Early imperial maps are often inaccurate by modern surveying standards: rivers bend oddly, distances compress, and blank regions acquire decorative figures. Treating these features only as errors misses part of what the maps were made to do. A map might enlarge a capital to display sovereignty, depict a trade route as continuous to support a commercial claim, or leave contested borders vague. Yet political purpose does not make spatial accuracy irrelevant; distortions could still mislead travelers or administrators. Historical maps should be read simultaneously as representations of space and as arguments about power. Their departures from geography are evidence, but evidence that must be evaluated rather than romanticized.