WI: Roman Yemen

With a post 100 AD/CE Pod is is possible to have Yemen conquered and incorporated into the Roman Empire? What kind of impact might this have on the Empire?
 
The Romans in the first half of the sixth century certainly took an active interest in the region, as it provided a way of bypassing Iran and continuing to trade with India and China. In 525, they sponsored an Ethiopian invasion of Himyar to depose a Jewish king and replace him with a more pliant Christian monarch. This Roman interest in the region waned somewhat after the arrival of silk in Constantinople, but the Romans were certainly still interested in affairs around the Red Sea until the seventh century.
 
Far better to let Axum handle matters in the S. Arabian peninsula as per OTL, for logistical reasons as well as not to intrude upon their friendly relations with the Ethiopians by treading on their sphere of influence.
Any direct attempt by the Romans at any time during the POD will be a case of imperial overstretch.
 
It is far more like for the Romans to conquer and incorporate the Hejaz region than Yemen, as would be easier to envision and far more likely to have Axum or the Sassanids incorporating Yemen.
 
It is far more like for the Romans to conquer and incorporate the Hejaz region than Yemen, as would be easier to envision and far more likely to have Axum or the Sassanids incorporating Yemen.

Once you actually get into the red sea, Yemen is just about as easy to conquer and hold as the Hedjaz. Actually, possibly even easier to hold, since its more settled and thus more defensible against Bedouin raids.
 
Far better to let Axum handle matters in the S. Arabian peninsula as per OTL, for logistical reasons as well as not to intrude upon their friendly relations with the Ethiopians by treading on their sphere of influence.
Any direct attempt by the Romans at any time during the POD will be a case of imperial overstretch.

Precisely. Good trade relations with Axum is probably just as valuable to the Romans as directly taxing Yemen would be. And Rome doesn't have to pay for the maintenance of a Red Sea navy.
 
Just a suggestion: how plausible is the idea of Roman garrisons being stationed along the Red Sea Coast and on the Horn of Africa?

They would be there to protect Roman traders and occasionally launch punitive raids against pirate bases. It's not direct control (since they'd have to have the permission of local powers, especially Axum). The Romans did something similar in Northern Scotland and in Denmark/Northern Germany.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Just a suggestion: how plausible is the idea of Roman garrisons being stationed along the Red Sea Coast and on the Horn of Africa?

They would be there to protect Roman traders and occasionally launch punitive raids against pirate bases. It's not direct control (since they'd have to have the permission of local powers, especially Axum). The Romans did something similar in Northern Scotland and in Denmark/Northern Germany.

Cheers,
Ganesha

Without direct sea access to the Med., its very implausible.
 
Without direct sea access to the Med., its very implausible.

They'd have to set up a serious naval force in the Red Sea, based at Berenice, Arsinoe or (less likely) Ailana. Doable, but expensive and, as OTL seemingly proves, rather pointless.
Direct annexation/vassalization of Yemen is not out of question, but unlikely to end well. Mounting an military expedition there is probably well within the capabilities of OTL's Roman Empire in the second century AD.
Keeping the place garrisoned and administered, however, is going to be very, very tricky.
I don't see effective long-term control for more than, say, a generation at most, unless Roman leadership consistently decides to bankrupt itself in the process, which is not particularly likely.
 
Very correct. But major improvement compared to moving cargo overland on Camel back !

Not major enough to be worth restoring after the 767 restoration, however. Or at least the gains to those who would be paying for it to be done aren't worth it.
 
As Elfwine said, the Canal of the Pharaohs has its limitations. First, the obvious problem is the you need for it to be easy for the Roman military to transfer a mediterranean fleet to the red sea.

The less obvious problem isn't actually a problem, but it is a limitation to the Roman desire to invade Yemen. As long as you can't take your cargo ship directly from, say, Gaul to Yemen, all trade will be handled by locals.

In other words, Romans (of various ethnicities) will be shipping the cargo around the Mediterranean, to the Egyptian coast. Other Romans (mainly Egyptians and Arabs) will be transporting that cargo on mule back/wagons/riverboats (if there's Nile-Red Sea Canal) across the land to the Red Sea. Then, Arabs and Ethiopians will transport the cargo the rest of the way.

Which means that, for the most part, it won't be Romans sailing up and down the Red Sea. Which means that the Roman Empire has less of a reason to get involved militarily, since they don't have a direct stake in protecting the merchants/punishing pirates.

A proper sea canal opens up the trade routes and Roman punitive expeditions.
 
Unfortunately for the WI, a proper sea canal is also a significant project at best.

And "significant projects" when the existing system works satisfactorily are rarely attempted. Rome has no reason to treat a Suez canal as we moderns do - even with favorable assumptions, it's useful but not invaluable.
 
Unfortunately for the WI, a proper sea canal is also a significant project at best.

And "significant projects" when the existing system works satisfactorily are rarely attempted. Rome has no reason to treat a Suez canal as we moderns do - even with favorable assumptions, it's useful but not invaluable.

It is true that they generally lacked the imagination and faith to undertake such projects, even though it would pay for itself fairly quickly.
 
Top