Posted on 06/02/2024 12:01:48 PM PDT by Eleutheria5
-------------- 00:00 Introduction 07:25 China 35:54 Rome 1:13:01 The Fall
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I remember watching this video when it first came out. The possibility that the Romans (and the Egyptians before them) had also went West and set foot in the New World fascinates me.
Neither the Egyptians nor the Ancient Romans had ships that could brave the Atlantic.
Doing so requires either knowing where to catch the right wind, which is how Columbus did it, or having galleys of rowers, who would need to be fed, which would require a large hold for provisions. Not doable, especially since nobody knew the land existed where it did in order to plan for it. Ptolemy believed the world was a perfect sphere, so anything on the other side of the globe, by his calculations, would be much closer than it actually was, which is why Columbus thought he was in India when he was only in a Caribbean island chain.
Sure. Because I'll take your word for it.
The ships were also not capable of physically crossing the Atlantic. Roman ships mostly hugged the coasts
What weakness was there in their shipbuilding skills or materials? Is it possible that was due to ignorance of navigation?
Of course they did.
Of course they were, and they didn’t hug the coasts.
I haven’t got a horse in this race, so both of you state your respective cases.
R.M.’s book on the Indian Ocean trade is a good place to start.
Any examples of this for
1. Egyptians pre-Assyrian conquest
2. Roman Empire pre-476 AD
I put those specific dates :)
I have not seen any evidence of blue-water capabilities in either of those cases, so I’d like to know if you have
To answer your question, Eleutheria - it wasn't due to an ignorance of navigation.
It was pure need based -- Rome until the Punic wars didn't even have a navy and their power was land based.
After their reached their zenith their essential communication pathway was the Mediterranean sea which is pretty tame compared to the Atlantic ocean.
Roman ships, particularly the warships like the trireme or quinquereme, were built for speed, agility, and relatively short distances
rows of oars and a single main sail. Great for a quick skirmish or zipping along coastlines but not for blue water voyages. They also acked the navigational tools that later adventurers like Columbus had at their disposal. No compasses or astrolabes. And here is what Roman maps were like
Why do you need blue water ships when you can hug coastlines all over?
But to ME the most important is "there was nothing worth exploring"
To me that's the same answer I give to indians or Chinese who ask why their countries never conquered other lands - because it was simply not worth it, everything was at hand
No, definitely do NOT take my word for it. As I pointed out above in my discussion with sunkenciv, we can learn from each other.
Every book or archaeological dig I’ve read or seen about the Romans and the pre-Assyrian Egyptians have no boats capable of braving the open sea Atlantic.
if you do find something that disagrees with that, please do share, I’m always pleased to learn
Well yes and now - the ancient Polynesians colonized all of the Pacific over vaster distances. The key thing is motivation: What motivated the European age of exploration? Note that it started in the Iberian peninsula and was boosted after 1453:
Why would the Romans want to improve sea trade when they controlled the land trade? As it is Rome was losing gold to India for purchasing spices and cotton. There was no point
And even more so, an open sea blue water sailing. No point
Even more so for pre-Assyrian Egypt - they had need of next to nothing: maybe some lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, but beyond that? meh.
“Why do you need blue water ships when you can hug coastlines all over?”
On the other hand, coastlines have shoals and reefs. The Odyssey was about ocean voyaging, presumably hugging the coast. And it was a perilous voyage that only Odysseus survived, and even then he only got home with the help of the Phaeacians.
I don’t know why you brought up Flores. No Roman or Egyptian traces there at all.
By coast hugging I meant “within sight of shore” — and yes, I am a land lubber, so I’m sorry if that was the wrong terminology
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
