Roman invasion of Zimbabwe

Romans invade Zimbabwe

I dreamt that the Romans invaded Zimbabwe. In the dream, what you saw were the ruins of giant temples in the jungle, all grown over with darkened foliage, and dank inside. There were Latin inscriptions amidst the ruins, celebrating the Roman triumph, and other later carvings of the people who had come after, bemoaning the repeated conquests of their land.

So, the challenge is to have the Romans invade Zimbabwe! Some things shouldn't be too difficult a starting point - there was a Red Sea fleet, and Roman merchants traded with India. IIRC Kush was a country in between, somewhere around Eritrea maybe?

Now, what would lay the foundations for this? I think you need the Empire rather than the Republic, and I think you need to secure the succession on the basis of primogeniture. The heart of the Empire needs to be secure. But so do the vulnerable borders - would it make any difference if Varus doesn't screw up in the Teutoberg Forest?

Does Rome really need to bash the Parthians once and for all?

I certainly don't think that that the route to Zimbabwe leads through Sudan. I don't know off the top of my head how much the acquisition of Ptomelemaic Egypt gave control of the lands South? There were Nubians in the Roman army, but whether this implies Roman rule over Nubia, or if it was a client state I don't know?

I think that the defeat of Kush is going to be a prerequisite - something needs to provide the impetus to go further South.

What is the situation in East Africa at this time? This is before the Arabs, but was Zanzibar etc any kind of trading centre in Roman times? Did Roman merchant ships perhaps even go down there?

So, let's make this possible. The actual Roman invasion of Zimbabwe can be any time in the first three centuries AD, and if we make changes from Augustus onwards then we have quite a bit of leaway.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
First, I think this is ASB. Even if the Romans were able to reach Zimbabwe, why not using that ability to reach richer India?

Nevertheless, I think the main prerequisite is a better naval equipment. The Romans should be able to sail the Red Sea and the Indian ocean at ease. Conquering Nubia and Jemen would be beneficial - the Romans tried both IOTL and failed. In particular conquering Jemen should be easier if they were able to sail there. With Nubia and Yemen in Roman hands, Ethiopa and parts of Somalia should be within reach. And a ship that can go to India would also be able to go to Zimbabwe (whether they wanted to is another question. Does Zimbabwe offer anything that couldn't be found in Nubia, Kush or Sansibar, which would be easier to reach?).

Easy sea trade should IMHO diminish the trade income from the Persians, decreasing their relative strength. On the other side Roman relative strength should increase - if they had something to offer. Nevertheless, if they have a naval package that let them sail the Indian ocean (and which should fit the Atlantic as well), they'll find something to offer. At the very least they'd overtake internal trade of Asia.

Considering a Suez canal, opinions diverge. I tend to believe that even a small canal that simplifies transport between the Med and the Red sea but does not allow seagoing ships to go through would be beneficial, but others argue otherwise and have valid points as well. However, the ability to safely reach India by ship would make sea trade much more profitable and widespread and might also increase the profitability of a canal.
 
Yup- there were a whole lot of anguished questions asked in the Senate about Roman gold being drained to buy spices from Malabar
 
Now that I have an internet to research things with, Kush seems to be equivalent to Sudan, and the Wiki article records

Strabo describes a war with the Romans in the 1st century BC. After the initial victories of Kandake (or "Candace") Amanirenas against Roman Egypt, the Kushites were defeated and Napata sacked.[17] Remarkably, the destruction of the capital of Napata was not a crippling blow to the Kushites and did not frighten Candace enough to prevent her from again engaging in combat with the Roman military. Indeed, it seems that Petronius's attack might have had a revitalizing influence on the kingdom. Just three years later, in 22 BCE, a large Kushite force moved northward with intention of attacking Qasr Ibrim. Alerted to the advanced, Petronius again marched south and managed to reach Qasr Ibrim and bolster its defences before the invading Kushites arrived. Although the ancient sources give no description of the ensuing battle, we know that at some point the Kushites sent ambassadors to negotiate a peace settlement with Petronius. By the end of the second campaign, however, Petronius was in no mood to deal further with the Kushites. The Kushites succeeded in negotiating a peace treaty on favourable terms.

The kingdom of Kush began to fade as a power by the 1st or 2nd century CE, sapped by the war with the Roman province of Egypt and the decline of its traditional industries. Christianity began to gain over the old phaoronic religion and by the mid-sixth century AD the Kingdom of Kush was dissolved.

The map on the Wiki page seems to indicate I should look at Damot (?) or Sheba/Yemen

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Trying to find out who is actually in Zimbabwe at this time is most curious, the Bantu apparently but they seem to have left no identifiable traces, and no real name. Wiki says there was a thriving population by the great lakes, but one guesses it is only known to archaelogy.

Who, even, was in Zanzibar etc seems unknown, at least to history, if not to archaeology

But one assumes that if the Romans get to Zanzibar, they'd trade with the lakes, and then they'd probably move on from ivory to rumours of gold and push on to Zimbabwe, which is going to have been given a name, presumably by the Romans themselves, in this period

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
It sounds like an awesome dream. I think someone did a TL somewhere about a Rome more active in the indian ocean.
 
