
Maps of the Roman Empire - kcovia
http://www.vox.com/2014/8/19/5942585/40-maps-that-explain-the-roman-empire?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=ezraklein&utm_content=tuesday
======
peckrob
The Roman Kingdom/Republic/Empire is a really fascinating period of ancient
history. What's really mindblowing is when you realize that the Eastern
(Byzantine) Empire didn't fall until 1453.

If you're looking for interesting listening on Rome, I highly recommend Dan
Carlin's Hardcore History Podcast. The series Death Throes of the Republic
focuses on the period where Rome transformed from a Republic to an Empire
(maps 13-16). I just finished listening to that a few weeks ago, and it was
amazing. Additionally, Thor's Hammer discusses what happened in Europe when
Rome fell. There's also an older series on the Punic wars, but I haven't had a
chance to listen to that one yet.

~~~
josephschmoe
How connected were the Eastern Romans to the original western ones though?

Would you say it's like the U.S. and Britain, more distinct or less?

~~~
smacktoward
More distinct, definitely. But the interesting bit is that they themselves
would never have recognized this. Walk up to someone calling themselves
"Roman" in 1 AD and you could find yourself talking to a pagan born in modern
Italy who spoke Latin. Walk up to someone calling themselves "Roman" 500 years
later and you could be talking to a Christian born in modern Turkey who spoke
Greek, which is a very very different person. But both of them would have
insisted that they were "Roman." (The idea of "Byzantium" itself as something
distinct from the Roman Empire is a purely modern construction -- no Byzantine
would have conceived of themselves as such.) So the idea of "Romanness" was
socially constructed; it meant whatever people living in the empire at a
particular time collectively decided it meant.

You can see a similar type of socially constructed identity by looking at
"whiteness" in American culture. 150 years ago, a "white American" was
strictly interpreted as a person of northern European ("Anglo-Saxon") descent.
English, French, Germans and Scandinavians were "white people"; Spaniards,
Italians, Irish, Poles, Russians and Jews were not. But fast-forward to today,
and all those latter ethnicities are now commonly identified as "white" in
American culture.

In other words, whiteness, like Romanness, is less a fixed identifier of a
particular ethnic/religious/linguistic configuration and more a convenient way
for people to divide the world into in-groups and out-groups, "us" and "them."

------
_random_
"Traveling around the empire was excruciatingly slow"

"The researchers estimate that it took 7 weeks to travel from Constantinople
(at the eastern end of the empire) to London (in the far west)."

What a funny little empire with nice roads :). Check this empire:

"And say, the governor went to Yakutsk, not months, for three years. The first
year we reach Tobolsk. The second - to Irkutsk. And in the third year of
riding on horseback to the upper reaches of the Lena and floated with water to
Yakutsk."

[https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Tobolsk,+Tyumen+Oblast,+Ru...](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Tobolsk,+Tyumen+Oblast,+Russia/Irkutsk+Oblast,+Russia/Yakutsk,+Sakha+Republic,+Russia)

[http://www.e-reading.ws/chapter.php/142600/90/Burovskiii_-
_P...](http://www.e-reading.ws/chapter.php/142600/90/Burovskiii_-
_Pravda_o__zolotom_veke__Ekateriny.html)

~~~
sspiff
Some remarks:

1\. Mercator projection gives Russian empires an unfair advantage.

2\. The Romans ruled over arguably the best lands in the known world at that
time, and a much larger part of the world population. Russia ruled/rules over
vast empire of vast forests, inhospitable steppes and empty tundra, sprinkled
with a few good spots and a few people.

3\. Inefficient travel doesn't make a great empire.

That's not to say the Russian empire wasn't huge, or didn't have a lot of
people, or wasn't powerful. It was the largest power pre-World War 1, and its
remnant is still a major player. I just wasn't as important or dominant or
influential or long lived as the Roman empire was.

------
rullopat
I can easily say that, if we have civilization, we can thank the Romans.
Besides many things that they invented or "just" improved there were:

\- Aqueducts:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct)
\- Roads:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_roads)

In Italy, the SS1 (Strada Statale 1, that means, State Road #1), is the
"evolution" of the Via Aurelia, built by Romans in the year 241 BC:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Aurelia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Via_Aurelia)

But then the Barbarians from Northern Europe came...

