How far did the Romans actually trade and explore?

[conon394]

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

Did I you mean with the my last post on glass? Sorry, was the double post removed I don't see it now.

[Radivena]

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.

I actually agree that Roman merchant ships might have been strong enough to make the journey. However in my opinion they didn't have the required navigation technology for making the journey to America. That's a problem as least as great as the ships. When traveling from the Indian subcontinent to the African coast it was easier to know where you were, even during the monsoon winds. The coast was never too far away.

"The ancient Greek and Romans relied more on coastal navigation, never venturing far from the sight of land." (Source:http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.168), The National Sea Museum in London.

Because of lack in open sea navigation techniques I don't think they would been able to make the journey without unrealistic amounts of luck.

[tlclark]

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.

I actually agree that Roman merchant ships might have been strong enough to make the journey. However in my opinion they didn't have the required navigation technology for making the journey to America. That's a problem as least as great as the ships. When traveling from the Indian subcontinent to the African coast it was easier to know where you were, even during the monsoon winds. The coast was never too far away.

"The ancient Greek and Romans relied more on coastal navigation, never venturing far from the sight of land." (Source:http://www.nmm.ac.uk/server/show/conWebDoc.168), The National Sea Museum in London.

Because of lack in open sea navigation techniques I don't think they would been able to make the journey without unrealistic amounts of luck.

This is simply inaccurate. The sea routes to India were originally the coastal routes, but due to piracy and tariffs, the Romans made the large leap to navigate the deep waters of the Indian Ocean.

Besides the navigational technology is not a major concern. Both the Vikings and the Polynesians managed with far less than the Romans had.

Travis

[Gaius Decius Aquilius]

There is a mention of a possible Roman trading post in the Mekong Delta called Go-Oc-Eo (closest spelling I can remember). This was a site excavated in the 30s by a French team, I think, and based it's conclusion on 2nd century Roman coins, and some pottery. I read about this site in 1970 while flying Dustoff out of Can-Tho/Bihn-Thuey, also in the Mekong Delta. I flew over the site area several times and at one point was sent on a mission where we landed at an ARVN compound there. While on the ground I asked the local villagers about it. No one claimed any knowledge about the site. The place was a flat open rice paddy area, and I could find no physical evidence of any excavation.

Ralph Izard

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

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.

Really? I can't see many resemblances at all, let alone ones that are eerie. The most common story of the Buddha's birth says that his mother, Mahamaya, couldn't conceive until one night she had a dream about an elephant holding a white lotus flower in its trunk which circled around her three times, struck her on her right side and then vanished. When her husband consulted seers about this dream they said she would conceive and that their son would be an enlightened being.

That's absolutely nothing like the Christian stories. Where are the resemblances? Mahamaya wasn't a virgin, she conceived normally and none of the other elements in the Christ birth stories (angels, shepherds, wise men, the star etc) appear in the Buddha story. And I can't recall any elephants in the Christian story.

This idea that the major Christian beliefs are all derived from earlier myths has been kicking around for about 150 years, but few historians of Christianity take it very seriously these days. It is based on a book called The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors published by a former Quaker Kersey Graves in 1875. But Graves' book has long since been debunked by real historians - he tended to exaggerate the parallels which he assumed were derivations and quite a few of these supposed parallels are actually figments of Graves' imagination.

[Radivena]

This is simply inaccurate. The sea routes to India were originally the coastal routes, but due to piracy and tariffs, the Romans made the large leap to navigate the deep waters of the Indian Ocean.

Besides the navigational technology is not a major concern. Both the Vikings and the Polynesians managed with far less than the Romans had.

Travis

First of all. The Vikings were a nation of traders and seafarers, and their whole nation where based on this. This made them excellent navigators. They actually reached New Foundland in Northern America around year 1000 A.D. Entirely 500 years before Columbus. We know because of archaeological evidences in Northern Newfoundland.

The reasons why they managed to reach that far is their specially navigation skills. I know that very well, because I'm a Norwegian. As an example they relied much on sun navigation. In the Northern hemisphere we have sun about 22 hours a day during summers, and this made navigation much easier. They also used a special stone called Cordierite, to localize the sun when the sky got cloudy. Another thing was great differences in the water temperature when approaching the Faeroe Islands and the use of the Pole Star. This is only a few of many techniques that the Romans didn't have. Although, the only reason why the Vikings managed to make the journey is that they first traveled to Iceland, Greenland and then Northern America. They never crossed directly as the Romans would have to do.

All archaeological and literal evidences tells us that the Vikings were some of the greatest and most successfully seafarers ever. The Roman Empire was more based upon military strength than naval power.

