Latinized East Africa

What if the Romans established a presence on the East African coast, and were able to somehow colonize the area. Would these colonies survive the collapse of the Roman Empire, withstand the might of the Portuguese and Omani Arabs, and how would the cities on the Swahili coast be like, what would the language be like, how would they sustaine themselves, this is my first forum and I would like to hear from you all.
 
Oh, the sweet innocence of the first forum post.

I am personally a huge fan of the idea, and I'll even posit a Point of Divergence that doesn't involve Belisarius or Augustus.

A Roman Emperor, perhaps Diocletian, makes the decision to deal with the Romans Bullion losses by taxing not the traders in the Empire, but by wrangling control of ports the traders use. Perhaps shrewdly for the time, the decision is made to invade Arabia Felix (Yemen) as a base of operations. This doesn't solve the problem, but it does tap into trade generally. So in order to make sure that East African traders MUST pay the Roman Emperor taxes, he invades East Africa (not all of it, just a few cities and a good location for a regional capital/naval headquarters). This then creates a Roman Gold Fleet that travels from East Africa to Rome to undo the Roman gold losses (admittedly pissing off everyone else in the Indian ocean trade network).

EDIT : It is also worth noting that this simple chance could entirely butterfly Portugal and Oman - A Roman Empire that has sustainable forces in the Indian Ocean completely obliterates the idea of an Oman and potentially anything resembling Islam. In addition - it could butterfly Christianity as well.
 
Last edited:
A Roman Emperor, perhaps Diocletian, makes the decision to deal with the Romans Bullion losses by taxing not the traders in the Empire, but by wrangling control of ports the traders use. Perhaps shrewdly for the time, the decision is made to invade Arabia Felix (Yemen) as a base of operations. This doesn't solve the problem, but it does tap into trade generally. So in order to make sure that East African traders MUST pay the Roman Emperor taxes, he invades East Africa (not all of it, just a few cities and a good location for a regional capital/naval headquarters). This then creates a Roman Gold Fleet that travels from East Africa to Rome to undo the Roman gold losses (admittedly pissing off everyone else in the Indian ocean trade network).[/QUOTE]

I think that once the Romans begin to colonize the coast, they discover the other riches of East Africa (Leopard skins, Ivory, slaves maybe) and decide that East Africa is a good investment, so they send reinforcements, and begin to send caravans inland to trade. Roman ideas and technology spread, and many of the Khoisan and Pygmy stock adopt a more sedentary lifestyle.a number of cities emerge, and the Roman territory, which I shall refer to as Azania, is fed by trade in the Erythraean sea (Indian ocean). Latin and the local languages mix, to create a sort of 'Latinized Swahili' with little Bantu or Asian influence.
 
How are they gonna hold on to their newly conquered terratory? Rome had problems guarding its borders in our timeline (OTL).
I also can't see them establish settler colonies especially not as late as the age of Diocletian. The empire had demographic, economic and political problems which make it unlikely that anyone would try to embark on such a rather complicated schemen, as proposed by @RogueTraderEnthusiast
 
How are they gonna hold on to their newly conquered terratory? Rome had problems guarding its borders in our timeline (OTL).
I also can't see them establish settler colonies especially not as late as the age of Diocletian. The empire had demographic, economic and political problems which make it unlikely that anyone would try to embark on such a rather complicated schemen, as proposed by @RogueTraderEnthusiast

Do you consider that such a proposal is something that only an enthusiast of rogue trade could make?
 
How are they gonna hold on to their newly conquered terratory? Rome had problems guarding its borders in our timeline (OTL).
I also can't see them establish settler colonies especially not as late as the age of Diocletian. The empire had demographic, economic and political problems which make it unlikely that anyone would try to embark on such a rather complicated schemen, as proposed by @RogueTraderEnthusiast

Do you consider that such a proposal is something that only an enthusiast of rogue trade could make?

@Diego very punny. Very drole. Give yourself a cookie!

But don't get me wrong, the scheme is EXTREME, and risky. The reality of the matter is that this would require a huge level of autonomy, or reorganising the Empire around Egypt - which isn't all in all a bad idea, but means a less epic city on the Golden Horn. I prefer the autonomy route, essentially prototype Exarchates, like early Carthaginian trade posts.

