What would happen if the Romans ventured out into the Atlantic,

Impossible. They didn't have technology to traverse the Atlantic. Even if they managed to discover the Americas they woudn't be ale to create any colonies simply because of the distance between Rome and the new continents.

>>2468961
Was there a considerable difference between travel times in European exploration and earlier Roman exploration?

File: Migraciones_austronesias.png (63KB, 1012x628px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1012x628px

>>2468969
>They didn't have technology to traverse the Atlantic.

And yet Austronesians in canoes managed to colonise from Madagascar to Easter Island.

The rest of Africa could have possibly been a better place. Maybe on par with North Africa.

Hard to say what would have happened to the Native Americans. Either the same thing that happened to them in this timeline, or a better ending. Who knows. The influence of the Romans would have probably been better for those two areas of the world rather than the likes of the British, Spanish, Dutch, and French.

File: 147583665994.jpg (130KB, 1280x680px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1280x680px

>>2468961
But Roman Empire is now ruled America

>>2468969
>They didn't have technology to traverse the Atlantic

They had longships before the Vikings. If the Vikings could reach Canada with it then so could they.

>>2468961
Imagine Roma collapsing from german invasions and a New Roman Empire being born based on the new world.

>>2469064
I was planning a CK2 mod with this exact premise. Except it wasn't just the Romans who discovered it. You had Greek colonies, a Neo-Punic federation of cities, more technologically advanced natives with prior exposure to epidemics, and various Roman factions.

>>2469055
>Longships
What now?
They did have deep-water vessels used for merchant shipping that looked a bit like mini-galleons, but they were as graceful as a drunk goose, Also, not only did the Vikings and the Micronesians as a cohesive culture depend on their maritime skills to survive, but they both had places to rest up during their journeys such as Iceland or any Pacific sandbar island respectively, which the Romans did not have.

>>2468969
It would take about 50 years with Roman technology (200 with medieval one) so even if he made it by some miracle he would never make it back home most likely

>>2468969
This is wrong. Even the 5th century BC Carthaginians had the naval tech to explore down the coast of Africa and various people traded routinely between Egypt and Tanzania. All they needed to do was discover islands like Madeira and the Azores to serve as waystations. It would have taken them a few months. It's probably very likely that a couple of ships did end up in the Americas by mistake, but not enough to have any serious impact.

>>2469101
The Carthaginians tavelled along the coast. You said it yourself.

>>2469093
Where did that math come from? Sure, they woudn't have the benefit of the shore to navigate with, or any experience with deep water, but they did have some maritime tradition and could navigate by the stars.
According to Herodotus, the Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa in 3-4 years and while nobody knows how long or when Pytheas sailed from Massalia to the Baltic, it has been narrowed down to the window of 330-325 BC, a slim 5 years.

>>2469114
To add to that, while both voyages did stick to coastlines they were unfamiliar waters and very rough in parts. The North Sea and the waters around South Africa are notoriously dangerous.

>>2468986
Unrelated, but how did the Polynesians miss Australia? Considering its size, I'm amazed that they managed to find so many little islands in the Pacific, and still miss Oz

>>2469112
That wasn't due to technological constraints.

>>2469160
Maybe they just didn't have the manpower to set up shop. How many people do you need to populate a tiny, insulated island as opposed to a mainland settlement?
But the Maoris did settle New Zealand so...

>>2469121
>>2469112
How do you know that they stuck to the coast ?
Going around Africa along the coast is very difficult, because of contrary currents and winds.
The Portuguese didn't manage it until they decided to go in the high seas.

>>2469168
It was an assumption but I think it's not a bad one to make. And after all, who cares about contrary winds and currents when your ship can use oars?
I remember reading that larger ships in the age of sail would go around the cape by touching off of Brazil and shooting southeast from there. But that's ideal for deep water ships, which are harder to maneuver and to whom a lee shore can spell death.

>>2469165
I heard somewhere they landed and got raped by the abos

File: Trireme.jpg (25KB, 522x254px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 522x254px

>>2469091

>>2469200
They are similar, but I'm sure there are major architectural differences. I'm no shipwright, though.
Anyway, the Vikings still had a convenient pit stop on the way to Canada. The mostly took those longboats down coasts and rivers, you know, even if they did go as far as Sicily.

>>2469191
> who cares about contrary winds and currents when your ship can use oars?
The oarsmen probably. They were not slaves on these trips.
I would also guess that on long voyages through uncharted seas, they were not so numerous because of the limited amount of food they could carry.

there are about 170 rowers on a trireme, which means they can't travel long distances without resupplying weekly. Now compare that with portuguese caravels such as the ones Colombus used to navigate through the atlantic needed less than 30 men to operate and had a 100 tons capacity

>>2469093

It would take less than 6 months by walking over the water so fuck off with that 200 year shit

File: 1482269001876.jpg (166KB, 580x686px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 580x686px

Even if they discovered sub Saharan Africa and the Americas, why would they try to colonize them? The main reason the empire fell was because it was too big, plenty of emperors and senators tried to make what they had stable instead of conquering more land to make it more unstable. IF they wanted to conquer more, you think they'd send out settlers and armies across the ocean when they can instead march on the Parthians or Dacians and take their already developed rich lands?

It's likely they would trade with the natives, maybe small insignificant colonies would be established, but you wouldn't get a colonialism mindset like you did with the European Kingdoms. What's likely to happen in this scenario is, when the empire gets carved up by germanics, they would start colonizing, effectively skipping about 1000 years of history.

>>2469200
protip: triremes were built very differently from the 15th century ships europeans used to cross the atlantic

They were navally retarded, so to play what if is just silly.

>>2468986
Because they were better than Rome, basically.

>>2469089
Hey, that's pretty good.