Romans In Brazil?

[Badass Buddha]

I'm curious as to what you guys think of this:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...ects/S/Salvage

[Atraphoenix]

I'm curious as to what you guys think of this:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...ects/S/Salvage

interesting but it is quite logical to see roman trade ships had shipwreched and dragged to south american coasts, and I do not think that survivors had any chance to go back...

[Folgore]

You need to have been sailing south of the equator to get blown to Brazil. (Well, Rio anyway, northern Brazil might be possible.) I think that's a highly unlikely place for a Roman ship to be sailing.

Also note how your article is 25 years old :p

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I think it's not that unlikely that Roman ships might explore the eastern coastline of Africa, looking for trade opportunities with 'Nubians'. It's really not all that different from sailing north from the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar) along the Spanish and Gallic coasts to reach Britain.

So it doesn't seem impossible that a Roman ship might be blown into mid-Atlantic in a storm, and then drift to Brazil. However, it's likely that most if not all of the crew would be dead from lack of food and fresh water by the time they got there, weeks after setting sail, and it's almost certain that none of them returned home.

I think to count as the 'dicoverer' of anything, you have to survive the expedition, and return home to tell of it. If you 'discover' a new land but then die there, and nobody else from your expedition makes it back either, then you're not a 'discoverer' but an unfortunate failure.

[Havok.]

I think to count as the 'dicoverer' of anything, you have to survive the expedition, and return home to tell of it. If you 'discover' a new land but then die there, and nobody else from your expedition makes it back either, then you're not a 'discoverer' but an unfortunate failure.

There were already a native population in Brazil before europeans came, saying ''we've discovered Brazil'' is just a too much european way of thinking.


And i disagree with this Robert Marx of the article, saying discovering a Roman navy in brazillian coast line would require us to rewrite our history because it wouldn't, during the process of colonization of Brazil there were absolutely ZERO evidences of romans in here or even if there was, its influence was nule.

What it could imply having a roman navy at our bay, perhaps a few more pages in the history book of this land (which would be quite interesting i might add) but rewriting? please.......


EDIT: In the last part of the article there is this something that is overly partial and offensive for a journalism article in my opinion:

''Brazilians don't care about the past. And they don't want to replace Cabral as the discoverer.''

Mr Robert Marx claim he was told this but there is no proof. This quote does nothing but damaging our people with absolutely no gain in either parts of the dispute(the brazillian navy and him), and its also a lie because we -do care- about our past.

[bobbin]

I think it's not that unlikely that Roman ships might explore the eastern coastline of Africa, looking for trade opportunities with 'Nubians'. It's really not all that different from sailing north from the Pillars of Hercules (Gibraltar) along the Spanish and Gallic coasts to reach Britain.

I think you mean Western Africa, it would be quite a feat to blown to Brazil from the Eastern coast.

It also is a lot different sailing south down the west african coast because you've got the Sahara desert covering most of the coastline until you near the equator, and so no chance to come ashore and get fresh supplies or drinking water.

[WinsingtonIII]

I sincerely doubt the ability of Roman sailors to make it across the Atlantic Ocean. They were used to sailing in the Mediterranean where they could stop for supplies pretty much at will, and even if they did get blown out to sea, my expectation would be they would not be carrying enough supplies to make it across the Atlantic. Even if a Roman vessel was blown into the coast of Brazil, I doubt anyone would have been left alive on board.

[moonburn]

actually the romans had pretty big ships capable of transporting enough suplies what i doubt is those ships hability to navigate in the atlantic and survive a mild atlantic storm

[antisocialmunky]

Not really a new topic...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca_head

[Brennus]

I think it's pure nonsense personally.

[WinsingtonIII]

actually the romans had pretty big ships capable of transporting enough suplies what i doubt is those ships hability to navigate in the atlantic and survive a mild atlantic storm

It doesn't really matter if they had the storage space for enough supplies if they don't bring enough in the first place. And considering that they are used to the Mediterranean, where resupply could happen almost anywhere, I don't think that they would bring enough supplies for the journey.

Beyond that, I agree that their ships, and sailors for that matter, simply wouldn't have been capable of making a transaltantic journey.

[Olaf The Great]

The Romans were around in one form or another for over 2000 years, surely a LOT of history has been lost due to all the book burnings, lost books, decaying paper, and whatever. I don't know what to make of it, but think about what has happened in the last week and see how much news there is. Now look at Roman times. There was probably a LOT of "expeditions" all over the place, and a lot of them probably never came back.

