SC - north african climate- now way, way OT...

[Jeff Gedney]

> Okay, but I understood your earlier message to say all of the Sahara
> was grassland in Antiquity. North Africa, at least as far south as
> the Romans would have gotten still leaves a lot of the Sahara 
> untouched.
> 
> If all of the Sahara had been grasslands, and that good a breadbasket
> I imagine the Romans would have gone much further south if they hadn't
> been stopped by something such as the desert. While I haven't studied
> it, I get the impression they didn't penetrate Africa that 
> far. Certainly
> not as far as they did to the north.

in addition to what Bear has just posted on this topic, Let me add that 
the Romans did not need to go further into the Sahara.
The Romans were not so sconcerned with actual _territory_ than they 
wew with controllng _threat_. The areas of North Africa, with the 
Notable exception of Carthage and similar city states, was too sparsely
populated to cause much of a concern to the Romans, as long as they 
could effectively get grain.  
(The Great Roman expansion West seems to have occurred as the 
north of Africa was becoming desert. BTW.
I am sure there is an excellent thesis somewhere here...)

Several things to keep in mind on this notion.

The Romans lived in Italy, a south and eastward peninsula, therefore 
all major conquest threats came from the north and west so that is 
the area that had the greatest need to be under Roman control.
The German, Celtic, and Palestinian peoples regularly attacked 
Roman outposts, and therefore, to the Romans, Gaul, Germany and 
Palestine _had_ to be subdued. 
Trade routes had to be protected, Order had to be maintained, 
the Republic's security was at stake.

Britain, until the Roman Occupation, was chiefly known as a haven
for Pirates, and escaping gaulish chieftains, and was therefore a threat 
to stability in Gaul and to shipping, and so eventually had to be 
"pacified".

North Africa was not much of a trouble, after Carthage was wiped 
out, so was not much in need of being occupied and subdued.
A few cohorts would have been enough to protect huge amounts 
of territory from the nomadic berbers (who only wanted to graze 
cattle in the grain fields anyway).

Associated thoughts and notes:

Israel was called a "land overflowing with milk and honey" in 
otherwords, instead of the Deserts now there, seems to have 
been a lush and sparsely forested grassland when it was settled. 
( remember the "Cedars of Lebanon?" ) 
Desertification of the area seemed to advance around the 
time of the expansion of the Sahara, and seems to imply a major
change in the climate. A great deal of the climate change may have 
infact been driven BY the Sahara, as such a large desert does 
affect the surrounding climate.  
(moreover, the Mesopotamians could not have discovered 
largescale farming unless the area was a grassland to begin with.
the wheat/spelt had to be growing wild there in order for it to be 
found and used and then cultivated....
Perhaps what happened in the North of Africa was a repeat of 
how the Sumer kingdoms ruined their fields? another possible 
thesis topic)
Egypt (except the Nile valley areas), the Sinai, and parts of the 
Arabian peninsula seem to have been desert all along, as 
a casual reading of the various stories and other evidence 
would imply to me. (Egyptian legends and funerary practices,
story of Moses, "natural" mummification, etc.)


just my two cents.

brandu