File talk:Europe 814.svg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Typos[edit]

Also, quoted from elsewhere:

"there are mistakes in the byzantine area with labels. e.g macedonia and thrace (thracesians?) are in the wrong places. thessalonica is labeled as if it is a region and not a city, likewise with cephallonia which is an island."
"The map is wrong for The Netherlands. It shows Flevoland even if that didn't appear before the mid 20th century."

109.90.217.163 16:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

big typo[edit]

Austria. No, it is not. It is Austrasia. en:Austrasia in the east, (Neustria or) en:Neustrasia. --129.69.140.138 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

biased map[edit]

poles didnt even exist at that time--Crossswords (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I don't see any sources for this map? Unless they come up, this map should not be presented as a verified relevant source on how things actually were 1200 years ago.

Vasconia[edit]

From 812 to 824, Vasconia was ruled by Vascons (sourced can be found anywhere in spanish, basque or french). This map was wrong for that specific year. --Zorion (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I speak none of those languages and so wouldn't even know where to start looking. I was also unable to find such a source in English. Could you possibly provide a source? (It can be Google translated if need be).
In the meantime I have created a sort of hybrid version which incorporates all other changes made since that version but leaves Vasconia independent.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and one more thing: assuming it was independent at the time do you have a source for the extent of the territory? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That an huge problem. Not everything is on Internet, and many books are still not available.
Here are two links, one from a encyclopedia in Spanish with maps and the other one from a thesis in French. Other ssources can be found.
Vasconia Nombre que recibe el territorio de los vascones.
Quand Louis le Pieux succède à Charlemagne en 814, la présence carolingienne sur la totalité de son immense territoire reste fragile. L'absence de Louis le Pieux dans la Marche hispanique, la Septimanie, la Vasconie et même le Toulousain se fait sentir. Cependant, à l'exception sans doute de la Vasconie, la légitimité carolingienne s'enracine (Distances, rencontres, communications. Les défis de la concorde dans l’Empire carolingien Thèse de doctorat et de Ph. D., Université de Montréal / Université de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2010, Martin Gravel.)
I think that some historians want to credit a famous king instead of Pépin, but Vasconia, with Aznar Sanche returns under the Frankish rules in 824. Regards --Zorion (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at the Google translations of both links and they seem to agree with what I had already found - that Vasconia (Gascony) was subject to Francia but in open rebellion (a rebellion that was lost in 824). The (translation of the) first specifically says they were rebelling. Note that it calls the area "independent" (Independiente) at various earlier points (660, 710, 735, 744) but lists it as "in rebellion" (En rebelión) during the period in question - they are not the same thing. The (translation of the) second merely suggests that Louis the Pious's control of the territory was weak (i.e. his overlordship was nominal).
To be clear, the fact that a territory is rebelling does not mean it is de jure independent. That only happens if the rebellion is successful. It may be worth indicating the rebellion somehow on the map (possibly by adding "(in rebellion)" to the label or hashing it with another colour), but it should not simply be shown as an independent territory. To look at it another way, consider how Kosovo and Crimea are presented on maps of Serbia, Ukraine and Russia (e.g. Europe-Serbia.svg, Europe-Ukraine (disputed territory).svg, Russian Federation 2014 (orthographic_projection) - verde claro.svg). They have broken borders and/or are shaded a different colour to make it clear that the sovereignty of the territories is disputed. They are however still included.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, your modifications to the map (done in July 2014) not only made Vasconia independent but also transferred the eastern portion of the Marca Hispanica to the Emirate of Cordova. Why? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gone start a long conversation and be quick. I think that hashing is the best way with 2 bars orange for 1 bar green and marking in rebellion. Borders doesn't have to be broken because, it corresponds to the Wasconian (Gasconian) and Vascon populations. It will be the limites of the futur Gascony. Also the Franks have just crossed a corridor.
As you have already seen, I'm not good with SVG map and you can get back the limits of Marca Hispanica.
There are so much interpretation to deal with, and so many maps are subject to interpretation, especially those done in a large scale like Europe. For Vasconia, they were independant from 660 to 778, do you think historians, or map makers took this into consideration. No really, so many maps are just bullshit. If this map would dated 824, you would have less problem but the great Charlemagne was dead.
So much work has to be done.
By the way, where is the source of a such map Counties of Marca Hispania III and Comtats de la Marca Hispànica or Counties of Marca Hispania rus. I'm curious Hummmmmm --Zorion (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll have a go and see what you think. I'm not sure why you'd do 2 bars of orange per 1 of green though.
"By the way, where is the source of… " I don't know. Apparently Counties of Marca Hispania III.JPG is the source for the other two (which are merely translations), while Counties of Marca Hispania III.JPG itself was originally transferred from the English Wikipedia, but the original has since been deleted so there's no way of knowing. I'm well aware that any such maps depicting history have to be taken with a pinch of salt, especially from so long ago.
Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok with one bar each.
This map is may be the best that I can quickly found and can help you to delimit Europe 814.svg in South-Eastern Pyrenees. Regards. --Zorion (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've uploaded a new version. How's it looking (so far)? Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect. One more point, I would add at least the South of Pyrenees where the Franks have their problems with the Vascons. The center of Wasconia is Pamplona and this is where the Vascons are going to get their kingdom in 824. I would lengthen the first 4 lines from the West. No more comment after that, this is a more realistic map. --Zorion (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear it! I did wonder about the southern area but wasn't sure whether or not to include it, nor how much of it to include. I'll have a look at doing that (and the details) when I look at Tropcho's points below. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections in the Balkans[edit]

It seems that some corrections are necessary in the Balkans.

  1. en:Sofia became part of the en:First Bulgarian Empire in 809 (according to the source in the article about Sofia on en-wiki); in any case during the reign of en:Krum (c 800 - 814); see e.g. File:Territorial_expansion_during_the_reign_of_Khan_Krum_(803-814).png;
  2. The en:Avar Khaganate ceased to exist before 814 (it dissolved after unsuccessful wars against the Franks and Bulgarians);
  3. The en:Serbian Principality (medieval) was located in the western Balkans and didn't extend as far to the north, south and east as displayed. Thessaly, Peloponnese, and Macedonia were part of the Byzantine Empire at that time (see e.g. File:Serbien_9.Jhd.jpg or File:Balkans850.png).

If someone has the time, it would be nice to adjust the map accordingly. Tropcho (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quick response as I haven't much time. I'm more than happy to make these or any other corrections to the map once the above issue regarding Vasconia has been resolved, simply so two versions don't have to be amalgamated again. I'll have a look at your points in more detail then. I will say though that with regard to your point #3, judging by the original source map I think the coloured area is supposed to represent all southern Slavs (or "Slaves" as they are labelled on the source map), in much the same way as there were no kingdom boundaries in England, Wales or Ireland until I added them about a week ago. Notice the scale of the Servia label. That said, it is far from clear that that is the intention so it definitely needs some work either way. There are other issue to resolve too (e.g. the southern part of Dalmatia is supposed to be Venetian but is shown as Frankish). Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Avar Khaganate causes that the situation in the Central Europe is also shown incorrectly. In this region, it has an impact on Slovakia, Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary. It's great that you are open for further improvements and corrections, but the main problem with this map is that the original is based on only one source published 110 years ago (The Public Schools Historical Atlas, 1905). It simply does not meet basic criteria for reliability and (in my opinion) the current map should not be used at all (certainly not in such articles like Europe, History of Europe, Middle Ages, etc).--Ditinili (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ditinili: I've made some corrections along the lines mentioned above using more reliable sources (see file info). I think this takes care of some of the more serious shortcomings. Probably more corrections are needed, though, especially with respect to the eastern borders of the Frankish Empire. I'm not so familiar with the history of Central Europe so it will probably take me some more time to find reliable sources. Tropcho (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tropcho: In my opinion, the current approach is completely wrong. Somebody took unreliable and outdated source and now, people try to redrawn it to something meaningful. Yes, significant corrections of the Frankish Empire are required. The Franks defeated the Avars but they did not join all their previous territories (which had also wrong borders in the old map). Western part of the Czech republic (Bohemia) looks like a separate political unity what is also incorrect, eastern part (Moravia), Slovakia and western part of Ukraine (Carpathian Ruthenia) were not parts of the Frankish empire. The Slavic tribes in the north were not Poles yet, but tribes with own identity (Polanie, Wislanie, etc). In Moravia and Slovakia new political unit grew, later integrated into the Great Moravian empire.--Ditinili (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that it would be nice to start from a detailed and accurate map published in a reliable source. However, I haven't seen one yet, and perhaps the likelihood of finding a single map that contains both detailed and accurate information isn't too high. So until we find one, we can try and improve this one by incorporating information from various reliable sources into it. Tropcho (talk) 11:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible. However, in the meantime, the map should not be used. It simply does not meet criteria for reliability.--Ditinili (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Austria[edit]

Surely "Austria" should be "Austrasia" (see [1]) --Pfold (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the names[edit]

Unfortunately this map is full of typos. For comparison, see File:Frankish Empire 481 to 814-en.svg, which has correct names, but covers a smaller area.

