Not true in the slightest. In fact, the very idea of wartime burning causing desertification is absurd.

For starters, just think of the size of the Sahara. It is roughly the same area as the contiguous United States. Is it really being suggested that the British burnt an area the size of the US? The British were guilty of a lot of things during their imperial period, but this particular claim sounds like anti-British nonsense.

The Sahara is naturally occurring and has existed for many thousands of years. This is a fact, backed up by scientific analysis and historical records. That is not to say that it hasn’t expanded and contracted over time, but it has nonetheless existed for Millenia.

As for North Africa being a “grain belt”, this actually has merit, but the ‘North Africa’ being referred to are the fertile regions along the Mediterranean coastline and in the Nile valley. These regions were a vital source of grain for the Roman Empire. Rome (the city) was especially reliant on grain fleets from Africa to feed its massive population.

We know the Romans dispatched many expeditions to explore the Sahara, which was crisscrossed by long established, valuable trade routes. We also know that these expeditions decline in frequency and eventually halted altogether during the Late Empire due to increasing desertification.