hi, how are you?
Reykjavik wasn't officially founded until 1786, and was really only a collection of homes for thirty years before that. It's a very young city, for comparison San Francisco was founded in 1776 by the Spanish on the west coast of America. At the time of this map Iceland was a very, very poor and rural subsistence agricultural and wool producing outpost of Europe.
There are a few place names on this map that were important in their time. Skalholt was an important religious center, with probably a few hundred people. Breiðdalsvík and Kirkjubæjarklaustur are both on here, both of which have just over a hundred people today. They probably would have been bigger then, but not by much.
Any reason that they miscalculated the Arctic Circle?
I think this would be a better portrayal if the colours were derived from the percentages.
It's hard to imagine numbers like 17% of the population being wiped out in a short time period. It must have been awful.
War of the Triple Alliance
Holy crap, ~70% of the adult male population.
Paraguay during the War of the Triple Alliance: Hold my beer.
You can see that the Netherlands in the Golden Age preferred traiding posts in favour of conquering. It was at a later stage that the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) was under full control. Interesting map!
They sure did. They recently did a calculation how much the VOC (Dutch East India Trading Company) was worth back then. 7.9 trillion.
Which is how the worth of any public traded company is calculated.
Edit: Didn't read the above comment correctly. OP is somehow under the assumption that the value of the VOC was calculated on the modern worth of one or more real physical stock papers from back then. Example: 1 stock paper got sold at an auction in 2016 for €1.000.000 and that it gets multiplied by the amount of stock papers of the VOC exist now.
And that is not correct. The mentioned source used the worth of the stock paper in the 1630s and multiplied it with the amount of stock papers in circulation in the 1630s. And then did an inflation correction on it and then converted it to US dollars. This is not a great method, but it's still a pretty good method to show how big the VOC was back then.
Another way to show how big the VOC was how much the stuff the VOC shipped. In 1670 that was 568,000 tons, about the half of all shipped tonnage of European merchant ships at the time. Imagine a company that owns and ships half of all shipped goods in Europe nowadays.
A bit off topic, but we have quite a few Dutch place names here in Australia due to their exploration in the 1600's.
The history of the dutch in australia is fascinating and brutal. Check out the mutiny of the Batavia.
I like how it's called 'reclaimed'. Somehow we convinced the world we had that land in the first place and took it back from the sea. Wonder if we can make that work with land too.
Edit: I know the land was dry before, I know about Doggerland, I am a historian. It was just a setup for the joke about us taking land from other countries and calling it reclaiming. That being said, thanks for trying to teach people some cool history facts and going against, albeit this time perceived, ignorance. We need that more than ever these days.
Time to (((reclaim))) Belgium
Oceans hate him.. Local country figures out how to reclaim land. Find out how with this one simple trick!
Poor ocean getting conquered by a gang of Dutch tulips....
TIL there’s a star system named Seoul
Why would people leave next to the Galaxy core, where gamma bursts are supposed to fry the life out of everything?
Presumably everything outside of the nothingness is safe enough. The core area on the map is still gargantuan...
While this is all Pre-Disney. The Post Disney Canon has kept the same layout for canon planets, with the trade roots and galactic boundaries No, But while Disney Canon doesn't have this many planets, its still has the canon established planets in the same location, with the same trade roots and galactic boarders.
So compare the maps
No, you are!
How are we defining European Ancestry? Are we only including 100% European ancestry?
EDIT: If we're including those of partial European ancestry then South Africa looks like
I agree with the Turkey's Europeanness disputed.
Nevertheless, i'm Turkish and here is my regional ancestry according to DNA test from Genographic Project by National Geographic: ()
Asia Minor 35%
Eastern Europe 30%
Western and Central Europe 12%
Finland and Siberia 9%
Eastern Asia 9%
Southern Europe 4%
If included finland and siberia region, it can be said that 55% european. My grandmother's mother was a Crimean Tatar, so %9 asian seems logical also. All of my grandparents were Balkan Turks who came to Turkey when the Ottoman territories were lost. My parents grew up Eskişehir in Central Anatolia. Mom has blueish grey eyes, father had hazel eyes. My sister is a natural blonde with green eyes.
I'm not saying I'm European or anything. Just, it can be interesting for some people to find out how diverse the world can be.
On a note: Check out the map of Europe in 1812 https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Europe_1812_map_en.png
Not very important. Definitely not worth fighting a war over.
Gotta love the Czech Lake and the Romanian Sea! Finally Hungary can into beaches.
Russia is 11.86 in case one has difficulty reading the text (which should have been white over such a dark color).
You should paint them in gray next time, or at the very least have them be different from the sea. Nice map otherwise.
Sweden:Basically all electricity production is free of CO2 emissions (nuclear, hydro and wind ar the major ones). All major railway lines are electrified. Negligible use of natural gas Emissions are taxed quite heavily+ Buildings are well insulated and use energy quite efficient. There is a willingness in society to go green (probably the most important one)
So, I was rescently in a discussion about what is the oldest border. That's not a hard question in itself (it's Andorra). But what about number two? And three? And what's the newest? And what regions, or which continent, have generally older or newer borders? I figured this had to be available information somehow. I was partly correct.
