5 ms·

This is great but kinda confusing. What's up with large parts simply staying white in the beginning? Northern Europe only starts to get some names around 709 AD

This is great but kinda confusing. What's up with large parts simply staying white in the beginning? Northern Europe only starts to get some names around 709 AD, at which point a lot of Eastern Europe is still white. Does that mean we don't have any good records from these regions during that time or is this simply on account of too many small tribes sharing these regions and the author (understandably) not wanting to go with so much detail?

pradn 8y ago
People did reside in those areas but we often don't have the names. In some cases we do. Caesar wrote extensively about his campaigns in present-day France and he mentions the leaders of the Gauls quite a bit. So this map should include them. At least, it should show the area as "Gallic tribes."
- freeflight 8y ago
  > At least, it should show the area as "Gallic tribes." That'd probably a good solution which doesn't make it look like most of Europe is missing its population. I guess the creator didn't go with that because it wouldn't fit with the theme of showing actual rulers and not regions of influence by tribes.
  - bmn__ 8y ago
    I liked the variant with names of countries and population count better that was published four months earlier: http://youtu.be/UY9P0QSxlnI http://youtu.be/UY9P0QSxlnI
- JshWright 8y ago
  It does include them. The map gets populated with the band we know at the time we knew about them (note how France gets filled in just before it gets conquered by Rome)
mkempe 8y ago
A bit of both, at least in Northern Europe. For a very long time the Vikings/Northmen lived in small groups ruled by a local, elected chieftain (e.g. Erik, son of Leif). Much of Eastern Europe was similar, and subject to migrations, as well as having regular visits and settlements by Viking invaders. These tribes did not leave much in terms of oral or written records (sagas have been used to trace a very limited history of Nordic rulers, and runes tended to relate to private events).
nostrademons 8y ago
We also didn't have borders. In the case of well-defined civilizations like the Romans or Chinese it's relatively easy to tell where the empire ends - look at the walls. Even for the Huns, you could tell the greatest extent of their conquests. But for the Gothic tribes? They were semi-nomadic groups of clans. It's hard to put a dividing line on a map when it's unclear even what the basic unit of a polity was.

pradn 8y ago

People did reside in those areas but we often don't have the names. In some cases we do. Caesar wrote extensively about his campaigns in present-day France and he mentions the leaders of the Gauls quite a bit. So this map should include them. At least, it should show the area as "Gallic tribes."

freeflight 8y ago
> At least, it should show the area as "Gallic tribes." That'd probably a good solution which doesn't make it look like most of Europe is missing its population. I guess the creator didn't go with that because it wouldn't fit with the theme of showing actual rulers and not regions of influence by tribes.
- bmn__ 8y ago
  I liked the variant with names of countries and population count better that was published four months earlier: http://youtu.be/UY9P0QSxlnI http://youtu.be/UY9P0QSxlnI
JshWright 8y ago
It does include them. The map gets populated with the band we know at the time we knew about them (note how France gets filled in just before it gets conquered by Rome)

mkempe 8y ago

A bit of both, at least in Northern Europe. For a very long time the Vikings/Northmen lived in small groups ruled by a local, elected chieftain (e.g. Erik, son of Leif). Much of Eastern Europe was similar, and subject to migrations, as well as having regular visits and settlements by Viking invaders. These tribes did not leave much in terms of oral or written records (sagas have been used to trace a very limited history of Nordic rulers, and runes tended to relate to private events).

nostrademons 8y ago

We also didn't have borders. In the case of well-defined civilizations like the Romans or Chinese it's relatively easy to tell where the empire ends - look at the walls. Even for the Huns, you could tell the greatest extent of their conquests. But for the Gothic tribes? They were semi-nomadic groups of clans. It's hard to put a dividing line on a map when it's unclear even what the basic unit of a polity was.