Byzantine Nubia and Kush

Can Byzantium under Justinian or any competent 5th or 6th century emperor conquer Nubia and Kush?

This is something Nero allegedly planned to do before his death.

This would have a few benefits. One it would strengthen Byzantine Egypt's southern frontier. Two it would allow for eventual Roman conquest of the Horn of Africa. Three the Nubians were famed warriors and especially archers-I imagine an auxiliary force would be useful in the Persian conflicts.

Also at this point there was the shared cultural connection of Christianity making Roman suzerainty more easily swallowed by Nubian and Kushite Kings.

Thoughts?
 
Does Byzantine Egypt's southern frontier needs strengthening? I'm not sure there was ever a threat from that direction although I don't claim to be an expert on Byzantine-Makurian relations.

Why is the eventual Roman conquest of the Horn of Africa a benefit? Sounds like a massive expenditure for very little tangible gain. Plus it's either an impressive feat of naval logistics or a march across the Ethiopian highlands, in either case losing thousands of men to disease and starvation. This area is huge. Its indescribably vast even. Africa could swallow these Roman armies whole at a time when Byzantium cant really afford to waste manpower.

Egypt and Constantinople also had a shared heritage of Christianity and they hated each other.

If you want Rome to conquer the area, I suggest the Nero option as a better PoD. Do it during an era when Rome can easily afford prestige projects like an expedition to the Sudan.
 
Does Byzantine Egypt's southern frontier needs strengthening? I'm not sure there was ever a threat from that direction although I don't claim to be an expert on Byzantine-Makurian relations.

Why is the eventual Roman conquest of the Horn of Africa a benefit? Sounds like a massive expenditure for very little tangible gain. Plus it's either an impressive feat of naval logistics or a march across the Ethiopian highlands, in either case losing thousands of men to disease and starvation. This area is huge. Its indescribably vast even. Africa could swallow these Roman armies whole at a time when Byzantium cant really afford to waste manpower.

Egypt and Constantinople also had a shared heritage of Christianity and they hated each other.

If you want Rome to conquer the area, I suggest the Nero option as a better PoD. Do it during an era when Rome can easily afford prestige projects like an expedition to the Sudan.
Wouldn't the horn give the Byzantines direct access to Indian Ocean trade?
 
Wouldn't the horn give the Byzantines direct access to Indian Ocean trade?

So would a conquest of Yemen - which is MUCH easier, and works as part of the proxy wars with the Persians.

I like the idea, but I think it would be unlikely.

A potential PoD is say that in 560 AD, Justinian decides, rather than have Belisarius close at hand, instead send him to a rather harmless frontier. At one point I suggested this as a massive campaign as you've outlined. Link. However, to say that it would difficult is an understatement. So in reward for Belisarius' service - he is given one last task/title. Lord of The Erythean Sea and the Nubian Frontier - essentially given the southern and easternmost parts of Egypt as provinces to protect/govern. Considering that he was a resourceful bloke, he could well make something of that position - setting things up for later expeditions.

Heck, we don't even need it to be an outright conquest. One of the best ways would be to have someone in that position, ready to intervene in ANY civil wars or succession crises in Nubia, and later Kush - and exploit them. A small frontier force that is basically funded by piracy outside the Red Sea (and hiding behind Axumite skirts), and specialises in desert warfare could generally expand that frontier, and if circumstances were good, do so quickly.

But you're almost (heck, practically are), creating an Exarch of Nubia and the South. Which could lead to an interesting situation where a nominally Roman institution ends up getting overwhelmingly led and operated by Nubians. Which could work.
 
So would a conquest of Yemen - which is MUCH easier, and works as part of the proxy wars with the Persians.

I like the idea, but I think it would be unlikely.

A potential PoD is say that in 560 AD, Justinian decides, rather than have Belisarius close at hand, instead send him to a rather harmless frontier. At one point I suggested this as a massive campaign as you've outlined. Link. However, to say that it would difficult is an understatement. So in reward for Belisarius' service - he is given one last task/title. Lord of The Erythean Sea and the Nubian Frontier - essentially given the southern and easternmost parts of Egypt as provinces to protect/govern. Considering that he was a resourceful bloke, he could well make something of that position - setting things up for later expeditions.

Heck, we don't even need it to be an outright conquest. One of the best ways would be to have someone in that position, ready to intervene in ANY civil wars or succession crises in Nubia, and later Kush - and exploit them. A small frontier force that is basically funded by piracy outside the Red Sea (and hiding behind Axumite skirts), and specialises in desert warfare could generally expand that frontier, and if circumstances were good, do so quickly.

But you're almost (heck, practically are), creating an Exarch of Nubia and the South. Which could lead to an interesting situation where a nominally Roman institution ends up getting overwhelmingly led and operated by Nubians. Which could work.
It would have the benefit as well as integrating the Nubians(and Africans in general) more into the Roman civilizational sphere.

I suppose it could serve as a southern holding during times of civil war and a redoubt in the event other parts of the empire fell.

If the Byzantines hold on without any major hiccups or outright calamities like the Arab conquest how long would it take for Ethiopia and Axum to be integrated into the empire proper?
 
I think you're looking at this too much from a modern point of view, with the benefit of hindsight. Lets say you're a competent Emperor in Constantinople in the sixth century you're surrounded by enemies you know. You're well aware that frequently your predecessors, and thus possibly your successors, were/are going to be weak rulers. Your sons and cousins are not going to achieve what you have. This is your one moment to make a difference, having worked your way up to the purple.

You're aware that the Sassanians are resurgent and the Danube frontier must be manned at all cost. You're aware that the old Roman Empire in the West is a legal fiction at best. The threats you face aren't much different than the threats your predecessors faced a century ago. [And depending on the exact date you might have an Empire ruined by plagues so severe you have to change inheritance law to cope. Or if you hit the wrong year, maybe there's noxious fumes in the air and the sun refuses to give any heat.]

You're not thinking of places that are barely even on your maps. Hold the Horn of Africa or even Yemen might cut out the middleman of the spice trade but at what cost? Aksum is a great power in this world, one that's at the periphery of your knowledge and at the end of your lines of supply. Cutting out the middleman would mean a marginal increase in profits and connections to a part of the world you know little about. Maybe that's worth it. But these provinces would have to be held with increasingly narrow lines of supply. Carrying an army to the end of the earth is expensive and there are threats at home.

But here in Constantinople you know that there are tribes massing just beyond the Danube lines. The fortresses in the East are in dire need of repair. Your people are arguing if Theotokos is an appropriate name for Mary. There are people saying Christ has but one nature and that your interpretation of the holy books is wrong at best and heretical at worst. And if you don't please the right people you might just find yourself overthrown and replaced with some handsome young general whose fame exceeds your own.

There's a lot going on and not a lot of time to do it. And this is presuming you're one of the competent ones, one of the energetic ones.
 
I think you're looking at this too much from a modern point of view, with the benefit of hindsight. Lets say you're a competent Emperor in Constantinople in the sixth century you're surrounded by enemies you know. You're well aware that frequently your predecessors, and thus possibly your successors, were/are going to be weak rulers. Your sons and cousins are not going to achieve what you have. This is your one moment to make a difference, having worked your way up to the purple.

You're aware that the Sassanians are resurgent and the Danube frontier must be manned at all cost. You're aware that the old Roman Empire in the West is a legal fiction at best. The threats you face aren't much different than the threats your predecessors faced a century ago. [And depending on the exact date you might have an Empire ruined by plagues so severe you have to change inheritance law to cope. Or if you hit the wrong year, maybe there's noxious fumes in the air and the sun refuses to give any heat.]

You're not thinking of places that are barely even on your maps. Hold the Horn of Africa or even Yemen might cut out the middleman of the spice trade but at what cost? Aksum is a great power in this world, one that's at the periphery of your knowledge and at the end of your lines of supply. Cutting out the middleman would mean a marginal increase in profits and connections to a part of the world you know little about. Maybe that's worth it. But these provinces would have to be held with increasingly narrow lines of supply. Carrying an army to the end of the earth is expensive and there are threats at home.

But here in Constantinople you know that there are tribes massing just beyond the Danube lines. The fortresses in the East are in dire need of repair. Your people are arguing if Theotokos is an appropriate name for Mary. There are people saying Christ has but one nature and that your interpretation of the holy books is wrong at best and heretical at worst. And if you don't please the right people you might just find yourself overthrown and replaced with some handsome young general whose fame exceeds your own.

