Why didn't the Roman empire expand to Uganda?

[arcee]

As stated above, I've always wondered why the Roman empire didn't follow the Nile River and expanded to Uganda and beyond? As I understand it and correct me if I'm wrong, didn't gold and ivory were brought to Rome via the Nile? Imagine the Romans in the heart of Africa. Any thoughts?

 

[LSCatilina]

Gold came from Nubia. No need to go up to Uganda.
Ivory came from North Africa for a long time. Well, before the Romans killed so much elephants that the specy was extinct.

Then, there is the why

1)Because Sahara and the impossibility to control efficiently desert trade roads against locals

2)Because of lack of manpower. They didn't had enough men to 1)give up borders in Africa 2)Make a random expedition in the jungle.

3)Trade was more efficient and less ressources-hungry than making an expedition.

4)They focused more on "hard" borders such as German, Dacian and Persians.

5)It would have need 3 legions maybe to make an expedition. Without the possibility to maintain efficient contacts or leadership. Ceasar in Gaul turned in Italy each winter, Romans in Germania could turn in Gaul or Italy each winter.

They couldn't have even turned in Egypt regularly.

6)No logistic avaible, as ressources from Egypt would have been to far, and that living on the country in today's Uganda would have turned really hard quickly.

Probably other ones, but there are the most importants I think.

 

[Arrix85]

I think they had already trouble pacifying the tribes bordering Egypt. And why risk over-extension (and someone could argue they already were overextended) when they had so many troubles already between Berbers, Germanic tribes and Parthians/Sassanind?

And this would stand if you just included Nubia, Uganda is beyond ASB.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Lines of communication is the main one, plus the fact that as can be seen in Northern Europe they were happy leaving the barbarians beyond the borders where there was no need to integrate the land into the empire.

They did have expeditions to what would be Sudan now, but these show how difficult it is to push that far South from a Northern base.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Grumpy young Man]

Lines of communication is the main one, plus the fact that as can be seen in Northern Europe they were happy leaving the barbarians beyond the borders where there was no need to integrate the land into the empire.

They did have expeditions to what would be Sudan now, but these show how difficult it is to push that far South from a Northern base.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Yep, swamp Sudd, 1. century.

 

[Tyr]

Why Uganda of all places?
Surely modern Somalia and Ethiopia and the surrounding area would be better if they're going to be poking at Africa?- that's where Axum was afterall.

 

[Simreeve]

Why Uganda of all places?
Surely modern Somalia and Ethiopia and the surrounding area would be better if they're going to be poking at Africa?- that's where Axum was afterall.

Better farmland in Uganda than in Ethiopia, let alone Somalia: Your garrisons and settlers need to be fed, after all...

 

[LSCatilina]

Better farmland in Uganda than in Ethiopia, let alone Somalia: Your garrisons and settlers need to be fed, after all...

But Uganda was underdevelloped at this regard. And lands conquered by Rome that didn't were really develloped in agricultural production neverwhere.

Just look at pre-roman and roman Brittania : they kept an insanely low population because even if the lands were there, they were NOT develloped.

Furthermore, settlers?

Rome did already have trouble to find settlers for Britain, Dacia, Africa, etc. And you think sending settlers in the darkwhole of the world, far from any possibility to be influential in Rome for leaders, likely to be the prey of raiders without the african legions possibly be there for counter-attack, etc.

And you think you could find settlers?

 

[Tyr]

Better farmland in Uganda than in Ethiopia, let alone Somalia: Your garrisons and settlers need to be fed, after all...

The Ethiopians managed it.
And this is circa year 0 we're talking about. Very different climate.
Not to mention that there's no point in settling somewhere just to survive, you need an overarching reason- and controlling trade with Asia is certainly a much better one than trade with Africa. Anddddd if you're conquering the horn of Africa you don't really need much in the way of settlers, its already a civilized place.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Trade with Africa is mostly coastal. Even when its trade from the interior, such as Zimbabwe, it comes down the rivers to the coast to meet the merchants. So, if you wanted to control African trade, you'd control the ports not the interior.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Monty Burns]

There were expeditions to conquer Nubia and Jemen IOTL that failed - miserably as far as I know. I think it's possible to have Rome conquer Nubia up to OTL Khartoum, as well as parts of the African Red Sea coast and maybe even Axum (the later two need a navy, though). This needs, however, changes in the way the Romans conduct warfare there, logistics, navy, no attacks on other frontiers, economic boom, stable government... quite a lot.

Now the problem is that if the Romans were able to do this through deserts, mountains and seas, why don't they conquer Marib instead? Or go into Persia?

 

[Grey Wolf]

There were expeditions to conquer Nubia and Jemen IOTL that failed - miserably as far as I know. I think it's possible to have Rome conquer Nubia up to OTL Khartoum, as well as parts of the African Red Sea coast and maybe even Axum (the later two need a navy, though). This needs, however, changes in the way the Romans conduct warfare there, logistics, navy, no attacks on other frontiers, economic boom, stable government... quite a lot.

Now the problem is that if the Romans were able to do this through deserts, mountains and seas, why don't they conquer Marib instead? Or go into Persia?

IIRC the Yemen one was going OK militarily but got devastated by disease which wiped most of the army out.

There wasn't MUCH opportunity to really take a Persian state down. I had a look once at this and for a short time period, when Persia fragmented, something might have been done with the will and the resources, but then one of the strongest fragments reunited the rest and became awesome in their turn.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Acrosome]

Max size of empires?

The same reason they never took all of Britain- because Rome had pretty much met it's size limit? I'm an amateur so I may me incredibly wrong, but I recall reading that until relatively modern times no stable multiethnic empire has been larger than 3,000,000 square miles or so, due to the limits of communication. (I'm too ignorant to refute this, so for the time being I'll buy it...) Any bigger and provinces start declaring independence. The Mongols and a few others managed much larger empires for a short time due to a military-style political structure and cult of personality, but even they fragmented when the Great Khan died.

And the Romans were all about stability.

 

[Advernt]

So, the question should be why the Romans were unable to expand further down the Red Sea, perhaps turn Axum into a Client Kingdom like say, Mauritania or the Bosphoran Kingdom, and perhaps even control trading ports and outposts on the Swahilli Coast? Or is this an anachronistic concept when we are talking about the Romans here?

 

[Elfwine]

So, the question should be why the Romans were unable to expand further down the Red Sea, perhaps turn Axum into a Client Kingdom like say, Mauritania or the Bosphoran Kingdom, and perhaps even control trading ports and outposts on the Swahilli Coast?

Limited resources. Lack of interest. Difficult logistics. Y'know, the usual stuff to any "Why didn't X conquer the world? I've done it in EU every time, and Civilization too!"

 

[Simreeve]

Furthermore, settlers?

Rome did already have trouble to find settlers for Britain, Dacia, Africa, etc. And you think sending settlers in the darkwhole of the world, far from any possibility to be influential in Rome for leaders, likely to be the prey of raiders without the african legions possibly be there for counter-attack, etc.

And you think you could find settlers?

Me, no... but if the Romans are going to conquer a city-less land of barbarians then they're going to found urban colonies there -- probably using legion veterans at first, if they can -- to civilise the place. That's what they tried in Britain, Dacia, etc, after all... and if finding settlers already seems that unlikely to them beforehand then they probably don't launch the invasion at all...

The Ethiopians managed it.

Were they actually supporting a full-time army the size of several legions, as well as the local lords and peasants?

And this is circa year 0 we're talking about. Very different climate.

How different? And the main problem for agriculture in Ethiopia -- as far as the highlands i.e. "Ethiopia proper'' are concerned, anyway -- isn't so much the climate as it is the thin-ness of the soils over the country's rugged upands, which tend to lose material to erosion rather easily.

 

[LSCatilina]

Me, no... but if the Romans are going to conquer a city-less land of barbarians then they're going to found urban colonies there

Why they would have conquered it in first place then?

Britain was conquered because of Breton piracy, and because you have some cities.
Dacia because dacians were regularly posing a threat to the borders and that you had ressources (ore) already worked.

You didn't have that in Uganda, so it's a completly random invasion for the sake of it.

probably using legion veterans at first, if they can

Because, legionaries and critically their leaders would obey an order that can be translated like this "Ok boys, you'll be far from everywhere and critically the possibility to count on Rome's power to help you, but hey, glory of Rome".

Legions revolted for less than that.

-- to civlise the place.

That's what they tried in Britain, Dacia, etc, after all...

They tried and comically failed. And it was neighbouring territories. For Uganda, they could have as well asked for volunteers to colonize the Moon.

and if finding settlers already seems that unlikely to them beforehand then they probably don't launch the invasion at all...

That's a point (among many others) on why such invasion is ASB.

 

[Grey Wolf]

So, the question should be why the Romans were unable to expand further down the Red Sea, perhaps turn Axum into a Client Kingdom like say, Mauritania or the Bosphoran Kingdom, and perhaps even control trading ports and outposts on the Swahilli Coast? Or is this an anachronistic concept when we are talking about the Romans here?

The problem is power projection. For example the Romans traded with India but when a merchant ship can take up to a couple of years to make the trip, its relying on its trading connections when out there. Even if one of them, I seem vaguely to recall, had some sort of trading concession from one Indian prince, its not colonial, rather just practical.

For somewhere nearer like Axum, it would be more in the bounds of possibility but in order to enforce client status there has to be the realistic possibility of getting enough men(=ships) there to do it, not just the once where with great effort it might be achieved, but whenever it might prove necessary to come back.

Further on, the journey times are longer, the lines of communication are longer, and even if the Romans went there and, say, seized a Swahili trading port, they aren't going to be able to hold onto it once the war party has gone back. It makes much more sense to trade with these people than to try to take over their trading ports.

IMHO
Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Tyr]

The best for Rome in sub Saharan Africa I'd think would be fortified coastal cities, perhaps guarding the entrances to river systems, or maybe islands; Roman Zanzibar?
To get that though you first have to secure the Red Sea as a Roman lake.

How different? And the main problem for agriculture in Ethiopia -- as far as the highlands i.e. "Ethiopia proper'' are concerned, anyway -- isn't so much the climate as it is the thin-ness of the soils over the country's rugged upands, which tend to lose material to erosion rather easily.

I'm no expert but probally; very.
I wish there was more written on the way the climate of the world has changed over history, places we know today for one thing were very different in the past.
I believe, much like the fertile crescent, in ancient times Somalia was a much nicer place. The whole south Red Sea coast area was considered one of the major civilizations of the world at the time. A lot more habitable and capable of supporting more people than it would be today with the same technology.

And yeah. A huge huge factor in such places' climate changing was soil erosion- goat farming being a particular contributer to the destruction of fertility.

 

[Velasco]

If Nabataeans collaborated instead of making Rome's life difficult as in OTL, they could have reached Arabia Felix with relative ease and better secured that region. Greater influence along the African coast would be a natural result.