Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Did The Romans Discover America? Debunking Video" video.

  1. Warships and commerce ships were different beasts. Warships were made for battle and were awful at sailing. Commerce ships regularly reached India and even Indocina in Roman times. Also, Bjorn Ironside lost 2/3 of his fleet due to Mediterranean's storms, and it's not like the Vikings didn't know how to navigate the Atlantic.
    15
  2.  @tylerstevenson8085  The original comment said that romans lost 100.000 men in a storm in 255 BC, so, since the Med. is calmer than the Atlantic, Roman ships could have not gotten anywere near to America. Now: 1) "Roman times" is not all the same. Third century BC was at the very beginning of the Roman experiences at sea. 2) Vikings surely knew how to navigate the Atlantic, but Mediterranean storms sunk their ships too. It's not like navigating the Med is a joke, and the Atlantic is the real thing. 3) Romans normally sailed through the ocean in Imperial time. Another one, but ocean neverthless. What's the point of your comment about ships being unable to navigate from specifically the city of Rome to India entirely by sea instead? If they start from another city in the Empire is not fair? Russians can't navigate the ocean, because their fleet don't dock in Moscow?
    8
  3.  @tylerstevenson8085  The trade with India in Roman time was mainly by sea. From Egypt through the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.
    2
  4.  @tylerstevenson8085  We were talking of seafaring capability in Roman times, not if you could navigate the entire route from Rome to India. Egypt was Empire too.
    2
  5.  @russko118  You can, but that doesn't mean you do. Navigating near to the coastline is useful if you have no mean to decide the route, but it's not safer. The sea is not better,and rocks are dangerous. The first centuy "Periplus of the Erythraean Sea" clearly describes direct routes to western and southern India. Arikamedu was a Roman commercial outpost in southern India. Also, You can navigate fron Scandinavia to the British isles following the coastline. But that didn't prevent the norses to later reach Iceland and Greenland. Notice, I NEVER SAID THE ROMANS REACHED AMERICA, and I absolutely don't believe they did. But to decide an "impossibility" due to their supposed inability to navigate the ocean doesn't seem right.
    2
  6.  @tylerstevenson8085  At this point I don't know if you can think. What "the majority" has to do wit the topic now? The majority of trade is made with, and the majority of travels are done in, the immediate proximity. That means that trading and traveling outside the immediate proximity is impossible? The majority of what you eat is not pepper. That means pepper doesn't exist? I already said, we were talking of seafaring capability in Roman times, not if you could navigate the entire route from te city of Rome to India. Egypt was Empire too. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE THE STARTING POINT OF THE VOYAGE WAS AS LONG IT WAS IN THE EMPIRE. To keep on argumenting that Rome is in the Mediterranean, so part ot the trip from India to specifically the city of Rome had to be done overland, at this point, is beyond stupid (it was even at the start, really). So stop being beyond stupid and using dumb arguments. Majority of trade between Rome and India was made by sea. Is "by sea" even if the goods were disembarked at Mios Hormos, on the Red sea, shipped on the Nile to Alexandria, and then put on another ship to Rome. Or if they didn't reach the city of Rome at all. THE EMPIRE WAS NOT ONLY THE CITY OF ROME. The original comment was about the supposed inability of the Romans to navigate the ocean. In reality Romans happened to navigate the ocean. When Egypt was not part of the empire, the same route was followed by someone else. The goods were transported mainly BY SEA anyway. Yeah. The problem is EXACTLY that, with "Rome" you mean only the city. Otherwise you had not came up with that nonsense of " a completely sea bound route from India to Italy was impossible" (and so? What it has to do with the ability of navigating the Ocean?)
    2
  7.  @jonnylawless6797  It seems you don't know there is a thing called "Red Sea". Roman sea routes to India started from there.
    2
  8.  @tylerstevenson8085  Indian ocean happens to be an ocean and to not be the Mediteranean, Romans regularly navigating an ocean seems to be relevant to decide about their ability to navigate an ocean. So, again, if they start from another city in the Empire is not fair? The US pacific fleet is unable to sail the ocean, because it doesnt' dock anywere near to Washington D.C.?
    1
  9.  @tylerstevenson8085  The first centuy "Periplus of the Erythraean Sea" clearly describes direct routes to western and southern India. So, to you, the US fleet is not able to navigate the ocean, since they don't start the trip form the capital. Again. If the Romans start from another city in the Empire is not fair? Romans didn't use "galleys" for trade. You are again mistaking military ships and fleets with commercial ships.
    1
  10.  @tylerstevenson8085  You stated: "the majority of sea trade was done by shallow hulled coastal ships" like it was of some significance. The majority of people didn't ride horses, so horses didnt' exist? I feel like you're glossing over the entire point of this comment chain The original comment said that romans lost 100.000 men in a storm in 255 BC, so, since the Med. is calmer than the Atlantic, Roman ships could have not gotten anywere near to America. Now: 1) "Roman times" is not all the same. Third century BC was at the very beginning of the Roman experiences at sea. 2) Vikings surely knew how to navigate the Atlantic, but Mediterranean storms sunk their ships too. It's not like navigating the Med is a joke, and the Atlantic is the real thing. 3) Romans normally sailed through the ocean in Imperial time. Another one, but ocean neverthless. Then you came and blabbered some nonsense about the sea route from India to Rome not being a Sea route because the city of Rome couldn't be reached directly from India by Sea. Now you are talking of percentages like you really know something about them. There were Roman commercial outposts in southern India and, while ancient sources talk about how to reach them by sea, none talks about how to reach them by land because, face that, MOST of the commerce with India was made by sea because, AS ALWAYS, commerce by sea was HUGELY more economically efficient. It seems you are more than a little confused. I never stated the Romans were capable of "accurately and safely" doing anything. The original comment said that romans lost 100.000 men in a storm in 255 BC, so, since the Med. is calmer than the Atlantic, Roman ships could have not gotten anywere near to America. Now: 1) "Roman times" is not all the same. Third century BC was at the very beginning of the Roman experiences at sea. 2) Vikings surely knew how to navigate the Atlantic, but Mediterranean storms sunk their ships too. It's not like navigating the Med is a joke, and the Atlantic is the real thing. 3) Romans normally sailed through the ocean in Imperial time. Another one, but ocean neverthless.
    1
  11. BTW, Columbus realised he reached a new continent when he effectively reached a new continent, and not an island, in his third voyage, and called it "Paria" (the actual Gulf of Paria in Venezuela), that's why, with a curiuos inversion, in the Map of Waldseemüller, that allegedly gave the name "America" to the new world, in reality the name "America" was given to south America, while Central America was called "Parias".
    1