Wht didn't Rome just take all of Africa?

Wht didn't Rome just take all of Africa?

Did they fear the black warrior?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_expeditions_to_Lake_Chad_and_western_Africa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudd
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Nothing there worth the hassle.

We have these every week. No. The Sahara is full of sand and hard to travel. It wouldn't have been worth conquring.

They conquered Egypt so obviously not.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa

thanks user

Logistics
Duh...

what are supply lines

HOW MANY FUCKING TIMES DO WE HAVE TO KEEP TELLING YOU TO STOP POSTING THIS FUCKING THREAD

Previously seen on last week's episode of "Why didn't Rome conquer Africa?":

>"Why didn't Rome conquer Ireland? Did they fear the black warrior?" (laugh track)

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

it wouldve been interesting if they did colonize west africa and assimilate the bantu tribes into latin speaking romans.

Same reasons the Persians didn't. Or the Arabs for that matter. Or the Egyptians themselves. Or the British.

SAHARA
DESERT

SUPPLY
LINES

Theres a large desert in the way.

why is every Veeky Forums thread about Africa completely retarded?

it's like Veeky Forums doesn't know anything about the place

Rome was an east African colony in Europe. That is why their were so successful: black African genes.

extremely difficult to maintain in the middle of the Sahara desert

>yfw you swallowed the black pill and realized sub-saharan african americans defeated the mighty roman legions, relegating the romans to the fringes of northern africa

They feared the Sahara desert, as any sane man would. By the time they were mounting expeditions, there best days were behind them and they had far bigger things to worry about.
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_expeditions_to_Lake_Chad_and_western_Africa
Also to say the Bantus were farming below the Congo in the even the latter Roman era is a tad controversial.

>take over all of africa
>now you have tens of millions of "people" that genetically and culturally can't function in a civilized society

a full on genocide had to happen which is wholly unefficient with swords and bows

What is intercontinental communication

>Egypt

>black

Pick one nigger.

My more realistic question:

Why didn't Rome conquer Nubia and Ethiopia?

I mean, I know they failed once to conquer Nubia but come on.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudd

Because the sahara was in the way

What the hell are you on about?

didn't we hqve this thread before and it was explained perfectly and logically? The Sahara desert is a bitch to cross and Africa is hot as hell with many predators(including malaria carrying misquitos). The end.
Seriously, how much time do you have to continue the exact samr hread that already was answered just so you can,shit post? Repeated threads or generals are better spent on historical things like armor and fashion. At least that makes sense. Goodness I hate all of you!

Didn't they bring black slaves to fight in the coloseum ?

this AGAIN!

why dont you want to go to sub saharan africa OP? The romans probably had similar reasons. Place is a primordial death trap filled with disease and predatory animals the evolved alongside humans and know how to kill them.

why would the black rulers of rome be scared of their own kind?