Why didn't the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians etc. colonise sub saharan Africa?

Question: Why didn't the Greeks, Romans, Assyrians etc!. colonise sub saharan Africa!?
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Besides the thought that they would have seen little benefit, there is also a geographical reason: it was too far away and too hard to get an army down there!.

Armies were expected to live off the land!. They did not travel with food and water to provision themselves!. They required a land with sufficient food supply (farms and towns that they could raid) to sustain them!. There was no way to move an army across a thousand miles of desert with no fresh water except the Nile and an occasional oasis!. Following the Nile would only have led them to swamplands and mountain ranges that were virtually impassable!.

Building a fleet and going around the desert was an option, but would have been far too expensive!.

The ancients certainly knew a lot about the place!. Plato named the Mountains of the Moon!. Frescoes of East African wildlife have been found decorating walls at the Minoan island of Thera (now Santorini) from the 17th century BCE!. Exotic beasts were imported to Rome for their games!. But it was too far away for even the ambitious Romans to consider military conquest!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Lack of interest - no hope of great wealth to be found there!.

For the ROMANS there were other practical reasons!. Soldiers volunteered to serve for a set amount of time, and expected to be rewarded with the spoils of victory!. Marching into an unknown land, what could a commander promise them!? This would be like working and being told!.!.!.MAYBE you might get paid!. Soldiers were also given, as the form of their pension, lands they had conquered to be their farms!.
Where could they find such farmable land, in sub-Saharan Africa!? In short, you couldn't find soldiers to volunteer for many years, with uncertain pay, and probably no pension!.

There's a deeper question here: What about East Africa!? Why didn't the peoples you noted; Greeks, Romans, Assyrians; go further down the Nile (south) in their conquests!? Here, unlike sub-Saharan Africa, there was a good possibility of wealth and riches to be found, and they knew it!. Yet all who knew of that area, including Phoenicians and Chinese who had actually explored it, ignored it until the 19th century!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Interest!. Africa during that time other then Egypt showed no potential!. During the time of ancient Greeks, it was all about ADVANCING, Africa was on the "down low" very little technical or means of boosting ahead, as the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, etc!. The Ancient Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, Asians are best known for their achievements!. So while Africa is not contributing to the ancient world, their was no need to get "involved!."Www@QuestionHome@Com

There was no reason to venture that far, and no additional benefit would have been gained!. There were working trade routes to provide the few natural products desired by the Mediterranean states--ivory, animals, gold, etc!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

What, like Cleopatras hubby!? Or all those Ottoman guys!? Or Alexander the Great!?Www@QuestionHome@Com