Thracianus

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?

Thank you Senator, I knew the latter list but it never occured to me to look into Wikipedia! I will start the work and keep the audiance posted of any progress. T.

Perhaps my question was too pedentic, or, alternatively, impossible to answer. If it was disrespectful of some convention that needs to be observed in this Forum, apologies for it. T.

Good day to all, I was wondering if anybody is aware of a thorough list of Byzantine Emperors (or, for that matter, all Roman Emperors, from Augustus to Constantine Dragazes) which gives the dates and locations of their birth and death. Likewise, is there any sort of database on where these may have been burried? For instance, can anyone answer the question "how many Roman Emperors" were burried in Constantinoplis? How many of their tombs are still known today? I fear, not many. If no such list is known to exist, I am interested in compiling one. Any one interested in collaborating? Many thanks in advance for any leads.

Interesting. Do you think the name is related to Saguntum, which is located in Spain, and where the first battle of the so-called 2nd Punic War took place?

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. 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.

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