Maps of the Roman Empire

[Thracianus]

Greetings learned ones,

 

This is my first time on this very interesting site. I am by no means a specialist of the Roman history. But, having been borne and raised in Istanbul, and not totally ignorant of history, I have a great deal of interest in it, especially the part which is called "Byzantine" by most people.

 

May I begin by proposing a discussion on a relatively minor topic. For years I have been surprised to see maps claiming to represent the Roman Empire "at its greatest extent" to include, almost systematically, all of Mesopotamia and Armenia, stretching the eastern frontier of the Empire to the shores of the Caspian Sea. I noticed that the map on sale that is shown on this web site, as you enter, as well as the one on the "Maps" page do the same (see links below).

 

And yet, don't we know that the said regions (Mesopotamia and Armenia east of Euphrates) have only been the scene of an invasion that has lasted from A.D. 114 to 117 and ended with a military disaster, including the death of Trajan. There have been smaller invasion before and after, which have lasted even shorter.

 

Does it make any sense to pretend that Romans ruled these two regions in any meaningful manner? Keeping to the same logic, we might as well include Most of Germany and Austria in the Russian Empire, since the armies of Kutuzov marched up and down these countries during much of the Napoleonic Wars.

 

What sort of twisted logic has resulted in this error? And, more importantly, why is it so pervasive? I hardly remember a map of the Roman Empire that does not include the mentioned areas. Or, is it the result of a grudge that has not yet been satisfied? Are Romans, and their contemporary map makers, still burning with the desire to avenge Carrhae, and the later Roman defeats (under Valerian, Julian) in the hands of the Iranian - oops sorry, I should have said the Persians.

 

An adjunct questions which specialists may be able to answer. Has this issue been raised before in the scientific community?

 

I will greatly appreciate your thoughts and insights on these questions.

 

Vale,

 

Thracianus

 

http://www.unrv.com/roman-map-for-sale.php

 

http://www.unrv.com/roman-empire-map.php

[Primus Pilus]

It's based upon the evidence at that particular moment in time. Rome controlled Mesopotamia and Armenia, albeit shortly, and it was thusly it's "Greatest Extent". Both provinces were officially annexed, and in fact continued under a state of disputed control through various moments in the course of history (Septimius Severus, Diocletion...)

 

It has nothing to do with modern political connotations.

 

[EDIT: I removed the images as they distorted the page layout... links are still there for anyone who cares.]

[DecimusCaesar]

Perhaps the prescence of the Romans in Mesopotamia wasn't that small. For instance, one of the best sites that has yeilded Roman military artefacts is Dura Europus in Iraq.

[Thracianus]

It's based upon the evidence at that particular moment in time. Rome controlled Mesopotamia and Armenia, albeit shortly, and it was thusly it's "Greatest Extent". Both provinces were officially annexed, and in fact continued under a state of disputed control through various moments in the course of history (Septimius Severus, Diocletion...)

 

It has nothing to do with modern political connotations.

 

[EDIT: I removed the images as they distorted the page layout... links are still there for anyone who cares.]

 

Thanks. You have a point, but it still sounds like a defence of orthodoxy more than anything else. Romans may have thought that these areas were "officially annexed", whereas someone else - for instance the Parthians or the Sassanidae - may have though of them as officially belonging to themselves, with evidence on their side.

 

If mere occupation during a hapless military campaign is enough, then a much greater part of Germany should also be shown as Roman, as it was occupied in early 1st C. Perhaps you will tell me that it was not "officially" occupied.

 

Thanks for having taken the time to reply.

 

Perhaps the prescence of the Romans in Mesopotamia wasn't that small. For instance, one of the best sites that has yeilded Roman military artefacts is Dura Europus in Iraq.

 

Thanks for your reply.

The value of finds from Dura is well taken but. But this is not proof of meaningful Roman control in Mesopotamia in general. Nobody denies that Dura was a frontier fortress. But that is all it was.

[Primus Pilus]

It's based upon the evidence at that particular moment in time. Rome controlled Mesopotamia and Armenia, albeit shortly, and it was thusly it's "Greatest Extent". Both provinces were officially annexed, and in fact continued under a state of disputed control through various moments in the course of history (Septimius Severus, Diocletion...)

 

It has nothing to do with modern political connotations.

 

[EDIT: I removed the images as they distorted the page layout... links are still there for anyone who cares.]

 

Thanks. You have a point, but it still sounds like a defence of orthodoxy more than anything else. Romans may have thought that these areas were "officially annexed", whereas someone else - for instance the Parthians or the Sassanidae - may have though of them as officially belonging to themselves, with evidence on their side.

 

If mere occupation during a hapless military campaign is enough, then a much greater part of Germany should also be shown as Roman, as it was occupied in early 1st C. Perhaps you will tell me that it was not "officially" occupied.

 

I didn't say that anything was officially occupied or not. I said it was annexed. It is in writing. Whether or not the Parthians agreed or disagreed is not relevant. As I said, it may have been short term, but the record indicates that this was the extent of the official borders in AD 117.

 

Additionally, a portion of Germania Magna was annexed between the Rhine and the Elbe Rivers. It was abandoned after the Teutoburg affair and the subsequent punitive campaigns of Germanicus of course, but it doesn't change the fact that it had been established as a governed territory for a short time. If you look on our map, you will see that we also clearly indicate that this portion of Germania was once part of the empire, but that in AD 117, it was not. In fact, if you were to see the actual printed version of our map, you would see that we clearly mark Mesopotamia and Assyria as only temporary expansion.

