WI: Rome focuses more southward in her expansion.

Let's say that Rome does to expand as far into northern Europe as they did, but instead focused more on the southern portions and the middle/fare east for most of its history. Could this provide a better situation for Rome and her territory in the long run?
 
I think they expanded as far south as they could have. The deserts of the Sahara really isn't a good place to expand to, as it was worthless, and expanding down the Nile will be stopped by the tsetse fly the farther south they would go.

The farthest south they could have taken was probably Kush, which Gaius Petronius did invade during the time Augustus. He did manage to sack the capital, and installed a garrison, though Augustus later withdrew from the place.

Farther south and you encounter the problem of the tsetse fly.
 
Where exactly do they go that they didn't get to in our timeline? What's the incentive? We really have to ask why they'd change to be able to determine how that would change them.

Below North Africa is a vast desert, and it would be impossible to sustain any large expedition any further south, more or less.

More aggressive expansion East is possible, but in my opinion Rome is already moving east pretty fast - it would be tough to get them to move faster, and they'll become really overstretched if they go too far east too fast.
 
I guess I mean southward in the sense that their territory would not extend into as much into northern Europe (i.e little or no territory in in Germania and not into Britian, etc) and more closer to the med.
 
I guess I mean southward in the sense that their territory would not extend into as much into northern Europe (i.e little or no territory in in Germania and not into Britian, etc) and more closer to the med.

But, as people have already asked, WHERE are they going to expand south that they haven't?
 
There are some non-Roman areas in Mauretania that are quite decent. I mean, not as good as the Roman coastal areas, but these areas are not only useless deserts.
 
This timeline might interest you: https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=200830

120114physicalmapgolden.jpg
 
Aden and Indian Ocean?

Aden while not technically Roman Empire territory did have a huge Roman presence, as did "colonies" of Romans in India. What about the Roman Empire establishing a garrison at Aden, becoming a major naval power in the Indian Ocean and establishing control of Eritrea and Somalia and down to Zanzibar. Conquest of Ethiopia becomes a natural conclusion, or more realistically becomes a self-governing vassal state that they continually have to invade to get them to be compliant with tribute and such. Attempts of various success on the Arabian coast, including Jiddah, Muscat and Oman, and constant wars in the Persian Gulf over al-Hasa, Bahrain, and Qatar occur. This might even butterfly away Muhammad and Islam if we see early Christianity follow Roman conquests in Arabia. If Rome is successful enough in the Indian Ocean we might see more influence in the Empire from Buddhism and Hinduism, possible direct ocean trade with southeast Asia and even maybe China. Greater Christian influence in India and Southeast Asia. Greater Christian penetration of East Africa, possibly even to Great Zimbabwe and the Lake Victoria states. We might even see an adventure to repeat Necho's circumnavigation of Africa. In OTL I do believe a Roman legion (or some sort of expedition) did reach the area of Lake Victoria and one reached around the area of the Niger River. Crossing the Sahara wasn't unrealistic, there were trade routes and most importantly at the end of those routes were- gold and salt both of which were worth their weight in each other. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_expeditions_to_Lake_Chad_and_western_Africa
 
Not exactlly what OP is asking but WI Rome threw more forces at Parthia/Persia? So instead of Germania and britannia forces that were sucked there are used in Mesopotaia instaed. OK, they'll not destroy enemy but would they be able to push border further east and establish permanent presence?
 
Historically, there are extensive trading networks going down the coast of East Africa until present day Zimbabwe that participated in the Indian ocean trade with China. Given the Roman Empire's obsession with finding resources to upkeep the lucrative trade with China, and various emperors efforts to curtail the amount of wealth the Roman Empire spent on a whole on Indian and Chinese goods, its not inconceivable that we could see an expansion of the empire down the coast of eastern Africa if they pursued greater trading power with China and to lessen the economic impact of such trade on the Roman Empire as a whole. If they followed through with Carthaginian exploration of the west African coast as well(something that was never done OTL) , its not inconceivable that we'd see a Roman empire that expanded around the Sahara and later created trade routes through it, which are beginning to form around 100-200 CE anyway. For reference, below is a map of trading ports in the Indian Ocean known by the Roman Empire, recreated from Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, a text authored in 60 CE by an unknown Roman author, to illustrate the potential for Roman expansion. It doesn't really provide full details of trade goods in context, but does illustrate where an expanding Roman empire in Africa would have gone.
Periplous_of_the_Erythraean_Sea.svg
 
Last edited:
Top