Roman Nationalism?

[Thor Macklin]

Has anyone taken a look at a map of the Roman Empire?
Several interesting things to note.

1. Most if not ALL of romania is listed as Roman.
2.Assyria and Mesopatamia are often shown as roman
3.The furthest extent of Rome's frontiers in England are shown.
4. the roman north africa is fattened into useless desert land
5. Most maps of rome at it's 'Greatest' extent are either for 117
or are anachronous.

So, either someone has neglected history, or is there a roman nationalist trend
going on? Has anyone ELSE noticed this occurence in other areas of romes 'contributions' to society?

on a minor note, I once again need a map, this time of Rome's Borders superimposed
on a ROBINSONS projection of modern europe.

 

[Yui108]

Why do you have a problem with maps labelled for Rome's greatest extent showing Rome's greatest extent?

 

[aelf]

vogtmurr may want to weigh in. He certainly knows a thing or two about the contributions of empires and will regale you with tales of glory that are certainly fitting for nationalistic sentiments.

Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling a specific poster. Be nice. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Has anyone taken a look at a map of the Roman Empire?
Several interesting things to note.

1. Most if not ALL of romania is listed as Roman.
2.Assyria and Mesopatamia are often shown as roman
3.The furthest extent of Rome's frontiers in England are shown.
4. the roman north africa is fattened into useless desert land
5. Most maps of rome at it's 'Greatest' extent are either for 117
or are anachronous.

So, either someone has neglected history, or is there a roman nationalist trend
going on? Has anyone ELSE noticed this occurence in other areas of romes 'contributions' to society?

on a minor note, I once again need a map, this time of Rome's Borders superimposed
on a ROBINSONS projection of modern europe.

I think you're the one being neglectful of history, not the map-makers. They are just replicating known history.

1. Yes, most of Romania was conquered by the Romans. I don't see how that is inaccurate. It was called Dacia then.
2. Mesopotamia was briefly conquered during the reign of Trajan but lost soon thereafter.
3. Rome conquered what is now England and Wales, but not Scotland. That's a simple fact. They were never able to subdue Scotland and built Hadrian's Wall to protect the province of Britannia from incursion. Again, nothing historically inaccurate there.
4. North Africa is only habitable for a few miles from the sea before meeting the Sahara Desert, except in a few regions like Egypt. There was no strict border in the desert. Regardless how the map is drawn, that desert was sparsely if at all inhabited.
5. 117 is a good time to indicate Rome's greatest extent because it was soon after the conquests of Trajan, which is when it was largest.

 

[Dachs]

They were never able to subdue Scotland and built Hadrian's Wall to protect the province of Britannia from incursion.

Well, that's not why they built the wall. Or rather, that's overwhelmingly not the prevailing interpretation as to why they built the wall. I mean, who would they be protecting it from?

 

[LightSpectra]

Trajan's conquests were really tenuous. It'd be like having a map of Germany at its "greatest extent" having everything up to Moscow; misleading and inaccurate except in the most stretched sense of it.

 

[Thor Macklin]

Because a majority of the time these Greatest Extent borders never
actually existed. And often times the client states and allies are listed
as actually part of the empire.

Really it's the fact that many a map of rome includes lands it NEVER owned.
E.G. Wallachia, Moldavia, The rest of Hungary (I KNOW that for a short
time under marcus arelius Rome had military efforts there but no land was
ever annexed.) Caucusus areas, Western Libya, and afew other areas.

I also would like to point out the constant obsession with Romes great
'contributions' to society, most of which were borrowed.
EDIT: did NOT see the last three posts

 

[Communisto]

I also would like to point out the constant obsession with Romes great
'contributions' to society, most of which were borrowed/stolen.

If we started making that distinction then we wouldnt have any contributors to revere now, would we?

 

[Thor Macklin]

Thus the issue, rome is credited with FAR more inventions then she should be.

Not to say that the people already using them would've been able to popularize
them to the extent that rome did (save for greece.)

 

[Dachs]

Most maps that show Nazi Germany at its "greatest extent" go to 1942 and show the Kalmyk Steppe conquests, because they were more substantial (in terms of area) than the territory abandoned and/or lost in 1941-2. And that's not misleading at all, because it's the greatest extent - exactly what it says on the tin. It's not "the greatest extent of territory controlled and administered for more than five years" or some similar qualification. Nobody's going to get the idea that the Roman Empire was master of Mesopotamia for a prolonged period of time by looking at a "greatest extent" map if he or she doesn't already go into looking at that map with a bit of bias.

 

[LightSpectra]

Nobody's going to get the idea that the Roman Empire was master of Mesopotamia for a prolonged period of time by looking at a "greatest extent" map if he or she doesn't already go into looking at that map with a bit of bias.

Really? Because I think the people who usually look for maps are the ones who don't want to do the extended reading and just want to get a general idea; and thus would probably think Mesopotamia and Dacia were long-term holdings. Such maps don't distinguish between "furthest Roman troops ever penetrated to", to "territory in which Rome actually administered for a length of time such that it can properly be called a part of the empire."

 

[holy king]

yeah, well, cui bono?

 

[Thor Macklin]

Forgive my poor understanding of history on the part of mesopotamia. But none-the-less I find it an issue that areas such as wallachia, armenia, and a few small tribes.
(who's names I cannot recall) are listed as roman lands without note that these were
either client states or allies.

