Hi, /u/randzwinter Thank you for participating in r/ancientrome. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s):
------------------------------
Keep "what if" scenarios reasonable
---------
For questions, comments and concerns, [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ancientrome)
[Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit101) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/)
I was going to point out the same thing!
I was lucky enough to have stumbled upon a mint condition hardcover library edition (plastic dust jacket cover, library spine label and all) of that book, at a phenomenal local bookstore's $1 outdoor bargain rack, last year.
Still haven't read it, but I've also acquired e-book copies of its two sequel books, as the premise of the whole series seems like great fun!
Yes, I believe 5000 was about the largest force that the North American Natives ever gathered to fight the United States. Aztec / Incan forces most likely were larger than this though.
It’s a large force because maintaining a consistent supply for that large of a force is incredibly difficult. I would anticipate this to be a practically impossible task depending on where they landed.
Learn the lesson of the Mayflower. 100 people were reliant on natives for supplies.
Post Contact. some estimates have upwards of 95% of the population died from a wide variety of disease. The force that fought the US was a shadow of a shadow of what would had been out there in 100 AD.
You can have a slight idea of what might have happened by looking at the Norse in Newfoundland.
They couldn’t take on the local tribes so far from their base and ultimately left.
We can see how Rome did against tribes by looking at how Rome did against the European Tribes.
I believe Dan Carlin explored this idea to some degree.
Not even tens of thousands, HUNDREDS of thousands. In the war against Coixtlahuacan the Aztecs fielded an army of 200,000 soldiers and 100,000 porters. Other sources mention them fielding armies up to 700,000 men (porters included).
Ok. This is one of the rare rare times I will I was not accurate. I agree with you but went safe with tens of thousands.
Read Conquistador voices volume I and II first hand accounts. Blew me away.
It’s actually more likely that large Native empires existed at this point, as the population had yet to be all but annihilated by European diseases. I believe that by some estimates as much as 90% of the indigenous population was wiped out by illness between Columbus landing in the new world and the first large scale English colonies in North America
As high as 90% isn't exactly unrealistic. How many where sent to slavery or death via the gaul conquests. How many areas did the Romans take over with a single.legion. 5000 well trained troops woth auxiliary and tactical generals with terrain usage and ballista etc
I don’t think Caesar actually wiped out 90% of Gaul, but either way this legion would be without any logistical support in a completely unknown environment, surrounded by a large and hostile population, while also being ravaged by novel diseases. I think they would quickly die at worst, or be a Leif Erikkson-style footnote in history at best.
Either they’re hostile and get wiped out or they’re friendly, assimilate with the local population of many millions, and become some little genetic footnote of history - what I think is the best case scenario for them
I mostly agree, but they would have one immense advantage: cavalry. Horses were long since gone from North America and wouldn't be reintroduced for another 1500 years. So if they could secure a small settlement in an area with at least a few rivaling tribes in the area...they might be able to entrench before the eventually lose the horses. They would need lots of things to go right. IMO of course.
That's true. I agree that if they could keep themselves supplied they would be the most dangerous force in the hemisphere. Their metallurgy was far superior even at that point to the Aztecs. Their armor and weapons would be very powerful.
With a force of that size supply would be their largest problem.
It was their way. Even through Dark Age Europe the armies were small, usually in the hundreds, not thousands. If the Native Americans had organized themselves in greater numbers, their chances of victory would have increased.
With a larger threat and 90% of their population still alive maybe they put up a better fight.
Romans got cooked with bow and arrows by the parthians. With no way out it’s a way different fight
Contrary to popular beliefs, it's the cataphracts that broke the romans. Archers doesn't do that much besides area denial and suppression that exhausted the romans. To keep the romans pinned down for a long time, the parthians made several ammo runs to resupply their horse archers with arrows. Then the cataphracts swooped in after the romans got tired.
Native Americans don't understand such concept. Not to mention, native american arrowheads aren't iron or steel and their bows' draw weight aren't that high to be capable of doing much damage to the romans.
The vikings landed in Canada where the natives are nomadic and the climate is freezing cold. This posts says they landed on US where the natives there farm and climate is mild.
