Were Ancient Empires Really That Powerful?

Seriously? Using population density to draw borders?

Then according to that logic... Siberia is no man land... And Australia only control the coast..

There is no nation between Tunisia and Mali. And there is no nation called Mongolia.

The US is divided in 2 West and east... Canada is only a small state that borders west US. What is Greenland and Iceland anyway?

I'm not supporting that we change our entire ideas on national sovereignty but only that an additional map be shown next to current geographical interpretations of countries.
 
I'm not supporting that we change our entire ideas on national sovereignty but only that an additional map be shown next to current geographical interpretations of countries.

I'll repeat. Empty land does not mean no control at all, and it does not mean that such control is speculative. And borders reflect that control.
 
I'll repeat. Empty land does not mean no control at all, and it does not mean that such control is speculative. And borders reflect that control.

Except when it is speculative...

Here's such a map

DRCcomplete_english1_0.png



As you can see, this is an internationally recognized geographical interpretation of the DRCs sovereignty.

(Speculative borders)

Yet here is the extent of real population control exerted by the federal government circa 2013

ga-mapping-16.jpg


As you can see, rebel groups still hold swaths of territory in the northeastern part of congo

(Real borders)

It makes 0 sense in these, and similar situations in Somalia, Ukraine, etc to have borders still be draw around areas of speculative control when facts on the ground say the complete opposite
 
Except when it is speculative...

Here's such a map

DRCcomplete_english1_0.png



As you can see, this is an internationally recognized geographical interpretation of the DRCs sovereignty.

(Speculative borders)

Yet here is the extent of real population control exerted by the federal government circa 2013

ga-mapping-16.jpg


As you can see, rebel groups still hold swaths of territory in the northeastern part of congo

(Real borders)

It makes 0 sense in these, and similar situations in Somalia, Ukraine, etc to have borders still be draw around areas of speculative control when facts on the ground say the complete opposite

But your argument is that empty land = no control, and that administrative control is tied to population density.

I'm only arguing that just because the land is empty, that it doesn't mean that there can't be any control.

I'll repeat my argument regarding the Roman Empire.

As long as armies and police could freely roam those empty areas without dispute, and could prevent foreign forces from operating freely, could extract resources from those empty pieces of land, and crimes happening in those areas are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, then that for me is real, not speculative control.

And all those empty land on your map? Roads crisscross those areas, built by Rome, as can be seen in numerous maps, like this one.

http://orbis.stanford.edu/

And there are official rest stops every 25-30 km for official travelers, maintained by the state, even in those empty areas. It's called a mansio, and has villas for use of official travellers with passports for that purpose. And of course, unofficial travellers has cauponae, or inns, near mansios, and of course, tabernae. How much more control do you want?
 
And there are official rest stops every 25-30 km for official travelers, maintained by the state, even in those empty areas. It's called a mansio, and has villas for use of official travellers with passports for that purpose. And of course, unofficial travellers has cauponae, or inns, near mansios, and of course, tabernae. How much more control do you want?

Just for the sake of correctness. The mansiones were maintained and operated by the local cities as a munera, sometimes by tenants by order of the city council. Of course the entire system was supervised by the praefectus of the cursus vehiculorum and his provincial counterparts. But not directly maintained or operated by roman clerks.
And we should not forget the 30-60 beneficarii with their stationes most probably close to such sites and spread over the province. Not counting smaller garrisons/forts with detachments of 20-80 men we find in such low populated areas, e.g in Africa. The smallest one I know of, was a fort in Numidia with about 15 soldiers surprisingly commanded by a librarius. The roman control system was perhaps very lean, but often pretty effective. More effective than any other ancient system before.
 
Last edited:
Except when it is speculative...

Here's such a map

DRCcomplete_english1_0.png



As you can see, this is an internationally recognized geographical interpretation of the DRCs sovereignty.

(Speculative borders)

Yet here is the extent of real population control exerted by the federal government circa 2013

ga-mapping-16.jpg


As you can see, rebel groups still hold swaths of territory in the northeastern part of congo

(Real borders)

It makes 0 sense in these, and similar situations in Somalia, Ukraine, etc to have borders still be draw around areas of speculative control when facts on the ground say the complete opposite

Those are armed insurrections, not just areas of low control. Those sparse regions of Rome are much more similar to asking if we should show all of Nunavut as actually Canadian. Any actual rebellions against Rome, even those just prompted by a collapse of central authority and people having to take matters into their own hands, are shown on maps. Areas that are low density parts of Rome or the Han have as much a place on the map as most of Canada does.
 
I think the key point here is not how much influence ancient empires had over unpopulated or underpopulated territories, but how much influence the 'metropoles' had over the 'hinterlands'. It's about their ability to impact the lives of the people who were ostensibly their subjects or citizens.

