40 Maps Explain the Roman Empire

[Vindex]

This is quite groovy.

Please note I am not responsible for the content so don't shoot the messenger! (particularly map 9 and 10)

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/19/5942585/40-...man-empire

[Gunthamund Hasding]

thanks for this is a nice piece of work, we will not shoot you for those have to have more time to study anyhow

[Robert Vermaat]

Please note I am not responsible for the content so don't shoot the messenger! (particularly map 9 and 10)

I like the idea but some maps ... I did not look at every map in close detail, but some stand out.
Maps 19 and 20 are no maps
Map 25 is nonsense - large areas were not 'christianised' as the map claims, whereas large parts north of the danube are totally ignored (even those parts once part of the Empitrre).
Map 31: "When he [Constantine] took the throne, he began the transformation of Rome into a Christian empire'. Constantine certainly did not do such a thing. Theodosius did far more to 'Christianise' the Empire.
Map 32: "The empire never fully recovered from the political crisis of the third century, or from a plague that began in 250 and killed millions of people."Oh come on, that's is sooo retro. Of course it did.
Map 33 is an abomonation, belonging in out-of date school books. Those plain wrong or at best extremely simplified 'routes' followed by 'invading tribes', come on..
map 37 is plain wrong. the Roman Empire only became the Byzantine Empire during the 16th century. The first use of the term "Byzantine" to label the later years of the Roman Empire was in 1557, when the German historian Hieronymus Wolf published his work Corpus Historiæ Byzantinæ, a collection of historical sources. Before that, it was called what it was - the Roman Empire.
Map 40: not wrong of course but it would have made more impact to include the Americas..