[Cute Wolf]

Come on, some even claim that there are Atlantis... What? their ships can't go for long? They didn't use normal ships, they use Alien airships!

Too much reading conspiracy theories eh?

[Jebivjetar]

Too much reading conspiracy theories eh?

Exactly my thought, Jeb.

[Finn MacCumhail]

I want to introduce to you Mr Thor Heyerdahl, but you all know him.

He crossed Atlantic Ocean on the papyrus ship. He started journey in Morocco and reached Barbados. The journey prooved, that ancient people even on the primitive ships, under the sail might reach Americas with the help of Canary Current.

His ship
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...I.InMuseum.jpg

There is also information about Phinikean coins in South America and other artefacts.

[Ibrahim]

I think you mean Western Africa, it would be quite a feat to blown to Brazil from the Eastern coast.

It also is a lot different sailing south down the west african coast because you've got the Sahara desert covering most of the coastline until you near the equator, and so no chance to come ashore and get fresh supplies or drinking water.

well, you can have it happen when this guy is your ruler:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.i-mockery.com/generalzod/media/zod4prez.jpg

now..KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!!!

ok, jokes aside: @ everyone: I doubt it: Galley IIRC didn't hold much in the way of cargo capacity, and required regular stops in order to continue sailing any distance. lacking any such stops in the Atlantic makes it unlikely that a galley made it to America (unless as a gohost ship). then there is the fact that galley's aren't desighned as deep-ocean goers.

one could, however, make the argument that Roman imperial era trading vessals could have done it (since they had more dunnage and relied more on sail, not oars), but even then, it is dubious.

[Lysimachos]

I want to introduce to you Mr Thor Heyerdahl, but you all know him.

He knew he would find land there and he had a reason to go on that journey in the first place. Columbus thought he knew he would find land in the west (and was accidentally right) and he had a reason to try to reach it. But why would any ancient european or north african people just sail out in the open and not turn back for weeks without a reason to believe they would come across land?

[Kikaz]

He knew he would find land there and he had a reason to go on that journey in the first place. Columbus thought he knew he would find land in the west (and was accidentally right) and he had a reason to try to reach it. But why would any ancient european or north african people just sail out in the open and not turn back for weeks without a reason to believe they would come across land?

Chasing Atlantis?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

He knew he would find land there and he had a reason to go on that journey in the first place. Columbus thought he knew he would find land in the west (and was accidentally right) and he had a reason to try to reach it. But why would any ancient european or north african people just sail out in the open and not turn back for weeks without a reason to believe they would come across land?

Having no choice.....ship dismasted and drifting with the current?

[Finn MacCumhail]

Ibrahim, Heyerdahl proved on his own example that even on papyrus boat it is possible to reach Americas, without having supplies from civilization during the journey.

lacking any such stops in the Atlantic makes it unlikely that a galley made it to America

Vikings sailed to Americas under the sails too, without steam engine.

Lysimachos, I have no idea about their motives, or what made them move so far. But having no idea why have they done it doesn't mean they didn't done it. If I don't know why people build Stonehenge, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[antisocialmunky]

The Vikings navigated a much shorter Northern Atlantic route during a period of warming. However, in the distant past, people crossed into North America from Europe as evidenced by European culture arrow heads found in Virginia a few years ago. That was over icecaps but who knows what shenanigans people were up to back then.

[Ibrahim]

Ibrahim, Heyerdahl proved on his own example that even on papyrus boat it is possible to reach Americas, without having supplies from civilization during the journey.



Vikings sailed to Americas under the sails too, without steam engine.

Lysimachos, I have no idea about their motives, or what made them move so far. But having no idea why have they done it doesn't mean they didn't done it. If I don't know why people build Stonehenge, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

2 problems:

1-the viking boats a a base of operations near the Americas (Iceland and Greenland). they also had smaller crews, relied more on sail*, and could carry (slightly) more cargo (heck, their naval tech was better overall, inspite of the apparent crudeness). the Romans never even knew, AFAIK, that Iceland even existed. and as mentioned, there was a lower cargo capacity in galleys, expecially since most of the space was taken up by oarsmen (hence, if you were reading, why I mentioned the need for regular stops), and as I clearly stated, galleys were designed not for the Ocean, but for calmer waters. mind you, the design was in general used right up to the 16th century, so we have instances of them flopping in deep water (e.g, the Armada).