So for the Roman Empire, the question is, how much influence did Rome have over the average Briton in 100 AD? How much influence did Rome have over the average Po Valley villager at the same time? How much could they ask in taxes and recruits without resistance from these places, how much could they expect to get without special effort to get the amount demanded?

Apologies if I missed another poster making this exact point.
 
then should not maps reflect this?


It is the mistake of the reader, not the map. It is technically true that a country can control a huge chunk of land but have all its power in one city. And that its equally strong rival controls nothing more than a county.
Its the reader's mistake to look at the map and assume more land=more power.
 
Those are armed insurrections, not just areas of low control. Those sparse regions of Rome are much more similar to asking if we should show all of Nunavut as actually Canadian. Any actual rebellions against Rome, even those just prompted by a collapse of central authority and people having to take matters into their own hands, are shown on maps. Areas that are low density parts of Rome or the Han have as much a place on the map as most of Canada does.

But in the case of consistent cross-border raiding incursions, which happened a lot in the hinterland border regions around magna germania and anatolia, how realistic are those borders?

If there porous, then aren't the maps that signify them inaccurate.
 
But in the case of consistent cross-border raiding incursions, which happened a lot in the hinterland border regions around magna germania and anatolia, how realistic are those borders?

If there porous, then aren't the maps that signify them inaccurate.

Mate, the concept of a fixed and delineated border before 1648- hell before the French Revolution possibly- is barely something that you can even talk about. We've switched to using an 'undefined border' indication for most of the period which is basically 'limit of government control stops about here'.
 
Mate, the concept of a fixed and delineated border before 1648- hell before the French Revolution possibly- is barely something that you can even talk about. We've switched to using an 'undefined border' indication for most of the period which is basically 'limit of government control stops about here'.
From everything I've heard the Romans were a lot more into clear fixed borders than the early modern Europeans were.
 
But in the case of consistent cross-border raiding incursions, which happened a lot in the hinterland border regions around magna germania and anatolia, how realistic are those borders?

If there porous, then aren't the maps that signify them inaccurate.

What cross border incursions you are talking about and when? In the 1st/2nd century the Rhine border was pretty well guarded. Anatolia was probably even more safe.
 
From everything I've heard the Romans were a lot more into clear fixed borders than the early modern Europeans were.

not really. You hear about Hadrian's Wall of course, but even without taking into account the numerous times they advanced to the Antonine Wall and retreated afterwards, there's a fair amount of evidence that the Roman Army was active in the area immediately beyond the wall monitoring trade routes and so forth- there's a huge argument about how much it was really about controlling tax income rather than defence. It does get difficult to distinguish 'Roman' activity from 'semi-Romanised natives' in cases, but the idea that the wall was this great 'hitherto shalt thou come, but no further' is very outdated.

The borders in the North African desert were basically completely undefined, that between Rome and Parthia was very murky and the Rhine-Danube stretch had similar qualities to that of Hadrian's Wall, though with less activity on the other side from what I'm aware.
 
not really. You hear about Hadrian's Wall of course, but even without taking into account the numerous times they advanced to the Antonine Wall and retreated afterwards, there's a fair amount of evidence that the Roman Army was active in the area immediately beyond the wall monitoring trade routes and so forth- there's a huge argument about how much it was really about controlling tax income rather than defence. It does get difficult to distinguish 'Roman' activity from 'semi-Romanised natives' in cases, but the idea that the wall was this great 'hitherto shalt thou come, but no further' is very outdated.

The borders in the North African desert were basically completely undefined, that between Rome and Parthia was very murky and the Rhine-Danube stretch had similar qualities to that of Hadrian's Wall, though with less activity on the other side from what I'm aware.

I wasn't saying they were impermeable walls where no one passed and never changed. I was saying that whatever the Romans considered the border was clearly a border. There were all sorts of customs offices and usually some fairly solid markers to show where the border was (such as the extensive fences running along the North African desert). They had a very clear idea of where the nation ended (sure, they poked their neighbours a bit, but any nation that can get away with that today does so too). They liked running solid tariff systems and monitoring people who passed their borders.
 
I wasn't saying they were impermeable walls where no one passed and never changed. I was saying that whatever the Romans considered the border was clearly a border. There were all sorts of customs offices and usually some fairly solid markers to show where the border was (such as the extensive fences running along the North African desert). They had a very clear idea of where the nation ended (sure, they poked their neighbours a bit, but any nation that can get away with that today does so too). They liked running solid tariff systems and monitoring people who passed their borders.

In which case we'd use a solid black border for that case, but it's very much the exception rather than the rule and is a definite indication of the level of control the Roman Empire actually had even over territory that GH is suggesting shouldn't be shown as part of the Empire.
 
Top