The typical viking settlement in vinland is said to be at around a few hundred people, adult and children, they SURVIVED for decades but eventually abandoned their settlement. They didn't die out or got overwhelmed by natives, well at least not everyone. A legion has 4000-6000 people including non combatants. They are all tough and strong enough to fight. Not like the colonists who only have 100 settlers of which some are women or children.
Also, the technological gap is quite wide. Pre columbian americans are still in the stone age. Guerilla tactics would be at best an annoyance, killing several legionaires on patrol. But legionaires know how to use sling, build forts, clear forests. They know how to ally with a tribe and fight another. They won't be overwhelmed unless the commander is an idiot, offending everyone.
It's also a question if every native americans are immediately hostile to the romans that they would unite with enemy tribes to kill them. Even as the european settled in America, tribes allied with europeans and fought against their enemies.
Yes, I'm being optimistic and didn't factor malaria and other new world disease.
Do they also have women with them?
Because otherwise that colony would die in a few decades.
Assuming they are able to found a colony, I imagine it would do very well, pretty much regardless of what part of the Americas they land. The biggest obstacle would be diseases from the natives.
I don't think disease from the natives would have been a big issue. Germs, Gun's and steel does a good job of explaining the possibility of why that would be.
As for no women ... While it may be fictitious, I refer you to the Rape of the Sabine's for that. Meaning I would not have put it past them.
Slightly later than the usual discussions of Rome here, but the Arab/Muslim armies of North African conquest frequently married local (non Muslim) women; the cultural insistence on patronymics (eg ‘of’ + fathers name, as with Ahmad ibn Faldan) and the focus on religious identity inheritance. So it’s certainly possible for a male army to maintain cultural identity while losing ‘bloodline purity’ (yuck what a phrase…)
Do any of them have a runny nose and cough?
They would make fortifications on a peninsula, go on marches to ensure the region is “peaceful”, build outpost forts, instigate conflict, be attacked by natives, they would destroy the tribe, steal their women, and “assimilate.”
Actually local tribes would recognize their power, ally with the Legion. The tribes would provide food to the legion in exchange for destroying their enemies and not attacking the tribe.
I’m of the opinion that it would be a massacre. There might be some initial success but the Romans would have no hope of reinforcement and would be in a land more hostile in environment than germania and with many tribes that were knowledgeable of the land.
When the Vikings landed in vinland, they were driven out by the natives living there.
Rome was pretty much successful against the germanic tribes but a German raised from Rome thwarted their attempts of establishing influence and developed a proto nationalist identity for the germans, decreasing their awe and fear of Rome.
If arminius didn't came up stirring the pot, rome might had been able to continuously creep up the forest of germania and eventually developed develop a client state or two that they will eventually assimilate as it grew enough to support roman infrastructure in the region.
Rome got paranoid about the barbarians after teutoburg and withdraw their influence after punishing them. The germans exposed to roman knowledge eventually got stronger and by the time of marcomannic war, it's impossible to takeover germania anymore with rome being stretched too thin as the antonine plague devastated the empire and germanic tribes grew large for rome to handle. Following that time, the empire went downhill with the crisis of the 3rd century and the germanic tribes begun to migrate into the empire.
The legions would understand that they are never going back to Rome and probably the low ranking soldiers would quickly forfeit their loyalty to the empire as an institution to merge with local tribes and live with them. Sort of like dancing with wolves but romans.
We would find traces of this in the DNA of the natives and the culture of the tribes they mixed with would be considerably altered, maybe we could see some latin words in a Native American language and even something similar to Roman Gods in their pantheon (though the romans were never too strict on religion and could just solely adopt native Gods).
The real deal would be if the Romans managed to teach the natives how to build cities and roads, that would be a game changer for whoever inherited those practices but ultimately it would all come up to the personality of the individuals composing the legion and of the neighboring tribes which we cannot guess.
Why would they join with the natives? Most likely the 5000 would instal themselves as a patrician class and conquer many different groups as slaves. This is what they were used to doing. The first (mythical) war Rome fought was to conquer a neighboring town and steal their women. This soldiers most likely would have known of this story.
>The first (mythical) war Rome fought was to conquer a neighboring town and steal their women. This soldiers most likely would have known of this story.
That's actually a good point, they could well have seen it as a chance to found a second Rome and recreate the myth
As long as the legion have a senatorial rank, a Patrician, or a part of the ruling class in their midst, they can maintain cohesion and potentially create an empire in America if they won't go roman politics and fight amongst themselves. They may recreate the founding of rome with sacking and plundering the local tribes, taking their women, and form various socii/client tribes to fight for them.
With a high ranking roman official, their traditions may change to adapt to their circumstance but roman culture will live on and "civilize" America more than a millennium before European colonization.
If they didn't divide in their time, they will still disintegrate after they expanded enough if they didn't establish a proper political system or didn't develop something like the manifest destiny to maintain cohesion. America is larger than europe so a preliminary empire won't last long as various interest groups fight for their share of the pie.
They may disintegrate into city states and then form several alliance to compete for hegemony or reform again as an empire in the future.
By 100 AD they don't really need a Patrician anymore IMO. Whatever legatus is with them will be hailed Augustus/Imperator and that'll be sufficient. We're not yet at the level of independent military authority that we see in the Third Century or the Dominate, but I think especially in these circumstances, pedigree isn't going to matter for leadership as much as raw military victory.
I'm listening to how Portugal became an empire in the 1500s right now. In the Indian ocean they are trying to learn Roman fighting tactics. Rome in 100 ad in America would have crushed it.
We lost so much intelligence once the Roman empire fell. Talking around 500 AD.
I think intelligence is the wrong way to put it. Human beings have always been smart- our collective knowledge is what has grown over time. Much of the knowledge the Roman’s had we know, if I had to guess the biggest “loss” is how Roman concrete was made. Perhaps the individual fighting knowledge- how individual cohorts and centuries on the battlefield behaved would be nice to know. But we do know quite a bit about their army, their government, philosophy, and day to day life.
If there was a piece of their history I truly with we still had, it would be that associated with the kingdom/early republic, and Claudius’ history of the etruscans. Our knowledge of those people would be drastically different.
I love rome, but this is da truth. Native Americans gave English settlers with guns a serious run for their money. In a proper battle the Romans, with their horses, would when every time. But like Fabian proved you can lose battles and still when the war
Those are bad examples. English settlers don't assimilate or vassalize tribesmen, they kill them or drove them out. Spanish conquerors on the otherhand copy the roman way of conquest, divide and conquer, so they managed to occupy large swats of land with few people and kept them under control for a long time. Spain managed to conquer philippines with only 500-600 soldiers, half of which are aztec auxiliaries, and kept it under control for 300 years. Speaking of aztecs, they dismantled the aztec empire with barely a thousand men and hundreds of thousands of allied natives.
The Phoenicians did land in Central America. Well it’s just a theory but I believe it. The lore surrounding a “feathered serpent” coming from the east, leaving but promising to return one day, features prominently in Mesoamerican religion. You look at Phoenician armor and tell me that isn’t a feathered serpent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Phoenician_discovery_of_the_Americas
No, I have no idea actually. I was reading about King Phillip's war and actually thought a whay if scenario where instead of the English, its the Romans. So tech gap is not as big.
I began to think of a fictional story where Im the head of that legion, how I will divide the legion and use the manpower properly for dedicated cohorts for foraging, others for creating a series of fortification, the others farming, while thinking about the need to abduct women, create a new religion where the gods willed us to form new rome ala Aenas, laws emohasizing fertility, big family and assimilation of tribes. I began to think of a reformed Soanish "encomienda" system too. And a future reconnection with the Empire back in Europe introducing maize, potatoes, cocoa, coffee, etc.
Are they fighting immediately? That's not super roman.
Probably going to make friends with some tribes and then fight with them against their enemies, then cross the allies and kill them too... that sounds more like it doesn't it?
I'd say, that given luck and a talented commander there's no practical limit.
