RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Extent of Roman Power/Influence
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

Anonymous

I have two question to ask dealing with the extent of Roman territory.<br>
<br>
1) I have seen an extract of an inscription (unkown which one but from Harmozica, Tiflis) that read's Vespasian & Sons "Fortified these wall for Mithridates, King of the Iberians ... friend of the Romans". Is there anymore info on this inscription and was this only a once off thing or did the Roman's have a garrison in the area to protect against the Alani.<br>
<br>
2) Was the tauric bosphorus ever part of the Roman Empire. Some maps include the area just above the Black Sea and others do not. Which is correct.<br>
<br>
Any reply wold be appreciated. <p></p><i></i>
Yeah. I too have seen maps with different inclusions of the areas you mention and also of north africa.<br>
<br>
The maps of north africa I like the most actually only give the east-west boundaries of the provinces while they place no precise southern boundary. I like these because it makes sense to me that in those places the control of deep territory was something that greatly fluctuated depending on the health of the romans and the activity of the tribes in the hinterland.<br>
<br>
Maybe the control of the far edge of the black sea was also unstable and periodic, depending on the positive pressure the romans could exert, something which varied as function of political stability and economic well-being, as well as on "barbarian" restlessness.<br>
<br>
The roman influence went far beyond the nominal boundaries almost in all cases, but what was actually under some sort of control, short of real occupation, is a very interesting topic, especially in certain areas that are rarely spoken of as the black sea. I am certainly interested.<br>
<br>
p.s. The politcal agenda of the recent roman history map makers has as also some influence. In the Italian Fascist period, maps of the roman empire tended to make it seem as big as possible compatible with the evidence. But evidence can be twisted enough to make things seem more than what an anti-roman propagandist would do to minimize roman influence on his pet culture. <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

According to Michael Grant's A Guide to the Ancient World, page 117, this kingdom was temporarily annexed by Rome 62-68 A.D. Most of it's remaining existence it was a Roman client state. At the time of its annexation it controlled the entire Crimean peninsula, and the shores all around the Sea of Azov. <p></p><i></i>
Southern Ukraine and the Crimea have both BC Greek and early AD Roman associated towns and ports, as evidenced by ruins, pottery and other artifacts. If they were not "Roman" they were "Romanized". Menander says that after AD577 the Turks seized the "Roman city of Bosporus", (in the Crimean). In the time of Ammianus Marcellius, the Crimean was called "Chersonesus Taurica" province. (Kherson/Cherson is a state capitol of the Kherson oblast in southern Ukraine) The Dnieper River was called the "Borysthenes". I don't have my references on the second century historian Arrian handy, but I think he inspected or visited Roman troops on the north side of the Black Sea....<br>
archaeology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.utexas.edu/research/ica/Chersonesos.htm<br>
This is a link to one of the museums I visited this summer, but it is not very detailed. They had several Roman coins and some Roman pottery that were supposedly local (in the region) finds. www.tlc.kherson.ua/~info/index.html and the bottom half of this link www.ukrainianmuseum.org/kamianetslecture.html<br>
Also photo of the week June 25, here www.archad.org/potw_archive.html<br>
<br>
from Edward Gibbon, "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"<br>
"Arrian places the frontier garrison at Dioscurias,<br>
or Sebastopolis, forty-four miles to the east of Pityus. The<br>
garrison of Phasis consisted in his time of only four hundred<br>
foot."<br>
<br>
<p>"Just before class started, I looked in the big book where all the world's history is written, and it said...." Neil J. Hackett, PhD ancient history, professor OSU, 1987</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ucaiusfabius.showPublicProfile?language=EN>Caius Fabius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ROMANISROMANORVM/files/C%20Fabius%201988b.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 10/16/02 4:08:38 pm<br></i>

Anonymous

I recall --vaguely-- that a centurion's tombstone was found near Bakou in today's Azerbaïdjan. <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

