I didn't want to seem aggressive or over-sceptical, it's just that there are lots of things formerly accepted as fact that are later thought to be fictional, partially-fictional, or embellished, and I just wanted to know if that was one of them, due to the vastness of his journey.
Some of his expeditions (especially the detour to Central Russia) are highly doubted, due to the fact that he didn't note things down during his travels, had to rely from memory, and often copied information about places from other sources.
This and the fact that he sometimes speaks from places that most scholars think he never actually visited and that he only narrates what he knows from hearsay. His alleged visit to Sana'a is a good example of this.
As for the copied information, it is mainly his scribe's fault. When he dictated the Rihla to Ibn Juzayy, Ibn Juzayy copied lots of stuff from Ibn Jubayr's account, who performed his hajj about a 150 before Ibn Battuta. However, these sections copied from Ibn Jubayr's texts are pretty easy to identify and prove nothing because it's highly likely that Ibn Jubayr (an Andalusian) and Ibn Battutta (a Moroccan) visited the same places in their respective hajjs.
Guys, new evidence shows that the Ottoman Empire and the Byzantine Empire were the same thing. So historians have decided to just call it the same thing. The problem is they can't decide between Ottontine Empire or the Byzoman Empire
I thought the Ottomans controlled the entire coast of the Black Sea, as well as parts of Persia.
I think it should be called the Αυτοκρατορία του ρουμιού
SpoilerTranslation, brought to you by Google Translate :
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
