Plausibility check: Roman Exansion into the Sudan/Arabia?

[Deleted member 67076]

Could the Romans (or Early Byzantines) expand into the Sudan and/or Arabia and hold it for at least 200 years?

 

[Ravenflight]

Could the Romans (or Early Byzantines) expand into the Sudan and/or Arabia and hold it for at least 200 years?

Could? Easily. Why didn't they? It was too far for too little financial gain. Now if you can show them a financial reason to do it, no problem at all.

 

[Ashtagon]

Could? Easily. Why didn't they? It was too far for too little financial gain. Now if you can show them a financial reason to do it, no problem at all.

Wouldn't it cut out a lot of middlemen for the spice trade? Not to mention make it a bit easier to obtain large carnivores for the coliseums. Ivory was possibly also a viable trade good even then.

 

[Scorpius72]

If they'd ended up occupying the Hejaz reaching Yemen (Which had some valuable land and trade in things like spices) and held it for at least 200 years Islam would've been butterflied away as the area in question would've been thoroughly Romanised also if they got their hands on Yemen it would've given them a direct sea-route to India and its valuable spice-trade.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Augustus had a crack at it, but by all accounts his attempt was rather half hearted: and by that time I'd argue that the impetus for large conquests was fading.

As for the early Byzantines: the governments of Justin I and Justinian the Great did actively intervene in the area, toppling Jewish Arab regimes and replacing them with Ethiopian-sponsored clients. Justinian certainly seems to have regarded the region of Ethiopia and the Red Sea as being client territory of Constantinople.

 

[Scorpius72]

It's a pity that Justinian didn't try to conquer Jeddah, Yathrib and especially Mecca as otherwise history would've gone very differently.

 

[Ravenflight]

Wouldn't it cut out a lot of middlemen for the spice trade? Not to mention make it a bit easier to obtain large carnivores for the coliseums. Ivory was possibly also a viable trade good even then.

Sure, but Rome used its allies whenever it could. It had allies in such as the Palmyrans and had problems with Judea the whole f'ing time!!! so it was more (IMHO) a case of not having a stable staging area.

And what

said here (post 8)

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

Wouldn't it cut out a lot of middlemen for the spice trade? Not to mention make it a bit easier to obtain large carnivores for the coliseums. Ivory was possibly also a viable trade good even then.

Thing is though, although in hindsight things like the Indian Ocean spice trade look important but it was of marginal importance for the Roman economy. What really mattered was grain-hence Egypt and North Africa. Yes, it might have made the Caesars a bit of money and made nobles' lives a bit easier if trade with the east was under closer imperial control, but it's just not that important in terms of all the issues facing the empire.

Put it this way: if the choice is defending the Danube-Rhine-Euphrates frontiers (which consumed most of the empire's military resources) or holding Yemen, the borders will win every time.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

The Romans for a time did occupy at least part of the Hejaz, integrating it into their existing Arabia Petraea province. Legionnaires were based in the former Nabatean city of Mada'in Saleh there.
There were also trading settlements with a limited Roman presence along parts of the Arabian coast to help facilitate the Indian trade, although not as part of the Empire per se. Many of these ports were later avoided by the Roman/Indian trade to cut out the middleman (and the pirates!). At one time the Roman navy stomped on what is now Aden to suppress the trade threats of competition by the South Arabians and the pirate activity that grew out of that competition. Roman ports on the Egyptian side of the Red Sea were favored and ultimately made the Arabian ports redundant.

As for the Sudan, OTL, the Romans at one point tried to conquer Kush and did for a time actually clientize the kingdom of Meroë (above the 4th cataract of the Nile) in the northern Sudan.

So there was OTL expansion into both areas of a sort. But beyond trade route stability and defense concerns, the Romans didn't really care about either region.

 

[Geredis]

So there was OTL expansion into both areas of a sort. But beyond trade route stability and defense concerns, the Romans didn't really care about either region.

Could it be feasible then if you have, say, a Kushite or Abyssinian invasion that tries snap up parts of Egypt from the Romans, a punitive campaign that then ends up basically integrating the Sudan and African coast of the Red Sea to Rome more fully? In doing so, it seems only logical to take the far shore as well and turn the Red Sea into a second Roman Lake.

Now as for the Kushite/Abyssnian thing, I imagine that the conquest would be occurring less because they want the land, and more because they don't want trouble in the southern frontiers any more than might well be necessary.

Of course, with such a situation, you might well only hold it for 100, 200 years max, but it could still be enough to leave a lasting impact, before the Romans start to wonder why they are there at this sandy end of the earth.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Could it be feasible then if you have, say, a Kushite or Abyssinian invasion that tries snap up parts of Egypt from the Romans, a punitive campaign that then ends up basically integrating the Sudan and African coast of the Red Sea to Rome more fully? In doing so, it seems only logical to take the far shore as well and turn the Red Sea into a second Roman Lake.

Now as for the Kushite/Abyssnian thing, I imagine that the conquest would be occurring less because they want the land, and more because they don't want trouble in the southern frontiers any more than might well be necessary.

Of course, with such a situation, you might well only hold it for 100, 200 years max, but it could still be enough to leave a lasting impact, before the Romans start to wonder why they are there at this sandy end of the earth.

There were a number of punitive expeditions launched against the Kushites and the Red Sea periphery "Blemmyes", a nomadic Kushistic people. These had varying results. As mentioned, Meroë was at one point clientized. Rome, it seemed, already had what it wanted/needed on the Red Sea and again, Roman priorities were elsewhere. These punitive expeditions seemed to be launched with limited resources and consequently, limited aims.

The ERE's fostering of the spread of Christianity had the greatest enduring impact of all Roman endeavors in the region, removing Kush/Nubia as a threat and bringing it more into the Roman cultural orbit.

Abyssinia was never in the Roman crosshairs. Later, when Axum arose and Christianized, the ERE saw it as both an ally and as a kind of client.