There's a lot going on and not a lot of time to do it. And this is presuming you're one of the competent ones, one of the energetic ones.
Okay how about a different scenario. The Sassanids have been recently crushed-their line has been totally defeated and Persia is in civil war and anarchy. Central Asian groups are invading while Indian potentates are biting off their eastern frontier, Roman agents and gold are keeping the fire burning.

The Danube has been stabilized, the barbarian tribes have been crushed, integrated into the system, or driven away. Their petty kings and chieftains fear the might of your armies and pay you homage and send their sons into your service.

Italy is under the control of a competent governor. Carthage is stable and you have some fortifications on the east coast of Iberia.

You are a young energetic, gifted(politically and militarily), and crafty emperor.

You realize you probably aren't going to have another chance to expand where the older empire failed. Not only that but a successful conquest of this region would allow a spring board in the future for campaigns in Yemen, Arabia, and maybe one day even India.

Would you take the oppurtunity to cut out the middle man, integrate a known region into the empire and use it for both your benefit and the empire's?

I would.
 
@Earth Judicar - I hate to say it, but I'd be invading Spain and bringing the Visigoths into line. That and potentially setting up a Pruth River frontier with the Carpathian Basin too.

One of the peculiarities of the Roman Empire in Africa is that well, the Sahara Desert is a REALLY good defensive boundary for most of the time. The Nile River helps break this rule.

Now, if there was a good window to invade Arabia Felix (Yemen) as part of a war with Persia, then I'd go all for that, which would render any trade objectives moot as the ports would be under Roman control, or a mix of Roman clients and allies.
 
@Earth Judicar - I hate to say it, but I'd be invading Spain and bringing the Visigoths into line. That and potentially setting up a Pruth River frontier with the Carpathian Basin too.

One of the peculiarities of the Roman Empire in Africa is that well, the Sahara Desert is a REALLY good defensive boundary for most of the time. The Nile River helps break this rule.

Now, if there was a good window to invade Arabia Felix (Yemen) as part of a war with Persia, then I'd go all for that, which would render any trade objectives moot as the ports would be under Roman control, or a mix of Roman clients and allies.
Couldn't you just get the loyalty of the visigothic King? Spain is on the other side of the Mediterranean and it seems to me that sending the legions to reconquer Spain to me seems at a resource sink. The visigothic nobility would be revolting constantly or waiting to regain their indepedence. Also these legions would be isolated the closest base of resupply and reinforcement is Carthage and farther Italy.

If those men are needed to defend the more vital provinces of the empire it would take some time to get them back. If say the Franks invade down from the Pyrennees I doubt I(as Emperor) could do anything but keep a coastal toe hold on the peninsula and a wasteful toe hold at that.

Conquering this part of Africa seems like a good move for an emperor and empire at a time of prosperity and power.
 
Couldn't you just get the loyalty of the visigothic King? Spain is on the other side of the Mediterranean and it seems to me that sending the legions to reconquer Spain to me seems at a resource sink. The visigothic nobility would be revolting constantly or waiting to regain their indepedence. Also these legions would be isolated the closest base of resupply and reinforcement is Carthage and farther Italy.

If those men are needed to defend the more vital provinces of the empire it would take some time to get them back. If say the Franks invade down from the Pyrennees I doubt I(as Emperor) could do anything but keep a coastal toe hold on the peninsula and a wasteful toe hold at that.

Conquering this part of Africa seems like a good move for an emperor and empire at a time of prosperity and power.

Believe it or not, but because of the med, it is much quicker to send troops and communicate from Constantinople to Spain, then to Axum, because land travel is slllllooooow. (Hence why trading around Africa was cheaper than crossing Egypt. The suez canal is awesome like that)

Plus, Spain has loads of minerAl deposits and can be pretty well defended on the Pyrenees. The Frank would well know they risk a two front war in Spain / S.France and Italy / S.E. France.

The same issues with visigothic nobles apply to any area the Romans seek to conquer. At least with the visigoths, there is a level of cultural similarity.

But with Spain, Africa and Italy as a strong west. The balkans and carpathian basin as a strong north, and anatolia and Syria as a strong east, there could be the resources to spare for a vanity campaign to Kush for an Emperor spoiling for a fight.
 
True it did have mineral deposits and I suppose a reconquered Spain and with the other provinces you mentioned and Persia out of the game a conquest seems feasible to me.

The Visigoths if I recall did give the Byzantines a lot of trouble and the young ambitious emperor I imagine wouldn't want that trouble and would want to explore other oppurtunities.
 
Top