Another problem with colonizing Uganda, or other tropical regions, is disease. Prior to the development of antibiotics such regions were deathtraps for Europeans. It would be impossible to keep a colony there when your colonists are dying like flies, and any enthusiasm for such a venture would quickly vanish once the results were known in Rome.
Why didn't the Roman empire expand to Uganda?
- Thread starter arcee
- Start date
Has no one mentioned the Kingdom of Kush yet? It controlled the Nile immediately to the south of Egypt. The Romans tried to conquer it, and failed. The Kushites sent them packing, and the Romans were content to honour the resulting peace treaties afterwards as they had problematic peoples closer to home in Europe to fight.
Also, horses and oxen severely limited by Tse-Tse flies. Saheli empires never made it to Uganda, let alone Europeans.
One can also see what happened to white Portuguese and white Turks when they intervened in the Somali-Ethiopian wars in the 16th century (hint: they died to disease, mostly).
Sorry to take too long to answer. I'm on limited time. Any way, thanks for all your thoughts and answers.
I've always had this idea that with the borders secure, the barbarians quite and the empire stable, an emperor, in an effort to keep a general from challenging him, would send him to Egypt to find the source of the Nile or be executed. So the general would raise up an expeditionary force, negotiate with the Nubians and other powers to reach the swamps of Southern Sudan. There he would skirt the edges of the swamp and would then follow the Nile until he reaches Lake Victoria. Upon reaching the lake and concluding that he has reached the source of the Nile, the general would then retrace his steps and go back to Rome and depose the emperor. Once an emperor, he expands the empire from that foothold. Of course this doesn't take into account of the diseases his expeditionary force might face.
I've always had this idea that with the borders secure, the barbarians quite and the empire stable, an emperor, in an effort to keep a general from challenging him, would send him to Egypt to find the source of the Nile or be executed. So the general would raise up an expeditionary force, negotiate with the Nubians and other powers to reach the swamps of Southern Sudan. There he would skirt the edges of the swamp and would then follow the Nile until he reaches Lake Victoria. Upon reaching the lake and concluding that he has reached the source of the Nile, the general would then retrace his steps and go back to Rome and depose the emperor. Once an emperor, he expands the empire from that foothold. Of course this doesn't take into account of the diseases his expeditionary force might face.
Grey Wolf
Donor
One could see a general ordered to do this, but even if he were willing to obey what is strategically an irrelevant order, it WOULD be an expedition, they would find it, map it, and then the survivors would go home. Maybe they would erect a monument or temple, but not a permanent settlement.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf