SC - north african climate- now way, way OT...
Jeff Gedney
JGedney at dictaphone.com
Fri Jun 23 09:33:24 PDT 2000
> 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
More information about the Sca-cooks
mailing list