Why didn't the Romans conquer all of Africa?
Did they fear the black warrior?
>>2935184
>Did they fear the black warrior?
No. As I stated in the last thread, the fact that they conquered Egypt would indicate otherwise.
Yeah! Let's conquer all this empty sand, I am sure that will work out just fine.
>Making the same thread over and over again
What's your end game?
>>2935184
>>2935195
This, OP.
>>2935184
how many times have we had this thread already?
crossing the Sahara was a fools errand, only done by small trading caravans who were prepared for the journey, and was arguably impossible at the time to keep an entire army alive and well fed for the entire march.
second is that they had trade contact with Ethiopia, they had an idea on what was there, and that conquering the territory wasn't worth the cost in men and money, and that the trade relationship with people down the Nile River was good enough to get African goods.
Empires don't just conquer useless land because it's there like your Paradox games, there needs to be something that's worth paying 50,000+ soldiers, feeding and supplying them, and have the means to administrate the land once you're there in order for it all to be worth the investment put into the conquest.
It is rumored that one african warrior could take out 10+ romans.
>>2935184
Silly OP, we've had this thread the other day. Is it (you)'s you want?
We already had this exact thread.
>>2936233
We did?
>>2935188
>egypt
>black
WE
based black warrior poster
>>2935184
History has lied to you. the romans were indeed black men. The reason they held land in North Africa was because the white people had recently conquered that part of Africa and they had to take it back. They didn't push deeper into Africa because the people living there were already BLACK.
It was the ewoks man.
>>2935209
Why would someone even shill Venice? What's the point?
>>2935184
Short answer: yes, the average black male has the physical strength to take on 3 average white men and still win, even in Roman times they knew this and that was before gunpowder so they had pretty much no advantage against the Africans
>>2935624
No No, you're thinking of Italy vs Abyssinia
>>2937066
WE WUZ IMPERATORS ET SHIEEET
Same reason they didn't conquer Scotland. Rome thrived because they conquered and incorporated areas of interest that could help the empire become stronger. Spending resources to incorporate regions that wouldn't give ample enough back to the empire (like other regions of Africa) only causes a deffcit
>>2935188
>being so scared of accepting European weaknesses that you pretend that Egyptians were black
the absolute state of Roman Empirelet fanboys
>>2935184
They hardly interacted with the blacks at all, those were berbers. The blacks were on the other side of the Sahara. How do you march an armor-clad army across a desert?
>>2936456
Yes
>>2935184
Real life is not EU 4 game.
>>2935188
>Implying Egypt was black
What did he mean by this?
Why the fuck would the Romans conquer themselves?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa
>>2935184
because there's not much use in conquering the largest desert in the world...
>>2940164
saged
>>2940304
Bumped
>>2939233
When a wikipedia article has a map obviously made in paint it means that it must be legit.
>>2938737
Egypt is in Africa
>>2935184
Same reason the British, French, Germans, Belgians, Persians, Turks, Arabs, etc...didn't.
Don't want to start another thread but I've been wondering something
What's /his/ opinion on those theories that says romans had found America?
Spam thread again.