Rome and Maps

[Timotheus]

I have a large poster sized map of the Roman Empire. It shows the various territories, major cities, client states, fortifications, etc.

Looking at the map you can see one glaring problem Rome had. Her border was immense and not just due to the size of the Empire. In Europe the border runs from the northwest to the southeast. One would be hard pressed to have a border that was longer than the actual one. If Rome had continued to press into Germany, refusing to retreat after her defeat and then moved into what would be Poland the border in Europe could have been between 1/2 and 1/3 what it was in reality.

Which makes me wonder. What were maps like in Rome? Did they have maps like ours of today, of course of much lower accuracy? Even a vaguely accurate map could have shown Rome's rulers how long her borders were and how they could have been easily shortened.

Any comments?

[Matthew Amt]

Ave!

The problem with shortening the border, as you say, is that you need to incorporate larger pieces of populated territory, and keep those areas pacified. That means garrisons and patrols, taxes to support them, oppression, resentment and rebellion, more troops to put down the rebellions, etc. For areas of dubious economic value, the return simply didn't justify the cost and trouble. A nicely defined or even fortified border allowed Rome to reap some economic benefit through regular trade without having to occupy the areas beyond.

Vale,

Matthew

[Timotheus]

Oh I understand that completely. I was wondering if Rome had any idea how large and ungainly they had allowed their northern border to become.

The cost of shortening is really another question since if you keep moving east you eventually encounter steppe people who have no real value as trading partners.

[Epictetus]

They had maps, of some extent, of their territory and probably close neighbours. Strabo and Ptolemy are two geographers we know of, and there are indications of physical maps as well. But there seems to be a lack of information of far beyond their borders: did they know they could have theoretically shortened their borders by taking what is now Poland? Probably not.

[agrimensor]

They had maps, see the tabula peutinger (a medivel copy of a roman map) but this more subway map yust the distances count between citys. scale maps were dificult to produce because you need the fabric hide or paper (papyrus) to draw them. Because papyrus has maximum size (look at bookrols) making rel maps dificult.

[Timotheus]

That is what I was wondering. Did they have big picture atlas style maps or just lots of little local maps.

[JeffF]

Rome and the Enemy, Imperial Strategy in the Principate by Susan P. Mattern has a very interesting take on this topic. Her view is that the Romans did not develop strategy based on geographical concepts or perceptions from maps and that our modern sense of strategy and dependency on maps makes us have assumptions about Roman strategy that is unfounded. Essentially her view is that Roman strategy was not based on trying to obtain some advantage (like shorter defensive lines or even logical ones) but instead based on avenging some perceived insult or previous loss. Her views on how the Romans used or did not use maps is also unique. Roman commanders did not use nor were dependent on pictures of the terrain to make decisions rather they made those based off of eye witness reports of scouts and spies.