Akiatu

Hey :) If you have any questions or ANYTHING, leave it here. Ok maybe not here...

but here:)

Roman Empire Map

Stop reverting the map. Research the Limes Arabicus. The Romans had fortlets as far east as Dumatha in the Arabian desert. Trajan expanded the limes eastward after his annexation of the Nabataean Kingdom.--Tataryn77 (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have in fact researched it, and I do in fact know the boundaries of the Roman Empire. The Nabataean Kingdom did not expand that ridiculus distance.

I didn't say the Nabataeans were that far east. I said the Romans occupied Dumatha after the kingdom was annexed. Are you denying the Romans stationed troops in Dumatha?--Tataryn77 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not denying it, though I hardly would consider a brief stationing of troops to be incorporation into the Empire. Though their troops were there, it was not apart of the Empire itself

Roman soldiers were stationed in Dumatha for decades, much longer than the Mesopotamian conquests of Trajan which are traditionally depicted when showing the maximum extent of the empire. Many people object to Trajan's conquests being depicted as the maximum extent of the empire because they lasted only a year or so (116-117). However, his conquests are always said to be when the empire was the largest, so we must depict the empire as it was at its height in 117.--Tataryn77 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The only reliable sources I know of only claim a brief occupation, what are your sources ~Akiatu~ (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Julian Bennett says in Trajan: Optimus Princeps that the Roman forts at Hegra and Dumatha date through to the reign of Antoninus Pius. That is not the point, though. The Romans occupied Hegra and Dumatha much longer than Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital, so I don't see the issue here.--Tataryn77 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Vast majority of Scholars feel the occupation was not an actual occupation, but rather were there for a more special reason, such as guarding trade routes. So no, they are no more apart of the Roman Empire then Japan was part of the United States after WWII. Stationing troops don't constitute actual political control like actually attempting to conquer did. If you look at almost any other map, some of which are used in very respectable books on Rome, you will notice it does not include Dumatha. Reasoning isn't because almost every scholar is wrong, but that, because of the complete difficulty of determining what Dumatha and the land inbetween was in relation to Rome, and thus to consider it instantly apart of Rome would be rushing to an unsupportable conclusion. Don't think your right when the concensus of Romanophiles don't agree. If you want to support your cause, you should provide more then one reference to defend against the majority of Roman Scholars. ~Akiatu~ (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Maps in books are often full of errors. For instance, Roman territory is often depicted extending well beyond Volubilis in many maps. Back on topic, Bennett's conclusions are based on archaeology and original sources (the latter concerning the alae at Hegra). Bennett even suggests Hegra and Dumatha constituted the effective border of Arabia Petraea (p178). That is because there is much evidence to suggest the Romans effected a full take-over of preexisting Nabataean institutions.--Tataryn77 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Until we have a more firm evidence that the military presence was not simply a "special mission" as a few history professors I'm acquainted with state it likely was, I'm going to go with a more conservative map, as opposed to a highly liberal map. ~Akiatu~ (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Stationed troops are usually an occupation force rather than a "special mission". However I'd suggested instead of edit warring use the article talk page and ask for 3rd opinions. Also please stick to specific sources and what they actually say rather than coming up with "relatively free interpretations". Bennet's book is probably not the best source, but it formally a reliable nevertheless and he's a noted scholar in the field. So in that context if you want to argue with Tartaryn77 on that, please provide reputable/reliable sources explicitly contradicting Bennet. If we simply have your opinion versus Bennet, then WP goes with Bennet.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Azraq inscription mentioning Dumatha also refers to the presence of soldiers from four Danubian Legions, who are likely to have been there for some very special reason." -Roman Syria and the Near East, by Kevin Butcher

Just so you know Akiatu I have no personal stake in Dumatha, I just want the maps to be accurate, that's all!--Tataryn77 (talk) 20:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I also want maps as accurate as possible, but also feel that in situations where little is known, we should stay more conservative. I am willing to accept the current map however. ~Akiatu~ (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)