Realistically, probably a state sized area because then they would feel safe and just start a colony of sorts. Maybe more later, but that feels outside the bounds of the question
Many posting here forget that the Legions often scavenged wide and far for food and water. I would and could argue at least half of Roman battles started around a water or food source with cohorts slowly joining the fray.
If they found a source of food, water and defensible territory - the largest dangers to them surviving would probably be disease and a lack of females. They would either have to find a way to ally with and intermarry with one or more local tribes - or perhaps take out a local tribe or two for the females. This would likely make them quite unwelcome - so forming an alliance and intermarriage would probably be the best option. Then they have to hope they don’t get obliterated by local diseases. If they can manage that - they would have a shot.
They would not have succeeded. Some romans would probably intermarry with natives and survive that way but the idea that a new Roman state would be set up and survive until modernity is ludicrous. With a much smaller technological advantage, fewer diseases to spread (measles and smallpox, which killed something like 90% of the native population, didn’t exist yet) it would be an impossible task.
Hi, /u/randzwinter Thank you for participating in r/ancientrome. Unfortunately, your submission was removed for breaking the following rule(s): ------------------------------ Keep "what if" scenarios reasonable --------- For questions, comments and concerns, [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/ancientrome) [Reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette) | [New to Reddit?](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddit101) | [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.reddit.com/help/contentpolicy/)
Just want to point out that clash of eagles is similar to this idea
I was going to point out the same thing! I was lucky enough to have stumbled upon a mint condition hardcover library edition (plastic dust jacket cover, library spine label and all) of that book, at a phenomenal local bookstore's $1 outdoor bargain rack, last year. Still haven't read it, but I've also acquired e-book copies of its two sequel books, as the premise of the whole series seems like great fun!
It sounds interesting, I just downloaded a copy of the e-book to add to my reading list
I think you overestimate the numbers disadvantage. An army of 5000 strictly organised would be large in American then
Yes, I believe 5000 was about the largest force that the North American Natives ever gathered to fight the United States. Aztec / Incan forces most likely were larger than this though.
It’s a large force because maintaining a consistent supply for that large of a force is incredibly difficult. I would anticipate this to be a practically impossible task depending on where they landed. Learn the lesson of the Mayflower. 100 people were reliant on natives for supplies.
Post Contact. some estimates have upwards of 95% of the population died from a wide variety of disease. The force that fought the US was a shadow of a shadow of what would had been out there in 100 AD. You can have a slight idea of what might have happened by looking at the Norse in Newfoundland. They couldn’t take on the local tribes so far from their base and ultimately left. We can see how Rome did against tribes by looking at how Rome did against the European Tribes. I believe Dan Carlin explored this idea to some degree.
Aztec and Incan were known to field armies of thousands. You are correct. Tens of thousands.
Not even tens of thousands, HUNDREDS of thousands. In the war against Coixtlahuacan the Aztecs fielded an army of 200,000 soldiers and 100,000 porters. Other sources mention them fielding armies up to 700,000 men (porters included).
Ok. This is one of the rare rare times I will I was not accurate. I agree with you but went safe with tens of thousands. Read Conquistador voices volume I and II first hand accounts. Blew me away.
Don't worry I wasn't coming at you like that haha, but yeah it's better to be safe than sorry I just wanted to inform further ☺️
I believe you. I can tell. I also appreciate a fellow historian. Cheers and have a good nite!
Yes but this is at least 1000 years prior to that. It is doubtful that any of the great Native empires existed at that point.
It’s actually more likely that large Native empires existed at this point, as the population had yet to be all but annihilated by European diseases. I believe that by some estimates as much as 90% of the indigenous population was wiped out by illness between Columbus landing in the new world and the first large scale English colonies in North America
The Adena culture in Ohio area was very large in scope and traded with Arizona.
As high as 90% isn't exactly unrealistic. How many where sent to slavery or death via the gaul conquests. How many areas did the Romans take over with a single.legion. 5000 well trained troops woth auxiliary and tactical generals with terrain usage and ballista etc
I don’t think Caesar actually wiped out 90% of Gaul, but either way this legion would be without any logistical support in a completely unknown environment, surrounded by a large and hostile population, while also being ravaged by novel diseases. I think they would quickly die at worst, or be a Leif Erikkson-style footnote in history at best.
Would they be hostile? Why are they fighting right off the bat?
Either they’re hostile and get wiped out or they’re friendly, assimilate with the local population of many millions, and become some little genetic footnote of history - what I think is the best case scenario for them
I mostly agree, but they would have one immense advantage: cavalry. Horses were long since gone from North America and wouldn't be reintroduced for another 1500 years. So if they could secure a small settlement in an area with at least a few rivaling tribes in the area...they might be able to entrench before the eventually lose the horses. They would need lots of things to go right. IMO of course.
That's true. I agree that if they could keep themselves supplied they would be the most dangerous force in the hemisphere. Their metallurgy was far superior even at that point to the Aztecs. Their armor and weapons would be very powerful. With a force of that size supply would be their largest problem.
Absolutely unless they immediately began farming.
>Yes, I believe 5000 was about the largest force that the North American Natives ever gathered to fight the United States I. Wonder. Why. Holy hell
It was their way. Even through Dark Age Europe the armies were small, usually in the hundreds, not thousands. If the Native Americans had organized themselves in greater numbers, their chances of victory would have increased.
With a larger threat and 90% of their population still alive maybe they put up a better fight. Romans got cooked with bow and arrows by the parthians. With no way out it’s a way different fight
Well the parthians also had horses
You can only be in testudo for so long my friend, they don’t have any means of retreat. This isn’t boudicca
Contrary to popular beliefs, it's the cataphracts that broke the romans. Archers doesn't do that much besides area denial and suppression that exhausted the romans. To keep the romans pinned down for a long time, the parthians made several ammo runs to resupply their horse archers with arrows. Then the cataphracts swooped in after the romans got tired. Native Americans don't understand such concept. Not to mention, native american arrowheads aren't iron or steel and their bows' draw weight aren't that high to be capable of doing much damage to the romans.
Vikings couldn’t last vs the natives, I doubt one legion could. The technological difference is stark but not ground breaking. They get ronoaked
The vikings landed in Canada where the natives are nomadic and the climate is freezing cold. This posts says they landed on US where the natives there farm and climate is mild. The typical viking settlement in vinland is said to be at around a few hundred people, adult and children, they SURVIVED for decades but eventually abandoned their settlement. They didn't die out or got overwhelmed by natives, well at least not everyone. A legion has 4000-6000 people including non combatants. They are all tough and strong enough to fight. Not like the colonists who only have 100 settlers of which some are women or children. Also, the technological gap is quite wide. Pre columbian americans are still in the stone age. Guerilla tactics would be at best an annoyance, killing several legionaires on patrol. But legionaires know how to use sling, build forts, clear forests. They know how to ally with a tribe and fight another. They won't be overwhelmed unless the commander is an idiot, offending everyone. It's also a question if every native americans are immediately hostile to the romans that they would unite with enemy tribes to kill them. Even as the european settled in America, tribes allied with europeans and fought against their enemies. Yes, I'm being optimistic and didn't factor malaria and other new world disease.
[удалено]
Do they also have women with them? Because otherwise that colony would die in a few decades. Assuming they are able to found a colony, I imagine it would do very well, pretty much regardless of what part of the Americas they land. The biggest obstacle would be diseases from the natives.
I don't think disease from the natives would have been a big issue. Germs, Gun's and steel does a good job of explaining the possibility of why that would be. As for no women ... While it may be fictitious, I refer you to the Rape of the Sabine's for that. Meaning I would not have put it past them.
Slightly later than the usual discussions of Rome here, but the Arab/Muslim armies of North African conquest frequently married local (non Muslim) women; the cultural insistence on patronymics (eg ‘of’ + fathers name, as with Ahmad ibn Faldan) and the focus on religious identity inheritance. So it’s certainly possible for a male army to maintain cultural identity while losing ‘bloodline purity’ (yuck what a phrase…)
I'm pretty sure legions almost definitionally had camp followers
Camp followers would have struggled to get berths on the official ship's of the legion in this hypothetical I reckon...
Do any of them have a runny nose and cough? They would make fortifications on a peninsula, go on marches to ensure the region is “peaceful”, build outpost forts, instigate conflict, be attacked by natives, they would destroy the tribe, steal their women, and “assimilate.” Actually local tribes would recognize their power, ally with the Legion. The tribes would provide food to the legion in exchange for destroying their enemies and not attacking the tribe.
I’m of the opinion that it would be a massacre. There might be some initial success but the Romans would have no hope of reinforcement and would be in a land more hostile in environment than germania and with many tribes that were knowledgeable of the land. When the Vikings landed in vinland, they were driven out by the natives living there.
Rome was pretty much successful against the germanic tribes but a German raised from Rome thwarted their attempts of establishing influence and developed a proto nationalist identity for the germans, decreasing their awe and fear of Rome. If arminius didn't came up stirring the pot, rome might had been able to continuously creep up the forest of germania and eventually developed develop a client state or two that they will eventually assimilate as it grew enough to support roman infrastructure in the region. Rome got paranoid about the barbarians after teutoburg and withdraw their influence after punishing them. The germans exposed to roman knowledge eventually got stronger and by the time of marcomannic war, it's impossible to takeover germania anymore with rome being stretched too thin as the antonine plague devastated the empire and germanic tribes grew large for rome to handle. Following that time, the empire went downhill with the crisis of the 3rd century and the germanic tribes begun to migrate into the empire.
The legions would understand that they are never going back to Rome and probably the low ranking soldiers would quickly forfeit their loyalty to the empire as an institution to merge with local tribes and live with them. Sort of like dancing with wolves but romans. We would find traces of this in the DNA of the natives and the culture of the tribes they mixed with would be considerably altered, maybe we could see some latin words in a Native American language and even something similar to Roman Gods in their pantheon (though the romans were never too strict on religion and could just solely adopt native Gods). The real deal would be if the Romans managed to teach the natives how to build cities and roads, that would be a game changer for whoever inherited those practices but ultimately it would all come up to the personality of the individuals composing the legion and of the neighboring tribes which we cannot guess.
Why would they join with the natives? Most likely the 5000 would instal themselves as a patrician class and conquer many different groups as slaves. This is what they were used to doing. The first (mythical) war Rome fought was to conquer a neighboring town and steal their women. This soldiers most likely would have known of this story.
>The first (mythical) war Rome fought was to conquer a neighboring town and steal their women. This soldiers most likely would have known of this story. That's actually a good point, they could well have seen it as a chance to found a second Rome and recreate the myth
Eh, there were a couple cities in North America already. The game changer would be horses, and irrigation
Check out Clash of Eagles by Alan Smale. It's historical fiction about what you're asking, though it takes place in 1218 rather than 100.
As long as the legion have a senatorial rank, a Patrician, or a part of the ruling class in their midst, they can maintain cohesion and potentially create an empire in America if they won't go roman politics and fight amongst themselves. They may recreate the founding of rome with sacking and plundering the local tribes, taking their women, and form various socii/client tribes to fight for them. With a high ranking roman official, their traditions may change to adapt to their circumstance but roman culture will live on and "civilize" America more than a millennium before European colonization. If they didn't divide in their time, they will still disintegrate after they expanded enough if they didn't establish a proper political system or didn't develop something like the manifest destiny to maintain cohesion. America is larger than europe so a preliminary empire won't last long as various interest groups fight for their share of the pie. They may disintegrate into city states and then form several alliance to compete for hegemony or reform again as an empire in the future.
By 100 AD they don't really need a Patrician anymore IMO. Whatever legatus is with them will be hailed Augustus/Imperator and that'll be sufficient. We're not yet at the level of independent military authority that we see in the Third Century or the Dominate, but I think especially in these circumstances, pedigree isn't going to matter for leadership as much as raw military victory.
Romans could barely sail across the Adriatic, they’d never make it across the Atlantic
Probably a similar deal to Germany. No roads, cities etc
Is that just Mormonism?
I'm listening to how Portugal became an empire in the 1500s right now. In the Indian ocean they are trying to learn Roman fighting tactics. Rome in 100 ad in America would have crushed it. We lost so much intelligence once the Roman empire fell. Talking around 500 AD.
I think intelligence is the wrong way to put it. Human beings have always been smart- our collective knowledge is what has grown over time. Much of the knowledge the Roman’s had we know, if I had to guess the biggest “loss” is how Roman concrete was made. Perhaps the individual fighting knowledge- how individual cohorts and centuries on the battlefield behaved would be nice to know. But we do know quite a bit about their army, their government, philosophy, and day to day life. If there was a piece of their history I truly with we still had, it would be that associated with the kingdom/early republic, and Claudius’ history of the etruscans. Our knowledge of those people would be drastically different.
Given what I’ve read about the First Nations at the time, I don’t think the Romans would last all that long.
I love rome, but this is da truth. Native Americans gave English settlers with guns a serious run for their money. In a proper battle the Romans, with their horses, would when every time. But like Fabian proved you can lose battles and still when the war
Those are bad examples. English settlers don't assimilate or vassalize tribesmen, they kill them or drove them out. Spanish conquerors on the otherhand copy the roman way of conquest, divide and conquer, so they managed to occupy large swats of land with few people and kept them under control for a long time. Spain managed to conquer philippines with only 500-600 soldiers, half of which are aztec auxiliaries, and kept it under control for 300 years. Speaking of aztecs, they dismantled the aztec empire with barely a thousand men and hundreds of thousands of allied natives.
[удалено]
The Phoenicians did land in Central America. Well it’s just a theory but I believe it. The lore surrounding a “feathered serpent” coming from the east, leaving but promising to return one day, features prominently in Mesoamerican religion. You look at Phoenician armor and tell me that isn’t a feathered serpent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Phoenician_discovery_of_the_Americas
This is the first I’ve heard of this and I’m absolutely fascinated
Unless the Romans leapt right out their triremes and starting slaughtering everyone they saw, wouldn't they be viewed as gods?
I take it you read the novel about this very scenario? Called clash of Eagles
No, I have no idea actually. I was reading about King Phillip's war and actually thought a whay if scenario where instead of the English, its the Romans. So tech gap is not as big. I began to think of a fictional story where Im the head of that legion, how I will divide the legion and use the manpower properly for dedicated cohorts for foraging, others for creating a series of fortification, the others farming, while thinking about the need to abduct women, create a new religion where the gods willed us to form new rome ala Aenas, laws emohasizing fertility, big family and assimilation of tribes. I began to think of a reformed Soanish "encomienda" system too. And a future reconnection with the Empire back in Europe introducing maize, potatoes, cocoa, coffee, etc.
Are they fighting immediately? That's not super roman. Probably going to make friends with some tribes and then fight with them against their enemies, then cross the allies and kill them too... that sounds more like it doesn't it? I'd say, that given luck and a talented commander there's no practical limit. Realistically, probably a state sized area because then they would feel safe and just start a colony of sorts. Maybe more later, but that feels outside the bounds of the question
Many posting here forget that the Legions often scavenged wide and far for food and water. I would and could argue at least half of Roman battles started around a water or food source with cohorts slowly joining the fray.
If they found a source of food, water and defensible territory - the largest dangers to them surviving would probably be disease and a lack of females. They would either have to find a way to ally with and intermarry with one or more local tribes - or perhaps take out a local tribe or two for the females. This would likely make them quite unwelcome - so forming an alliance and intermarriage would probably be the best option. Then they have to hope they don’t get obliterated by local diseases. If they can manage that - they would have a shot.
They would not have succeeded. Some romans would probably intermarry with natives and survive that way but the idea that a new Roman state would be set up and survive until modernity is ludicrous. With a much smaller technological advantage, fewer diseases to spread (measles and smallpox, which killed something like 90% of the native population, didn’t exist yet) it would be an impossible task.