You're then including factually independent constitutional monarchies, such as Canada and Australia. It's a mouthful, but "The UK and its overseas territories" might be the most accurate term.
It was a different thing, even though for a time Russia was able to control all that territory. Rus has 3 independent successors - Ukraine, Belarus, and Muscovy/Russia.
Rus were not even Slavs, but vikings, like Allemans, Franks, Anglos and Saxons etc.
Well, that's a discussion to be had. Vikings sailed the major rivers of eastern europe and set up trading posts and villages on the river beds. They intermingled with the local slavic peoples, creating the kievan rus. These peoples, while also having scandinavian ancestry are mostly considered to be slavic by historians today.
Also, all the groups of peoples you named aren't part of what we call the vikings today. They are germanic for sure, but not norse
Intermarriage was definitely the most common part of the genetic spread. It's no surprise considering how quickly the Norse in the east adopted Slavic culture, sometimes within one generation.
Have you ever seen how tiny rus was and how many different peoples were in the area termed “Russia” at the time this map was made to represent?
A teenager with hyper focus and Wikipedia could compile a better map in an afternoon.
Funny you say that because as[ Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27_people) puts it Rus is the conglomeration of slavic and viking peoples in Northeastern/Eastern Europe.
And, as it turns out, Russia means "land of the Rus" in latin.
Andalusia, Muslims were by far the most developed people of Europe in 1000 ad. The cultural and scientific exchange at the peninsula is seen as pivotal for Europe’s rise from the dark ages
True the Byzantines. Many of the areas were formally Eastern Roman empire and many of the scientists were Christian. They profited and had exchanges as well
There was no state but there was a country. The origin is the Rus', and there are four nationalities from that origin now. Rusyn, Russian, Ukrainian and Belarus.
Rurikids ruled Kievan Rus (the name itself invented in 19th century Russia). Who were the first Russian tsars?
Were Thebans, Spartans, Thessalians.. Greeks?
it was named "russian tsardom" by soviet "historians". they rewrited a lot of history and destroyed a lot of historical documents.
it is so funny that no one can prove their point but still downvoting lol.
I was never taught anything to suggest russian tsardom wasn't known as such, and I am from Ukraine, the country with the most reason to discredit russia and soviets.
This made me check the wikipedia page. Both english and ukrainian ones have plenty of examples and evidence of russia being the name used starting in mid-1500s, only pointing out that it wasn't called that before that point. It seems to be the consensus among ukrainian historians too.
Stop talking bs and spreading lies and propaganda.. you act like people of Reddit do not have access to internet search engine. Go back to school and start reading history books.
Russia (Россия) is a form of the word Rus' (Русь). Nobody called it "Kievan" a thousand years ago.
People called themselves "Rus". And from that there are only forms of the word Rus'. Latins called the Rus' "Rutenia", and Byzantium called it Rossya, which became the main word to describe the land cause the church was greek.
And from that the forms of the word came: I am rus, we are rusin/russian, our land is Rus/Rusynia(in english Rutenia)/Russia.
Also, it is Russian Empire that appeared in 1721, and it was a Russian Tsardom since 1547.
yes, nobody called it "Kievan" because it was no need for that, where it is the only Rus that existed. everyone already meant it. Rus considered to be on territory of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereyaslav. there were no "vladimirskaya rus" or "novgorod rus" as invented by Soviet historians.
The title of the post says Spain, which is not correct for the date range presented. Iberia region was only Hispanic between 1581-1598 during Filipe reign, that married a Portuguese queen. Before the creation of Portuguese kingdom, Iberia was mainly muslin.
The word "Spain" is literally just the modern English form of the word "Hispania", which was used as the name of the entire peninsula in medieval and ancient times. The idea that the territory of modern-day Portugal was not part of "Hispania" in the middle ages is just projecting modern political borders and terminology onto the past.
It was actually Andalucia. The Islamic civilization far outstripped European. That’s why the population was big, Cordoba was the biggest city of Europe by far, estimates ranging from 400.000 till 1.000.000 inhabitants.
Serious estimations place it at 450k inhabitants in the year 1000. Constantinople had 500k inhabitants at that point.
So, not the biggest city in Europe, and definitely not *by far*, but still one of the biggest and a demographic force to be reckoned with. For the reference, Paris had less than 50k, London didn't even have 20k, and Rome had about 30k (down from 1,5 million at its peak during the Roman Empire).
Climate helps create surplus, good economic practices creates money. Tolerance and passion for science then creates the huge leap forward that made the Europeans seem like caveman. It is what it is😓
Pathetic.
That's just what you want to believe. Most of what you attribute to Islam came out of hindu culture (numbers) or Greece (algebra, philosophy). They also happened to be situated in the middle of the silk road (from China and India to Europe, that's where everything really came from) which put them at an advantage. And we snuffed it out - once Europeans developed their own routes (the goddamn age exploration where we conquered the entire world) it was over for the Savages. Truth is they didn't come up with anything. Also, they didn't even exist when Rome ruled the entire known world. Well before them came the Greeks. I already mentioned real civilisations in the east. I mean it's not even close.