I don't envisage this turning into settler colonies, not initially or in the short term at any rate. I see it more like a series of naval bases that more or less pull a Portugal and play pirate/naval lord. This doesn't endear you in the early days, and ensures that threats to not send reinforcements and supplies from Rome proper in exchange for gold and loot are significant.

But it does build a number of small fortified bases that will inevitably become bases for local trade, and potentially the standard route for East African traders. This is where you get the cultural leakage - and assuming that Latin is the lingua franca for the army, then it'll spread and influence local languages until you get a hybrid Vulgar Latin - (Swahili? I think this is pre-Bantu settlement so I'm not sure), language. What you get there is cultural and religious transmission, and butterflies permitting, a Christian East Africa.

But yeah, it is completely mad. Conquering East Africa as Rome IS Completely Mad. You've got to have a damn good reason, and Gold is the best one I can think of.
 

Deleted member 97083

It's not all that mad for them to try and conquer or control the area, I mean the Romans had clearly mapped out the important ports in the Indian Ocean in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, so if they had Mesopotamia or some clear access to the Indian Ocean other than just the Sinai, then it doesn't seem too far fetched. The difficult part is getting Romans to actually settle there and spread the culture instead of just visiting and leaving. Furthermore, they'd most likely be Greek instead of Latin.

But don't get me wrong, the scheme is EXTREME, and risky. The reality of the matter is that this would require a huge level of autonomy, or reorganising the Empire around Egypt - which isn't all in all a bad idea, but means a less epic city on the Golden Horn. I prefer the autonomy route, essentially prototype Exarchates, like early Carthaginian trade posts.

I don't envisage this turning into settler colonies, not initially or in the short term at any rate. I see it more like a series of naval bases that more or less pull a Portugal and play pirate/naval lord. This doesn't endear you in the early days, and ensures that threats to not send reinforcements and supplies from Rome proper in exchange for gold and loot are significant.
Well the Portuguese had a naval tech and navigational advantage. But you can't play pirate lord in the Indian Ocean without cannons and with ships barely suited to travelling the Indian Ocean. The Romans would have to settle first as traders and not pirates, or they'd get destroyed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
East Africa south of Somalia, at the time of Periplus is under Arabian Felix ruled by Charibaêl and he was in basic vassalship with Roman.

Also we have this
"At any rate, when Gallus was prefect of Egypt, I accompanied him and ascended the Nile as far as Syene and the frontiers of Ethiopia, and I learned that as many as one hundred and twenty vessels were sailing from Myos Hormos to India, whereas formerly, under the Ptolemies, only a very few ventured to undertake the voyage and to carry on traffic in Indian merchandise."

— Strabo II.5.12

So really just redirect ships and settle. BUT the question then becomes; why would Rome immigrate to East Africa when Arabia gets what they want with trade and minor mixing on islands and along the coast line?

Why would Romans move to a place of little value to them? Also how could they deal with "macrobians", Waq-waq raiders, diseases and Indians who are conquering the lands further south themselves?

It wouldn't last, a romanization would fail to last as the horticulturalists adopting South and Southeast Asian crops sweep the prior people out. With sustained contact and fortification you could have a romanized Swahili Coast that is subsumed by Persians as OTL.

Its so extreme compared to just trading with native peoples and letting them be and more profitable too.
 
The Romans had advanced military techniques and formations, so they would likely retain the region. I think that the romans would face little opposition, the shiftless Pygmy and Khoisan peoples would lack the military might to fight off the Romans. The Bantu and Nilo-hamites would be the only ones capable of posing any serious military threat to the Azanian territory.
 
