On-line Euroatlas

@ionionescu you are right
denes is an nationalist but not a romanian one , a hungarian one





offensive remarks deleted by admin

This post has been edited by dragos on October 14, 2012 08:35 am

Adi, keep it diplomatic!

Mistakes in these kind of maps are all the time. Maybe because of their number I am less upset when I see one.
The Bulgarian state of those days was more into the south overall - that implies that the European territory controlled by the Byzantine / Roman Empire was smaller and the border was closer to Constantinople. Also that state was at south of Danube because there were no many reasons to live above it. The deciduous forest is the natural environment of all Europe - like a "default" due to European climate. Europe tends to be forest all over, unless disturbed by humans.
In the years 800 what would become later Wallachia and Moldavia was mostly forest, and the only target worth plundering and attacking was the Byzantine / Roman Empire in the south.
Needless to add, the Bulgarians were a kind of pest for that empire until a Byzantine Emperor took about 13,000 Bulgarians as prisoners and blinded them all, excepting 50 that were left with one eye and these 50 were asked to herd the rest back to Bulgaria.
* * *
That map is wrong for another reason. It was designed as a map focused on states, not on nations. And from this point of view it would make sense that the pre-Russians were not shown, that for Transylvania you can't see anything and in Italy full with people and many vibrant cities you see just "Francia".
But the authors of the map are not consistent in following this idea, and also show nations in the places they had at that moment: "Magyars", "Polans" etc. Once they started to also show nations, they should be consistent into this: show pre-Romanians (or pre-Wallachians), pre-Russians (Russia was not empty, right?) and Italians (a kind of archaic Italian was already language in Italy - shown as "Francia").
My point is further confirmed when you see that the only Germans on that map are the "Danes" (maybe also the "Obotrites" - honestly, I don't know "what's that".)
Best regards,
Florin

This post has been edited by Florin on October 14, 2012 04:11 am

My question was what did you mean when you said "Telling the unpleasant truth about Romania is not lack of patriotism." Did it have something to do with the discussion about the map or was it a general point you wanted to make? Do you think the map is telling an unpleasant truth?

As for the cue... I did post a link to a map earlier in the thread.

adicontakt, this kind of primitive remarks has no place on this forum. Here should be a place to discuss history in a civilized manner. If you persist with this you will be banned permanently.

My question was what did you mean when you said "Telling the unpleasant truth about Romania is not lack of patriotism." Did it have something to do with the discussion about the map or was it a general point you wanted to make? Do you think the map is telling an unpleasant truth?

As for the cue... I did post a link to a map earlier in the thread.

Imperialist,
Experience on this forum taught me that you can take one of my sentences, rip it out of context, and the misuse it to build an elaborate scaffolding of illogical and exaggerated inference that is impossible to discuss because it it is baseless. You want a row. I don't. Those questions have nothing to do with anything I said so I have no answers. I said all I had to say.
Radu

Continuing the idea from my previous post:
I made a fast Google check, to satisfy my curiosity - the "Obotrites" were Slavic tribes.
So in the map that generated all this topic only the "Danes" were mentioned from all Germanic nations. This does not help convincing the map's reader about the authors' professionalism.
* * *
Above the map you can read: "Sovereign States mode"
Really? A basic requirement for a political entity to be labeled "sovereign state" is to have a capital.
Considering that map: Where were the capitals of the following "states"
- Obotrites
- Polans
- Magyars
- Sorbs
- Nitrava ?

This post has been edited by Florin on October 14, 2012 04:36 am

Interesting that what are you acusing others, you are doing. I said that Denes's comments show lack of respect and you answered that his books don't show lack of respect. And we all know that in a forum you can say a lot of things....but in a book no.

Also please point " the misuse it to build an elaborate scaffolding of illogical and exaggerated inference that is impossible to discuss because it it is baseless".

If you say so, then why are these primitive, xenofobic labels still on the forum?

Gen. Dénes

This post has been edited by Dénes on October 14, 2012 07:47 am

I didn't misuse anything to build "an elaborate scaffolding of illogical and exaggerated inference", I asked you what you meant by what you said.

I asked, thus giving you the opportunity to explain. I asked, precisely in order to avoid misinterpreting and misusing anything. Yet you are unable or unwilling to explain what you meant. No problem.

As for the row, strange you accuse me of wanting one. When all I did was post a link to a .edu website and asked you a simple question. I'd say the person who started this thread wanted a row.

Imperialist, I already replied. I am tired of splitting semantic hairs with you. What I said is clear and self-evident.
Radu

There was nothing semantic about my question. I asked you whether what you stated refers to this thread and discussion about the map in particular or whether it was a general statement. In other words whether you think the map is accurate and tells a "painful truth" about Romania. Your answer was that you have no answer to give. You're right, it's clear and self-evident. Carry on.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on October 14, 2012 09:29 am

I am not going to be drawn into your innuendo and inference. Read what you want in what I said.
Radu

Back to the topic -more precisely at the maps in question- which does not surprise me at all, simply because I see that before: "Atlas der Weltgeschichte: Mit 1500 Karten und Abbildungen" by Jeremy Black (Dorling Kindersley Verlag, 2010). In this book with lots of maps I found a lot of interesting details that, after I have studied, proved accurate! But about Romania (territory inhabited by Romanians to be precise) I found a lot of inaccuracies and even gross errors (f.i. the religion nationalities in Transylvania around 1750 lacked the Orthodox one, which is known to have been majority even than, after union with Rome of some orthodox! or absence of all mention of a Christian population in the Romanian space before 1241 or... or... the exemples may be continued!). Say that does not surprise me (the maps) because I know from my own experience that "our version" of history is not known (and sometime accepted) but the hungarian-russian one (I say this because f.i. maps of Slavic (early Russian) kingdoms include northern Moldova as well) so...
The fact that we do not popularize our history acting individually or thru Romanian state is not UDMR or Hungarian fault, they only follow their interests how best they can... and they make that as a "permanent job" from 1867 onwards... why don't we learn nothing?

Denes' post did not contain any disrespect for Romania. It was just a question regarding what the members' opinions were on a particular subject, which btw came up in the Google adds on the forum (the link is still there as I type this). There's no grand conspiracy behind this topic and your reaction is certainly out of proportion and unwelcomed. This is the last time it goes without sanction.

It's your own problem if you dislike Denes or anybody else on this forum. Don't make it the forum's problem by turning the discussions into flame wars.