Why didn't the arabs or romans conquer/settle Sub-Saharan Africa?

Inb4 they didn't need sand

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataracts_of_the_Nile
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqt
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because there was no water there so they would die

They had no use for sand.

Because there was fuck all there as far as they were concerned, just an extremely hostile climate and fauna (this includes the blacks) and an entire huge desert separating them from civilization.

It's like asking why aren't we building colonies on the Moon right now even though we technically can, it's just not worth it.

Romans: Too far from Roman infrastructure, Sahara desert in the way

Arabs: They were mostly interested in trade and slavery when it came to Sub-Saharan Africa.

Not even the phoenicians could make it inside those ports they founded after circumnavegating western Africa.

How exactly are you going to administer such a land with the Sahara and the Congo jungle in the way?

You have to think in terms of logistics.

Romans had trouble keeping colonies even in places like Judea that were easily accessible and you think they wouldn't get kicked out of a place that is completely remote and full of savages?

It's always represented the mystic, arcane, exotic throughout time. Even for the ancient Egyptians, there are accounts of places like Sudan/Ethiopia/Uganda in their writings in which they believed some of the deities they worshipped were conceived and dwelled.

But to answer more specific, to actually conquer SSA was far to much a difficult task for the Romans or Arabs. The African interior was filled to the gills with war ready tribes.

I mean just imagine trying to fight in the hot jungles against tribes who know those jungles like the back of their hands, you really stand no chance.

But they managed to hold Britan for a while

The Romans crushed plenty of warlike cultures who knew their home terrains much better than the Romans did.

The real problem is force projection; you can't send 40,000 professional soldiers across the Sahara and all the supplies they need without the expedition being prohibitively expensive. And it would be near impossible to maintain contact with Rome even if you did conquer these people.

Britain suffered constant revolts and it isn't nearly as remote, English channel is jack shit compared to the Sahara when it comes to obstacles. But good luck sending legions to another continent through a fuckhuge desert and hostile waters.

good point

But Axum was a boat trip away, and they could just sail down the Nile to get to Ethiopia

>Sudan/Ethiopia/Uganda
>Uganda
uwotm8

Egyptians never travelled that far down the river

Didn't the arabs just take slaves from the sahara? That was the most profitable thing for the blacks to trade the arabs was other blacks. What else could they have used?

Not really the cataracts made it prohibitively difficult
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataracts_of_the_Nile

I think Morocco and Oman did.

I never said they did, my point is that those lands were thought by the Egyptians to be the origins of some of their deities.

And my point is that they didn't know there was any Uganda so they couldn't fantasize about what it contains.

I think they had considered the mouth of the Nile as the mouth of Isis, or something having to do with her

Oman just sailed down the east coast of Africa.

They knew they were no match for the kangs that founded the empire.

They had some settlements for example in zanzibar. Then again i get my historical knowladge from victoria 2.

Such a good game. Still don't understand the mechanics behind population and trade. Too much to handle.

I guess it is as historically accurate as you want it to be

Zanzibar is an island off the east coast.

If you don't understand how Victoria 2 works then you're a literal idiot.

>inb4 liquor maymays

Then you should at know that it is a coastal city and oman was able to sail there

Gold, some spices perhaps. In west Africa they would have moved goods through the Sahara after they either traded or raided to get the slaves/goods. In east Africa they would have either used caravans or shipped them.

Longest enforced treaty involves arabs getting slaves
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baqt

Moroco overland and Oman by sea, fun fact Moroco was conquered by people from the Sahara

Because after the Sahara you gotta face the Congo, it's literally impossible to control all of it under a unified state