[Moonlapse]

I can understand your point. Singular static maps that try to encompass so many subtleties will necessarily be misleading without a copious amount of written explanation. The wall map, in addition to as much visual information as we could cram on it, still required several paragraphs of text in the legend to clarify some of the more important issues while leaving out numerous other minor ones.

 

We do plan on a more interactive and accurate version to replace our province map. As Primus Pilus said, the wall map does address these issues already. In fact, the map indicates that much of Mesopotamia was not even annexed.

[ModernMarvel]

Well, one thing that I would say about Armenia, is the fact that during Nero's reign Armenia was more or less a Roman protectorate. Even though Vologese of Parthia (I think it was Parthia) laid claim to it, AND the fact that he utterly destroyed the army of Paetus, he admittedly did not want to fight Corbulo. Corbulo was the "Stormin' Norman" of the Empire during this time, and was an excellent commander that Vologese did not wish to fight. Armenia technically did belong to Rome. However, in Roman fashion, they installed a "king" that was Pro-Roman (a relative of Herod the Great, but I don't remember his name....it was like Tiger or something )

 

As far as Mesopotamia goes, I would think that since the Arab/Hebrew regions were in such close and deep contact as they were (in history, cultural habits, and taboos) the Romans would at least have a strong influence in the region since they controlled Judea.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

Marv

 

Source: The Annals, Tacitus

 

P.S. This is my first post, and thanks ya'll (Southern talk) for having me!

[Thracianus]

Well, one thing that I would say about Armenia, is the fact that during Nero's reign Armenia was more or less a Roman protectorate. Even though Vologese of Parthia (I think it was Parthia) laid claim to it, AND the fact that he utterly destroyed the army of Paetus, he admittedly did not want to fight Corbulo. Corbulo was the "Stormin' Norman" of the Empire during this time, and was an excellent commander that Vologese did not wish to fight. Armenia technically did belong to Rome. However, in Roman fashion, they installed a "king" that was Pro-Roman (a relative of Herod the Great, but I don't remember his name....it was like Tiger or something )

 

As far as Mesopotamia goes, I would think that since the Arab/Hebrew regions were in such close and deep contact as they were (in history, cultural habits, and taboos) the Romans would at least have a strong influence in the region since they controlled Judea.

 

Just a thought.

 

 

Marv

 

Source: The Annals, Tacitus

 

P.S. This is my first post, and thanks ya'll (Southern talk) for having me!

 

Thank you for this informative perspective. I guess, in judging whether a place should be considered as Roman or not, the first questions that come to my mind are things like whether Roman laws were in force, whether Roman political culture shaped the local power structure, whether economic life (e.g., landholding structure) was organised in a way similar to the rest of the Empire and in a way closely linked to it, and the like. Mere influence is not enough. I am sure Rome had some influence even in Iran proper or over the Teutonic tribes. From these perspectives the Roman hold on Armenia and Mesopotamia seem rather tenuous.

 

One day, it may also be useful to discuss how well Romans really controlled Judea and surrounding regions. Everytime I turn to that part of the world, whether the subject matter has to do with Seleucid times, or those of Herod, or Hadrian, I seem to discover some sort of revolt against the Graeco-Roman occupant. For instance, rarely does one see a history book that honestly confesses that from around 450 AD, for all intents and purposes, Romans had lost the Greater Syria and Egypt as a provinces effectively governed and taxed. The Arab conquest in early VIth century seems to have been a mere formality. And yet, all maps religiously show these provices as Roman up to 600s.

 

Am I being too unorthodox?

[ModernMarvel]

Nah, you're not being too Orthodox in the least. You're absolutely right. In Judea, there was always an uprising. I think of Masada being the most popular one. However, there were alot more. Many people consider the early Christian upswell as a sort of revolution. I tend to agree, after all the empire converted to a religion that was despised just a few hundred years before.

 

The thing that makes me say Armenia was under Roman power is the installation of a pro-roman king, chosen by Rome. Rome did this often to control areas too large or too troublesome for the legions. Parthia, Pontus, parts of Germany, and Briton at one time or another was also put into this policy.

 

After some research, I think I might retract the Mesopotamia aspect I stated above. I looked up old trading routes in Roman-times Iraq, Iran, and Judea and have come to a conclusion. Rome controlled Judea as best they could and they knew they could not control Mesopotamia to the extent they did say..Gaul or Greece or others. There were simply too many ANCIENT trade routes that literally everyone knew. They could come and go as they pleased and virtually disappear in the Arabian "wilderness". These people have become masters of traveling through desert for weeks at a time. They knew oasis locations, knew how to travel, and the best routes to take. There was simply too much "dead" area to cover for the romans.

 

I think they had the Jews simply because the Hebrews considered it the Promised Land and did not want to abandon it. In the end, their own love for their country made them a conquered people.

 

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it

 

Marvel

[Kosmo]

Armenia was under roman influence since the times of Lucullus until Menzinkert. It was a province at the time of Trajan's death and as the map shows the empire of 117 it should be there. The other option, leaving it outside the empire will not explein much.

Mesopotamia proper it's another problem as the border moved from time to time, but at the 117 moment it was on the Gulf. The other option will be to show roman border during Pompey, Augustus, Nero, Trajan, Hadrian etc. No map can hold so much information and still be readable.

Romans borders were not like that of today to be able to accuratly point them. For example, romans usually held points on the North side of the Danube and maybe some teritorries but this is a level of detail unuseful on a general map. Not even a limes proves that the empire ends there as political authority usually extended outside provincial borders.

 

Can you give some evidence to the claim that Rome lost control in the East after 450? Any jewish rebellion after Hadrian? Any heretics that really sized power and defeated the army? Roman grip was fermly felt in the 600's in desert areas like Negev and Sinai.