Altered Maps 3: The rise of the Basque Empire!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Funny, the map got it right.
 
I suppose this map is about the second biggest "mother tongue" in each country? In that case I find it surprisng that German is the second language in the Netherlands. According to some numbers I could dig up, there are about 386.000 Germans living in The Netherlands, while there are about 450.000 speakers of Frisian... What source are you using for that map?

Dutch Low Saxon is spoken by 1,798,000 speakers. "From a diachronic point of view, the Dutch Low Saxon dialects are merely the Low Saxon dialects which are native to areas in the Netherlands" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Low_Saxon
I assumed that Dutch Low Saxon is a dialect of German.
 
Cool map. Bit surprised to see Romania has Hungarian, not French, and more amused to see Hindi in England.

I think there's nobody (= a number that can be approximated to 0) whose first language is French in Romania. Likewise, I don't think there's anyone (=same definition) that learns Hungarian as a second language.

This is not about foreign languages. It's about the second most-spoken FIRST languages in each country. Thus, the map is entirely accurate when it comes to Romania, as Hungarian is clearly the biggest of those present.
 
Dutch Low Saxon is spoken by 1,798,000 speakers. "From a diachronic point of view, the Dutch Low Saxon dialects are merely the Low Saxon dialects which are native to areas in the Netherlands" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Low_Saxon
I assumed that Dutch Low Saxon is a dialect of German.
Dutch low Saxon is not German. It's something in between German and Standard Dutch. It was recognized as a "reginal language" based on a couple of parameters set by the Dutch government. But I don't think it can be considered a "real" language. As far as I know (and maybe a Dutch member can correct me), there are no formal, uniform rules for spelling, grammar and even vocabulary. It's more like a family of similar dialects.
The same goes for LMimburgish, which is spoken in the South-East of the Netherlands (and in the North-East of Belgium).
Frisian is a different case. It's an offcial language. There are newspapers and television stations that use the Frisian language, and I think it is also thaught in local schools
 
Dutch low Saxon is not German. It's something in between German and Standard Dutch. It was recognized as a "reginal language" based on a couple of parameters set by the Dutch government. But I don't think it can be considered a "real" language. As far as I know (and maybe a Dutch member can correct me), there are no formal, uniform rules for spelling, grammar and even vocabulary. It's more like a family of similar dialects.

A language doesn't require formal or uniform rules in order to be a language.
 
You can read more on that here

I hope this doesn't turn into "but my country is peaceful, this criteria is crap"



Good catch! Here's a better map:


I like how Finland-Russia and S. Korea-N. Korea are the only neighboring countries with maximum contrast.
 
Theres something wrong with the categories if Afghanistan and Russia are in the same one. Its obviously not weighted by population.
 
Wondering what the criteria are. Is it the stability of government and the amount of wars a nation has started?
 
Theres something wrong with the categories if Afghanistan and Russia are in the same one. Its obviously not weighted by population.

Afghanistan: 143rd least peaceful country - 3.285
Russia: 136th least peaceful country - 2.750

The bolded number is their "peaceful coefficient" or whatever they call it. They're about 17% apart.

Yeah, they're close, I guess, but Russia has a big army and has been involved in a lot more wars than Afghanistan lately, relations with neighbouring countries aren't that great (to say the least), etc. There's a lot of factors they look at - you should check out the list.
 
Here is my Obamacized and McCainicized North America (opposite party states given to different countries)
 
Theres something wrong with the categories if Afghanistan and Russia are in the same one. Its obviously not weighted by population.
They are arbitrarily decided cut-off points. The two countries could be at the maximum and minimum of the range, and actually are pretty close to them.

I understand the theoretical maximum and minimum possible values are 5 and 0 (or is it 1?), but the maximum and minimum present (over the past 3 years) are 3.514 and 1.076, making the Russia and Afghanistan difference over one fifth of the total difference from largest to smallest ever.

Also looking at the criteria it takes into account many things more than wars a deaths. Military spending, size of the standing army, violent crimes, number of police, number of heavy weapons, military sophistication and more. So it isn't just active conflicts, but the abilit to carry out one as well.
 
Here is a map where all Indian nations in the United States above 100,00 people get their own countries.

This is only US tribes, though the Anishnaabe land is almost all in Canada. I can't find statistics for Canada. But I do know that there are like 200K Cree in Canada, I don't know enough about the other tribes though.

Anyway, here it is.
 
Yeah, they're close, I guess, but Russia has a big army and has been involved in a lot more wars than Afghanistan lately, relations with neighbouring countries aren't that great (to say the least), etc. There's a lot of factors they look at - you should check out the list.

Yes, and they suck.

The size of an army has nothing to do with how non-"peaceful" a country is.
 
The size of an army has nothing to do with how non-"peaceful" a country is.

If there was a clone of me, and we were exactly alike, aside from the fact that I carried around a hunting knife with me everywhere, and my clone didn't, I would call my clone more "peaceful" than me.

Either way, it's only one of many factors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom