Honorius Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 cool map btw man.....maybe add Sirmium a city on the Danube frontier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thibodeau Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 "Actually, about Spain, the Roman Equivalent is Hispania, not Hispaniae. Pretty much else is if you are going to use the actual classical names of cities and places, don't mix it with the modern equivalents of english." I used the names on the list, Hispaniae would be like genitive or plural or something, but he is the prof :S "cool map btw man.....maybe add Sirmium a city on the Danube frontier" Not on the list, will confuse students! Thanks for input guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I used the names on the list, Hispaniae would be like genitive or plural or something, but he is the prof :S Hispaniae is the plural to indicate the 4 territorial diocese reforms of Diocletion. Essentially it only came into being at the beginning of the 4th century. At any rate, I agree with Phil that if you are going to do it, you should probably focus on a single time frame. Phoenicia was Syria under the rule of Rome, etc. You have York instead of Eboracum among many other cities that have been Anglicized. Italy should be Italia, Sicily should be Sicilia, etc. What I mean is, you should be consistent. I assume you didn't label Germania as Germany because its incorrect, why then use the modern term Italy. Provincia was still affectionately known as 'the Province' but officially it was part of Gallia Narbonensis and perhaps part of the 'Alpes' provinces (I suppose that depends on the exact time frame in question). Magna Graecia is much the same thing. It had been known as such prior to Rome's ultimate conquest of Italia, but it was only referred to as such in a nostalgic sense and not in an official capacity. After all it was Rome that ruled, not Achaea or Macedonia. Aside from that I'm not sure why your teacher did not include the numerous other unlabelled areas, but you've done a nice job with what you've been given to work with from an artistic standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thibodeau Posted March 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I rather not change the names, I will leave them as they are on the list. I do not want to confuse the students in my class. I am uncertain however, why my professor would include Latin names and modern names :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 I rather not change the names, I will leave them as they are on the list. I do not want to confuse the students in my class. I am uncertain however, why my professor would include Latin names and modern names :S Yes, I am baffled as well. I suppose 2 questions may help me understand. 1) What level of class is this? 100 level history class (generally considered introductory or something more advanced?) 2) Was this an assignment of some sort... or did you simply collect data from a handout and apply it to a map? What I mean is, was this data intended to be related or did you just add it all together to make the map of your own accord? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 That is not a timeline, that is a map that includes no time, only the provinces and cities as they were between 500BC and 500AD, roughly. I had a list of provinces and I had to put them in a map. That`s impossible. You really think that nothing changed on the political map between 500BC and 500AD? ...I believe that Mesopotamia was indeed a province during the time of Trajan, Phil. Oh yeah, but I didn`t write that Mesopotamia wasn`t Roman province, but that Roman Mesopotamia was comletely different. And this province existed not only under Trajan: Romans created it and lost it several times. And Trajan`s Mesopotamia was smaller then your "Mesopotamia", and your "Mesopotamia" is like his Assyria and Mesopotamia taken together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Goblinus Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) On this site is a good animated map of the Roman territory from 301 BC to 1453 AD. It doesn't give the names of provinces (but it does give some cities) but it does give you the general shape of the empire and its evolution. This might help you with your map. http://www.friesian.com/romania.htm Edited March 20, 2006 by Emperor Goblinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphrodite Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Ten out of ten for effort though! I'm sure what you have done is relevent to your class, and it will look effective in a presentation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 On this site is a good animated map of the Roman territory from 301 BC to 1453 AD. It doesn't give the names of provinces (but it does give some cities) but it does give you the general shape of the empire and its evolution. This might help you with your map. This map isn`t available and I can`t say anything about it. By the way, you can find good maps on my site: Ancient maps Pay special attention to "Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas"! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Phil...you know many of us are English speakers right? But nice collection though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 It's a better map then mine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 It's a better map then mine... You have Britannia just a bit too far away from Gaul. C'mon Pantagathus, you need to be more precise than that! Otherwise, I don't see any other issues ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philhellene Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Phil...you know many of us are English speakers right? But the maps from "Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas" are in Latin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 It's a better map then mine... :bag: Hyperborea is further left as everyone knows and Greece is coloured pink (usually). Otherwise fine apart from detailing of Northern Caledonia ps: where is the edge of the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 (edited) But the maps from "Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas" are in Latin. Nevermind, I found it. But the Russian really isn't helping me differentiate the maps. Edited March 22, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts