Vandals move to Morroco, not OTL area of Vandal Kingdom in Africa

[Hvalrossen]

If the Vandals settled permanently in what is today Morroco, would they be able to conquer the area and set up a kingdom there?

How would the romans react to their land in what is today part of Morroco, being conquered? Would they even care? Would they want the vandals to submit as vassals and/or tributaries? Would they mount a expedition to retake their former territory?

Would the Roman hold on Roman Africa, beside the Vandal territory be affected?

Could the Romans lose their hold on the rest of Roman Africa(outside Egypt), if the Vandals had not conquered their path to Carthage? What possibilites exist for the romans losing control in Africa(outside Egypt).

 

[InMediasRes]

They did go through Morocco on their way to the province of Africa and their eventual Kindom, no? Therefore I don't see why they couldn't conquer it. At least the area that the Romans controlled, not the modern extent of Morocco.

How would the Romans react? Probably not very much. They were unable to avert the Vandals taking the infinitely more valuable Africa province IOTL. And the Vandals were already in Hispania, to which the Romans also could barely react without relying on Foederati help. Would they care? Probably not overly much. In the end it's just the Vandals moving from one area Rome had a tenuous grasp on to another. They would probably thank God they weren't taking anything more valuable. In this scenario I don't see them taking serious efforts to retake it. Only if down the line they somehow gain enough stability and power projection to be able reconquer most of their territories. If their situation is anything like OTL they have other, more important fires to put out.

The real question is why would the Vandals content themselves with Morocco, when just next door is poorly defended Numidia, and beyond that the bountiful Africa province is ripe for the taking. Morocco was a pretty poor backwater in comparison.

 

[Hvalrossen]

They did go through Morocco on their way to the province of Africa and their eventual Kindom, no?

Yes

Therefore I don't see why they couldn't conquer it. At least the area that the Romans controlled, not the modern extent of Morocco.

What about the areas outside Roman rule? Areas like Atlantic Morroco.

The real question is why would the Vandals content themselves with Morocco, when just next door is poorly defended Numidia, and beyond that the bountiful Africa province is ripe for the taking. Morocco was a pretty poor backwater in comparison.

Maybe they find the conquest of Morroco to be more likely than that of the core of Roman Africa?

 

[InMediasRes]

What about the areas outside Roman rule? Areas like Atlantic Morroco.

I guess they could pull it off in the short term. But I'm not sure they would be able to hold on to them for too long.

But it's just a matter of cost-benefit. Why would you bother conquering poor, undeveloped territories to the west and south, which will inevitably lead to fierce resistance by tribal Berbers who know the territory and whose style of warfare make conclusive victory almost impossible? When just to your east are the much richer Numidia and Africa within easy reach. Taking on the Romans might seem like the more daunting tasks, but in reality North Africa was very poorly defended and effective military resistance was minimal.

I just don't see why any Vandal leader would want to do the former.

 

[Hvalrossen]

https://art19.com/shows/the-fall-of-rome-podcast/episodes/22916464-ffd2-4fba-9dc7-3db0e1c4f84f