Altered Maps 4: Partitioning Eastern Europe Like In The Good Old Days

[Godwynn]

i no right?, those people in 1477 were so dumb lol

 

[Winner]

i no right?, those people in 1477 were so dumb lol

OMG lol

 

[Masada]

India isn't that small, they just greatly underestimated how far south it should extend. If anything the Indus and Ganges are too far away, making India larger than it should be in the longitudinal direction.

Sri Lanka is generally over-represented in size in most maps of the period, which probably has to do with its relative importance compared to India. Since, Sri Lanka was really the only stop of note between the Malay Archipelago to the Arabic Peninsula. In the next century you tend to see Sri Lanka and the western coast of India being over represented because the latter gained some importance in pepper production and distribution. The eastern coast of India wasn't really of interest until some time after that.

 

[innonimatu]

Pretty good map given the time and location of its making, I suppose.

I lol'd @ a square "APHRICA" though

No, just a copy of Ptolemy's very old map. Here's another 15th century copy of that one:

 

[Squonk]

What's with Lithuania taking 1/4 of Belarus?

these are majorly polish territories. But Lithuanians consider Poles in lithuania, Belarus and NE Poland as polonised Lithuanians, so they wouldn't mind taking that chunk from their neighbour.

 

[Love]

Why the diss of scandinavia?

 

[Tee Kay]

Not known to the classical Greco-Romans?

 

[Masada]

No, just a copy of Ptolemy's very old map. Here's another 15th century copy of that one:

It's not, exactly. But it's fairly close. I'm still pondering where the original cartographer got the details for the Indian Ocean, its quite good for the period and beyond Ptolemy's knoweldge. At the time Ptolemy couldn't have known about that Golden Khersonese were traversable by sea all the way to China. It also goes without mentioning that nobody had knoweldge of some of the islands I'm seeing as well.

Not known to the classical Greco-Romans?

They're recorded. Tacitus for one mentions Scandinavia as the origin of some of the Suiones (Swedes) and claims that they had goods relations with their kin on the mainland. Ptolemy, Jordanes, and Procopius apparently also mention Scandinavia.

 

[Dachs]

It's not, exactly. But it's fairly close. I'm still pondering where the original cartographer got the details for the Indian Ocean, its quite good for the period and beyond Ptolemy's knoweldge. At the time Ptolemy couldn't have known about that Golden Khersonese were traversable by sea all the way to China. It also goes without mentioning that nobody had knoweldge of some of the islands I'm seeing as well.

I dunno, it'd been what, two hundred years since the Erythraian Periplus came out? Surely that, plus whatever contacts the Romans had with the Han of the time, could've been enough?

 

[Tee Kay]

I've drafted a title for the new Byzantine Emperor. Can you guys check?

Basileus, in Christ true Emperor and Autokrator of the Romans, Padishah, Shahanshah, King of Asia, King of Jerusalem, Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople, Hegemon of the Hellenic League, Pharaoh of Egypt, King of Greece, of Cyprus, of Anatolia, of Bulgaria, of Romania, of Moldova, of Ukraine, of Georgia, of Armenia, of Azerbaijan, of Albania, of Macedonia, of Serbia, of Montenegro, of Croatia, of Italy, of Iraq, of Syria, of Lebanon, of Israel and Palestine, of Saudi Arabia, of Iran, of Turkmenistan, of Uzbekistan, of Tajikistan, of Kyrgyzstan, of Afghanistan, of Pakistan, Ruler of the Crimea, Commander of the Faithful, Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques.

 

[Gelion]

You forgot Southern Russia.

 

[Kyriakos]

You also forgot the classic "vice-regent of god on earth"

 

[Tee Kay]

Only vice-regent? Who's the regent?

 

[Kyriakos]

Only vice-regent? Who's the regent?

I think that this is the title. The emperor is second only to god, who in this case is argued to be present in some form in the earth and so is its regent

 

[Tee Kay]

Speaking of which, I should add Devaraja as well.

 

[Masada]

@Varwnos & taillesskangaru

It's actually God's Vicegerent on Earth and not Regent. Which basically means: Deputy to God's Rule of Earth. There is an academic difference in there somewhere, Biblical in nature it seems - Adam was given the same title, apparently. So it might have religious overtures quite distinct to the temporal ones of Vice-Regent.

Basileus, in Christ true Emperor and Autokrator of the Romans, Padishah, Shahanshah, King of Asia, King of Jerusalem, Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople, Hegemon of the Hellenic League, Pharaoh of Egypt, King of Greece, of Cyprus, of Anatolia, of Bulgaria, of Romania, of Moldova, of Ukraine, of Georgia, of Armenia, of Azerbaijan, of Albania, of Macedonia, of Serbia, of Montenegro, of Croatia, of Italy, of Iraq, of Syria, of Lebanon, of Israel and Palestine, of Saudi Arabia, of Iran, of Turkmenistan, of Uzbekistan, of Tajikistan, of Kyrgyzstan, of Afghanistan, of Pakistan, Ruler of the Crimea, Commander of the Faithful, Guardian of the Two Holy Mosques.

HAIL DACHS! HAIL DACHS! HAIL DACHS!

I dunno, it'd been what, two hundred years since the Erythraian Periplus came out? Surely that, plus whatever contacts the Romans had with the Han of the time, could've been enough?

It could have been, but its generally reckoned that Malacca was only opened to trade in the sixth century, perhaps the mid to late fifth century at the earliest. There is considerable circumstantial evidence to support this position. The most important of which is that collapse of Funan as a Mandala, the blame for which is generally attributed to the circumvention of its monopoly over East-West trade, thanks to its control over the Isthmus of Kra. Chinese sources seem to corroborate that around this time Malays began to make their first appearances trading primarily drugs, resins and timber - with not a mention of spices! This is of course not proof of the opening of the Malacca Straits to trade, but the sudden decline of Funan which was heavily geared towards monopoly and the arrival of a bunch of previously unknown Malay traders strongly implies that was the case. Although, having said that there's been some growing doubt about the veracity of that claim - I'm not inclined to give it serious credence yet.

The actual evidence we have is pretty scant, probably the earliest definitive reference to the use of the Strait comes from Yi-Ching, who made the journey sometime around the late 680s. He does however suggest that it was relatively new, although on the other hand he notes that Srivijaya's Buddhist Stupas were some of the largest in the world with the most considerable store of literature outside of India itself. The other telling thing he mentions is the monks fluency in Pali and Sanskrit. All of these are indicative of some long standing cross-cultural contact but nobody is sure how long it had been going on - or if its reasonable to assume that the contact was carried out entirety through Malacca. I suspect that it is, but I also lean strongly towards the more conservative estimates for sustained Malacca contact. Simply because of how atrociously bad some of the early Sanskrit inscriptions are, presumably if there was sustained contact - using Sanskrit as a linguistic medium - then that shouldn't have been an issue. (I've mentioned this little anecdote before, but when your Sanskrit is confused for Old Malay by the best translators in both languages for twenty years, you have some serious issues!)

The propensity of non-agrarian trade based states to suddenly appear around the early sixth century is also telling. Srivijaya, for instance, was "founded" in 683 according to our evidence but in the tradition of the region was probably no more than an older kingdom with a new dynasty, or even ruler who wanted to distant himself from the past. It was probably a successor state of Kantoli which has origins going back at their absolute earliest to the fifth century. The sticking point is that we are not certain if it was a trading state to begin with. I'm certainly inclined to believe that if O.W Wolters placement is to be believed that its probable that Kantoli was simply an agrarian state which was placed well enough to take advantage of the sudden growth in trade. The name change could fit in well in this understanding because we have historical precedent for states renaming themselves to capture a change in circumstances. It would seem that numerous cities donned the mantle 'Srivijaya' whenever they wanted to make claims to hegemony.

I'd therefore relatively confidently date it to the sixth century like most of the scholarly community. A few hundred years after Ptolemy and the Periplus.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Found this map on Wikipedia. It has something to do with the HRE, but I don't now what.

I assume it is HRE Borders, but I can't read German.

 

[holy king]

it's the ottonian empire.

 

[Mirc]

"Empire of the Ottonian and Salian dynasties"

(continuous line): Border of the Empire, 972 (Otto I)
(dotted line): Border of the Empire 1032 (Konrad II)

I can translate everything but I'm afraid of a crosspost, so I'll edit it in later
Edit: Ohhhhh crap!

(color 1): Teutonic Kingdom (name is in Latin, BTW, not German)
(color 2): Probably refers to military settlements in border areas, which are put up in order to repel outside invasions. The word "Marke" has so many meanings in German that I could be entirely wrong here.
(color 3): Italian Kingdom (Latin language again)
(color 4): Saracens / Moors / Arabs

Abbreviations: Not sure how to translate the titles, since I'm not really sure what each of them means.

 

[Godwynn]

I assume it is HRE Borders, but I can't read German.

ha ha what a loser!