Question about the Poster Map sold on UNRV.com

[Marcus Hibernicus]

I recently bought the map of the Roman Empire in 117 AD, and I just had a few questions.

 

First, Moesia Superior and Inferior are labeled, but do not have a provincial boarder in between them. Is there a reason for this or just an oversight?

 

Was Eprius its own province, or was it part of Macedonia?

 

And what do the slash lines in Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Assyria mean? I assume that it means they were only temporary provinces, as they only lasted for about 3 years, but I just want to make sure.

 

Overall, this map is extremely awesome and I am 1000% satisfied

[Primus Pilus]

I recently bought the map of the Roman Empire in 117 AD, and I just had a few questions.

 

First, Moesia Superior and Inferior are labeled, but do not have a provincial boarder in between them. Is there a reason for this or just an oversight?

 

Was Eprius its own province, or was it part of Macedonia?

 

And what do the slash lines in Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Assyria mean? I assume that it means they were only temporary provinces, as they only lasted for about 3 years, but I just want to make sure.

 

Overall, this map is extremely awesome and I am 1000% satisfied

 

Welcome to forum Marcus, I'm glad you like the map. As for your questions...

 

I can't seem to recall the reasoning behind the absence of the border in Moesia. I believe it is because we aren't entirely sure where the exact border was, but Moonlapse (the designer) may have a better recollection. You'll notice the same absence of a border between Germania Superior/Inferior as well.

 

Epirus was indeed part of Macedonia at the time period reflected. Again, I can't recall exactly why we included the border, but I'm hoping Moonlapse will chime in. It may have had something to do with research by Michael Grant in "A Guide to the Ancient World".

 

If you'll notice on the legend there is an identifier with fading green lines running in this direction \ that do indeed reflect temporary conquests. You'll notice this represented in the conquest of Germania Magna prior to the Teuotoburg disaster. I'm not quite sure why we chose to do the east in purple line running in this direction /, but it may be something we can bring in sync on a future reprint.

[Marcus Hibernicus]

Thank you for the quick response! You knew exactly what I was talking about, and I again find myself 1000% satisfied haha.

[Moonlapse]

To be honest, I can no longer remember the reason for leaving the Moesian border out, or whether or not it is an error. There were countless aspects of the map that had to be compromised due to its 300+ year time frame, and this might have been one of them.

 

For the question on Epirus, I'll quote from Michael Grant's Guide to the Ancient World:

 

After his victory over Antony at Actium (31), Octavian depopulated most of the Epirote cities (including Ambracia) in order to find inhabitants for his new foundation of Nicopolis, which henceforth dominated the southern part of the country. When he subsequently made Achaea into a separate province (27), it included most of Epirus. In the first or second centirues AD, however, Epirus became a province on its own account, developing urban life in the interior (as a new city-name, Hadrianopolis, testifies). The reorganization of Diocletian (AD 284-305) subdivided this province into two, an Old (southern) and New (northern) Epirus, with their capitals at Nicopolis and Dyrrhachium respectively.

 

The differences in direction of the hash marks around Germania Magna and the eastern provinces is purely for aesthetics based on the shapes of the provinces being outlined. The determining feature of temporary expansion is not color or direction but the fact that it has a gradual fade.

 

Thanks for the feedback!!