~~~
contingencies
I studied Latin and drank the koolaid, but recently read a book about early
France which seemed to dispute the commonly held view that the Romans
introduced everything technology wise. Bridges, roads and communication were
certainly high on the list of "had it beforehand". It even has evidence to
suggest that they had a sophisticated pre-internet decentralized voice
communications network that operated by shouting down relatively quiet
valleys. A review at
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/1037205...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/10372050/The-
Ancient-Paths-Discovering-the-Lost-Map-of-Celtic-Europe-review.html)

Western-centric histories also frequently forget the hugely significant
contributions of Al-Andalus (Moorish Spain), Persia, India and China. Paper
was pretty high up there on the list of civilizing factors, and it sure as
hell wasn't Roman or northern European! Lenses came from Assyria. Lots of
maths the Romans used came from Greece, and the Greeks were present in France
before the Romans got there. Caesar himself wrote: _The Celts do have writing:
They use written Greek for both public and private transactions. But it is not
lawful to commit either their rules or religion to writing._ Thus, one could
argue that the true innovation introduced by Romans may have been the
liberation of the formerly slave-like commonfolk to glorious Roman pantheism
and literary freedom!

~~~
mobiplayer
Al-Andalus was waaaay after the Roman Empire.

~~~
contingencies
True, just as Europe was civilized waaaay after the Orient.

------
laichzeit0
If you're interested in this type of thing, be sure to check out the
Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World [1]. I have a copy, and while it
is expensive, it is simple _amazing_. I read Caesar's Gallic Wars again and
followed the movements of the army using that book and it was an intellectual
orgasm of note. I'll never read a military history book again without a
detailed map, it completely changes the appreciation of it.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrington_Atlas_of_the_Greek_a...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrington_Atlas_of_the_Greek_and_Roman_World)

------
dmix
For #9, if you'd like to see the tactical differences between Phalanx vs
Maniple battle formations, someone made a game simulation:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJPq9sIOsuE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJPq9sIOsuE)

------
jamesash
Listening to the audiobook of The Gallic Wars by Julius Caesar is rich in
detail and really grabs you by the throat. The classically trained narrator is
superb.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snft290-FRc&list=PLpO7W_VntC...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snft290-FRc&list=PLpO7W_VntCvOR4RdjL2zhY6cnNJBYBPN0&index=2)

------
joeyspn
Nice one, but I prefer this gif about the decadence of the Spanish Empire...
the end is quite funny.

[http://oi58.tinypic.com/sbhoac.jpg](http://oi58.tinypic.com/sbhoac.jpg)

~~~
vacri
The end is funny, but the start is wrong. In 1581, Brazil was Portuguese, due
to the Treaty of Tordesillas signed in 1494. It's why Brazil speaks Portuguese
instead of Spanish like the rest of Latin America.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas)

~~~
ableal
True, but the animation is correct: because of a messed up succession, all of
Portugal belonged to the Spanish crown from 1580 to 1640 - Felipe II of Spain
was Filipe I of Portugal (followed by III/II and IV/III).

In 1640 Portugal fought for independence, and got a new dynasty going. That's
shown in the sequence, Brazil popping out is noticeable ...

~~~
vacri
I stand corrected - I missed seeing Portugal itself painted red.

------
yincrash
Hank Green and friends produced a lovely set of videos that quickly and
humorously go through the basics of the Roman Empire (among other things).
It's part of a playlist on the Crash Course YouTube channel on World History.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPf27gAup9U&list=PLBDA2E52FB...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPf27gAup9U&list=PLBDA2E52FB1EF80C9&index=10)

~~~
yincrash
Oops! I meant John Green! Hank is his brother.

