Romans In Brazil?

**Badass Buddha** · 12-13-2010, 04:16

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

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

**Atraphoenix** · 12-13-2010, 09:07

Originally Posted by Badass Buddha

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** · 12-13-2010, 10:05

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** · 12-13-2010, 16:16

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.** · 12-13-2010, 17:03

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

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** · 12-13-2010, 17:13

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 12-13-2010, 21:06

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.

**Ibrahim** · 12-15-2010, 23:21

Originally Posted by bobbin

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:

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.