Researching this has been painstaking, because a lot of the sources are fuzzy. Even the facts are fuzzy, different cultures have had different systems for defining a ruler's area of influence and which rulers together form a larger entity. National borders as we know them today are closely tied to the age of the modern nation-state.
In order to have some bearing point, I decided to try to find the first instance of a currently existing border being defined in official writing. Of course there are a lot of problems with that definition, so I will argue for and against it below.
One problem is deciding when a border was defined in its current form. Firstly, pretty much every border has been minutely adjusted several times since its beginning. A map of which border was most rescently adjusted would be interesting in itself, but that's not what I'm going for this time. Secondly, I sadly don't have access to the full text of every border treaty, so for this I've simply trusted my sources. That will skew some dates closer to the present. Some borders, like in Central America, have existed since colonial times but were vaguely defined and not properly mapped until very rescently. That may give a wrong impression of e.g. El Salvador -- an almost 200 year old nation -- but it's also interesting in itself that they operated with approximate borders for so long.
Countering that, other borders have existed since ancient times (such as the Danube or the Scandinavian Mountains), but loosely defined and loosely dated if at all. I've found that dates like "Roman times" or "Viking times" are too vague. It also sets a precedent that is hard to follow up when it comes to ancient borders outside Europe where diplomatic history is even less documented (like the Mekong or the Andes). The definition I've chosen will help to secure consistency in the map to some extent.
Another problem is the fact that many borders weren't set at one specific time, even when you follow the paper trail. Many were decided upon one year, ratified by both parties later, then surveyors set out, and worked for however long before the border was finally demarcated maybe a decade or two later. Sources may quote any of these dates and there is a lot of room for interpretation. I've tried to go for the date the line was first defined, not implemented or marked on the ground. Where that is possible. Which brings me to the next point:
Not a lot of sources focus on a border's "founding year". Many sources about boundaries are legal, and naturally focus on the latest border revision, not the first. Historical soures, on the other hand, tend to focus on the border as it was at the time in question, mentioning only where relevant if this was the same location as today. For Europe there is a tendency to discuss the annexation of certain districts more than the actual treaty defining the border. These dates may be intermingled in some cases.
I should also mention an inconsistency in the map which I've given a lot of thought and decided to live with. I've marked some borders as "originally internal borders", to highlight the nature of the various colonial borders and former Soviet Republics. The problem is, a lot of borders, if not most, started out this way. One example is Acre State in Brazil. I suspect the border was set when it became a Bolivian state in the 1830s, but I don't know exactly when or at what level of detail they were set. Realistically, to find out that I would need access to researchers, historians and translators who know the local archives. I know, however, there was a delineation when it became an international border in 1903 after the Acre war. So I will go for the earliest delineation I can find. As long as this is a project for fun, and not part of a thesis or anything, that is the scope I'll settle for and say that this is a useful but not exhaustive category. But if somebody can point me to sources with dates for the Irish county borders or the first border treaty between the Habsburgs and Moravia, or Bohemia and Bavaria, or actually a lot of the tiny fiefdoms in Europe that somehow ended up forming a current border, I'll be very happy to hear it.
All in all, there will be mistakes here. There will also be dates people will disagree on. However, I'm hoping this overview gives an interesting look into how the concept of modern borders has spread throughout the world, in which regions they've meandered, where they've settled in and where they were simply imposed once and for all.
TL;DR: I've chosen an imperfect method since there are no perfect ones, but I still hope the map is interesting.
Nice map, as a bonus fact for you: The border between the Netherlands and Belgium has changed as of today. It used to follow the path of a river, and the river had been partly straightened out years ago, to accommodate for ships, today a treaty went in effect that puts the border in the (new) middle of the river again.
Brilliant work and a fascinating map.
Thanks for the info! Always happy to know it's some border's birthday somewhere.
Most people don't spend their lives cowering in terror over unlikely events.
Many more deaths occur by simply owning a gun compared to thieves breaking into your home.
Their primary objective isn't to kill the household occupants, it's to steal shit, also they tend to do it when you're not at home.
Owning a gun for self defense purposes is retarded and not effective.
For those who might not understand this map:
It is indeed possible to get concealed carry permits in Europe, but only in certain situations.
Countries in green are shall-issue permit countries, comparable to US states like Texas. The government will issue permits to citizens who meet certain criteria (like not being a felon).
Countries in yellow are may-issue permits countries, comparable to US states like Delaware. The government will issue permits to citizens with special reasons or situations.
Countries in orange are may-issue in law but no-issue in practice, comparable to US states like Hawaii.
Countries in red are no-issue, it is not possible to get a concealed carry permit.
Countries in gray have no data. Some countries have laws that are very strict (so carry is not a question), really vague, or finding law was difficult to do (Georgian gun laws were written in Georgian, for example). You can make your own assumptions on these nations, I just did not want to risk being incorrect on them.
Edit: No European nations have Vermont style unrestricted carry.
Only the Gardaí (police) are permitted to carry handguns in Ireland. And we like it that way.
This is awesome! Interesting to see changes and similarities in comparison to the
Perth isn’t exactly an uninhabitable shithole
As an Aussie:
It's interesting that they found it substantially harder to reach Eastern Australia than Western Australia, considering that they preferentially settled the Eastern part.
Reachability isn’t directly related to viability, I guess?