------
chris_mahan
Error on the legend on the map of the Rise of Constantine (section 31). The
campaign against Maxentius should read 312, not 212.

~~~
binarybits
Great eye. Will fix. Thanks.

~~~
chris_mahan
No problem! Thank you, that page is interesting.

------
matthewbauer
If you're interested in ancient maps, I've found that Geacron[1] very cool. It
allows you to see a world map from any year since 3000 BC (of course with
varying accuracy).

[1]: [http://geacron.com/home-en/](http://geacron.com/home-en/)

------
nsajko
The map cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4822180/roman_civil_war.jpg seems to have
mixed up labels for Roman Provinces and Client Kingdoms. I feel that about
half instances of the word barbaric shouldn't have been used in the article.
Also I don't see why unverifiable claims like 'Charlemagne persuaded the Pope
to crown him' had to be used. Nice, informative work besides that.

------
mcguire
It's almost entirely unrelated, but if anyone's interested I would like to
plug my current favorite history book: Phillip Sabin's _Lost Battles:
Reconstructing the Great Clashes of the Ancient World_. It uses a simple
tactical (board) wargame system to explore ancient battles including several
from the rise of the Roman Republic and Empire.

------
m_mueller
Lately I've become somewhat addicted to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History
podcasts. His episodes about the Punic wars can be purchased here:
[http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=...](http://dancarlin.com/dccart/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1)

------
MrBra
Excellent and neatly packaged source of information. It would be great to have
it translated into other languages.. I know so many people who would love to
access this content but do not speak english.. How should I proceed to offer
myself for voluntary translation?

------
therealdrag0
I'm listening to an audiobook of The History of the Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire, so this'll be a great companion.

~~~
damontal
Is it the one narrated by Bernard Mayes? I had a really hard time listening to
that one because his voice is so unmodulated and relaxing that my thoughts
would frequently wander or I'd fall asleep.

------
keyle
I wish we had such course in school. I may have paid more attention! Fantastic
use of contextual imagery with digestible content.

------
markbnj
A great page and very interesting light reading on the topic, however a rather
loose definition of 'map' is in play.

------
NickWarner775
Very interested. shows an easy to understand history lesson with great
visuals.

------
sspiff
A great summary, but I find it annoying people always only mention the Eastern
Roman Empire in passing or as a footnote. It was a continuation of the Roman
Empire in every way.

They were called "the Roman empire" or "romans" by themselves and the rest of
the world. And they lasted another 1000 years, many of those as the dominant
regional power, bringing the total lifetime of the Roman state up to a
staggering 2181 years.

~~~
vorg
The Greek-speakers of the East kept on speaking Greek after they were folded
into the Roman political model, and kept many of their other cultural and
economic institutions, rather than being dragged off as slaves. Perhaps it's
more accurate to say that Greek civilization lasted from 776 BC to 1453 AD,
under various political models. A co-operative system born from the hilly
Greek peninsular and jagged Aegean coastlines meeting the hierarchical system
of the Romans co-existing.

~~~
sspiff
The Roman culture was - for a very significant part - a carbon copy of the
Greek. So in a sense, the Romans continued the Greek culture as much as they
succeeded it.

I realize that the there are significant differences in the ancient Greek
political model, and the Greek and Roman culture, and that the Eastern Roman
Empire was for most of its lifetime Greek speaking. But it was still a
continuous evolution of the Roman Empire, even if it tilted more towards Greek
influences most of the time.

In a sense, you could indeed say the Greeks persisted for the entire era, as
they had some form of local self-governance etc during the Roman era, and they
dominated Roman politics for the last half of their empire.

------
pi-err
Those maps are good - yet they don't explain the Roman Empire.

It's actually tricky to explain the Empire. Over 7 centuries without _any_
significant technological progress. A political regime that is as archaic as
its borders are vast - and it drove Europe's political agenda up until the
19th century.

It's possibly the most successful and devastating face of the plutocracy. When
the Empire faded away in the 4-7th century, contemporary archaelogy now thinks
that people's life actually improved. The tax and ideological burden of the
roman overhead was a toll on entire societies.

