The Roman Empire *Page 11* [Vacation]

[Pious]

"Asia Minor" would imply that there's more to Asia, an "Asia Major" so to speak.

I don't see what's wrong of having a province and a "continent" of the same name if it's the most historically and geographically correct option. Alternatively you could split "Asia Minor" and have a "Near East" (translated to Latin of course).

[Gwalchmai]

Apparently Oriens would be the most accurate name. When you suggested it, my first thought was that since oriens could be used to mean the East, it would be a nice way around the problem: call the area on the east of the map 'the East' and then simply translate it into Latin. It wouldn't really be inaccurate because the Romans would have referred to the area as Oriens anyway and seemed to be less misleading than using Asia Minor, which only refers to a small part of the area.

After a quick bit of research though it appears that the Romans divided up the Empire into a number of prefectures in the fourth century, one of which was Oriens and was an almost exact fit for that area. It seems to have included Egypt as well in reality but that's only a minor detail. The area could still be named Oriens.

[Qwert]

Before i coment of something,can you give me a years of history period what these map present.

[Pious]

Apparently Oriens would be the most accurate name. When you suggested it, my first thought was that since oriens could be used to mean the East, it would be a nice way around the problem: call the area on the east of the map 'the East' and then simply translate it into Latin. It wouldn't really be inaccurate because the Romans would have referred to the area as Oriens anyway and seemed to be less misleading than using Asia Minor, which only refers to a small part of the area.

After a quick bit of research though it appears that the Romans divided up the Empire into a number of prefectures in the fourth century, one of which was Oriens and was an almost exact fit for that area. It seems to have included Egypt as well in reality but that's only a minor detail. The area could still be named Oriens.

I think that's actually a fitting coincidence. I'd switch my support to "Oriens" being the name of the pink region.

[Ruben Cassar]

Apparently Oriens would be the most accurate name. When you suggested it, my first thought was that since oriens could be used to mean the East, it would be a nice way around the problem: call the area on the east of the map 'the East' and then simply translate it into Latin. It wouldn't really be inaccurate because the Romans would have referred to the area as Oriens anyway and seemed to be less misleading than using Asia Minor, which only refers to a small part of the area.

After a quick bit of research though it appears that the Romans divided up the Empire into a number of prefectures in the fourth century, one of which was Oriens and was an almost exact fit for that area. It seems to have included Egypt as well in reality but that's only a minor detail. The area could still be named Oriens.

Have you got a link or something about this Oriens prefecture? I would like to check it out please because I never heard about it before.

[Gwalchmai]

I hadn't heard of it before either until I did a quick search on JSTOR for Oriens and started seeing some references to it. I can't say I have much interest in Rome during this period though. It begins waning from the point when it becomes an empire.

This page has a very brief overview of the system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praetorian_prefecture

With a map here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Roman_empire_395.jpg

A couple of provinces in that area on Guiscard's map appear to have been lost by this stage but it's the closest I think we'll get to an exact fit, and since the word oriens had been used to refer to somebody from the East since at least the beginning of the Imperial period anyway it's not too bad. It's just extra confirmation that the term could be applied to the general area.

You can probably find out more information about the prefectures by googling it but since I know next to nothing about them I don't want to link to a site that gets too in depth just in case it's not accurate. Articles on JSTOR don't seem to give that much information except to corroborate what little is said on wikipedia because they are usually only referring to it in passing, but if you've access you could do a quick search on there. Otherwise a book dealing with that period would probably be best.

[snufkin]

Before i coment of something,can you give me a years of history period what these map present.

that is the biggest problem with this map imo

It spans way too many centuries.. which make it too generic and also produces lots of anachronisms since it´s about several different roman empires although portrayed as one here.

I stopped posting in this thread early because I realised it included the lame christian roman empire..

I agree with everything Gwalchmai has said so far.

edit: except the part when he propagated for a generic map.. so I guess I don´t agree with his opinions - just his facts..

I´ll shut up now.

[Qwert]

snufkin Posted: 25 Jun 2007 14:52 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

qwert wrote:
Before i coment of something,can you give me a years of history period what these map present.


that is the biggest problem with this map imo

It spans way too many centuries.. which make it too generic and also produces lots of anachronisms since it´s about several different roman empires although portrayed as one here.

I stopped posting in this thread early because I realised it included the lame christian roman empire..

I agree with everything Gwalchmai has said so far.

I hope that guiscard will give more informacion of these roman empire, because i look first page and i only can se map and question "what you think".
Guiscard give me more informacion of history period what these map present. Then i will know where and what stand in these map.

