The POD is around 30 BC when Egypt was established as a province. What would be the result if Rome were to follow the Egyptian Empire's footsteps across the Nile River. If I'm not mistaken, East Africa (where the Nile cuts through) is rich with mineral resources. Gold, silver, and copper are found in excess in countries like Sudan and Uganda. So what's the plausibility that Rome would use the Nile as a base to expand (just like the Egyptians did)?
Rome expands into Africa through the Nile?
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
Japhy
Banned
Slim to none. Trade and Economics mean that Rome is going to be the preferred destination for those trade goods anyway, and such expansion would be massively costly going to the ends of the world and all that. Much better to just be the superpower that abides until someone kills a citizen and then march in, burn stuff, and put a new king on a throne as you head home.
Didn't they invade and occupy Britain for tin? This is a helluva lot of minerals and they just need to transport it by river. And what I meant by "expand" was to colonize East Africa similar to the way Vikings colonized: sail by water and set up settlements along the coast. Then, you slowly move in deeper and deeper into the land away from the river. It can't cost enough to ignore the rich reserves of gold, silver, and copper.
Britain is a perfect example of Imperial Overreach. The Romans ended up stationing 4 legions and made more money trading with Britain for that tin then they did administering, attempting to settle, and defending Britain. Britain was of such dubious value it was abandoned as soon as Gaul was gravely threatened.
East Africa has even worse conditions in every way than Britain. Harder to access. More organized resistance. Worse diseases. Worse terrain. Less wealth.
If Britain was a money sink East Africa would be a black hole.
The romans tried to invade Nubia during Augustus reign, and they failed. Like they failed in Arabia, at the same time.
If they ever would have been succesful, I doubt, the romans would conquer more than Erytrea. They have been only interested in controlling the Red Sea and the traderoute to India. Everything they could get from East Africa was available via trade anyways.
Obviously, they made it, finally. Latest in the 2nd century they controlled the entire Red Sea with a base on an island near the shores of Yemen. It seems the romans had best relationships to the Kingdoms of the Hyamar in Yemen, Meroe in Nubia and Aksum in Erytrea. What else should they goal for? Well an expedition led by 2 praetorian officers tried to find the sources of the Nile. But that was probably rather by scientific interest.
Nevertheless, things became worse after the fall of Meroe. The following chaos led to barbarian raids into southern Egypt in the 3rd century. And the fact, that the romans never conquered Arabia led to the Fall of Rome as an empire in 636 after the Battle of Jarmuk.
If they ever would have been succesful, I doubt, the romans would conquer more than Erytrea. They have been only interested in controlling the Red Sea and the traderoute to India. Everything they could get from East Africa was available via trade anyways.
Obviously, they made it, finally. Latest in the 2nd century they controlled the entire Red Sea with a base on an island near the shores of Yemen. It seems the romans had best relationships to the Kingdoms of the Hyamar in Yemen, Meroe in Nubia and Aksum in Erytrea. What else should they goal for? Well an expedition led by 2 praetorian officers tried to find the sources of the Nile. But that was probably rather by scientific interest.
Nevertheless, things became worse after the fall of Meroe. The following chaos led to barbarian raids into southern Egypt in the 3rd century. And the fact, that the romans never conquered Arabia led to the Fall of Rome as an empire in 636 after the Battle of Jarmuk.
Last edited:
Like I said before, I mean invading in a method similar to vikings: They send their ships down the Nile and take the land surronding the Nile. It was called the "blackland" and it was extremely fertile and was a major source of wheat during the Egyptian Empire.
Unfortunately the Kingdom of Meroe would have been not amused. And they already wiped more than a legion during Augustus reign.
That means, invading Nubia needs a large army in Egypt. Much larger than any roman emperor likes to see in Egypt. Every powerful roman general in Egypt or Nubia would have been a serious threat. You know, Egypt was a very special case in terms of government and army, by very good reasons? No way, any roman emperor would have been that politically stupid.
There was no reason to go further south, as long as Meroe guaranteed, that they respect and secure the roman southern
border in Egypt. And Meroe was a reliable partner for centuries after the peace contract with Augustus. Better than anybody the romans had contracts with beyond Rhine and Danube.
Last edited:
They tried this. The Nubians defeated the Romans when they tried.
Nero contemplated trying again, but first sent out a mission of exploration. The explorers sent out MIGHT have reached Lake Victoria, but far before that they reached the swamps of Southern Sudan. They concluded that it was not worth trying to conquer.
There is simply no incentive or ability to conquer "in the way of the Vikings" like you suggest.
The Nile river provides perfect transportation. No major roads to build, no threats from raiders, faster movement via ships. And I meant the fertile blacklands as the place to colonize. Not all of East Africa. What I envision was a narrow strip of land ruled over surronding either sides of the Nile (like Egypt did). I don't mean conquering all of East Africa.
I wrote my last reply before I saw this so ignore it. I guess you're right.
You overestimate the fertility of the Nile. The further south you go, the less fertile it is. Egypt is fertile because Silt moves North and floods the banks. That silt comes from the south and is sourced in the Ethiopian Highlands or the Swamps of South Sudan. Further south you end up in the Jungles of Uganda.
It is fertile enough to to farm marginally, but not enough for export.
Even the Egyptians, which you source, did not move so far South. The only occasion they did was in response to Nubian invasions or total conquest by Nubia (thus becoming the new "Egypt") .
Meroe was in fact, more-or-less clientized by Rome, at one time. But apart from a couple of concerted attempts by the Romans to conquer Nubia that didn't go well (in part due to insufficient resources), Rome was generally content only to retaliate for cross border raids. Both sides were ultimately more interested in trade than territorial aggrandizement.
Rome got it wanted from the Sudan and deeper through trade. Imperial priorities lay elsewhere.
Same with Arabia, once it had the control of the Red Sea. It had the ports it needed to conduct the Indian trade, and apart from stomping S. Arabian pirates that threatened it, it really wasn't interested. Although they did make major inroads in the Hejaz, after absorbing the Nabatean polity, incorporating significant parts into the province of Arabia Petraea for a time.
Rome got it wanted from the Sudan and deeper through trade. Imperial priorities lay elsewhere.
Same with Arabia, once it had the control of the Red Sea. It had the ports it needed to conduct the Indian trade, and apart from stomping S. Arabian pirates that threatened it, it really wasn't interested. Although they did make major inroads in the Hejaz, after absorbing the Nabatean polity, incorporating significant parts into the province of Arabia Petraea for a time.
Unless Rome conquers everything West of the Urals along with Persia and India, they have absolutely no reason to adventure south when there are far richer areas with far greater rewards that are far better mapped with far less disease.