't make reckless plans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Speaking of Rome's maritime capabilities (or lack thereof, really), how far around the Western African Coast did the Romans ever explore? Did they ever get anywhere past the Sahara or was it just one big endless desert to them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Speaking of Rome's maritime capabilities (or lack thereof, really), how far around the Western African Coast did the Romans ever explore? Did they ever get anywhere past the Sahara or was it just one big endless desert to them? I don't believe they did, although they went somewhat far down the east coast of Africa, I think. Several hundred years before, though, the Phoenicians actually circumnavigated Africa. It took them 3 years. Herodotus thought they were full of poo poo because they said the sun came up on the other side(which, ironically, is part of the reason it's believed today).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Thump! posted:Speaking of Rome's maritime capabilities (or lack thereof, really), how far around the Western African Coast did the Romans ever explore? Did they ever get anywhere past the Sahara or was it just one big endless desert to them? The Romans sent a few expeditions into the Western part of sub-Saharan Africa at various points between the reigns of Augustus and Nero. They got about as far as modern day Nigeria/Chad. They made a lot more headway on the eastern side of Africa. Nero actually planned on invading Ethiopia but it never came to fruition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
As I said above if they took the north route the longest trip would be what Iceland to Greenland? I guess that is pretty far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Going through the North Atlantic was tough enough in the 18th century. It's a terrible, cold, and notoriously stormy part of the ocean. And there's nothing to forage to boot even if you're island hopping down the islands of Canada since everything is frozen wasteland and tundra for a good 1000+ miles from greenland.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
I don't know much about Roman sailing, but the climate would not have been quite as warm as during the Viking Age (ca. 800-1200). The relative warmth of that period was a major factor in the Vikings being able to colonize and effectively explore the North Atlantic, along with their superior seafaring technology and skills. It's worth pointing out that the dominant surface currents and winds are NOT working in your favor for a North Atlantic crossing and you better drat well know the Iceland -> Greenland -> Labrador route. I guess it's within the realm of possibility a Roman ship got blown off course and artifacts washed ashore, but that scenario seems more plausible for a ship sailing off the western coast of Africa and getting blown by the trade winds somewhere to South America. Crossing the North Atlantic would take a pretty concerted and well-planned expedition and exploration of the routes beforehand, which knowing the Romans you'd assume they'd write that poo poo down somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
I think the Roman idea is bullshit and you give s lot of good reasons but don't overestimate how much surviving state documentation survived. Iirc there are pretty big gaps in what et have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
I'm reading a book right now that claims that basques knew about North America and fished for cod that they dried and salted on the coast, but never told anyone about it because it was a fishing secret.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I'm reading a book right now that claims that basques knew about North America and fished for cod that they dried and salted on the coast, but never told anyone about it because it was a fishing secret. In the 15th century though, not the 5th
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Doesn't Thor Heyerdahl's Ra II expidition show it's in theory possible to cross the Atlantic with ancient Egyptian ships? Not that you'd intentionnaly sail into the unknown open ocean, but it's at least possible for someone to have accidentaly done it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Doesn't Thor Heyerdahl's Ra II expidition show it's in theory possible to cross the Atlantic with ancient Egyptian ships? Not that you'd intentionnaly sail into the unknown open ocean, but it's at least possible for someone to have accidentaly done it. Yeah it's fully possible, but the thing is that it'd be even harder for them to get back home after barely managing to get to Americas. So the result is just a few guys who don't speak the native languages being permanently marooned, and if they're lucky taken in by the nearest natives to where they ended up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yeah it's fully possible, but the thing is that it'd be even harder for them to get back home after barely managing to get to Americas. So the result is just a few guys who don't speak the native languages being permanently marooned, and if they're lucky taken in by the nearest natives to where they ended up. Yes, of course. It might explain roman / other group artefacts showing up on the americas though. Still, it would be very odd that something as valuable as a sword show up rather than something more mundane like some count or a hairclip or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Yes, of course. It might explain roman / other group artefacts showing up on the americas though. Still, it would be very odd that something as valuable as a sword show up rather than something more mundane like some count or a hairclip or something. That's why the most likely origin of the roman sword at that particular place, if it wasn't a hoaxster's plant, is just that some dude who happened to own a roman sword in modern times lost it over the side.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:That's why the most likely origin of the roman sword at that particular place, if it wasn't a hoaxster's plant, is just that some dude who happened to own a roman sword in modern times lost it over the side. Sure. Now I''m wondering though: Did they ever find something in the americas that could have been from a real roman ship? Maybe some nails from the ship + amphoras + random clutter?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Doesn't Thor Heyerdahl's Ra II expidition show it's in theory possible to cross the Atlantic with ancient Egyptian ships? Not that you'd intentionnaly sail into the unknown open ocean, but it's at least possible for someone to have accidentaly done it. That expedition sailed from West Africa to the Caribbean. This is much easier than doing a trans-North Atlantic trip, because the currents and wind are generally working in your favor. Going west across the North Atlantic you really have to have done a lot of exploration and have a good idea of your route, because the dominant Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift push east and northeast. It's sort of the difference between having a headwind vs. tailwind. That's why I suggested Romans ending up in South or Central America would be a lot more plausible. Edit: there's a very good reason the Triangle Trade went broadly clockwise around the Atlantic. The currents favor clockwise travel, going counterclockwise is a bitch and requires much better sailing knowledge and technology. The Romans could've landed somewhere in the Amazon, that would've pretty well buried anything they'd have left behind. Then it's just a short hop to the Altiplano to hang out with the Bolivian Atlanteans. Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
The Belgian posted:Sure. Now I''m wondering though: Did they ever find something in the americas that could have been from a real roman ship? Maybe some nails from the ship + amphoras + random clutter? See that would be real archeology though and not nearly as sexy for whatever tripe the history channel is squatting out these days as a ceremonial sword.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
bury me in my reenactment gear near a battlefield with an ipod in my pocket
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:bury me in my reenactment gear near a battlefield with an ipod in my pocket This but in a replica Roman coffin with period-appropriate grave goods. Also somewhere on Baffin Island.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Don't forget to add a map to Atlantis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Don't forget to add a map to Atlantis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
Don't forget a faked lost chapter of some famous book from history, properly aged of course.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Don't forget a faked lost chapter of some famous book from history, properly aged of course. Lives of Famous Whores, on papyrus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:34 |
|
|
Thump! posted:Speaking of Rome's maritime capabilities (or lack thereof, really), how far around the Western African Coast did the Romans ever explore? Did they ever get anywhere past the Sahara or was it just one big endless desert to them? West Africa they didn't explore all that much apparently, but Roman trade reached at least as far south as Zanzibar on the east coast. East Africa was part of the Roman world, especially around the Horn. It's annoying to parse in written records though since "Ethiopia" was a blanket term for anything far away with black people living there. The Belgian posted:Doesn't Thor Heyerdahl's Ra II expidition show it's in theory possible to cross the Atlantic with ancient Egyptian ships? Not that you'd intentionnaly sail into the unknown open ocean, but it's at least possible for someone to have accidentaly done it. What a lot of these things ignore is motivation, though. Like when people ask why the Romans didn't conquer Scotland/Germania. The locals love to say it's because we were too tough and the Romans couldn't handle us, but in both instances the Romans marched through and killed everyone more than once, proving them wrong. The real reason was there's nothing there worth the trouble, so no motivation. So with the ships. Okay, maybe they had ships that could have survived the crossing. Why would they do it? The Atlantic was either the endless world-wrapping Ocean or you used a Greek to do math and realized that it was like a 14,000 mile journey to Asia through that ocean. Not happening. Remember that when Columbus thought he could do it, he also thought the Earth was a whole lot smaller than it really is. If he'd known the actual distance to Asia I doubt he would've made the attempt. Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 05:08 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 05:06
|
|