U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,541 posts, read 11,121,628 times
Reputation: 5500

Advertisements

When it comes to the African Continent we all know that the ancient Roman Empire were only able to conquer North Africa. We also know that the Romans were unsuccessful at conquering the entire continent of Africa because the Sahara Desert was a huge barrier for them when it came to exploration. For hypothetical purposes lets just say the Roman Empire was able to successfully navigate the Sahara Desert and were able to conquer the entire continent of Africa and took advantage of all it's rich resources as well. Would the Roman Empire have been even more powerful than it was? Would the Roman Empire had lasted longer than it did? How would Africa be today as a result of it? Basically how would history be different today?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2013, 05:00 PM
 
545 posts, read 737,843 times
Reputation: 383
One of the main reasons Rome fell was it was too big to govern. Conquering Africa was not doable at that time. It was simply too large.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2013, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,541 posts, read 11,121,628 times
Reputation: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jobseeker2013 View Post
One of the main reasons Rome fell was it was too big to govern. Conquering Africa was not doable at that time. It was simply too large.
Rome had no problems expanding their territory in most of the Western World. I'm not buying this idea that they wouldn't seize the opportunity. After all this is Roman Empire we are talking about. Their Empire lasted over 1000 years.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2013, 06:15 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
35,898 posts, read 46,071,015 times
Reputation: 46633
One reason leading to the other reasons why not:
S
A
H
A
R
A

D
E
S
E
R
T

Hitler didn't understand how the desert could anchor his conquests 1500 years later.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2013, 06:29 PM
 
31,371 posts, read 33,524,633 times
Reputation: 14922
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Rome had no problems expanding their territory in most of the Western World. I'm not buying this idea that they wouldn't seize the opportunity. After all this is Roman Empire we are talking about. Their Empire lasted over 1000 years.
I was going to post this earlier but I really don't like counterfactual discussions, but the simple fact of the matter is that at its height the Roman Empire was 5 million sq miles, the African continent alone is 11 million. In order to conquer the continent of Africa, something that no single European empire was able to fully explore much less conquer would have been a close to as impossible as I can think of. As for the Sahara Desert, transversing it wasn't exactly an unknown undertaking and the Romans certainly could have simply bi-past it by sailing down the Red Sea, so I don't think that the Sahara was all that big of a deal, if they wanted to attempt it, but any such endeavor but I would suggest that it would have stretched Rome beyond its limits, l limits that they exceeded just holding on to what they had achieved.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2013, 06:32 PM
 
Location: Renton, WA
13 posts, read 17,243 times
Reputation: 19
Rome's system of taking control of it's conquered territories caused each expansion to weigh down on their economy and political structure more, which would have eventually led to a quicker downfall.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2013, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Miami, FL
8,088 posts, read 8,307,468 times
Reputation: 6650
Romans needed some really good division commanders.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 02:39 AM
 
4,107 posts, read 2,961,131 times
Reputation: 7916
A few notes.

If they had gotten through the Sahara desert, they would have hit the tropical zone, and died to the man from Malaria, just like the Dutch. There was a reason they called Ghana "the white man's coffin."

The logistical difficulties of conquering the whole continent have been well covered.

Since the Bantu expansions were still going on, they would have found an underpopulated continent inhabited by hunter-gather pygmies and Khoisan mixed with some pastoralist Bantus....and left since there was nothing there to loot or exploit.

They tried several times. During the reign of Augustus they sent a punitive expedition against the Nubians. Though they burned Meroe and defeated a Nubian army, they ultimately paid and indemnity and left. Also, Nero sent an expedition to find the source of the Nile, and which I believe similarly failed. The logistical difficulties and the environment were prohibitive.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 05:02 AM
 
9,982 posts, read 7,261,108 times
Reputation: 5624
The Romans frequently made incursions south of the Sahara.
That's where they captured exotic beasts for the circuses.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2013, 06:07 AM
 
245 posts, read 306,278 times
Reputation: 252
Rome wouldn't have been able to conquer all of Africa. Africa is far too huge for such a thing like that to happen. Even if Rome somehow did discover all of Africa (extremely unlikely), defeated all of the civilizations down there without going totally bankrupt, or not have all of their troops die to diseases they would not have the man power to hold such a gigantic piece of land.

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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top