Roman colonialism in Africa and beyond?

ben0628 · May 3, 2016

I'd first like to say that one of the topics I am the least educated on is the Roman Empire. I personally find Roman history to be a tad bit overrated, so I usually stay away from it. That being said, one of my favorite topics is colonialism. That is why I have a few questions to ask any Roman history buffs out there about the Roman Empire and the potential colonialism of Africa and the beyond.

1) Did the idea of colonialism exist during the time of the Roman Empire? What I mean by this is not just have the Romans conquer and rule over a piece of territory. What I am asking is that is there any piece of Roman territory that was treated as a colony instead of just a territory?

2) Could rich people in Rome hire mercenary armies and random citizens to help colonize lands with the approval of the Roman government? Would the Roman government like this idea?

3) If questions one and two are a yes or at least possible, what parts of Africa could be colonized? Nubia and other parts of modern Sudan, the Canaries, area around Lake Chad, maybe even the Gambia River?

4) What was Roman trade and influence like in the Atlantic Coastal parts of Africa? How far did it stretch?

5) Could other parts of Africa and regions be colonized, especially if the Romans could create a Suez canal or use the canal of the Pharaohs to explore the Red Sea and Indian Ocean?

6) How would the colonies operate, and could they continue to last when the Roman Empire falls?

Hrvatskiwi · May 3, 2016

ben0628 said:
1) Did the idea of colonialism exist during the time of the Roman Empire? What I mean by this is not just have the Romans conquer and rule over a piece of territory. What I am asking is that is there any piece of Roman territory that was treated as a colony instead of just a territory?

The Romans had a tendency to settle military veterans on land in order to both ensure the loyalty of outlying regions to the political centre, as well as to encourage service in the army. So yes, some ideology of settler colonialism did exist, although I wouldn't acquaint it too closely to 19th-Century colonialism, which had its own very particular ideology.

ben0628 said:
2) Could rich people in Rome hire mercenary armies and random citizens to help colonize lands with the approval of the Roman government? Would the Roman government like this idea?

AFAIK, not really. They could however bankroll armies of the Republic and would often be rewarded with the position of Consul etc. Crassus is a good example of this. Whether the Roman 'government' likes this idea really depends on the amount of support the person in general has in the Senate. It's all about political intrigue.

ben0628 said:
3) If questions one and two are a yes or at least possible, what parts of Africa could be colonized? Nubia and other parts of modern Sudan, the Canaries, area around Lake Chad, maybe even the Gambia River?

Their do seem to have been a handful of expeditions against the Garamantes in the Libyan hinterland. Also, there was an unsuccessful invasion of Arabia. If it had been successful, I could see the Romans trying to exert control over Ethiopia, Nubia and possibly even what would later become known as Somalia. Perhaps even creating a string of ports down to Rapta. Where the Romans would go largely depends on what the local rare commodity is. Any Roman colonialism would be mercantile in nature like later Portuguese colonialism. If they were settling veterans though, there would have to be viable farmland to at least feed the veterans.

ben0628 said:
4) What was Roman trade and influence like in the Atlantic Coastal parts of Africa? How far did it stretch?

Not far beyond the Straits of Gibraltar (or the Pillars of Hercules, as they called it). Basically no further than the Moroccan coast.

ben0628 said:
5) Could other parts of Africa and regions be colonized, especially if the Romans could create a Suez canal or use the canal of the Pharaohs to explore the Red Sea and Indian Ocean?

Maybe parts of Arabia etc. too much technological limitations.

ben0628 said:
6) How would the colonies operate, and could they continue to last when the Roman Empire falls?

Probably primarily through trade companies.

Arkenfolm · May 3, 2016

ben0628 said:
3) If questions one and two are a yes or at least possible, what parts of Africa could be colonized? Nubia and other parts of modern Sudan, the Canaries, area around Lake Chad, maybe even the Gambia River?

The Romans probably couldn't get much further than Nubia into Africa. And the Nubians were better off in the status the Romans had them under as opposed to a people worth ruling.

As for the rest of Africa, the only plausible places are the Canary Islands and deeper into Mauretania/Morocco than the Romans historically got. The land there is pretty similar to the rest of the Roman North Africa, and also requires fighting through a lot of angry natives to settle it. Anywhere else is almost certainly impossible barring an advance in shipbuilding/navigation. Especially trans-Sahara--the Trans-Saharan trade was sporadic at best in the Roman era for a variety of reasons, least of all being the fact the camel was poorly distributed in North Africa in Antiquity. Plus the usual issues with malaria, resupplying said colony, etc.

moxn · May 4, 2016

Just what period of Roman history are we talking about? Republican, Principate, Medieval, etc? Or perhaps an empire that survives even longer.

There's no way they could settle around the Gambia or most other areas of sub-Saharan Africa since their soldiers and any settlers they try to send will drop like flies to local diseases and they'll struggle to grow the Mediterranean crops they're familiar with in the new environments. Areas around South Africa where disease and incompatibility to their crops isn't as big an issue are simply too far away and too remote to justify travelling to outside of the odd explorer circumnavigating the continent.

Tanc49 · May 4, 2016

Hrvatskiwi said:
The Romans had a tendency to settle military veterans on land in order to both ensure the loyalty of outlying regions to the political centre, as well as to encourage service in the army. So yes, some ideology of settler colonialism did exist, although I wouldn't acquaint it too closely to 19th-Century colonialism, which had its own very particular ideology.

Actually in the very late XIXth/early XXth century you see the exact same model popping up in France with Lyautey and Gallieni. Soldiers are encouraged to stay where they fought so they don't wreck the place too much during the conquest and so the colonists actually know the land.

I haven't made the research but my guess would be it was directly inspired from Roman policies. It's eerily similar and used by classicaly educated men.

Gannt the chartist · May 4, 2016

East Africa might be interesting.

Imagine Germany/Britain being left to Romanised buffer tribes and the effort that went into the conquests there going down the Nile ( why I have no idea).

Hrvatskiwi · May 4, 2016

Tanc49 said:
Actually in the very late XIXth/early XXth century you see the exact same model popping up in France with Lyautey and Gallieni. Soldiers are encouraged to stay where they fought so they don't wreck the place too much during the conquest and so the colonists actually know the land.

I haven't made the research but my guess would be it was directly inspired from Roman policies. It's eerily similar and used by classicaly educated men.

Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. But I was more referring to the ideologies of Social Darwinism, 'White Man's Burden' and the like.

Tanc49 · May 4, 2016

Hrvatskiwi said:
Interesting, I hadn't heard of that. But I was more referring to the ideologies of Social Darwinism, 'White Man's Burden' and the like.

Oh yeah, it's a complete evolution from there. I don't think the romans had anything like that, even if there was racism, at least tied to civilisation (which again comes up in the early wave of late XIXth century colonialism)

Regarding the OP. Well, if Trajan managed to hold Basora, or if they saw more importance in trade with the Indian Ocean (which did exist at the time but it could be more important I guess) and decided to have trade posts around Aden/Djibouti it could then develop some colonialism on the Eastern Shores of Africa. Slaves, gold and Ivory.

Basora would be better though, the Red Sea is hard to navigate with sails (something to do with currents and winds if I recall)