~~~
othello
This is pretty wrong. The view you describe arises from the complete renewal
in the history of the Middle Ages that occurred from the 1950s onwards, and
which established that the commonly called "Dark Ages" weren't so dark after
all.

But that's not to say that there wasn't a precipitous drop in life quality
after the end of the Roman Empire. Recent archeological finds have improved
our understanding of the details of Roman daily life way beyond what we used
to know even thirty years ago.

For a good and accessible overview of the latest finds in Roman archeology,
I'd recommend "The Fall of the Roman Empire and the End of Civilization" by
archeologist and historian Bryan Ward Perkins.

He highlights how much the Roman world had in common with our own period, most
notably in terms of mass production of standardized goods (e.g. pottery),
integration and specialization of local economies in a globalized market
throughout the Empire.

The breakdown of this Empire-wide integration led to a dramatic decline in
standards of living. To take just two examples extracted from the book:

\- pottery finds in Britain reveal that before the Roman conquest, the vessels
commonly used were all locally produced and of average quality. The
integration in the Empire brought the mass-produced, standardized, high
quality Roman pottery into the British economy, so much so that all levels of
society had access to it (as illustrated by the archeological finds). This
competition drove the British pottery industry out of the market, to the
extent that by the time the Romans had to abandon Britain, there was no
significant pottery production on the British isles anymore. The outcome is
that the potteries found in the tombs of the first Anglo-Saxon kings are of a
much poorer quality than those of the British peasants five centuries earlier
- to say nothing of the Roman-made pottery a hundred years before.

\- In the Roman Empire, thanks to mass production of roof tiles, almost every
house had roofs made of clay tiles. This provides a host of benefits, notably
in terms of durability and improved health thanks to increased insulation from
humidity. With the collapse of the Roman Empire, European housebuilding went
back to starch roofs - which in addition to be a poor way to protect yourself
from rain or humidity can be a breeding ground for diseases and pests. It
wasn't until the late 15th century that the prevalence of tiled roofs reached
an extent comparable to that of the Roman world more than a millennia earlier.

I really recommend this book, it shows how the past 15 years of archeological
finds have illuminated how close the Roman society was to a sort of proto-
consumer society; and how much was lost when it disappeared.

~~~
benbreen
This is interesting stuff, thanks. It's also fun to think about the remarkable
advances in things like geared devices, automatons and water wheels in the
Hellenistic period through to the end of the Western Empire. Most famously the
Antikythera device: [http://hist.science.online.fr/antikythera/MORE-
DOCS/Greek%20...](http://hist.science.online.fr/antikythera/MORE-
DOCS/Greek%20Gears%20Plasma%20Seminar%208-31-071.pdf)

It's tantalizing to imagine the next steps from these sorts of devices, like
windmills, clocks, programmable mechanical looms, steam power, etc. Given the
quality of the engineering in the Antikythera mechanism, it might have been
within the technological abilities of Greco-Roman society to develop a
classical era version of industrialization. Of course, then you get into the
whole debate about whether a slave society has an economic impetus to
industrialize (I think they do, following Sidney Mintz's point in "Sweetness
and Power" that Caribbean sugar plantations in the 18th century were proto-
industrial, factory-like spaces, but that's another discussion).

------
jebblue
I looked at the map overlaying the US to contrast the relative size of the
Roman Empire. I think it might be shown a bit bigger than it was. We
vacationed in France and Rome and took a train overnight between them. That
train had a ton of stops. I'm pretty sure that even without the stops, it
would take longer than a night to travel by rail from approximately Montana
(where France would roughly be) to the south-eastern Gulf Coast region
(Italy).

Edit: Checking Google maps and more maps on the OP page I think I mis-
calculated Italy's position in the purple blob, it would probably be around
where Kansas is.

~~~
binarybits
Italy is over Wyoming. I think you're confusing it with Egypt, which is in the
lower-right of the map.

