Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
(09-24-2018, 07:45 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: 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?

(09-24-2018, 07:45 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: the Votadini client kingdom.

What evidence is there for this?
Nathan Ross
Marcus Aurelius was establishing 2 new provinces, not a buffer zone. Commodus preferred the colosseum to the hard work in the new provinces.
And, Marcus Aurelius annexed several territories in the east, for example Dura Europos, that had been left under Hadrianus. Apart the extension of the influence sphere in the Osroene region.
Under Severus, the border arrived stably to Nisibis, and Caracalla made other conquests, that were confirmed and kept. Instead of trying to conquest the whole Parthia, after Trajan Rome adopted a better approach and started a progressive advance. It was less spectacular, but more sustainable, and, mainly, more in line with what had been done previously to Trajan. Also, there was a clear expansion in the south.

What we can say is that Trajan was the anomaly in the first 2 centuries of the Roman Empire. And in fact he left behind the Eastern provinces, creating client kingdom. The empire at the death of Severus was stably in Nisibis. At the death of Trajan there was a client kingdom that would have endured neither one year.

Considering all these aspects, and considering that the economy kept growing, I am confident that the first real division starts with the military anarchy. The maps clearly show that the expansion was not stopped, so they are absolutely relevant.

For the Votadini, it is mainly a reconstruction. From Ptolemy we know the position of this people, and the continued occupation of found oppidum Traprain Law, together with the discovery of Roman coins, suggests the fact that its inhabitants were allowed to remain there, being some form of treaty between the Votadini and the Roman military administration.
- CaesarAugustus
(Marco Parente)
(09-24-2018, 08:59 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: I am confident that the first real division starts with the military anarchy.

I take your point about Trajan being an anomaly, but I still don't see why the 'military anarchy' would represent a major change in the way the empire operated. There was certainly a lot of change at the top, but in order to effect more coherent changes you'd need a stable and lasting administration, which was fairly lacking during this period!

Most of the changes that we do see appear to have their origins in the Severan era. Macrinus was the first emperor from the Equestrian order, we see long-range legion detachments and brigaded cavalry detachments under Severus, along with the appointment of equestrians to high military commands formerly held by senators, and succession attempts by the western provinces too. The religious legislation of Decius and Valerian also has its roots in the later 2nd century, as do the attempts at dynastic father/son co-rulership.

Was Gordian III's administration really that different to Severus Alexander's? Was Macrinus ruling a very different empire to Decius, or even to Carus?

Compared with the distinct differences we see under the Tetrarchy, the 'third century crisis' period was, I still believe, the closing stage of the 'middle empire', not the beginning of some new era, nor of 'late antiquity'.

(09-24-2018, 08:59 PM)CaesarAugustus Wrote: For the Votadini, it is mainly a reconstruction.

I've seen references to the 'Votadini client kingdom' all over the place, but there never seems to be any support presented for it! It could have existed, although I don't think there's evidence enough to show continued occupation of Traprain Law, or the existence of a settled Votadini kingship. Rome could certainly have given them subsidies (aka bribes!), but they gave them to all sorts of barbarian people across the borders, without any implication of clientship.
Nathan Ross
So, we started that the division was only chronological and finally we have seen that whenever date we set it is seen as relevant to distinguish different periods, as I though Smile

Macrinus was an isolated case and was coming from Rome, he was a Praetorian prefect. This was already a strange situation, but finally not so much different from what happened with Sejanus and Tiberius. 
With happened with the Maximinus was the real evidence that something was changing. Low birth, not a roman citizen (he started from auxiliary troops, so no citizenship), he was able to rise to higher ranks great to the Severian reforms, being able to command an entire legion, and from that position conquering the power, without having never been in Rome. Something absolutely new, the actual proof that the army had the power to promote an emperor.
Despite this, it is interesting that the Senate starte a conflict, initially won with the death of Maximinus. But, at the end of the military anarchy, the Senate had become the shadow of itself.

For the Votadini, got the point, I am going to review it and going to remove from the map, probably when I will do a section for the client kingdom I will include as possible but not confirmed. But this does not change the concept Smile
- CaesarAugustus
(Marco Parente)

Forum Jump: