Roman African slave trade

[octoberman]

As a Rome started losing a lot of wars it run out of supply of slaves due to which return to serfdom. After its fall Muslims introduced camels widely in the Sahara desert and conquer Swahili coast. They raided sub saharan Africa for slaves or bought captured slaves from allied chiefs. They were marched across the desert or shipped across the Indian Ocean to the Middle East and beyond

So what if the Romans created this slave trade centuries before ?

 

[Mildtryth]

The problem is that the camel was only introduced to the Sahara around the 3rd century or so, and it took a couple of centuries until it had a effect on trade routes, by which time it was too late for Rome.

 

[Matador de Lagartos]

What if Romes colonizes South America?

 

[CountofDooku]

My question would be why, Romans allready had extensive slave groups even before spreading out of Italy and nearby Barbaric Tribes, Gauls, Germans later Slavs were much closer and assumingly therefore easier to catch or pay slavers to catch them then many Africans, especially Sub-Saharan ones I would assume. While better transport animals like Camels might get something started, I doubt it would become as massive then OTL, given the other available closer slave sources of the Romans.

 

[octoberman]

The problem is that the camel was only introduced to the Sahara around the 3rd century or so, and it took a couple of centuries until it had a effect on trade routes, by which time it was too late for Rome.

We can have them introduced earlier

 

[ruffino]

Maybe by sea, during the time of the pharaohs expeditions went to what is today Ethiopia, maybe an explorer ambitious enough to finance an expedition could reach a settlement or create a colony from which to create a trade route.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

You don't need Camels to cross the Sahara during Roman times due to the Garamantes having enough stopping points in their empire to allow travel via horse. A Red Sea trade route as mentioned above also makes the slave trade viable.

Enslaving Celts and Germans is also a possibilty.

 

[ruffino]

Furthermore, I think that if the Romans had been interested in trying to prop up petty kings as client states in some areas (Ireland, north of Hadrian's Wall...), it might have allowed Rome to obtain a more or less constant supply of slaves.

 

[octoberman]

You don't need Camels to cross the Sahara during Roman times due to the Garamantes having enough stopping points in their empire to allow travel via horse. A Red Sea trade route as mentioned above also makes the slave trade viable.

Enslaving Celts and Germans is also a possibilty.

It is extremely hard to feed horses in a desert and even harder in one as larger the Sahara

 

[Evil Crusader]

It is extremely hard to feed horses in a desert and even harder in one as larger the Sahara

The Sahara used to be far smaller, and even green in pre-historic times.
That said, usual concerns of yours apply (trying to force the happening, so to speak; not openly implausibile, but a fair bit out of plausible territory), but it's likely no amount of slave trade could fuel Rome's needs, not without destroying Roman economy. Usual assumptions are on the hundreds of thousands of new slaves, annually; that's an amount only warfare can provide.

 

[Flavius Iulius Maiorianus]

Rome wasn't wholly dependent on slavery anyway; After the last big wars of the Late Republic, slavery slowly decline during the Principate, and slaves probably made up around 12% of the total population of the empire. Comparable to the United States as a whole in 1860, with the slaves being more dispersed instead of concentrated in one region, although Italy would have the highest concentration of slaves. The Romans had a large free workforce as well, and free workers actually made up the majority of the workforce during the Principate. Slaves were still prevelant and widely used, but they didn't force free workers out of jobs.