51–60 of 152 posts
Not very "technically accurate", since it does not represent (at least some?) vassal states differently from their suzerain. For example, compare this [1] map of the Ottoman Empire with the one in this atlas. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/OttomanE...
The issue is that the timeline is built in a Eurocentric way. Europe (and the Near East) are shown as the starting point of history, while Africa, Asia, and the Americas only appear when Europeans make contact with them. This hides thousands of years of independent development in those regions—empires, and creates the false impression that they had no real history before Europe showed up. It repeats an old colonial s…
The issue is that the timeline is built in a Eurocentric way. Europe (and the Near East) are shown as the starting point of history, while Africa, Asia, and the Americas only appear when Europeans make contact with them. This hides thousands of years of independent development in those regions—empires, and creates the false impression that they had no real history before Europe showed up. It repeats an old colonial s…
You're implying this is some sort of "malice". It's not that authors are "Biased towards Europe". The reality is that, sadly, there's VERY LITTLE historical records in antiquity besides the ones in "Europe". For example, I'm from Latin America, and the most important empires in South America (Incas for example) were using writing systems based on threads and knots (called Khipu). Sadly, these records didn't survive.…
Also smaller "cultures" which do not constitute states/kingdoms are shown in the map, albeit without color or borders.
But yeah. Evil Eurocentrism am I right.
Seeing that it fails to portray the current map accurately, by not to separating PRC and ROC (taiwan), makes me question everything about older data
Both PRC and ROC maintain their sovereignty over the whole of mainland + islands, so this depiction is not exactly inaccurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_China
This map should show the areas of actual rule and control (de facto) and don't accept any territory to belong to a state just because they claim sovereignty.
I always wanted something like a "History of human progress" which when zoomed out shows me something like this: -2000000 Stone tools -1000000 Using fire -6000 Metal tools -6000 Agriculture -4000 Writing 1550 Printing 1888 Telephones 1888 Cars 1903 Planes 1941 Penicillin 1941 First computer 1982 Homecomputers 1983 Mobile phones 1990 The internet 2001 Wikipedia 2004 Facebook 2007 IPhone 2022 ChatGPT And then I can zoo…
Total plug but this year I scraped 400,000 wikipedia pages with Gemini to create landnotes.org, an atlas where you can ask "what happened in Japan in 1923": https://landnotes.org/?location=xnd284b0-6&date=1923&strictD... https://github.com/Zulko/landnotes My plan has been to overlay historical map borders on top of it, like the Geacron one from this post, but they all seem to be protected by copyright - and understan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both PRC and ROC maintain their sovereignty over the whole of mainland + islands, so this depiction is not exactly inaccurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_o... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_China
Then it should be striped, the same way Crimea is.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ROC_Administrative_a...
I'll add that most of the "Internet's supporters of Taiwan independence" not only do not live in Taiwan, they have never even visited there -- if they did, they would know that even most of Taiwan's population consider Taiwan and (mainland) China to be one entity. And mainland China mostly agrees with that -- where they disagree is what is the political entity that should govern this territory.
The issue is that the timeline is built in a Eurocentric way. Europe (and the Near East) are shown as the starting point of history, while Africa, Asia, and the Americas only appear when Europeans make contact with them. This hides thousands of years of independent development in those regions—empires, and creates the false impression that they had no real history before Europe showed up. It repeats an old colonial s…
You're implying this is some sort of "malice". It's not that authors are "Biased towards Europe". The reality is that, sadly, there's VERY LITTLE historical records in antiquity besides the ones in "Europe". For example, I'm from Latin America, and the most important empires in South America (Incas for example) were using writing systems based on threads and knots (called Khipu). Sadly, these records didn't survive.…
* The Kingdom of Kush maintained *3,000 years of king lists*. * Ethiopian monasteries preserved *written chronicles in Ge’ez* for over a millennium. * Mali’s griots memorized *centuries of dynasty records* with such precision that griots from distant regions told the same histories word-for-word when Europeans finally documented them.
Yet when do these count as "real" history? Only after Europeans wrote them down? Only when archaeology "confirms" what griots already knew?
The map shows detailed Rome but blank Africa, despite these complex states existing for millennia. it's about whose preservation methods and developmental paths count as "real" history worth mapping.
How do you make this? It doesn't seem to be like Wikipedia has coordinates or map boundaries for ancient empires, so there's no simple way to mine the data. And if you don't mine it from somewhere, how do you know what to include? How many people will have heard enough about every part of the world to even be able to research ancient borders?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're implying this is some sort of "malice". It's not that authors are "Biased towards Europe". The reality is that, sadly, there's VERY LITTLE historical records in antiquity besides the ones in "Europe". For example, I'm from Latin America, and the most important empires in South America (Incas for example) were using writing systems based on threads and knots (called Khipu). Sadly, these records didn't survive.…
Then don’t present it as an Atlas of world history. It should be called an Atlas of Eurocentric history. Furthermore, we would have had much more records from non-european sources if many European explorers and colonialists had not gone on a rampage destroying whatever indigenous documents and history they could lay their hands on. As a Latin American I’m sure you know about how the conquistadors destroyed written re…