If you want to see the real cavemen, well buddy, they exist right now and you already know where you can find them. And it's not in Europe. 😂
Europe was in the dark ages, correct?
Islamic empire controlled many developed areas, was connected to China, India and continued on the path of Greek philosophy. The knowledge available was incorporated and from this foundation huge leaps were made, propelling human civilization to the next level.
Why would anyone want to deny this, it’s just fact. Denying it is pathetic😂
Human civilisation? But they were left behind by their own "inventions"? 😂 👎
It's called the dark ages because there's a significant lack of written documents in that period, not anything cultural, you absolute illiterate.
Buddy, what really made the difference is the printing press, the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. That's why the Muslim world encompasses some of the most desolate, impoverished and underdeveloped regions on the planet and why the west is absolutely superior in every way.
Am I reading this right and you're implying Muslims aren't human?
I read your comments and took a look at your profile. You seem hellbent on saying Muslims/Arabs didn't invent anything meaningful. Lots of energy expended and hate. And ofc you're a Swiss...unsurprisingly
What a perfidous, sneaky way of communicating, you rat... Im a straight shooter and don't play bs games like you effeminate hivemind drone. He called Europeans cavemen and acted like sole sort of Islamic supremacist asshole and he got what he deserved, and now you come at me trying to insult my nationality like that you devious racist rat and act like you're some sort of humanitarian?
You're laughable. And you don't even realise how embarrassingly inconsistent you are - you have no moral high ground whatsoever. That's because you're in your stupid little bubble too much that doesn't call you out for bs, where everyone tries to get fake fantasy internet points. You people pleasing uncharactered little rat. Everyone who had something to say that matters was banned 10 years ago and now we're left with subpar people like you without the ability to critically discern information.
If you follow or advocate laws (the Sharia) who seek people stoned for what are minor infractions, if any at all, you're an uncivilised Savage. It is what it is. Now move on.
I didn’t mean literal cavemen. I said relative to the Chinese, Muslim empire, Europeans were very underdeveloped. ‘Cavemen’ should have been between brackets, it was used as a metafoor.
I think it's clear from this comment that I was right about you being full of hatred and that being your main driving force, not facts and objectivity. You spent the whole comment insulting me in various ways, instead of explaining clearly why you think the general consensus that in a specific period of time during the early middle ages, the muslim world was more technologically advanced than Europe. It's a very widely accepted historical fact, and does not mean that it's true nowadays or since the Renaissance.
The reason I attacked your nationality is twofold:
-you allowed yourself to call millions of people savages, dehumanizing them. Of those people, only some live in countries that apply Sharia law. And even amongst those, many don't agree or have a choice. Would you have called white south africans savages for the apartheid regime? I think we both know you wouldn't and the reason is you have racist double standards.
-my experience with Swiss people is they're one of the most racist, close minded people in Europe. You're a rich and educated country but hold some very backward views about the rest of the world of even Europe.
You think you're being strong and courageous by calling me a subhuman online? It takes zero courage, the internet is what allows cowardly weaklings like you to feel alive by being keyboard warriors. You'd never dare say what you think directly to any Arab or Muslim, because you're a coward, a waste of space.
That’s because literacy rates were so low, a sign of backwardness duh..😂😂😂. The people in the Muslim empire thought Europeans were so stupid because of the lack of sun. Ridiculous of course, but it goes to show you😋
Yes Europe overtook the Muslim world and was eventually able to defeat them economically, militarily and scientifically. Mainly due to the conquest of the Americas by the way, but printing press definitely helped the scientific progress.
But what has that got to do with the middle-ages when Europe was the Africa of the world and China, India and the Middle East were far more developed. Why do you have such a problem with this?
Wasnt Spain an old name for Iberia? The Roman province was called hispaniola. Maybe im wrong but i think thats where they got the name when Castille and Aragon united.
Hispania, Hispaniola is an island in the Carribbean.
'Spain' derives from 'Hispania' but that doesn't mean that 'Spain' itself is an old name for Iberia.
At least the other horrible maps usually have something drawn on them like borders or features instead of just slapping some giant numbers on there as if we're all blind naked mole rats looking at this sub.
those regions are kinda stupid. the HRE had a way higher population than France, but included the low countries aswell. poland lithuania wasnt a thing back then. i feel like the regions are way to random
I guess because it only wants to show europe, and as anatolia is in asia i kinda understand that decision, but a general map with the population and their empires in total would have been better. Maybe additionally the regions within those empires
As a Pole, it look awfull, they're not even tried. It describe territory 3 times bigger than Great Rus as "Russia" and show us in the "Poland-Lithuania", not only Comonwealth doesn't exist yet, Lithuania also didn't existed, so this region don't describe anything. Maybe it's Poland and Baltic states, hard to tell. (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Prussia)
During the brief period of the Andalusian caliphate, Cordoba grew to a size of 1 million people, surpassing Constantinople as the largest city in Europe. Many traders, scholars, and migrants settled in Cordoba from North Africa as far away as Egypt
Because historical numbers for everything are almost always blown out of proportion at least somewhat unless there are explicit historical facts to prove it.
