5 ms·
I was also thinking it’s misleading because while the tribes to the north may not have had as an extensive written language as the Romans and Greeks, they certa
by erric 8y ago
I was also thinking it’s misleading because while the tribes to the north may not have had as an extensive written language as the Romans and Greeks, they certainly had rulers.
- InitialLastName 8y agoI'm willing to accept that as necessary; we can't expect the creators to have access to information that may not exist, so it's better that they put nothing than something inaccurate.
- mythrwy 8y agoYou have to be known to get in the history books though. Which means either having a written language or being in close proximity and annoying enough to a culture that does. But to your point, sure, not a complete record. Still an impressive presentation.
- mikeash 8y agoI had the same thought. I’m not sure how to represent that on a map, but I think it could use something more than just a vast white space.
- komali2 8y agoI thought that was one of the most interesting parts of the map - those regions weren't writing, so we knew nothing about them until the Romans started making inroads to the rest of Europe and crossing swords with those out there, and writing down the names of the rulers they were fighting with. So as tendrils of Rome go out on the map you see a scattering of rulers around those tendrils.
- asveikau 8y agoI was also thinking that within pockets of larger territories there were probably areas of relative autonomy. Neat lines of borders and centralized control within them seem like a relatively recent invention, even if the larger narrative ends up more or less telling an accurate story.
- kzrdude 8y agoOr when they wrote, they wrote in less persistent form, like carving in wood?