How far did the Romans actually trade and explore?

[Eleatic Guest]

I am just reading an article by Casson on Roman's trade with the east, specifically East Africa and India. I would like to whether these were the end points, so to speak, of regular Roman trade or did Greco-Roman traders even ventured farther away? In a word, I would like to know how expanded was the international trade network of the Imperium actually? And what about the individual explorer?

Perhaps we can make a comprehensive survey here with references to archaeological and literary evidence.

[tlclark]

First there is a journal for this kind of trade contact. It's Called "East and West" I'll see If I can find a link.

Second, Scholars in East Asian studies are far more likely to acknowledge western contacts than Western scholars are to acknowledge Eastern contacts.

I would like to whether these were the end points, so to speak, of regular Roman trade or did Greco-Roman traders even ventured farther away? In a word, I would like to know how expanded was the international trade network of the Imperium actually? And what about the individual explorer?

There are virtually no explorers known by name. My guy, Cosmas Indicopleustes, a 6th C. merchant is one of the few known. He travels to Axum (modern-day Ethiopia) and Tabropane (modern day Sri Lanka). Most of his observations have been confirmed, so most think he really traveled that far.

Contacts with India are extensive but we have to distinguish between actual contacts between peoples and groups and the movement of trade goods. Copper items and bronze chinese vessels wound up in the Ohio mound culture graves. That doesn't mean that Chinese reached the Ohio valley though, only that the objects passed enough hands to make it to Ohio.

Goods travel farther than people and even then, people travel very far.

Perhaps we can make a comprehensive survey here with references to archaeological and literary evidence.

Oh gad. It's endless. Here's a list (from memory) of possible objects. Many are still hotly contested. Western and near eastern scholars have a prejudice against admitting eastern contacts.

First some solid ones.

Bactrian, Bergama and Ghandharan finds:
Largely undisputed now, but vast hellenistic city-states in what is modern day afghanistan and Pakistan. Ghandharan art is buddhist but largely inspired by Greek classical forms. The first large scale statuary emerging between the 2nd-5th C. Lots of trade items from both sides in large quantities.

There is also lots of literary evidence about the pepper and spice trade and mammoth trading vessels on the Indian ocean through the Red Sea.

Lots of Byz/Roman coins have been found in Indian sites (particularly East India, which seems counterintuitive until you figure in wind and current patterns.)

Some more controversial evidence.

Red fine ware in Indian contexts appears to be Terra Sigillata in both manufacture and fabric. So much so that it collapsed the local ceramic industry. I guess that Romans were the Walmart of their time! :wink:

In Pompeii, an ivory Yakshi - hindu fertility goddess was found. Hotly debated but it was discovered in the 18th C. and forgotten so it's likely a souvenir from a trader or a trade item.

There are many others.

Helen Evans, curator of the medieval collections at the met is planning an exhibition on this very topic for 2008/09.

If I think of anything else, I'll let you know.

Travis

[tlclark]

Here's the yakshi in question:

http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/05_1/sengupta_08.jpg

And here's the article I got it from.

http://www.inst.at/trans/16Nr/05_1/sengupta16.htm

Take a look at a lot of the narrative and sculptural images. There is a huge amount of speculation on the origin of the infancy cycles of the life of Christ. Many have noted the incredible similarities between the buddhist infancy narratives and the Christian ones. Most agree that the buddhists ones predate the Christians ones, but no one is certain by how much. We have yet to establish a point of contact but the resemblances are eerie.

Travis

[Felix]

There are two questions - how far individual Greek or Roman merchants physically travelled, and how extensive the overall network was. One item which was of great importance to the trade network was silk; but although the silk travelled all the way to Rome, no individual traders actually made the whole journey (in either direction) as far as I know.

[Graham Sumner]

Hi

There is a book available called 'The World the Roman knew' by N.H.Sitwell which covers the trade links and contacts with other countries as far away as India and China. There is a well known Chinese account of an embassy arriving at the court from king Antun, supposedly Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. I believe I have read that the Chinese were not to impressed with the gifts the strangers brought with them.

Graham.

[hoplite14gr]

The most famous Greek Explorer was Pytheas from Massalia (modern Marseille), He sailed from the Heraklean stele (Gibraltar) north.
Passed from Britain but it is speculated if he made it to Norwy.
Wiki article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pytheas
Kind regards

[Komet]

There are two questions - how far individual Greek or Roman merchants physically travelled, and how extensive the overall network was. One item which was of great importance to the trade network was silk; but although the silk travelled all the way to Rome, no individual traders actually made the whole journey (in either direction) as far as I know.

Actually, some Roman merchants did arrive in China. The first actual contact between Romans and Chinese is in AD 166. The travellers claimed to have been sent from the court of Marcus Aurelius, but were most likely merchants dropping the name to give themselves credence in the Han court. The occurrence was detailed in the Hou Han Shou, the annals of the dynasty, I believe.

Other merchants probably travelled there in the same time frame. They didn't travel over the silk road through Parthia, but rather bypassed it by going to India via sea and sailing eastward from there. Roman glassware has been found as far as Korea, although it most likely changed hands many times and was not traded directly to the Koreans from the Romans.

[Ebusitanus]

I would not doubt that individual vessels would or could have made it even to the Americas in all those centuries. There have been found roman remains at the Canary islands off the African Atlantic coast.

[Radivena]

I would not doubt that individual vessels would or could have made it even to the Americas in all those centuries.

I'm not an expert in this area, but seriously isn't the Americas a little too far away even for the romans. Their merchant and military ships were without doubt strongly built. However I don't think they were able to cross the stormy atlantic ocean. This is a very long journey, and the ship isn't the only problem. Remember that they even would have to store enough supplies of food, fresh water etc. for the whole journey. In addition they would have to fight diseases like scurvy, because of the lack of C-vitamins.

Does anyone know if roman ships would have enough storage space for such a journey?

And did the romans know about any methods to preserve the food for so many weeks?

It's obviously that the Romans never made it to either North or South America. There's no existing records of that. Neither archeological or literal sources tells about it. But would a journey like this been theoretically possible to accomplish with a roman military/merchant ship? I doubt it.

[Theodosius the Great]

Their merchant and military ships were without doubt strongly built. However I don't think they were able to cross the stormy atlantic ocean.

Quite right, I believe galleys were not strong enough to withstand the currents of the Atlantic so that renders their supply capability a moot point of discussion. There's no need to speculate though. The Spanish Empire in the sixteenth century had both galleons and galleys which were virtually identical to their ancient Roman counterparts. But they never used their galleys to cross the Atlantic. They were built for the calm summer waters of the Mediterranean. Besides, no crew could possibly row 3,000 miles across an open ocean (even with galley slaves :wink: )


Theo

[conon394]

It's obviously that the Romans never made it to either North or South America. There's no existing records of that. Neither archeological or literal sources tells about it. But would a journey like this been theoretically possible to accomplish with a roman military/merchant ship? I doubt it.

Roman Merchant ships were apple to cross direct to India from the African coast during the rough parts of the Monsoon season; I don’t see why they could not also have traveled in the Atlantic. Lionel Casson makes the point I a couple of different articles and books that the Romans chose to sail during the rough part of the Monsoon because of the durable nature of there merchant ships. While in contrast later Arab dhows avoided the same sailing periods because of their comparatively fragile construction.

The real problem is there was simply no need to. The Spanish funded Columbus because they wanted to break the existing route monopolies of the Italians (going east) or the Portuguese (going round Africa) – not because they thought the Americas were there to be found. The Romans already had a well established route from the Egyptian Red sea ports to India and over land routes.

did the romans know about any methods to preserve the food for so many weeks?

Dying, packing in oil, salting, etc.

The question is was there any significant preservation method the 15th century Spanish had that the Romans did not. I can’t think of one.

Quite right, I believe galleys were not strong enough to withstand the currents of the Atlantic so that renders their supply capability a moot point of discussion. There's no need to speculate though. The Spanish Empire in the sixteenth century had both galleons and galleys which were virtually identical to their ancient Roman counterparts. But they never used their galleys to cross the Atlantic. They were built for the calm summer waters of the Mediterranean. Besides, no crew could possibly row 3,000 miles across an open ocean

Spanish ships were very different from Roman ones; in construction, rudders, oars, sails etc. More importantly you seem to be arguing the Romans had no pure sailing ships only oared galleys, that is incorrect.

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Paul,

Spanish ships

"Ships" ? Ok, I see you're talking about galleys and not galleons, right ? It's best to be specific to avoid confusion.

were very different from Roman ones; in construction, rudders, oars, sails etc

No doubt. But I suspect both galleys were comparably fragile and maneuverable - no ? I know Spanish (or Renaissance) galleys were shorter and not as broad, therefore faster than Roman ones. Both had one large sail and maybe a smaller auxiliary sail.

More importantly you seem to be arguing the Romans had no pure sailing ships only oared galleys, that is incorrect.

Not at all, I don't know how I impressed that onto you - I know Roman merchant ships didn't use oarsmen. But they never used pure sailing ships in battle. Sailing ships were just for civilian use, right ?

It's one thing to take a galley on the Atlantic while hugging the coast of Africa and quite another to cross 3,000 miles of open ocean (i.e. a non-stop trip). At least if they'd hug the coast they could beach their ships every night and resupply (but only during the calmer months.)

Another reason the Romans wouldn't have crossed the Atlantic was their long held superstitions about it. Caesar had trouble just getting his men to take ship to cross the English channel :lol: . He was shipwrecked twice in making the attempt.


Theo

[tlclark]

Their merchant and military ships were without doubt strongly built. However I don't think they were able to cross the stormy atlantic ocean.

Quite right, I believe galleys were not strong enough to withstand the currents of the Atlantic so that renders their supply capability a moot point of discussion. There's no need to speculate though. The Spanish Empire in the sixteenth century had both galleons and galleys which were virtually identical to their ancient Roman counterparts. But they never used their galleys to cross the Atlantic. They were built for the calm summer waters of the Mediterranean. Besides, no crew could possibly row 3,000 miles across an open ocean (even with galley slaves :wink: )


Theo

Well I don't think the Romans got to the Americas either but I think it's just not true that they couldn't have done it.

The trading ships are just enormous. 100m or more in length. They were built to withstand the monsoon winds of the Indian ocean which were tremendous. They were deep sea vessels, built to take the journey from the horn of Africa to the tip of the Indian subcontinent. It was a very dangerious journy during monsoon season, but the winds made the journey faster and you avoided the pirates and tarifss of the norther route that hugged the shore.

I have no doubt that Romans could have navigated around the globe if they so desired, I just don't think they ever did.

Travis

[tlclark]

After making my post I discovered that Paul had already made all of my points better than I did.

A laudes for Conon!

Travis

[Theodosius the Great]

I agree they could've done it with sailing ships. The only reason I discounted sailing ships is because I think they were limited to civilian use. So it would mean a change of practice if they decided to cross the Atlantic.

The trading ships are just enormous. 100m or more in length. They were built to withstand the monsoon winds of the Indian ocean which were tremendous. They were deep sea vessels, built to take the journey from the horn of Africa to the tip of the Indian subcontinent

I just thought of something - I wonder what type of ships Alexander used to make his return journey to Babylon from India.


Anyone know ? I ask because that was a military expedition as opposed to a mere convoy of merchant ships.

Theo



BTW, Paul, you posted twice again on the "Lack of technology" thread