How come Romans never ventured into Subsaharan Africa?

How come Romans never ventured into Subsaharan Africa?

Did they fear the Black Warrior?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa
labroots.com/trending/earth-and-the-environment/2979/sand-wars
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

nothing to conquer, no treasures to claim, no power to present rival rome.

Didn't care to conquer monkeys

The tribe of DN (Canaanites) was happy to have Sumeria all to itself again.

who wants to own sand?

...

Nothing fucking there they wanted.

The Romans were after agricultural land that they could use to settle former legionaries and provinces that had governments they could force into being vassal states that paid taxes to Rome.

Subsaharan Africa was a bunch of stone age hunter gather black people.

No people to tax (whatta gonna tax 'em for? Sharp rocks??), and the land was not suitable to their style of agriculture.

Maybe the sahara desert was a problem, fucking retarded.

Nothing there for them, Europe had a lot of resources that made Rome richer, the countries in the east equally had interesting cultures and progressive scientific methods, even Carthage made clear glass, which greatly benefitted the empire, North Africans were docile at the time, and they were great farmers, they payed their taxes and needed little to no Roman supervision.

pol in 2017 replying to obvious fat troll thread.

kys faggots

By the time they had decent infrastructure built in Africa, they got too enriched to go further. Africa is basically civilization-proof.

They saw the Sahara and were like "Not even worth crossing"

then why did the rest of europe do it thousands of years later

>No people to tax (whatta gonna tax 'em for? Sharp rocks??), and the land was not suitable to their style of agriculture.
what is Nubia?

there is a big fucking desert in the way.

>dude just go through the sahara lmfao

Nothing compared to Persia which they were rivals with. The Romans went after great civilizations not sheep-fucking niggers. Kys bait fag

I'll give you an unironic meme answer.

The Sahara was completely impassable prior to the advent of camel trains. There were no peoples with an urban culture further south worth conquering. The Garamentes were pretty civilised that they were eventually conquered. The only place you could travel south by land was in Axum/Ethiopia and even then it was impossible to send an army through the Al-Quds marshland in the Sudan. The name literally means "the barrier". The Romans sent troops into it and they tended to all die from horrific bouts of malaria. The furthest civilisation you would get in the Roman world would be the forts at the edge of the Sahara in southern Numidia.

Because the good land was taken.

Because sahara?

Bugs. More fearsome and deadly than a nigger.

nothing better to do circa 1890
>Germany occupying Namib fucking desert

the arabs did it, i guess the romans were just too afraid

suck a big fat cock ALLAHUSNACKBAR.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa

we found new ways to use their minerals.

The southern hemisphere was believed to be uninhabitable.

same reason they didnt go to picland
or why franks didnt go to brittany
or why ottomans didnt go to montenegro

because they were backwater shitholes on the other end of their empire which would take ages and tons of manpower to conquer and control and would yield little benefit

They were not interested in conquering monkeys swinging in trees, holding their hands over their mouths when laughing, using their hands to speak, chasing chickens and generally chimping out over fuck all. Then again they waz kangs.

Because there was a whole lot of nothing between them and anything worth looting. I mean from their perspective, why should they mount an expensive expedition into a wasteland that could very well go on forever with no guarantee of a return on their investment. The most they could hope for was maybe some emaciated, parasite ridden, slaves too stupid to be effective at hard labor.

The Arabs had camels

The romans read Herodotus and knew it wasn't worth the effort

it was a "if we don't conquer it now, our filthy neighbours will and we can't let that happen" scenario

Desert.

Because resource in Africa became relevant as technology progressed

They did they didn’t spread civilization there

There is eveifence of Roman trade and exposition all the way to lake Victoria

Low quality bait, but let's go apeman!

The oldest bones found in South Africa belong to Pretorian soldiers.

Also here is the Wikipedia link to the Sub Sahara Roman places, i know you are a Nigger but can't you use Google?
I sometimes think i overestimate you apes!

were the Romans retarded?

That key says Greece is about 500 miles long.

and romans controlled egypt and arabia so there was no excuse

They did, they even reached Lake Chad. Wasn't worth the effort since camels weren't present though.

the arabs can eat and drink sand to replenish themselves, race specific perk.

Ships brah good ships

They didn't want to cross the fucking Sahara, plus everything that they needed from SSA came to the empire through trade anyways
/thread

More effort than it was worth at the time, the Romans simply didn't need to conquer it

Sailing vessels really opened up the coast and the continent was opened up by rail.

they asked egyptians what the fuck was going on down there and they told them to not even bother

What do you think numidians were?

