Ave!

[Nathan Ross]

Well, a really good reason not to set the division under Hadrian.... With Hadrianus the empire did not stopped the expansion.

Hmm, perhaps - as I said above, my first choice would perhaps be Marcus Aurelius, but the Oxford University SoA definition seemed quite persuasive. It's not just a matter of maps - we'd also have to consider society, politics and culture, architecture, military developments, philosophy and religion - could we establish a point at or around which as many of these fields as possible showed a noticeable change?

I'm not sure if the post-Trajanic expansion (such as it was) had the same impetus though. Was Marcus Aurelius intending to conquer Marcomannia etc, as Trajan had taken Dacia, or was he just trying to establish a buffer zone to stop the constant barbarian incursions across the border? Did Severus intend to annex Parthia? Was the Antonine Wall built to claim new Roman territory in north Britain, or for some other strategic defence purpose? Same with the African Limes - were they securing new territory, or just a better system of defending existing provinces?

Why do you have an expanded border in Arabia under Caracalla, btw? And why did you suggest a break in AD235?

the Votadini client kingdom.

What evidence is there for this?