Posts: 111
Threads: 43
Joined: Aug 2010
Reputation:
0
Something I've noticed in several atlases, for example, In the Atlas of the Roman World by Tim Cornell & John Matthews on the map of the empire at 100BC it shows most of northwest Hispania under Roman control. Later the map of the empire at 44BC shows that Roman control of NW Hipania was reduced (the area later known as Gallaecia) while Rome gains control of the other areas of northern Hispania. I can't find a description of any revolt where any tribe or confederation of tribes threw off the Roman yoke. Would this temporary loss of control perhaps have something to do with Sertorius' war?
Posts: 1,513
Threads: 210
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation:
1
Oh yes, that area was a particular thorn in the side of Rome. In fact, I can't think of a conquered area which gave problems to Rome for a longer period of time. It had not been simply conquered and subdued. The native population was dispersed in rough terrain, and local chieftains didn't agree to work with Rome like so many aristocrats did elsewhere. There were revolts going on for generations, and these were often timed for when the Romans had something to worry about elsewhere. I suppose it is up to the atlas makers to decide if it was 'controlled' by Rome at any particular moment in time, but the actual situation was very fluid. Sometimes they were submissive, sometimes they weren't. I think Ronald Syme wrote a book about this, but much of the scholarship is in Spanish.