*
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa

The Romans were smart enough to know that niggers cost more than they produce, and are a drain on civilized peoples.

>were the Romans retarded?

No. The Romans were convenient. There was fuck all down there for them aside from the occasional merchant. Roman merchants would go down as far as Tanzania trading for tortoise shell, ivory and shit like that. There just no point conquering bumfuck tribal peoples. Did you never wonder why they didn't conquer Scotland? The Romans didn't conquer things accidentally, they conquered things that were worth something - Britain excepting because that was just an emperor in need of a military victory to avoid being murdered.

This would have been extremely expensive back in the days brow

To be fair they would have conquered Scotland if it had been easier. But they decide it wasn’t worth the effort.

But the rest of your points are correct they have found Roman coins all over the world due to their trade

I'm laughing imagining this
>So uh, down there is it all just those man ape things?
>Yeah, we tried giving them ball washing jobs but it wasnt worth the time

Actually the Romans would regularly conquer shit just for Imperial PR.

Doubt it, also you can sail down the ethiopian/arabian coast too or just walk. Romans were retarded though.

Read up, dipshit. Romans made concrete structures that still stand today...USING SAND.
labroots.com/trending/earth-and-the-environment/2979/sand-wars

The Romans virtually genocided the Caledonians in the early 3rd century under Septimius Severus and that kept them quiet for a good few generations. Outright keeping them under the Roman thumb directly was just too much of a pain in the arse when they could flee up into the highlands and fight guerilla-style for years.

>Actually the Romans would regularly conquer shit just for Imperial PR.

Yes but usually not exclusively. There usually had to be something worth going for, e.g. the eastern provinces were wealthy and urbanised, northern Spain has a shit load of silver mines, Dacian gold, Egyptian grain and Gaul's fertility.

The thing is, there's very little prestige in conquering peoples that the average Roman has never heard of. Everyone knew the Gauls since they had sacked Rome, Egypt was famously wealthy, the Persians a mortal enemy, the Scythians had been in all of the history books, the Numidians were famed horsemen etc. The Romans barely even know what the fuck was going on down in sub-saharan Africa. Clearly it wasn't worth it though.

The irony is that Somalia, the shitheap of the world now, was a very wealthy and urban place in antiquity as a result of all of the Roman trade flowing through the Horn from Ptolemais-Theron down to "Azania" in Africa and across to Sri Lanka.

5000 km in a boat, looks like a good idea, right?

"The first direct Roman contact was when Julius Caesar undertook two expeditions in 55 and 54 BC, as part of his conquest of Gaul, believing the Britons were helping the Gallic resistance. The first expedition was more a reconnaissance than a full invasion and gained a foothold on the coast of Kent but was unable to advance further because of storm damage to the ships and a lack of cavalry. Despite the military failure it was a political success, with the Roman Senate declaring a 20-day public holiday in Rome to honour the unprecedented achievement of obtaining hostages from Britain and defeating Belgian tribes on returning to the continent"

There was a desert there, you may have heard of it. It's called the Sahara. There's really not much in it besides sand

...

>Nothing of value there
Crossing a desert in those days?
Death sentence.

good damn, a high HDI make stupid people.

why don't you post the full map of J2, my amerimutt friend?

>controlling the merch exits at the Med sea

...

Actually they did to get the fearsome beasts, tigers, elephants, rhinos, NOT lazy niggers

...

>what are indoeuropeans

Fpniggerpost

The Sahara Desert

Not Sand but Land.

Ships likely were not suited for ocean travel. Even Portuguese had problems at first.

They didn't know the desert routes, and did not have the knowledge to travel them even if they knew them. There have been minor expeditions deeper into Africa, but the expeditions either never made it back or didn't find anything that's worth all the trouble. Also, the desert provided a strong buffer against roaming African savages, so they had no defensive or strategic need for sub-Sahara Africa.
Some trade routes got enforced and some new trading towns sprouted but, as mentioned before, there wasn't much interesting going on in Africa. They mostly traded for exotic animals.

especially when the Phoneicians did it centuries earlier

The Sahara was in the way retard.

/thread

I challenge you to march through the Sahara and then the Congo with several pounds of armor all in the name of conquering undeveloped tropical land that's barely capable of growing grain crops.

>How come Romans never ventured into Subsaharan Africa?
Assuming Romans were dumb enough to deliberately step in dog shit (pic related)

They wanted to stay within cellular range

They cast copper and Iron before Muslim contact and had agriculture
Look up west African history

True

Why didn't they go to the North Pole?

How come the Romans never conquered Ireland? Did they fear the Gaelic warrior?