Wht didn't Rome just take all of Africa? Did they

>>2995222
Nothing there worth the hassle.

>>2995222
We have these every week. No. The Sahara is full of sand and hard to travel. It wouldn't have been worth conquring.

>>2995222
They conquered Egypt so obviously not.

>>2995222
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_in_Sub-Saharan_Africa

>>2995270
thanks anon

File: image.jpg (31KB, 576x536px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 576x536px

>>2995222
Logistics
Duh...

>>2995546
>>2995222
what are supply lines

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

>>2995222
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)

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

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

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

>>2995222
Same reasons the Persians didn't. Or the Arabs for that matter. Or the Egyptians themselves. Or the British.

>>2995222
SAHARA
DESERT

SUPPLY
LINES

>>2995222
Theres a large desert in the way.

why is every /his/ thread about Africa completely retarded?

it's like /his/ doesn't know anything about the place

File: caesar_berlin.jpg (53KB, 323x450px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 323x450px

>>2995222
Rome was an east African colony in Europe. That is why their were so successful: black African genes.

>>2995569
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

>>2995222
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.
https://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.

>>2995222
>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

>>2995569
What is intercontinental communication

>>2995233
>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.

>>2998680
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudd

>>2995222
Because the sahara was in the way

>>2996552
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?