When talking about the Polynesians they were remarkable successfully. I agree that they had less navigation technology than the Romans. However there's one important factor which its seems like you have forgotten. They usually sailed from island to island, and the conditions in the Pacific ocean is different of those in the Atlantic ocean.

[Komet]

The singlemost difference that separates Viking seafaring from their predecessors (and one that would have basically made it impossible for the Romans to have traveled to the Americas) is the invention of the keel.

[Ebusitanus]

Romans made it to te Canary islands in the Atlantic. Romans had huge vessels carrying grain from Egypt to Rome without coastal jumping. They could even ship Egyptian Obelyscs to Rome. I have no doubt that the shipping was there.
I´m not saying there would be some planned thought out exploration campaign designed to find something out west. But it can not be discounted that in all those centuries of Roman naval traffic around the Iberian peninusla and up and down the African coast that some vessel would have made it by accident or crazyness to the Americas. And who knows? even back?
This is not to say Romans would have given a fig about this and most likely dismissed the report outright or found a follow up unfeasible or uneconomic.

[Radivena]

Romans made it to te Canary islands in the Atlantic. Romans had huge vessels carrying grain from Egypt to Rome without coastal jumping. They could even ship Egyptian Obelyscs to Rome. I have no doubt that the shipping was there.
I´m not saying there would be some planned thought out exploration campaign designed to find something out west. But it can not be discounted that in all those centuries of Roman naval traffic around the Iberian peninusla and up and down the African coast that some vessel would have made it by accident or crazyness to the Americas. And who knows? even back?
This is not to say Romans would have given a fig about this and most likely dismissed the report outright or found a follow up unfeasible or uneconomic.

But I simply don't think that a journey like this could been done with a roman ship. One single ship would have even less chance to make it through the Atlantic Ocean than a small fleet. Such long journeys had to be planned a long time before due to supplies etc. Therefore it simply couldn't happened by a coincidence.

The exploration of America is an entirely different period in history. Reason? Both because the Romans didn't have any interest to find out if there were anything behind the horizon, and because they couldn't done it anyway. I think the Romans had enough respect and knowledge about the sea to not set out an expedition. They knew it would been impossible to accomplish.

[tlclark]

This is simply inaccurate. The sea routes to India were originally the coastal routes, but due to piracy and tariffs, the Romans made the large leap to navigate the deep waters of the Indian Ocean.

Besides the navigational technology is not a major concern. Both the Vikings and the Polynesians managed with far less than the Romans had.

Travis

First of all. The Vikings were a nation of traders and seafarers, and their whole nation where based on this.

Sorry, I didn't mean to disparage the accomplishments of Viking or Polynesian navigators. Far from it! I think both groups were superb navigators. However their methods are entirely different from the Romans and less reliant on what could be termed artificial or mechanical means.

If anything I meant to indicate what was possible without complicated technological means of navigation.

Travis

[tlclark]

I can't think of a reason why a Roman vessel on the indian ocean, massive, stocked to the gunnels, outfitted with competent sailors, embarking on a 9 month adventure, with two crossings during monsoon season across the open ocean would face any more of a challenge than a similar trip making the trip from say the pillars of Hercules to the Americas.

Is the Atlantic any harder a crossing?

I think they could have done it. However I see no impetus for them to undertake such a journey.

[Titus Martius]

The singlemost difference that separates Viking seafaring from their predecessors (and one that would have basically made it impossible for the Romans to have traveled to the Americas) is the invention of the keel.

That's wrong! The most of Roman ships had keel, Egyptians already had the keel about 1500 B.C.

[Titus Martius]

Crossing Indian Ocean in small sailing vessels is nothing extraordinary. Same was done thousands times by Arab and Indian vessels such one in the picture made by my father few hundred miles from Indian coast.

Voyage from Red Sea to India and Ceylon was very common, so nothing difficult for Romans.

Is the Atlantic any harder a crossing?

No, Atlantic crossing in summer is easy.

[Eleatic Guest]

In the Northern hemisphere we have sun about 22 hours a day during summers, and this made navigation much easier. They also used a special stone called Cordierite, to localize the sun when the sky got cloudy.

What was that? Was it magnetized, an early form of compass or what? hock:

[Radivena]

What was that? Was it magnetized, an early form of compass or what? hock:

Amazed :?: I'm not very good in explaining difficult things, so therefore I've chosen to use a description from the Internet. It's a good picture of the stone at the same site :wink: I hope this description could help you a little bit with understanding what I meant.

"When the sky was overcast and the sun could not be seen, the Vikings used the mineral Cordierite to show the direction of the sun under such condition. The pleochroic property of Cordierite, also sometimes called sun stone, absorbs the sun light in a certain direction (polarization) as it passes through the Cordierite “lensâ€