OK, so this is helpful

For centuries the Swahili depended greatly on trade from the Indian Ocean. The Swahili have played a vital role as middle man between east, central and south Africa, and the outside world. Trade contacts have been noted as early as 100 AD. by early Roman writers who visited the East African coast in the first century.

It also implies that the Romans at least semi-regularly went down there to trade

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I know that Rome tried her hand in couple of occasions in land exploration south of Egypt, following the Nile upstream, but were stopped every time by swamp of Sudd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudd

So even if they did go through it they were still the mountains and hills of Ethiopia, diseases that come in the usual package...cool dream but, you know..
 
I know that Rome tried her hand in couple of occasions in land exploration south of Egypt, following the Nile upstream, but were stopped every time by swamp of Sudd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudd

So even if they did go through it they were still the mountains and hills of Ethiopia, diseases that come in the usual package...cool dream but, you know..

Thank you - great name The Swamp of Sudd!

I agree re overland routes, but that's why I thought one could make it plausible built on maritime routes. I think that in order to actually send a legion into E Africa they would have had to come into active conflict with someone on the coast - maybe some kingdom attacks Roman merchantmen? That would then give a springboard to explore and trade more fully in the South, and once they are operating there, the idea of an expedition into the heart of Africa could be made to work.

They would be coming in from Tanganyika, whatever they wanted to call the place at the time

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think the only quasi plausible route is the sea route. You need a radically different roman empire, a seafaring one.

Maybe a POD linked with Carthage which were rumored to have done quite some exploring in Africa.
 
These guys are interesting!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba_people

According to some Lemba, they had male ancestors who were Jews who left Judea about 2,500 years ago and settled in a place called Senna, later migrating into East Africa.[8] According to the findings of British researcher Tudor Parfitt, the location of Senna was more than likely in Yemen, specifically, in the village of Sanāw within the easternmost portion of the Wadi Hadhramaut.[9] The city had a vibrant Jewish population since ancient times, but it dwindled to a few hundred people since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.[10]

According to their oral tradition, the male ancestors of the Lemba came to southeast Africa to obtain gold[7][11]

After entering Africa, the tribe is said[who?] to have split off into two groups, with one staying in Ethiopia, and the other traveling farther south, along the east coast. The Lemba claim this second group settled in Tanzania and Kenya, and built what was referred to as "Sena II". Others were said to have settled in Malawi, where descendants reside today. Some settled in Mozambique, and eventually migrated to South Africa and Zimbabwe

Presumably in the first few centuries AD they haven't yet got that far...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sena,_Yemen

Sena was a thriving Jewish city at the time of the Babylonian empire around 500 BC, and is believed to have been dominated by Israelites who had fled Jerusalem during the Babylonian invasion. They crossed the Jordan into Yemen, believing they were safe in the valley in the east. According to hydrologists, agriculture in the dry valley was only made possible by a dam; when this broke leaving no water, the inhabitants of the city were forced to move or face starvation.

British anthropologists who specialize in Jewish studies, such as Tudor Parfitt, believe the Ark of the Covenant was kept in the town for some time before it was taken across to Africa, where the Israelites leaving Sena settled along the Limpopo River in Zimbabwe. The town of Sena is frequently mentioned in the history of the Lemba tribe; more recently genetic studies have found they are descendants of the Israelites.

The world is a more peculiar place than you would expect!!!

Maybe the Romans go after the Arc, lol ;)

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Cut and paste job here today! But its helping me learn a lot :)

Parfitt suggests that the Ark of War may have been taken across the Jordan and citing Islamic sources proposes that it had then moved south, in the possession of various Arab tribes and groups, until it reached Yemen, where a number of families claimed to have kept it in their possession.[14] The Lemba claim to have brought their ark/ngoma from Arabia at some point in the past. Parfitt suggests that the ngoma was a descendant of the Biblical Ark. Genetic research into the Lemba people shows that some Lemba males and particularly males of the priestly Buba clan who had custody of the ngoma have on the Y chromosome a haplotype - the Cohen Modal haplotype - which is characteristic of Jewish priests known in Hebrew as Cohanim. The remote ancestor of the Cohanim of today and the Buba men was the same individual and as an article in Nature ((1998) [15] of which Parfitt was a co-author shows lived about 3000 years ago. [16] Parfitt believes that the Ark may have been replaced on numerous occasions - it was after all a wooden object which was used in battle. Once it wore out it would be replaced. The final incarnation of the ark/ngoma came to Africa with its priestly guardians and was discovered by Parfitt in 2007. This ngoma was shown by radio carbon dating conducted at Oxford University to hail back to around 1350 AD - perhaps the oldest wooden objects ever discovered in sub-Saharan Africa. According to Lemba oral traditions the original ark/ngoma which they brought from the Middle East was destroyed by fire many hundreds of years ago and was replaced. In March 2008 he published The Lost Ark of the Covenant: Solving the 2,500 Year Old Mystery of the Fabled Biblical Ark , documenting his findings and presented documentary films aired on Channel Four and the History Channel. The BBC reported that the discovery of the ngoma "instilled pride among many of the Lemba".[17] In 2010 Parfitt was invited to address a symposium in Harare on the subject which was attended by half the Zimbabwe cabinet including the vice-president John Nkomo. This was followed by a major exhibition at the Harare Museum of Human Science. [18] The authentic ngoma was briefly on display but was soon replaced by a replica. There have been rumours that the original has been removed from the museum. [19] In 2010 Parfitt was appointed honorary president of the International Society for the Study of African Jewry[20]. In 2011 he gave the Huggins Lectures at the Du Bois Institute at Harvard University on the evolution of Black Jewish groups in Africa and the Americas[21].