[boberz]

as far as i understand it qwert it is not set in any one period i just shows territories that the Romans occupied at one time or another

[Qwert]

boberz Posted: 25 Jun 2007 17:47 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as far as i understand it qwert it is not set in any one period i just shows territories that the Romans occupied at one time or another

If i understand,he want to create map of roman empire from all period of roman rule,and he create terittory and country how he likes.

[Guiscard]

In terms of the Oriens suggestion, if it must be changed then that does sound like by far the best option. The problem with that, though, is that it is a name from the time the empire was split, in which case the territory could be called Constantinople and the Byzantium label wouldn't need changing...

I might put it to vote, as I'd rather keep the Byzanium name if people don't find it too confusing...

Poll question could be:

Please read the discussion from page 12 onwards before voting.

Considering that there is already a territory named Byzantium, should the pink continent be named

a) Byzantium

b) Oriens

Addressing the question of the historical date, early on I made the decision after some discussion to go with a more generic Empire map which gives us the Empire at its greatest extent. It does not have a fixed period, although you'll find it pretty much comparable to the territory occupied during the period of the five Emperors (90 - 180 AD). I want to give people a broad area to play over. When we imagine the Roman Empire we imagine great legions sweeping over the known world. A more detailed map, perhaps of the wars against Carthage, would be great but in this case I want to create a generic Empire map which everyone can relate to. You can see the roots of Empire if you start off in Italy, the East/West split if your opponent holds the opposite side of the map, the need to hold powerful cities, Britain can hold out through its single border etc. etc...

[Pious]

I'd be against Byzantium. Byzantium's a city - not a region. The Byzantine Empire, containing different borders than "Byzantium" came as a successor state to the Roman Empire later on...

[Guiscard]

I'd be against Byzantium. Byzantium's a city - not a region. The Byzantine Empire, containing different borders than "Byzantium" came as a successor state to the Roman Empire later on...

What I'm saying, though, is that Byzantium is certainly a recognised synonym for the Byzantine Empire, and that the Byzantine Empire dates from the same period as the use of the Oriens term, at least from the evidence people have provided so far. Both seem too late for my map, really...

[Qwert]

From wikipedia,roman empire whas in big expend 117 years when trajan whas emperor, and there you can find map with all real provinces.

[Qwert]

Bithynia and Pontus,these must be insted Buzantium,because Buzantium present city not province.
If you want to create good map with all real province,then you must to search more,not to put things what you like.

[Pious]

I'd be against Byzantium. Byzantium's a city - not a region. The Byzantine Empire, containing different borders than "Byzantium" came as a successor state to the Roman Empire later on...

What I'm saying, though, is that Byzantium is certainly a recognised synonym for the Byzantine Empire, and that the Byzantine Empire dates from the same period as the use of the Oriens term, at least from the evidence people have provided so far. Both seem too late for my map, really...

Wrong, the Byzantine Empire is generally the Eastern Roman Empire from the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire (thus leaving only the Eastern Roman Empire) to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Oriens is probably around the time of the late Roman Empire, but it is probably still pre-Eastern Roman Empire and pre-Byzantine Empire.

By the time of the "Byzantine Empire" there was no empire in the west. Plus, the Byzantine Empire consisted of the Greek east and thus wouldn't have used "Oriens" thus meaning that Oriens probably predated the Byzantines.

(Yeah, I know a lot about the Byzantine Empire.)

[Qwert]

Yes buzantum empire whas before roman empire,you right Pious,but here in roman empire exist province Pontus and bythnia,and these must be insted buzantum

[Pious]

Yes buzantum empire whas before roman empire,you right Pious,but here in roman empire exist province Pontus and bythnia,and these must be insted buzantum

Huh? The Byzantine Empire was the increasingly-Greek Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the Latin-speaking Western Roman Empire. The provinces probably would have been different and it wouldn't have been known as "Byzantium" until after the fall of the western empire. In fact, it was labelled the "Byzantine Empire" or "Byzantium" long after it fell - they themselves saw themselves as successors to the Romans. The Romans wouldn't have called anything but the city "Byzantium," but they could have called the eastern part of the empire "the East" (Oriens).

[Guiscard]

From wikipedia,roman empire whas in big expend 117 years when trajan whas emperor, and there you can find map with all real provinces.

Qwert, a lot of research has gone into this map already. They are all the real provinces with all the real latin names. Places which didn't have specific names are what is being debated. No offence, but I'm taking my advice from people who seem more knowledgeable than wikipedia here.

[Guiscard]

I'd be against Byzantium. Byzantium's a city - not a region. The Byzantine Empire, containing different borders than "Byzantium" came as a successor state to the Roman Empire later on...

What I'm saying, though, is that Byzantium is certainly a recognised synonym for the Byzantine Empire, and that the Byzantine Empire dates from the same period as the use of the Oriens term, at least from the evidence people have provided so far. Both seem too late for my map, really...

Wrong, the Byzantine Empire is generally the Eastern Roman Empire from the time of the fall of the Western Roman Empire (thus leaving only the Eastern Roman Empire) to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Oriens is probably around the time of the late Roman Empire, but it is probably still pre-Eastern Roman Empire and pre-Byzantine Empire.

By the time of the "Byzantine Empire" there was no empire in the west. Plus, the Byzantine Empire consisted of the Greek east and thus wouldn't have used "Oriens" thus meaning that Oriens probably predated the Byzantines.

(Yeah, I know a lot about the Byzantine Empire.)

Fair enough. I was just going on the wikipedia links briefly. Oriens is still the best option, then. I think I'm actually sold on that idea. We won't bother with a vote, I'll put it in next update.

[Gwalchmai]

Oriens is probably around the time of the late Roman Empire, but it is probably still pre-Eastern Roman Empire and pre-Byzantine Empire.

I know you're sold on the idea now (you posted while I was just looking something up ) but just to back up what Pious says there (and because I've looked it up now) I was going to mention that Tacitus in his Histories, which cover the period of the four emperors, often refers to that area as the East, or as the provinces of the East when he wants to deal with events there. I would guess that the naming of the prefecture was probably a case of just employing a name that the area was generally known as in an official form.

[FM Harper]

Nothing really helpful to add. Just wanted to encourage you. I'm well looking forward to playing this, the map is looking well and I can see you have put a lot of effort into this.
Keep up the good work.

[Unit_2]

change the pic to a pic of cesar the 1st.

[Qwert]

Pious Posted: 25 Jun 2007 21:56 Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

qwert wrote:
Yes buzantum empire whas before roman empire,you right Pious,but here in roman empire exist province Pontus and bythnia,and these must be insted buzantum

Huh? The Byzantine Empire was the increasingly-Greek Eastern Roman Empire after the fall of the Latin-speaking Western Roman Empire. The provinces probably would have been different and it wouldn't have been known as "Byzantium" until after the fall of the western empire. In fact, it was labelled the "Byzantine Empire" or "Byzantium" long after it fell - they themselves saw themselves as successors to the Romans. The Romans wouldn't have called anything but the city "Byzantium," but they could have called the eastern part of the empire "the East" (Oriens).

Ups mine mistake, i mean to say byzantium city whas before roman empire.
Second,here is roman provinces 120 AD.
Achaea
| Aegyptus
| Africa
| Alpes Cottiae
| Alpes Maritimae
| Alpes Poenninae
| Arabia Petraea
| Armenia Inferior
| Asia
| Assyria
| Bithynia
| Britannia
| Cappadocia
| Cilicia
| Commagene
| Corduene
| Corsica et Sardinia
| Creta et Cyrenaica
| Cyprus
| Dacia
| Dalmatia
| Epirus
| Galatia
| Gallia Aquitania
| Gallia Belgica
| Gallia Lugdunensis
| Gallia Narbonensis
| Germania Inferior
| Germania Superior
| Hispania Baetica
| Hispania Lusitania
| Hispania Tarraconensis
| Italia
| Iudaea
| Lycaonia
| Lycia
| Macedonia
| Mauretania Caesariensis
| Mauretania Tingitana
| Moesia
| Noricum
| Numidia
| Osroene
| Pannonia
| Pamphylia
| Pisidia
| Pontus
| Raetia
| Sicilia
| Sophene
| Syria
| Taurica
| Thracia

Guiscard
Fair enough. I was just going on the wikipedia links briefly. Oriens is still the best option, then. I think I'm actually sold on that idea. We won't bother with a vote, I'll put it in next update.

I must say that these is mine first time to hear that Oriens is roman province.

[Qwert]

The Praetorian prefecture of the East or of Oriens (Latin: Praefectura Praetorio Orientis, Greek: Υπαρχία των της Έω πραιτωρίων) was one of four large Praetorian prefectures into which the Late Roman Empire was divided. As it comprised the larger part of the Eastern Roman Empire, and its seat was at Constantinople, the Praetorian Prefect was the second most powerful man in the East, after the Emperor, often serving as his first minister.

If you se Oriens not present provinces.