Why didn't Romans just conquer all of Africa
Did they fear the BLACK warrior?
>>3232766
Yeah they totally feared small tribes that used wooden spears
>>3232773
not only that, but blacks themselves
pic related, descendant of AFRICA versus descendant of Rome.
The Sahara might as well be an ocean
>>3232766
Have you ever tried driving across Arkansas? Thats why the Romans didnt conquer Africa.
>>3232970
The heat and the fact that it's thousands of miles long, more than anything
>>3232970
They could've sailed along the coast to establish colonies and later subjugate the inland tribes with a huge armada. But it wouldve been too costly for little resources they wouldve gotten in return and many men would die from african diseases.
>>3232786
Blacks are amazing.
Whites are disgusting.
They already had enough slaves as it is.
>>3232766
Logistics
Duh!
West Africa? There was nothing fucking there. They made some strides getting to Lake Chad and river Niger but beyond that really it was too far away and too hard to get too, especially with naval technology at the time.
East Africa may have been doable, but the Nile is impassable swamps as you get to Sudan, and pirates from out of Parthia and Arabia made getting to India by sea just as much of a headache as going over land. It really wasn't until you had large ships capable of sailing into the ocean out of reach of local Kang Gibmedats could trade between west and east safely be established.
>>3233029
>They could've sailed along the coast
Actually, sailing along the Moroccan coast is impossible without going out to the open ocean. Europeans didn't manage it until 1434.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Bojador
>>3232766
>Did they fear the BLACK warrior?
They conquered Egypt, so that can't be the case
>>3232766
Don't reply to this thread. It's some Turkish guy from pol. But every time he makes a post there everyone sages him and calls him a turkroach. Sage and move onto an actuall discussion.
>this thread again