Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even 100s of years later, it was essentially impossible to conquer all of Africa, and that was when Europeans had a much better technological advantage over most Africans.
Well, not by the late 1800s. By the time WW1 broke out Europe had every inch of the continent annexed and enslaved except for Ethiopia and Liberia, and hardly broke a sweat doing it. But prior to malaria medications and machine guns, it was impractical for them as it would have been for the the Romans.
don't kid yourselves. they could have done it if they really wanted to.
still had vast superiorities in armour, weapons, tactics, etc. plus they
probably could have bought a tribe or two to ally with.
it just wasn't worth it.
Africa wasn't only impassable due to the Saharah, but the tropics known 1,500 years later as "the disease belt". It was also not easy to nagivate the desert and jungles as it was crossing the Med.
You are arguing against logistics here, which overrides any other consideration of advanced armies, good generals, equipment, technology, etc..
What if the Roman Empire had sucessfully navigated the Sahara Desert and conquered the entire continent of Africa
In the future, please pay more attention to Geography.
When did Europe being colonizing sub-Saharan Africa? Late 1880's, right?
Why?
Because anyone from Europe setting foot in sub-Saharan Africa had a 99% chance of dying from disease or poison within a few days.
That's why African tribes captured Africans from other tribes and sold them to Europeans, because they Europeans could not do it themselves.
There isn't even one single stinking navigable river in Africa. Not one. Not even the Nile. The Nile is only navigable from the 3rd cataract down to the Mediterranean. You cannot sail down the White Nile to the Nile to the Med, or down the Blue Nile to the Nile to the Med.
The lack of navigable rivers hampers trade and transportation. The terrain was extremely difficult, and the flora and fauna were deadly.
There aren't even any decent ports, although the reality is Roman ships of the time could have easily docked no problem. Even so, the time and cost to transport goods from the interior to the coasts for trade would have made it unprofitable.
Add to that the fact that at least some of the African tribal groups would have been justifiably angry, and attacked the over-land trade routes. That means now the Romans would have to provide armed escort for caravan or wagon train heading for a coast, and that makes trade even more unprofitable.
The mistakes the Romans made were many, but had they expanded East, instead of North, they would have fared far better and lasted longer.
What if Napoleon had a squadron of B-52G bombers at the Battle of Waterloo?...
Nobody is responding to the question asked in the original post which is "What if..."
That's what I'm trying to say. I don't think there is enough focus on the original premise. This is a "what if scenario". Despite the odds, what if The Roman Empire were able to successfully conquer the rest of Africa. It's similar to other "what if scenarios" like "What if Nazis had won WW2".
That's what I'm trying to say. I don't think there is enough focus on the original premise. This is a "what if scenario". Despite the odds, what if The Roman Empire were able to successfully conquer the rest of Africa. It's similar to other "what if scenarios" like "What if Nazis had won WW2".
The technology was not there for Rome to accomplish an African conquest. You would have to assume the ancients lived differently with different technology. Your scenario is more like what if the Nazis conquered the whole world. It's a scenario very hard to imagine. Now, if you said what if the Romans conquered the Germanic Tribes or the Persians...that warrants a what if debate.
This is similar to the question which was once posed - what if Alexander went west and not East? Would Rome have faced him and what would have happened to the future Roman Empire??
The answer is economics drive expansion. The only reason Rome got involved in North Africa was Carthage and maritime trade scuffles and interference of spheres of influence.
Otherwise, all this scouting and expansion is a futuristic concept created in the middle ages and made full only by the British empire. The ancients did not consider expansion unless it had some economic value.
Africa today is still Africa because of its backwardness of its people. Similar civilizations existed at the time and they are not as disorganized today as Africa - Indian, Chinese and many Middle Eastern ancient empires. That says something about the people who inhabited Africa.
Well, not by the late 1800s. By the time WW1 broke out Europe had every inch of the continent annexed and enslaved except for Ethiopia and Liberia, and hardly broke a sweat doing it. But prior to malaria medications and machine guns, it was impractical for them as it would have been for the the Romans.
Well, Europe isn't a single nation. Yes, Africa was owned by Europe, but we are talking about a single civilization. Could all have Africa have been conquered by the UK? I don't think so, or at least their control wouldn't be very sufficient.
I also disagree about them not breaking a sweat. You have to also keep in mind, that they're not just conquering Africa, but they also need to have defense of their own nations as well as maintain their other colonies. This is also relevant to Rome as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
