Losses Of Roman Territory

[Kathleenb]

Roman territory reached its greatest extent under Trajan. There were losses during the period 235-270 during the civil wars, then Aurelian restored most of the earlier boundaries between 270-275.

From looking at a map of the empire in 337, it looks like Rome still (again) possessed most of its territory under Constantine. (If I'm reading it correctly - no key for its color-coding, duh)

I don't have a map showing territorial extent for when Theodosian divided the empire in 395; was the Roman Empire still relatively intact?

By 450 Britain was gone (no longer under the Empire's control), parts of Gaul and Germany and Africa were gone... by 476 more of Gaul became independent rather than an ally of the empire

 

Anyone care to straighten out for me the details of what therritory was lost when and how and to whom? Or point me to a web site that will do it for me? I'm still working at cramming all the Empire period facts into my brain.... I'm better (a little) at the Republican period...

 

Thanks.

Edited March 15, 2006 by Kathleenb

[Northern Neil]

In 395, the Empire's boundaries were still much the same as in Trajan's time, with the exception of southern Scotland, parts of mesopotamia, the Rhine/Danube angle and Dacia (these were lost by 270). The excellent 'New Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History' by Colin McEvedy (Check Amazon for availability) provides a step by step series of maps in which the shrinkage of the Empire is marked at various intervals. Up until 420 the Empire's boundaries were still roughly equivalent to those in Augustus' day; by 425 the Goths had gained Aquitania; by 440 Northern Spain had been lost to the seuvi, and parts of Africa to the Vandals. The left bank of the Rhine had also been lost. By 460 much of Gaul and Spain had been lost, as well as the Balearics and Sardinia. By 470 the Western Empire comprised Italy and a stretch of southern Gaul. By contrast the east was virtually untouched.

[Neos Dionysos]

In 395, the Empire's boundaries were still much the same as in Trajan's time, with the exception of southern Scotland, parts of mesopotamia, the Rhine/Danube angle and Dacia (these were lost by 270). The excellent 'New Penguin Atlas of Mediaeval History' by Colin McEvedy (Check Amazon for availability) provides a step by step series of maps in which the shrinkage of the Empire is marked at various intervals. Up until 420 the Empire's boundaries were still roughly equivalent to those in Augustus' day; by 425 the Goths had gained Aquitania; by 440 Northern Spain had been lost to the seuvi, and parts of Africa to the Vandals. The left bank of the Rhine had also been lost. By 460 much of Gaul and Spain had been lost, as well as the Balearics and Sardinia. By 470 the Western Empire comprised Italy and a stretch of southern Gaul. By contrast the east was virtually untouched.

 

 

Dacia was actually abandoned by Aurelian who felt that it was too large and too far from Roman Lines... (meaning to much across the Danube), to effectively control and manage...

 

Also, it should be noted that the Visigoths in Gaul and Spain was land given to them by the Romans... so perhaps to us it would seem 'lost land' but to the Emperor, they were acting as the garrison troops and defenders and still sent him his portion of the taxes... meaning they were the new governors...

[Primus Pilus]

It should also be noted that the great bulk of Trajan's eastern 'conquests' (matters were still very much unsettled) were given up almost immediately after his death by Hadrian.

[Tobias]

I don't have a map showing territorial extent for when Theodosian divided the empire in 395; was the Roman Empire still relatively intact?

 

I believe Theodosius ruled over a relatively intact empire - it was when Arcadius and Honorius took control that things began to happen....in terms of decline

[Northern Neil]

Also, it should be noted that the Visigoths in Gaul and Spain was land given to them by the Romans... so perhaps to us it would seem 'lost land' but to the Emperor, they were acting as the garrison troops and defenders and still sent him his portion of the taxes... meaning they were the new governors...

 

..although after a few years the tax revenues no longer made it to Rome. From thence, the Visigoths had a kingdom which was independent in every way that mattered.

[Neos Dionysos]

..although after a few years the tax revenues no longer made it to Rome. From thence, the Visigoths had a kingdom which was independent in every way that mattered.

 

Of which was due to corruption of officals... the army taking more pay from previous losses, the Visigoths not paying and Rome losing civil control of the land b/w them and the Goths to Bagaudae... and after a certain point, the Visigoths for the most part simply refused to acknowledge Roman soverginity over them...

Edited March 15, 2006 by Neos Dionysos