Let us look at the map of the Roman Empire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Severus210AD.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Roman_Empire_117AD.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Roman_Empire_125.png
http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Map of Roman Empire 2 Color.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8e/Roman_Empire_Province_Map_Template.PNG

YES I they are different time periods, but none the less I must point
out that these maps are some of the most used maps for the roman empire online.
And please take note the constant changes in the area of Egypt, northern Brittania,
and romania.

 

[Dachs]

The reason the extent of Roman territory changes a lot in certain areas is because we don't know the exact boundaries of the Roman Empire in most of those areas, especially when it strayed away from river lines and coasts. Indeed, most states didn't really have "exact boundaries" at all up to a few centuries ago. Also because Wikipedia maps are notoriously crappy.

Really? Because I think the people who usually look for maps are the ones who don't want to do the extended reading and just want to get a general idea; and thus would probably think Mesopotamia and Dacia were long-term holdings. Such maps don't distinguish between "furthest Roman troops ever penetrated to", to "territory in which Rome actually administered for a length of time such that it can properly be called a part of the empire."

So, in other words, people who go into looking at that map with a bit of bias?

Besides, the situation with Rome is actually relatively benign. Most maps of the "greatest extent" of the Roman Empire don't include Germania between the Rhine and Elbe, or Arabia Felix (you could include the entirety of the Hijaz based on Augustus' reign if you really wanted to), Meroe (same thing), or the places north of the Danube where Marcus Aurelius sent his men to die. The overwhelming majority of maps about Rome at its greatest territorial extent show Rome at its greatest territorial extent. Nothing factually wrong with that, and I don't even like Rome, much less Traianus, who I consider to be a bungler.

Honestly, I think this thread is just an example of the thing it's complaining about: silly nationalistic bias. That became rather dramatically clear when the OP started whining about "contributions to society" that aren't properly "credited" to Rome - as though "civilizations" ought to be "credited" with that sort of thing at all.

 

[bombshoo]

Any decent history map that is showing a war or a large period of time should actually be representing border changes and expansions on it, and most of the ones of Rome I see do this. When I see Rome controlling Mesopotamia or the Bosporan Kingdom they are almost always shown as different colors than the rest of the empire, often times with little dates on them. Actually just doing a quick google search, the first results that show up are the sort of maps I described. Example (just the first result on google that isn't a huge file):

 

[LightSpectra]

That's a good map, I just wish the text was easier to read.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Well, that's not why they built the wall. Or rather, that's overwhelmingly not the prevailing interpretation as to why they built the wall. I mean, who would they be protecting it from?

Caledonians? (Picts, I assume.)

Yes, I'm aware of the thought that Hadrian just did it to keep the soldier's busy.

Because a majority of the time these Greatest Extent borders never
actually existed. And often times the client states and allies are listed
as actually part of the empire.

For the purposes of map-making, one has to draw a border somewhere. Furthermore, allies in antiquity often amounted to owned states.

Really it's the fact that many a map of rome includes lands it NEVER owned.
E.G. Wallachia, Moldavia, The rest of Hungary (I KNOW that for a short
time under marcus arelius Rome had military efforts there but no land was
ever annexed.) Caucusus areas, Western Libya, and afew other areas.

Those maps, if they're accurate at all, probably represent transient occupations.

I also would like to point out the constant obsession with Romes great
'contributions' to society, most of which were borrowed.
EDIT: did NOT see the last three posts

So is every contribution of every society that ever existed. Inventions don't just spring up ready-made.

Forgive my poor understanding of history on the part of mesopotamia. But none-the-less I find it an issue that areas such as wallachia, armenia, and a few small tribes.
(who's names I cannot recall) are listed as roman lands without note that these were
either client states or allies.

See above. Client and allied states often amounted to ownership thereof, especially in antiquity. Even in modern times this trend has existed. The Warsaw Pact states of Eastern Europe, although technically independent, were actually owned by the USSR.

 

[Dachs]

Caledonians? (Picts, I assume.)

Yes, I'm aware of the thought that Hadrian just did it to keep the soldier's busy.

No, no, not that, either. It was more of a way to control and regularize the movements of people. A cordon defense is militarily almost useless unless it is, as in the case of the Hadrianic limes, ridiculous overkill.

Compare the Hadrianic fortifications to the ones in North Africa, Nabataia, the Agri Decumates, and the limes Transalutanus: all except for the last (and we don't know much about those) were designed not as battlefield aids but as waypoints and methods for keeping the regular movement of pastoralists (in North Africa and Nabataia), traders, and migrant workers under control. The near-contemporary Chinese limes in the Western Regions shared the same purpose.

The record of Caledonian fighting against the Romans also doesn't really lend itself to a supposition that the Romans had to throw up fixed fortifications to give them an edge against northern marauders. They simply weren't that much of a threat.

Also, it's not clear that Caledonians and Picts were the same thing. It's something of a heated debate in northern British historiography at the moment.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Makes a great deal of sense. If Scotland was anything like Scotland (now Ireland) at the time, there would be a great deal of people, often armed, moving about with large groups of cattle.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

No, no, not that, either. It was more of a way to control and regularize the movements of people. A cordon defense is militarily almost useless unless it is, as in the case of the Hadrianic limes, ridiculous overkill.

Compare the Hadrianic fortifications to the ones in North Africa, Nabataia, the Agri Decumates, and the limes Transalutanus: all except for the last (and we don't know much about those) were designed not as battlefield aids but as waypoints and methods for keeping the regular movement of pastoralists (in North Africa and Nabataia), traders, and migrant workers under control. The near-contemporary Chinese limes in the Western Regions shared the same purpose.

Oh I see. They were customs borders. That does make sense. I suppose they could at least also serve that role as well as defensive.