For the Romans to be able to establish a precense on the East African coast, they would have to find good crops. The Medditeranean crops the Romans are used to wouldn't do well, so they wouldn't be able to really settle there untill they get suitable crops. This would enable the Romans to settle of the coast, and small trading posts mushroom into metropolises. Roman ideas, technology and language spreads, and the Nilo-hamite and Bantu expansions are stemmed, or redirected. The Latin precense spursthe growth of Punt, Aksum and Kush which reduce the power of the Arabs,and Roman power in the Indian Ocean is close to unstoppable. Christianity is spread, and the Roman civilization in the Erytharean continues after the fall of the Roman Empire. Islam is forced to the East, so Traditional faiths are still prevalent throughout much of Africa. The Arabs do try to topple the Romans, but fail. European expeditions to the East African coast by navigators such as Vasco da Gama are Surprised to see a remaining relic of the greatness of Imperial Rome, a branch of the Empire distant enough to survive the collapse of its epicentre. The Azanian territory begins to expand into the Indian ocean, over runing Asia, discovering and conquering Australia and establishing their precense in Africa. eventually the empire collapses due to manegement, but the legacy of the Azanian Empire is felt throughout the Erytharean sea, Christianity, Democracy, Latin and many other Roman and related thinds are well known throughout the region.
Maybe the Romans sail down the blue Nile and reach Lake Victoria, they could establish a precense there.
 
The Romans had advanced military techniques and formations, so they would likely retain the region. I think that the romans would face little opposition, the shiftless Pygmy and Khoisan peoples would lack the military might to fight off the Romans. The Bantu and Nilo-hamites would be the only ones capable of posing any serious military threat to the Azanian territory.
Uh, so I'mma stop you there 1. Pygmy Archers with poison arrows were beating the asses of Swahili and African tropes of the Belgians.

During Shaba I a squad of them came through to fight.

“Has anyone seen the Aka in the shade?
His arrow darts from a bow you haven’t seen
His arrow fliesIt has flownIt has struck It has killed Listen: SWIIISH!
Already your foot is weary…Your eye doesn’t see any more… You have gone beyond…”
Aka chant as recorded by Reverend TRILLES ca. 1940

Every explorer has mentioned their ability to hide in plain sight, their aim, their poison craft and if you dig enough their prime ability to provide defense between warring and quite defenseless farming communities.

You should really do some research on San and Pygmy social formation and not fall for that wild man b.s. you sound like my Congolese sister in law's mother who talked about them as if they were wild life that spoke.

Also, Hamite isn't a valid categorization and the populations in all likelihood were speaking a Khoekhoe influenced Cushitic language and could defeat a Roman army with low supplies and little diseases resistance with ease.
For the Romans to be able to establish a precense on the East African coast, they would have to find good crops. The Medditeranean crops the Romans are used to wouldn't do well, so they wouldn't be able to really settle there untill they get suitable crops. This would enable the Romans to settle of the coast, and small trading posts mushroom into metropolises. Roman ideas, technology and language spreads, and the Nilo-hamite and Bantu expansions are stemmed, or redirected. The Latin precense spursthe growth of Punt, Aksum and Kush which reduce the power of the Arabs,and Roman power in the Indian Ocean is close to unstoppable. Christianity is spread, and the Roman civilization in the Erytharean continues after the fall of the Roman Empire. Islam is forced to the East, so Traditional faiths are still prevalent throughout much of Africa. The Arabs do try to topple the Romans, but fail. European expeditions to the East African coast by navigators such as Vasco da Gama are Surprised to see a remaining relic of the greatness of Imperial Rome, a branch of the Empire distant enough to survive the collapse of its epicentre. The Azanian territory begins to expand into the Indian ocean, over runing Asia, discovering and conquering Australia and establishing their precense in Africa. eventually the empire collapses due to manegement, but the legacy of the Azanian Empire is felt throughout the Erytharean sea, Christianity, Democracy, Latin and many other Roman and related thinds are well known throughout the region.
Maybe the Romans sail down the blue Nile and reach Lake Victoria, they could establish a precense there.

This is ASB on multiple fronts.
 
East Africa was already an area where Roman merchants were very much familiar with, indirectly or directly. No need to conquer it.
 
Uh, so I'mma stop you there 1. Pygmy Archers with poison arrows were beating the asses of Swahili and African tropes of the Belgians.

Every explorer has mentioned their ability to hide in plain sight, their aim, their poison craft and if you dig enough their prime ability to provide defense between warring and quite defenseless farming communities.

You should really do some research on San and Pygmy social formation.

This is ASB on multiple fronts.

I originally thought that only the Bantu had poison arrows. The Khoisan and Pygmy peoples were the original inhabitants of East Africa, but they were killed, displaced and absorbed until they barely existed, The only remnants of them in the East African region are the Sandawe and Hadza of Tanzania and the Twi of Rwanda. Besides, the majority of the early East African people where from the Khoisan stock, so even if the Pygmies where good warriors with poison arrows and could hide in plain sight, it wouldn't even matter because there were barely any. I think I will do some research on their social formation. What does ASB mean?
 
Last edited:
So really just redirect ships and settle. BUT the question then becomes; why would Rome immigrate to East Africa when Arabia gets what they want with trade and minor mixing on islands and along the coast line?

Why would Romans move to a place of little value to them? Also how could they deal with "macrobians", Waq-waq raiders, diseases and Indians who are conquering the lands further south themselves?

It wouldn't last, a romanization would fail to last as the horticulturalists adopting South and Southeast Asian crops sweep the prior people out. With sustained contact and fortification you could have a romanized Swahili Coast that is subsumed by Persians as OTL.

Its so extreme compared to just trading with native peoples and letting them be and more profitable too.

Well, some Romans have been known to have been... forcibly resettled, but as I said before - it isn't that the location and its resources are in themselves valuable, but the locations. Constantinople isn't known for having gold deposits, but for being at the mouth of the Bosporus. That is its value - and the value of any settlements are being able to trade, and control the trade. Just like in later periods, paying locals to hunt Ivory for export is lucrative.

Indian conquests of East Africa? That is a new one for me (and I had to look up Waq-Waq, do you have a resource for that - all I got is references to the Zanj, who the Chinese and Indians weren't impressed by culturally, apparently).

In addition, why wouldn't the Romans (and any local allies) also adopt south and south east asian crops if they prove to be superior? Plus, who is to say that Persian domination is guaranteed? A Roman Empire that has that much bullion being brought back - and assuming that controlling the sea lanes is profitable (it would have to be), then they're in a better position to deal with any Persian influence - in fact, East Africa might be an important minor front in any Romano-Persian war. After all East Africa is still very far away for Persia too.

If you're objection is to the whole "Romans appear and boom magically everything is better", I concur. But Roman military trading settlements, with allies in the local communities is very different to settler colonies - I imagine that it'd more resemble a network of allied and unallied tribes (like pre-Caesar Gaul).

@Nabongo Mumia II - You've got to understand the sheer distance that East Africa is from Rome Proper - they wouldn't be able to deploy large forces. Smaller forces with fortifications, and allies is the only real way to make a Roman East Africa work, at least until those allies have become "Romans" themselves. I don't see any settlements become metropolises any time soon. Small trade cities, and maybe one major city under Roman control, but the vast majority - Romanized local communties that have also adopted crops from S & SE Asia. Between this 'Exarchate' and Rome are dozens of client states, or other groups.

Sailing down the Blue Nile, is however, a death trap. The Sudd is not to be messed with, and the Blue Nile is hard as heck for Roman ships to navigate.
 
If you could get a Rome that was more into trade, and was interested in East Africa, what do you think would happen?
Probably the appearance of secondary states out of the mix of chiefdoms on the eastern coast. But it would take a long time, and wouldn't be systematical.
The problem isn't that you need more merchants, that was an lucrative trade IOTL to go in Red Sea up to Indian Sea. The problem is that it was largely let to Romano-Egyptians traders, more or less without state supra-management contrary to what happened with the relations with the Barbaricum.

I think you'd need at least either a lasting Roman conquest of Nubia (not just Meroe but neighbouring tribes as well) which would be hard to pull : it's not the best region to do a large conquest, and the lack of strategical reason is obvious, and the reasons for holding it on the long term are not exactly convincing.
A more plausible change would be a deeper Roman presence in Arabia : IOTL, they went relatively far into the Hejaz up to raiding Yemen and you could see a clientelisation of south-western Arabian polities lasting ITTL, possibly in Axum as well. That said, more you go south, more far from Rome you are, lesser the direct influence would be, and Rome more or less reached its maximal capacities of direct control in the region already.

So, with a Roman political presence (direct, let's say, up to the mid-Hejaz; indirect up to Aden) you might see a significant romanisation (altough with a very, very strong helleno-persian influence) on the straights. But it should be stressed that this Romanisation, as how it existed in the Eastern mediterranean basin, while definitely on lines with imperial culture, would be made along an hellenic style/
 
Top