Heute in meiner Galerie gefunden, ich weiß nicht wirklich, wo ich es zuerst gesehen habe (wenn Sie die Credits kennen, sagen Sie es in den Kommentaren)!
It’s crazy Turkey had 13 millions population in 1927. More than 1700 years later than this estimation.
RJ-R25 on
I’m surprised Britain is that low wasn’t Egypt supposed to be closer to 9 million
FGSM219 on
This map is nice also because it shows that the Romans did manage to conquer quite a large part of Germany. Many cities in western and southern Germany started as Roman military forts.
mantellaaurantiaca on
The number for England/Wales is surely wrong. They always had a high population density and the landmass isn’t even that small
Lumpy-Middle-7311 on
France is surprisingly high. If thought it was shithole for Romans and Turkey would be more important
TheFaceRider on
This seems like abject baloney. How the hell did Gallia contain so many people?!
backgamemon on
If turkey had this many people why did it have such a similar population size in the 1900s?
AlexRyang on
I am surprised that the England/Wales had that high of a population.
Pelekanone on
It is very wrong to use the term Turkey in this context. Turkey was still in Mongolia.
ZalaShadowkin_Reborn on
Weird how the whole Middle East at the time had the roughly the same population as modern-day lebanon
OG-Autisticperson on
10 of 12 million out of yellow try to live in Amsterdam.
seen-in-the-skylight on
Very surprised that Roman Gaul and Germania, even combined, were actually more populated than Anatolia. Doesn’t really seem right to me.
JoyOfUnderstanding on
It seems that numbers are too big (Spain, Gaul) for some of the places and too low for other places (Egypt)
Posavec235 on
Is there an information about the ethnic groups and languages in these provinces? Did Latin language replace the Celtic, Gallic and Punic?
Lionheart1224 on
Other men: thinking about the military conquests of the Roman Empire.
18 Comments
[removed]
It is more then I thought
It’s crazy Turkey had 13 millions population in 1927. More than 1700 years later than this estimation.
I’m surprised Britain is that low wasn’t Egypt supposed to be closer to 9 million
This map is nice also because it shows that the Romans did manage to conquer quite a large part of Germany. Many cities in western and southern Germany started as Roman military forts.
The number for England/Wales is surely wrong. They always had a high population density and the landmass isn’t even that small
France is surprisingly high. If thought it was shithole for Romans and Turkey would be more important
This seems like abject baloney. How the hell did Gallia contain so many people?!
If turkey had this many people why did it have such a similar population size in the 1900s?
I am surprised that the England/Wales had that high of a population.
It is very wrong to use the term Turkey in this context. Turkey was still in Mongolia.
Weird how the whole Middle East at the time had the roughly the same population as modern-day lebanon
10 of 12 million out of yellow try to live in Amsterdam.
Very surprised that Roman Gaul and Germania, even combined, were actually more populated than Anatolia. Doesn’t really seem right to me.
It seems that numbers are too big (Spain, Gaul) for some of the places and too low for other places (Egypt)
Is there an information about the ethnic groups and languages in these provinces? Did Latin language replace the Celtic, Gallic and Punic?
Other men: thinking about the military conquests of the Roman Empire.
Meanwhile, me:
Why is Cyprus red though