In regards to the Centurion's inscription - see members.tripod.com/~HAuburn/LegXII.html and www.eni.it/english/notizi...97_22.html<br>
<br>
It was found on the shores of the Caspian and date's from the time of Domition. <p></p><i></i>
No of course the Romans did not reach China, I'm not daft! But I remember, vaguely, seeing a book in a store a few years ago about that. It was about a Chinese city having been built by Roman prisoners, I guess. Some story about a westerner digging that site or attempting to, while being waylaid by the Chinese, or even being shown the wrong site.<br>
But I never read more than the blurp (and you know what the quality of that can be) and never found out if this was fiction or fiction based on archaeology. Anyone?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
Robert<br>
<br>
'Cives Francorum, Miles Romanorum'<br>
www.fectio.org.uk/ <p></p><i></i>
This old chestnut has been discussed a couple of times on the Ancmed list; will see if I can find the reply from the professional historians on the list.<br>
<p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 10/18/02 12:23:10 am<br></i>
Here's the last post on the subject from Duncan Head.<br>
<br>
Before I comment on Mark's excellent post: the "Romans" theory is<br>
said to be debunked in Paolo Daffinà , "Chih-chih shan-yü", in Rivista<br>
degli studi orientali 44 (Roma, 1969) pp 199-232 and 325. Alberto,<br>
this was the work I mentioned to you - I thought it was a reference<br>
to a book, but on checking I find it's a journal article. Let us all<br>
know if you track it down. My email's not working this morning, so<br>
can't email you direct yet!<br>
<br>
<br>
"Mark E. Hall" <[email protected]> wrote:<br>
<br>
> 1. He uses the account of the battle from the Han-shu. ...<br>
> Dubs gives no evidence on if this event is recorded elsewhere.<br>
<br>
I've not seen a reference to any other description.<br>
<br>
> 2. Now, the formation seen by the Chinese is called yu-lin-chen<br>
> ... Dubs notes that this is the only time the<br>
> three particular Chinese characters occur together. Now, Dubs<br>
> interprets this as "fish scale formation." Dubs does note that<br>
> there is the term yu-li chih chen that is used to describe military<br>
> formations in the Zhou period. He interprets this as meaning "an<br>
> array like a school of fish". He sees this second term being used<br>
> to describe a mixed chariot and foot troop formation that is<br>
> densely packed. He argues in the appendix, that these two terms<br>
> don't mean the same and couldn't be inter-changed, etc. I don't<br>
> know Chinese linguistics, so I can't really judge this at all.<br>
<br>
Me neither, really. The Zhou term certainly means a formation of<br>
alternating groups of chariots and infantry - it's described in a<br>
little detail in Zuo Quan - but whether school or scales is the best<br>
translation is beyond me.<br>
<br>
However, it's worth noting that some term or other translated "fish<br>
scale formation" is used in Japanese sources to describe a cavalry<br>
wedge formation - it appears in Taiheiki and earlier, I think in<br>
Hogen Monogatari. Regardless of the exact characters used, this<br>
suggests that formations other than overlapping shields could suggest<br>
fish-scales to an observer.<br>
<br>
> 3. On page 65, the dated value of Dubs' logic concerning the<br>
> Xiong-nu is clearly evident. He says: "These soldiers must have<br>
> been drawn up in such a manner that they crowded together and<br>
> overlapped their shields. To accomplish this feat successfully<br>
> requires a high degree of discipline (not the sort of thing any<br>
> nomadic people, such as the Huns, could have achieved) and implies<br>
> a considerable degree of civilization, indeed possibly a long<br>
> period of military training on the part of the soldiers. Nomads<br>
> and barbarians such as the Gauls rushed to battle in a confused<br>
<br>
It is worth noting, in addition to Mark's points, that there are<br>
several Roman references to Gauls overlapping their shields; so even<br>