2-that would presuppose (as was the case in heyerdal's experiment), that they KNEW, or had reason to believe, that land even exists this far west, and could store provisions accordingly. Erik and his son Leif both had reasons to think so: the former had to run from a murder, and had heard of land out west, and the latter IIRC knew of America because one ship was blown off course once, and saw the coast (though that particular captain never set foot on American soil). same applies to Columbus.

look, I'm not saying it didn't happen; I am however, stating my belief that this is unlikely to happen. mind you, I did state a way for Romans to make it to America:

one could, however, make the argument that Roman imperial era trading vessals could have done it (since they had more dunnage and relied more on sail, not oars), but even then, it is dubious.

mind you, it is dubious for reason # 2: did they even know, or suspect, that land existed 4,000 miles away, and prepare accordingly?

also, as a side note: Thor's vessel was a sailing vessel: it did not require the heavy labor of oarsmen to regularly propel the ship. thus it is unsurprising that he was able to store enough supplies for his trip. also, again, he knew in advance where to go for Land. a Roman ship straying too far from the mediterranian would'nt necesarily know this, and would thus not necessarily have the supplies to make it this far.

*where the heck did I say that steam power was required? my problem is related to supply and ship design, not ship power in and of itself.

EDIT:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Kon Tiki: note the big sail, and lack of oars.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...iki_inside.jpg

here is the same ship while sailing. again, note the general lack of oars:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...b/Kon-Tiki.jpg

[Duguntz]

It is only an opinion, but I find it very very very very very unlikely, and even barely "plausible", to see a roman ship going to Brazil... even by mistake, without any knowledge of winds direction, or the principal wind currents north and south or "trade winds". Their ships were not neither desings to whistand the storms that occurs on the Atlantic, and would've blown to pieces. It is however only my hypothesis...

[vartan]

The Romans didn't need the know-how for a passage to South America. That's what West Africans were for (in a matter of speaking; not in the offensive manner at that). How do you think Europeans were able to 'discover' the Americas? And why do you think they were sent to Cuba so as to delay their discovery of the mainland? You can thank the ancestors of those who live in what is now Sierra Leone for that knowledge (something the natives of the western coast needed in order to trade as they did with the Caribs and others from the Americas).

[Lysimachos]

Lysimachos, I have no idea about their motives, or what made them move so far. But having no idea why have they done it doesn't mean they didn't done it. If I don't know why people build Stonehenge, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's hardly comparable. There is irrefutable proof that Stonehenge exists, just go there and take a look. Ancient europeans sailing to America on the other hand, is a mere hypothesis. If you want us to believe it happened, you have to give us more than "You can't prove it didn't happen".

The Romans didn't need the know-how for a passage to South America. That's what West Africans were for (in a matter of speaking; not in the offensive manner at that). How do you think Europeans were able to 'discover' the Americas? And why do you think they were sent to Cuba so as to delay their discovery of the mainland? You can thank the ancestors of those who live in what is now Sierra Leone for that knowledge (something the natives of the western coast needed in order to trade as they did with the Caribs and others from the Americas).

Would you care to elaborate on that? Are you saying the West Africans had established trade contacts with the Caribbean before Columbus' travels? And what exactly do you mean by "sent to Cuba so as to delay their discovery of the mainland"?

[Ca Putt]

Imo ancient europeans mediterraneans could've possibly reached the americas by mere chance as a merchant ship(definately not a large warship) got caught by the right wind and those buggers forgot to strike the sail and they were(by mere chance) also transporting large quantities of food and fresh water and the captain was either an optimist('well, we cant go back, so lets just sail ahead and see what happens') or a fatalist(were screwed anyway so lets just go on forward) then it could have happened that a ship be it roman phonecian greek or whatever made it to the americas in one piece. but surely you couldn't be talking about ROMANS or CARTHAGIANS more of people who once lived in an ancient mediterranean empire and now are just castaways in a far away land. these things may sound like some big news but tbh this is nothing near a large historical event, think of it: in a total war game it would merely be a small message that one of your trade ships has got lost and cannot be found. if one would prove this journey history books would not have to be rewritten, the really reputable history books would probably get an extra footnote.

[Finn MacCumhail]

Ancient Mediterranean dwellers could reach Americas. It was possible for their ships. Why it was possible? Mr. Hyeyrdal sailed to Americas from Africa on the papyrus Egyptian boat. If it was possible for Egyptian papyrus boat, it was possible for other more developed and quality ancient vessels. Anyway they could still use papyrus boats.

Nero time Romans build huge vessels with the water displacement 1200 tons (Spanish Galleons usually had 500 tons). Caligula had to bring obelisk from Egypt and used vessel with 1300 tons water displacement. Usually ships had lead and bronze coverage below waterline. Roman grain cargos were bigger then 19 century Frigates, and might deliver 1200 tons of grain at once. Average trade ship had 340 tons of different goods. In 64 AD Joseph Flavius sailed from Alexandria to Rome on the board that placed 600 passengers. Lucian described Roman grain ship, which was brought to the shore after the storm. It had 54 meters long and 13 meters height (without mast)

The key aspects of transatlantic voyages are winds and currents. Strong currents from West Africa goes to Mexican bay. Powerful Canary and North Equatorial Current with strong northeasterly trade winds help the sailors. If Romans sailed to Canary Islands, there is no surprise they could use that currents and winds to sail to Americas.

The indirect evidence:

Indian Corn on the Ocrilum (sp? Very sorry for spelling, it is my own translit from Cyrillic) baths near Rome (now in Hermitage)

picture

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://gorod.tomsk.ru/uploads/11809/...485/corn_1.jpg

Next. Herculanum and Pompey wall paintings with pineapples, annona and lemons! Pineapple came from Brazil.

Italian Casella and Russian Vavilov wrought about it.

(Casella D. La frutta nelle pinture Fompeiane // Pompeiane: racolta di scavii di Pompei. — Naples, 1950. — P. 355—386.)

How the fruits and vegetables from New World came to the patrician dinner in 1st AD?

In 1964 AD on Azor Islands were found roman pots dated 2-3 centuries AD.

In 1933 in Aztec tomb dated 13-15 centuries AD was found head of Roman sculpture dated 2 century AD. (Garcia Payon J. Una cabecita de barro, de extraña fisionomia // Boletin del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. — México, 1961. — № 6. — P. 1—2.)


Hellen statues, Roman terracotta Venus (Romans in the Americas // Katunob. — Vol. П. — № 2. — Carbondale, Illinois, 1961. — P. 12; Gaddis V. H. American Indian Myths and Mysteries. — Pennsylvania, 1977. — P. 102.)

Venezuela – roman coins dated 4 century AD. (Romans in the Americas // Katunob. — Vol. П. — № 2. — Carbondale, Illinois, 1961. — P. 12; Gaddis V. H. American Indian Myths and Mysteries. — Pennsylvania, 1977. — P. 102.)

Ancient sailors

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Have you ever heard about Nearh fleet? In 323 Nearh from Crete sailed to India to settle there and conquer it, but he decided to move further and reached Indonesia and then South America.

Himilco sailed to the Europe North and reached the starced sea, where algae prevent from moving (Sargasso Sea?).

Πυθέας from Massalia sailed to the Northern Europe, he was the first Hellen who described Polar day, Polar light and eternal ice.

Legendary land Ofir according to geologists situated in Brazil Amazon, the only place where all described germs are in one place. Solomon sent there a fleet.

Mishel Lesco who explored Ramses II Mummy said, that he has found tobacco in the embalming stuff. Pharaon Neho ordered to sail away in the quest of far away lands.

The Phoenicians visited the Azores, as evidenced by the treasure Carthaginian coins found on Corvo in 1749. The coins date back 330-320 years BC.

[Lvcretivs]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://gorod.tomsk.ru/uploads/11809/...485/corn_1.jpg

Considering this particular mosaic evidence for Roman 'pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact' with the Americas seems to me a little bit farfetched and questionable - the above mosaic in the Eremitage is not the famous actual mosaic floor of the roman thermae in Ocriculum (modern Otricoli near Rome), today in the Sala Rotonda of the Vatican Museums, but an 19th century (1847-51) 'reproduction', which, although technical very skillfully executed, isn't really faithful - especially in details of the ornamental garlands - to the original.

Concerning the postulated tropical 'pineapples', 'mangos' and 'custard-apples' in Pompeian frescoes (Casella D.:La frutta nelle pinture Pompeiane, in: Pompeiana: racolta di scavi di Pompei., P. 355-386.(Naples 1950)) - Casellas 'identifications' disregard artistic ('Hellenistic') traditions and 'pattern books' used by the painters and treat the frescoes as 'scientifically' absolute precise documentation of contemporaneous available fruits of the Roman Mediterranean. His 'pineapple' e.g. can be identified as an 'oversized' pine cone, which had ritual significance as votive offering.

[vartan]

Would you care to elaborate on that? Are you saying the West Africans had established trade contacts with the Caribbean before Columbus' travels? And what exactly do you mean by "sent to Cuba so as to delay their discovery of the mainland"?

To re-iterate and more, Europeans' 'need' (let's call it) to find a route to the Americas (as they saw it, the 'Indies') was satisfied. I can still recall the general plot of the history (pre-European trans-Atlantic trade/transportation isn't my niche). You may have heard of the Caribs, the people from whom the Caribbean received her name. Apparently, West African people(s) were trading with the Caribs, who themselves already had a trade network that connected N., C., and S. America. I think it is Bartolome de las Casas (but I may be mistaken) who can help a reader realize soon enough that these Caribs used gold as ornaments, not as value-containers (those were left for the cocoa beans). Anyway, the West Africans were trading with these Caribs. That is, the Africans knew of the routes to the Americas, both the mainlands as well as the islands. There was a prince in where is now Sierra Leone, and his family was held hostage and the prince, a navigator, was used to take the first ships (I think there were three) to the Americas. Being clever, of course, the prince didn't take Cristobal Colon to the mainland, but to an island the Spaniard was to call Hispaniola (I think that would be Cuba). Anyway, this is why it took another 30 or so years for the Europeans to reach the mainland. Of course, by that time, millions had already died, whole islands wiped out, and the rest is history. This isn't my interested niche, but thinking about it more makes it all the more interesting, so I'll contact my source and see if he can dig up anything on this (being a fan of videography, it sounds to me like a possible candidate for a feature film).

[Lvcretivs]

[...]Anyway, the West Africans were trading with these Caribs. That is, the Africans knew of the routes to the Americas, both the mainlands as well as the islands. There was a prince in where is now Sierra Leone, and his family was held hostage and the prince, a navigator, was used to take the first ships (I think there were three) to the Americas. Being clever, of course, the prince didn't take Cristobal Colon to the mainland, but to an island the Spaniard was to call Hispaniola (I think that would be Cuba).

Absolutely no offence meant, vartan, but that's an extremely questionable 'hypothesis' - not to say conspiracy theory - based on virtual no 'hard' nor even circumstantial evidence. Neither for transatlantic African-Carib trade nor for the existence of an West African 'prince' acting as Columbus' navigator exists any historical documentation.

The only African 'prince' associated with the various 'pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact' theories I can think of is the semilegendary mansā Abu Bakr II of the Mali Empire (reigned ca.1310/11[?] - 180 years before Columbus!), who, according to an anecdote documented by the Arab historian Shihāb al-Dīn al-Umarī (1300/01-1349) 'did not believe that it was impossible to reach the extremity of the ocean that encircles the earth [the Atlantic Ocean]: he wanted to reach that (end) and was determined to pursue his plan. So he equipped two hundred boats full of men, and many others full of gold, water and provisions sufficient for several years' and sent this fleet on a westward journey, from which it not returned. The mansā eventually built a second fleet under his personal command, departed and vanished traceless.

Afrocentric authors, which your source seems to take at face value, take this story as an account of an early African exploratory journey discovering the Americas - which completely negates the dubious historicity of both Abu Bakr II and the curiously cursory tale related by the Arab historian - there is no oral tradition in Mali recounting his reign and his surely spectacular journey and disappeareance, his historical existence as mansā is attested directly only by al-Umarī, and the story is generally vague und 'parabolic' (excellent German wikipedia article).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Al-Umarī's story is likely a fictive Islamic 'morality tale', warning against hubris and undutiful royal behaviour - according to the Koran there is no 'extremity of the earth-encircling ocean' and Abu Bakr's fixation on discovering is therefore not only implicitly heretic but also extremely harmful to his people - he is likely intended as the antithesis to his famous 'sucessor' mansā Musa I.(ca.1312-ca.1337), who is explicitly mentioned as a exemplary and devout muslim ruler.