Nubians

[rvmaximus]

The Egyptians had a huge influence from the Nubians and othe sub saharan Africans and with their reputation of fierceness it would seem natural for the Romans to seek them out for milatary service. Only think I could find was Sir Morris or St.Morris,who allegedly carried the spear that pierced Jesus into battles. I know there were black gladiators but legionaires?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Oh, I think you're thinking about the Theban legion. I don't think the Romans had ever or barely a legion that was recruited in Egypt. The story I kinda believe is true, but I don't know.

[PVarro]

I would just like to add I would love to know why the Romans didn't push further south into Nubia or for that matter further south along the Atlantic coastline. If anyone has any information on this, I would be very grateful.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I would just like to add I would love to know why the Romans didn't push further south into Nubia or for that matter further south along the Atlantic coastline. If anyone has any information on this, I would be very grateful.

 

Wasteland. It just was not worth it. Anyway most emperors had a anti-conquering mindset by the empire with a few rare exceptions like Trajan. An emperor generally didn't have anything to prove like Roman Republican statesmen did, and was more interested in maintaining the status quo. Spending money and allocating troops to dubious annexations of empty lands full of myth and barbarians endangered that status quo.

[Rameses the Great]

Also, the Romans needed northern Egypt for the grain supplies to feed their citizens in Rome. Since most of the lands the Romans had was not farmable they needed a place that would supply enough food through the empire. If they annexed Nubia that would have added to their problems. Another point that can be made, was that Northern Egypt was consolidated into one nation that had ties to the Mediterranian. Nubia is more on the side of Africa.

[Primus Pilus]

Campaigns against the Nubians were attempted in the reign of Augustus by Cornelius Gallus and Gaius Petronius. The Gallus campaign was ill fated while Petronius sacked Napata.

 

Either way, it was a logistical nightmare to hold and as Favonius suggested earlier, there really was no apparant good reason to do so.

[WotWotius]

Wasn't a perfectly persevered bust of Octavian found in the sands of Nubia? It may well have been stolen by the Nubians during Cornelius Gallus' term as prefect of Egypt (26-23 BC); during which he, as stated above, led an unsuccessful raid into Nubia (the result of which is greatly falsified when referred to in Augustus' Res Gestae), and was on the receiving end of a counter attack led by the Nubian queen, Candace Amanirenas. Both of these disastrous events brought Gallus into disgrace, and rather than face prosecution by Augustus, he took his own life.

 

However, the bust could just as well be evidence for Roman influence spreading to this area outside the imperial wing of the empire. Though having said this, the former explanation seems to be more likely.

 

Anyway, if my memory serves me correctly, I do believe the bust is on display in the British Museum.

Edited August 16, 2006 by WotWotius

[WotWotius]

Below is a picture of the bust mentioned above.

 

Edited August 17, 2006 by WotWotius

[WotWotius]

According to Herodotus, the Persian king, Cambyses led a failed military expedition in Nubia.

 

Thereafter every other expectation into Nubia initiated by later monarchs

[Antiochus III]

I read Tom Holland's book, Persian Fire, and in it it explains how certain groups (like the Persians) manage to conquer things quickly, and then expansion suddenly comes to a screeching halt, with some rulers still attempting conquest, but ultimately failing. Cyrus the Great conquered nearly all of the Persian empire, and then his son Cambyses led his own successful expedition to Egypt, only to find soon after that other provinces were in revolt, and then Bardiya (his bro) was looking to unseat Cambyses as king. Since Cambyses needed to leave Egypt so soon to try and consolidate his own power, his further expansion in the region was cut off.

 

Antiochus III

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici

I would just like to add I would love to know why the Romans didn't push further south into Nubia or for that matter further south along the Atlantic coastline. If anyone has any information on this, I would be very grateful.

 

Wasteland. It just was not worth it. Anyway most emperors had a anti-conquering mindset by the empire with a few rare exceptions like Trajan. An emperor generally didn't have anything to prove like Roman Republican statesmen did, and was more interested in maintaining the status quo. Spending money and allocating troops to dubious annexations of empty lands full of myth and barbarians endangered that status quo.

Claudius certainly didn't think so regarding Brittania; neither did Augustus regarding Nubia, where he actually pushed further south.

Judging by his Res Gestae Divi Augusti, he had a lot to prove, dubious annexations included (cp. XXVI):

 

Meo iuss

Edited August 13, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Emperor Goblinus]

Salve, Amici

I would just like to add I would love to know why the Romans didn't push further south into Nubia or for that matter further south along the Atlantic coastline. If anyone has any information on this, I would be very grateful.

 

Wasteland. It just was not worth it. Anyway most emperors had a anti-conquering mindset by the empire with a few rare exceptions like Trajan. An emperor generally didn't have anything to prove like Roman Republican statesmen did, and was more interested in maintaining the status quo. Spending money and allocating troops to dubious annexations of empty lands full of myth and barbarians endangered that status quo.

Claudius certainly didn't think so regarding Brittania; neither did Augustus regarding Nubia, where he actually pushed further south.

Judging by his Res Gestae Divi Augusti, he had a lot to prove, dubious annexations included (cp. XXVI):

 

Meo iuss

[Andreas]

Had the cutthroat military competion of the Roman Republic endured the rest of Africa might've seen more of the Romans.

 

But as it were the Roman Emperors had more than enough on their plates with the Parthians and the Sassanids and the Germans to contemplate an even worse logistical nightmare in Africa south of the Sahara IMO.

 

As regarding West Africa it was in modern colonial times known as the White Man's Grave as tropical diseases killed up to 50% of Europeans within a year of coming there. This might've been a terrible enough protection to ward off even the Romans who didn't really have much to gain from it either considering their agriculture and civilization was based on a completely other climate.