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Here is a nice info;

Saith King Darius: I am a Persian. Setting out from Persia, I conquered Egypt. I ordered this canal dug from the river called the Nile that flows in Egypt, to the sea that begins in Persia. When the canal had been dug as I ordered, ships went from Egypt through this canal to Persia, even as I intended.

Maybe the Persian managed to keep the Canal relatively intact, so when the Romans setup shop in Egypt the tried to revitalize the Canal. In doing so kept the link between the mediterranean and red sea open.

I could imagine Egypt turning into the second capital of Rome, if ever the empire managed to get territories beyond the middle east.
 
Romans DID reach India ;) there was roman trading counters there...

I know.

Question is, though, how regularly the Romans visited India, to what extent Roman trade was sea-based v.s land-based, and how dangerous their sea trade was.

If you read my post, you may see that I required the Roman naval package to be improved so that they could sail the Red sea and the Indian ocean without problems and major restrictions. As long as a trip to India is a profitable but dangerous adventure, you won't see Roman legions landing there. If Roman ships can regularly ship the Indian ocean and a successful trip to India is as remarkable as a successful trip on the Med, Rome is able to project power by sea.

To summarize: the wealth of India justifies significant risks to be taken by Roman merchants, yet Zimbabwe does not. Better technology will change that.
 
I could imagine Egypt turning into the second capital of Rome, if ever the empire managed to get territories beyond the middle east.

It´d be sort of amusing if instead of Constantinople becoming the capital, Alexandria does.

I´m assuming that Suez canal butterflies don´t take away the roman empire but presumably Constantine.
 
I think a surviving Suez Canal would derail Roman history too much, and whilst certainly an interesting idea for a TL of its own, I'd prefer a Roman POD in and of itself

Given that accounts from some Roman writers (who???) talked about trade with East Africa, its obvious that there was something down there of use to them. Traditional later trade was in ivory, and then gold (hence the OTL growth of Zimbabwe in medieval times). Both would be worth trading for, tho it might be argued they can get a lot of either from nearer and less arduous places to trade with?

The idea of increased trade with India boosting naval capabilities in general and that as an offshoot of this trade increases to East Africa makes a lot of good sense as an idea

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think you would have to have them be more succesful in their conquest of Arabia Felix and Kush. Once they secure the horn....Africa is theirs.
They'd probally stick to coastal trading though, getting them to invade one small inland modern country....They notice South Africa has a rather welcoming climate and weak natives (it was still the bushmen down there at the time IIRC? The bantu hadn't came yet I think) and establish a colony there which they gradually expand from?
 
I think you would have to have them be more succesful in their conquest of Arabia Felix and Kush. Once they secure the horn....Africa is theirs.
They'd probally stick to coastal trading though, getting them to invade one small inland modern country....They notice South Africa has a rather welcoming climate and weak natives (it was still the bushmen down there at the time IIRC? The bantu hadn't came yet I think) and establish a colony there which they gradually expand from?

Yeah, from what I read I think the Bantu are not that far South in this timeframe but around the great lakes in large numbers.

I was reckoning that Zimbabwe (since it was the dream) makes sense from a gold mining perspective. I just can't find bugger all on who lived in Zimbabwe before the Bantu came.

But a Roman colonia, even if on the reduced scale that Great Zimbabwe would later be the for the coastal Arab kingdoms, would leave some nice ruins, and inscriptions, and also lay the foundation for a more settled and civilised society to be in this region centuries earlier, and to incorporate Roman legacy into their own identity, rather like the Dacians did

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Question is, though, how regularly the Romans visited India, to what extent Roman trade was sea-based v.s land-based, and how dangerous their sea trade was.
There was extensive contact betwen the two. You just have to take acount of the Moonson Trade Winds.
As late as 400 AD there are accounts of Indian Merchant ships visiting Britainia.
The Nile/Red Sea Canal only stopped being used after the Muslim Conquest of Eygpt.

My Idea for Roman South Africa.
During one of the 15 Emperors in 15 years periods, a defeated Pretender flees to Africa.
When Rome sends a Army to catch him, He loads up his Troops, Families, Camp Followers, and every else he can Dragoon.
He flees south to SAfrica/Madagascar [Zimbabwe will Do].
 
Top