Saw this image from this post on /r/MapPorn.
I'm accustomed to political maps like this one showing the region and extent of the Roman Empire. The uniform color-coded graphic format leaves the impression of uniform occupation of regions. But the city map isn't uniform.
Why so few cities in France? Why only one city in Africa and one city in Israel? Weren't Egypt, Greece, and Libya populous regions where one would expect Romans to found cities? Especially in war torn regions like Carthage, wouldn't the Romans found cities to replace destroyed cities?
I'm not even clear on what precisely it is that that map is supposed to be plotting, but whatever it is it's certainly not right
I answered this question on another thread today, which you might want to check out: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/87iykc/why_did_the_romans_build_more_settlements_in/
In short, the map was made using a limited, inaccurate set of data--but there are some other really cool maps you can check out to see a more accurate picture of the empire.
