Why didn't Romans just conquer all of Africa?

The sub-saharan was also afraid of a little sand, since they were never in North Africa.

I'll tell you who didn't fear the black "warrior" and it was the Eternal British Empire Upon Which the Sun Never Sets.

>posting a white man

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana
>Anglos losing to literal spear chucking niggers

The Anglo has done a lot of good for the world but their performance was pretty poor against the Zulus and in the Boer war.

The Anglos are legendary for their cowardice in battle, hence why they always lose in a disgraceful fashion whenever they actually have to fight something themselves. Even WW2 their biggest moments like Dunkirk and North African campaign involves them running away from something.

Which is why they conquered much of the known world.

By beating the french at their own game?

It's called using their colonial troops and allies as Pokemon. They're great diplomats and schemers, but horrendous fighters.

stay mad pierre

Why would anybody ever take the time out of their day to actually conquer and occupy Africa?

All you need to do if it's that important to you is show up with some guns and some cash and show them to the dindu in charge, and he'll gladly violently repress and sell his own people and their labour to you

The Roman Empire was already at its limit. It was fighting civil wars, and was facing pressure from Germanic tribes and the Parthians.

Quite simply, Africa was not worth it. The Sahara was miles of desert, so there was no easy way of marching thousands of men through there. There are rivers and seas, but it would simply be too difficult with all the other pressures facing the Romans to conquer new lands.

Their descendants got btfo by the Ethiopians twice.

>this thread again

>giving a shitposter a serious answer

>mfw we won the war
>mfw we used the diamonds of those spear chucking niggers to fund our glorious empire