if fish-scale does mean overlapping shields, it doesn't imply Roman<br>
degrees of professionalism.<br>
<br>
More to the point, did Romans of Crassus' period really overlap their<br>
shields? The scuta of the period were quite strongly curved, even<br>
though not as heavily as the later "Trajanic" semi-cylindrical type,<br>
and I'm not quite sure how they could physically be overlapped.<br>
(Their Gallic equivalents, though coming from a related tradition,<br>
were of course flat.)<br>
<br>
> Well, over 70 years later, all I can say is, with discoveries at<br>
> Ivolga and Derstui, his view of the nomads is highly suspect.<br>
> Sure, we don't have any solid evidence of the Xiong-nu fighting<br>
> with shields, but to assert like he does the simplicity of their<br>
> tactics and society is just plain wrong...and to hold that view is<br>
> just plain wrong IMO.<br>
<br>
One possible link between the Xiongnu and shielded infantry is the<br>
art of the Siberian Tashtyk culture, which seems to show infantry<br>
archers sheltering behind some sort of large pavise; this was on the<br>
fringes of the Xiongnu sphere. See the first plate in Nicolle's<br>
"Attila and the Nomad Hordes" for a reconstruction, and I think he<br>
might also illustrate the original wood-carvings; I've also got some<br>
of these in an old BM exhibition catalogue somewhere. Rather a<br>
tentative link, but it does suggest that shielded infantry were not<br>
unknown in North Asia at this time.<br>
<br>
And doesn't some Han Chinese writer refer to crossbow-bolts piercing<br>
Xiongnu wooden shields - though that could mean cavalry shields, of<br>
course.<br>
<br>
> 4. On the fate of the defeated Roman soldiers. Dubs does not cite<br>
> any Classical sources for the fate of these soldiers. He cites a<br>
> personal conversation with W. W. Tarn! (p. 66). He doesn't say<br>
> where Tarn gets it from.<br>
<br>
It's Pliny who says that the prisoners were sent to Margiana, but he<br>
says nothing about what happened when they got there - Hist. Nat.<br>
6.18.47, describing "regio Margiane": "in hanc Orodes Romanos<br>
Crassiana clade captos deduxit".<br>
<br>
> He in no way, shape or form deals with getting these folks from<br>
> Margiana to Sogdiana.<br>
<br>
The probable location of the battle is even a bit further to travel<br>
than Sogdiana proper. Although Kangzhu is usually translated as<br>
Sogdiana, the geography in the Han Shu seems to refer to Sogdia<br>
proper - the region between Amu Darya/Oxus and Syr Darya/Jaxartes,<br>
centred on the Zerafshan valley - as the land of the Great Yuezhi,<br>
and to use Kangzhu for some area further to the north. Maenchen-<br>
Helfen, in "Huns and Hsiung-nu" (in Byzantion somewhen in the 1940s)<br>
points out that slightly later sources use Kangzhu and Su-de for two<br>
different regions, and Su-de is clearly a transliteration of Sogdia.<br>
He puts Kangzhu further north, in the Chu and Talas valleys. This<br>
makes sense to me since the Han Shu describes Kangzhu as a primarily<br>
nomad state, whereas Sogdia proper was principally sedentary and,<br>
after centuries of Achaemenid and Greek rule, already beginning to<br>
urbanise.<br>
<br>
> Personally, I don't find many logical or reasonable points to<br>
> connect in Dubs' argument. I find a lot of speculations,<br>
> assumptions, and ifs.<br>
<br>
Entirely agree.<br>
<br>
> If I want a lot of what-ifs, I'll read Munn again.<br>
<br>
There's also "Winter Quarters", by Alfred Duggan. The central<br>
character is one of Crassus' Gallic cavalrymen, who ends up serving<br>
the Parthians in a frontier garrison in Margiana - "Margu, the navel<br>
of the universe!". Recommended on the speculation front!<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 10/18/02 12:24:43 am<br></i>

Anonymous

I've seen recently on TV that a small chinese town of the area in question is making a tourist attraction of that "Romans in China" legend.<br>
Which goes to show that Roman influence did extend all the way to China.. Only it took a bit longer than we thought..E EM<br>
OK Bad joke.. <p></p><i></i>