Tagging everyone who's edited this file in the past: User:Cplakidas, User:Zorion, User:Tropcho, User:Ercwlff, User:Dominikmatus, User:Alphathon, User:One2, User:Caliniuc.

Please correct the following names:

  • Alemannia → Swabia
    (English common name instead of Latin)
  • Atelcusu Land of the Turks (Magyars) → Magyars
  • Austria → Austrasia
    (and move it up slightly to the northwest)
  • Burgundia → Burgundy
    (English common name instead of Latin)
  • Caliphate of the Abbasids → Abbasid Caliphate
  • Carthagena → Cartagena
  • Chroatia → Croats
    (not an unified state yet)
  • Danube Bulgar Khanate → First Bulgarian Empire
    (English common name)
  • East Roman Empire → Eastern Roman Empire
  • Emirate of Cordova → Emirate of Córdoba (Umayyads)
  • Esthland → Baltic tribes
    (and move it south to ensure it's fully inside the pale green area)
  • Kingdom of the Chazars → Khazar Khaganate
  • Middlesex → Essex
  • Northmen → Norse
    (less archaic)
  • Riems → Reims
  • Saxonia → Saxony
    (English common name instead of Latin)
  • Serbs → Sorbs
  • Servia → Serbs
    (not an unified state yet)

Furthermore:

  • insert “Avars” along the Danube in what is now Hungary;
  • remove Czechi (it's the same as Bohemia).

Michael! (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael!, I have corrected the typos on the map and I thank you for your comments! -- Itzhak Rosenberg (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Western Balkans borders[edit]

Whoever made and edited this map doesn't have a basic clue about the historical borders of early medieval principalities in the Western Balkans. There are two on-going discussions on the matter, here and here. It has a completely erroneous border between early medieval Croatia and Serbia; Croatia wasn't located or reached so far north but rather stretched onto the whole western part of present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina; Serbia wasn't completely located in present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro; and it doesn't include borders of medieval principalities of Pagania, Zachumlia, Travunia, and Duklja. The borders in the Western Balkans must look more like this and this. Please correct them.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a substantial update, but don't understand why it is not shown in the new "current" version. Is it gradually shown, any explanation?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galicia[edit]

The "Kingdom of Galicia" didn't exist until the 10th century when there was a division of the Kingdom of León into lesser kingdoms, the Kingdom of the Suebi in the Roman province of Gallaecia in Hispania was not the "Kingdom of Galicia", also this kingdom completely and irretrievably disappeared in the late 6th century. After the islamic conquest of Hispania, an Hispano-Roman Christian kingdom was established north to the Cantabrian Mountains, with its political, economic and cultural center located in Asturias, the kings of this kingdom ruled Northwestern Hispania from their thrones in Cangas de Onís, Pravia and Oviedo, all places in Asturias, these kings not only fought the muslims but also the galicians and the vascons, some of these kings called themselves king of Hispania (Hispaniae rex) like Alfonso III or king of the Asturs (Asturum rex) but never called themselves "kings of Galicia". In any case, the "Kingdom of Galicia" is a recent invention and the term "Asturum Regnum" should be used, other valid terms would be the traditional "Kingdom of Asturias" or the plausible "Kingdom of Hispania" (Alfonso III). If you need information read the Codex Vigilanus, there is constantly talk about the Asturum, "Asturorum" is the wrong historiographic term by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.152.131.92 (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish nationalism in the nineteenth century invented the name of the kingdom of Asturias. There is no source from the time that calls the kingdom that. Only the Albeldense chronicle calls it in one line "astororum regnum" literally: kingdom of the astorors, a bad interpolation. It does not say Kingdom of Asturias anywhere. The kings of that period are unanimously called kings of galicia. ChamomeXis (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Europe_814.svg&oldid=559688805"