Are there any historians here? I have a question

Why didn't the Romans just conquer all of Africa?
Did those wh*Te Roman subhumans fear the Black warrior?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5gJZRWmBY
edition.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mummy-dna-genome-heritage/index.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>inb4 there was nothing in Africa
Africa was more advanced than wh*Te lands (europe) LMAO

bump

Niggers were the least of their concerns. Once you conquered Egypt and the Mediterranean shore you had the territories with the most resources (farming land) and the most agreeable climate. Nobody needs a giant sandbox if they don't use fossil fuels it contains.

read

...

Conquer what, deserts, jungles and unproductive niggers?

retard

Why didn't *urks?

Because of bacteria and diseases. Europeans were not customed to the climate, fauna, flora, bacteria etc of the African continent. If the Romans would move far into the continent they'd probably just die or something.

This is why the "White man stole black slaves" meme is bullshit because if the whites would come into Africa for a long time they'd get sick..

>Why didn't the Romans just conquer all of Africa?
Desert

...

There is a desert the size of Europe between North and Sub-Saharan Africa. But i do believe they had trade with caravans and ships sailing the coast of Africa.

Pushing too far into another continent meant certain death from bacteria and disease. Mass death, Inoculations, and vaccines are the only thing that allowed globalization as we know it today.

Oh look, this roach shitpost thread that's made once a week at least.

>be Roman
>conquer all the African lands known to man where economic activity is possible
>you now border a huge dessert which seems almost endless
>expedition forces either never came back (died) or came back and told that crossing the dessert is a suicide mission
>decide to not even try to cross that shit
seems like some pretty solid logic

>wh*Tes were afraid of a little sand

People couldn't sail past Cape Bojador until 1434.

Because the Sahara desert is in the way

>roach with nigger fetish posting nonsense again.
Roach, go back to your other nigger thread.

sahara, you uneducated fuck

We know roaches will survive nuclear holocaust. Be proud of your sturdiness, because it is the only thing you have to compensate for your lack of brain.

>wh*Tes were afraid of a little sand
truly a subhuman race

I truly wonder why I get banned for replying to a thread in which a roll pic was posted (without even replying to the roll pic btw) and this poster who constantly shitposts is never banned

The only reasons I can think of controlling africa are trade routes, minerals and people for slavery/ armies. Past Egypt is just shitty desert that's hard to cross and wild negros who'd try to kill you when you're weak

>Why didn't the Romans just conquer all of Africa?

Pic related is the honest and real reason why no foreign power ever invaded, conquered, colonized or settled Africa until the development of intercontinental sea trade.

There was a gigantic wall of sand in the way.

>could've posted Axum
>posts a part of Africa Romans literally conquered

>expecting moderation on Sup Forums
You will likely get banned for that post while the autistic roach gets nothing

its called the sahara,,,, for fucks sake how do you people graduate

You're right, except this thread is just bait

>Reposting the same shit in hopes that somehow anyone but a roach will condone this retarded mongoloid behaviour
/sage

Historian here (16thC. but whatever)

>Supply lines stretched
>Impassable terrain
>Environmental factors (heat)
>Conquering the West (2BC-1CE)
>Goths etc
>Revolts in asia Minor
>Revolts in Judeah
>Revolts in fucking Rome
>Civil War
etc.

Oh look, it is the retarded turkroach again.

Sage and move on.

They reached their natural borders and size, pretty much like the Chinese Empire.

They were also surrounded by poorly inhabited and nomadic lands in Africa.

There were civilized and rich lands in Mali or Ethiopia, but an expedition there would be impossible, cus Jungle, Desert and no Ocean-faring reliable fleets.

Nothing to conquer. Sure, Africa has a lot of resources but they didn't have the means back then to find them, extract them or use them.

North Africa, particularly Egypt was that mattered to them. That was the richest part of Africa and still is to this day.

Italy is smart all others are dumb niggers like

In confederation with romans here, because its imposdible to traverse jungles deserts and malaria.

Sahara you stupid fucking roach.

>whites couldn't even conquer empty lands

And why all the trouble to interact with this species?
50 iq jungle baboons

>Muh Sahara

Why didn't crackers just sail around it?

Neither could you apparently. I understand though: No goats past that point, huh?

>that pic
savage
Fuck off proxyfag.

Because people thought they'd fall off the earth if they sailed too far.

Why do we have any political narratives with Blacks?
Baboobs were sold from.africa by other gangs to make some capitalist money that he would not have to share with workers, and somehow now we are connected to the baboons?
Where did we even acknoledge the baboon fikthbeven existing in the same realm?

youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5gJZRWmBY
real ottoman map

there are pyramids in south africa dumbass

> Black people 2500 B.C.

As real as a certain historical event, I suppose :^)

the same old thread and u say the same replies, u dont get bored?

Look familiar?
Those are the pavement apes away from their natural habitats in our streets...

Why couldn't Turkey industrialize on their own?

said the muslim caucasoid

so were the osmans, you dimwit.

>why didnt Rome move hundreds of thousands of troops, support personnel, horses, grain, livestock & material over thousands and thousands of miles in what could only be described as the logistical nightmare to end all logistical nightmares

truly a mystery

that's a myth

This guy again.

>90 makes you number 17 in the whole fucking world

There is no hope.

Nope

edition.cnn.com/2017/06/22/health/ancient-egypt-mummy-dna-genome-heritage/index.html

Disease and a huge desert was in the way.

Couldn't sail past Cabo Bajador in the West and the suez divided the Med from the Red Sea.

Uh there's a giant desert?

too many niggers, not worth it.

same as ireland to be fair

...

Egyptians weren't black.

That territory has held by enslaved black outposts, not actual ottomans.

Empire tends to crush itself under its own weight. Imperial rome, which was Rome in its largest. Did not have the government or economy to support such a large Sovereign area. The sheer power one of them emperors would have wielded have been enough to ensure would have died I've been replaced every other day.

The Romans had a client state in Nubia which functioned in a similar manner as Qaddafi's Libya. The Romans were interested more in the Mediterranean basin, where actual civilizations participate in trade and other profitable endeavors.

Even your pic explains why they didn't push any further into the interior. With Egypt's fertile Nile harvests under their control, there was little if anything to gain by pressing further into the African interior. The Romans were interested in conquest, and unless one considers illiterate, backwater, primitive herders and farmers, hunters and gatherers, to be "high civilization," then there was nothing there to conquer.

From a Roach perspective, I can see that these barbaric and ignorant herders, tribesmen, cannibals, etc, may have actually represented a step forward for civilization.

Why didn't the Ottomans?

supply lines in Africa were a nightmare during ww2
What makes you think romans could do anything?

Many reasons. You can only spread yourself so thin, epecially before modern methods of transport.

They also already conquered most of the best areas in Africa, why conquer more? Would it be worth the expensive?

Also, don't forget about the Tsetse, malaria, and all the other wonderful diseases in Africa.

yes, i wonder why...

Because

Conquer what, houses made of shit?. They had already conquered Egypt.
>Bumping himself

> T*rkroach
> educated
> civilized

Romans did travel all around Africa and had extensive maritime trade.
Roman coins have been found even in Madagascar and Zimbabwe.
They also conducted many expeditions by land.
Their southern outpost was at Arsinoe (near Assab, in actual Eritrea) on the Ethiopian shore.
But, as many said, it didn't made sense to conquer the desert and a stable contact with Rome was too difficult without modern technologies.

I know Turks are kinda retarded, but you can't just have cities in the middle of a fucking desert.

I thought whites did conquer Africa and that's why NIGGERS claim they can't du nuffin, cuz duh whet mayne stole it all.

Whites didn't have shit in 1200 AD? Dumb fucking nigger Turks, maybe you should pick up a book from time to time.

There is nothing worse than a turk, hope the pkk ends you shit stains soon

the most important stuff was beside the nile

Lol why would they want to

I saw this same thread with the same first response a few weeks ago

Why tf would they want to conquer africa? They already conquered egypt, morocco and carthage to secure their power in the mediterranean sea, The only thing they saw further south was the saharan desert and there was literally nothing there for them except sand, and non-fertile non-habitable

Rome annexing the saharan desert would be like if the US were to take over greenland, completely fucking useless and waste of resources.

Get a life already