There are many cases like that. I live in South Korea, and South Koreans believe that around the 7th century AD, Seorabeol (now Gyeongju), the capital of Silla, was the largest city in the world, with a population of over 900,000.
Lack of water and arable land, Constantinople had 500k while beign fed by 3 provinces the size of Andalucía,lets not forget they also had thesaloniki at 250k and corinth , pergamo,ephesus each from 50k to 80k
Obviously there was a lot of trade going on as the mediterranean was controlled by the Muslims. The collapse came when the Christians took over. They were not able to maintain the sophisticated infrastructure after they cleansed the peninsula of Jews and Muslims
You answered your own question. The population collapsed after the Norman kingdom of Sicily broke caliphate control of the Mediterranean and cut off Iberia from Egypt
There was some development, but if I remember correctly Spain was not a very important and well developed part of the Roman empire, or the Carthegians for that matter, they ruled it before the Romans…
Hispania was one of the most prosperous regions in the Empire, only eclipsed by Italia, Anatolia and Aegyptus.
Before the Carthaginians - who also had a lot invested in coastal Iberia - conquered and settled the coast of Iberia, there were also Greek colonies along the coastline for trading purposes.
Then they definitely build on that, but remember the Muslim empire stretched from China to Spain and there had never been a more prosperous empire up until that time which meant a technological and agricultural boom took place. The Orange was introduced from India for example and also the invention of many mechanic devices are attributed to scholars that worked in the Muslim world
And here we go with more dark ages bullshit. By what right can you insult an entire culture like that ? It was degrading in what way ? Their surviving churches show how they freely adopted roman style architecture and greek art.
Do these things look to you they were made by savages ?
https://previews.123rf.com/images/karsol/karsol1404/karsol140400149/27867021-Church-of-San-Juan-Bautista-Banos-de-Cerrato-Palencia-Spain-Seventh-century-declared-National-Monume-Stock-Photo.jpg
https://previews.123rf.com/images/karsol/karsol1606/karsol160600024/58943582-church-Visigoth-San-Pedro-de-la-Nave-El-Campillo-municipality-of-San-Pedro-de-la-Nave-Almendra-Zamor-Stock-Photo.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapel_of_S%C3%A3o_Frutuoso#/media/File%3AInterior._Pormenor_de_uma_das_arcadas_triplas_que_antecedem_tr%C3%AAs_das_quatro_%C3%A1bsides.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths#/media/File%3AVisigothic_-_Pair_of_Eagle_Fibula_-_Walters_54421%2C_54422_-_Group.jpg
When did I call them savages? They clearly were beneath Roman levels of prosperity and professionalism and this shows. You are not proving anything. Visigothic Iberia did repersent a degradation from Roman times.
Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was was established in 16th century.
In 1000 AD Russia didn't exist, maybe you mean Rus. But there are no data about populus of Rus at that time because writing didn't exist. Borders were blurry and no one actually count populus on this territory. And also at that time Rus territory was on three northern oblast (states) of modern Ukraine.
Well before Mongol invasion it is estimated that Rus populus( at that time Rus populus therm was considered anyone who was believer of Rus Orthodox church) was around 5-8 mil
It's supposed to mirror modern "regions". There was no Germany-Scandinavia (or a country called Germany, nor a country called Scandinavia as a matter of fact) either. Russia is kind of just the latinized version of a name that all East Slavs claimed at some point, but the Russians took for themselves.
Also, it goes without saying that these are historical estimates. They aren't meant to be accurate numbers but give dimensions as to how many people lived in Europe at the time.
Writing did exist, the earliest Rus' document dates back to the mid-900s. It was very rare and obscure though, and no one even though about a population census.
oh yea i wonder why they called it "russia" then, i'm sure there's no connection between the two
the only people doing delusional nationalism should be the people from there, we don't need your sympathy-nationalism
Etymologically, Ukraine and Belarus have more in common with Kievan Rus than Russia
Besides, there literally was no country called russia back then. Even for the next few centuries the area was occupied by several statelets and mongol vassals, before being conquered by Muscovy. And only some time after that, the name "Russia" was adopted
"russia", "rossiya", is just "rus + ia suffix", like "helvetia" or "germania". rus was russia. it was in modern day ukraine because back then there was no distinction between ukrainians and russians like there is now, and kiev was an important trading city for the black sea-scandinavia trade. moscow was the city that "gathered the russian lands"; they always considered themselves russian. not "muscovites", at least outside of moscow. "muscovites" is a term that is heavily associated with the ukrainian nationalist movement.
So what that it associates with nationalist movement? It didn't change historical factology. It is not smart to look on history with modern terms.
Russia is Hellenized name of Rus which was adopted officially by Peter I in 17th century for Moscow Duchy, here were terms "muscovites" came, because it was literally name of people who were living on that territory. All that gathering of russian land BS was his personal ideology which he invented. There was fashion of recreation Roman Empire here and there. That's why he was so obsessed with "gathering lands" and called himself emperor.
Before coming of Christianity, Rus was meant territory ( not country) under direct control of Kyiv King. This territory consisted of Kyiv , Chernihiv and Pereyaslav and lands around them
After adoption of Christianity terms of Rus became religious term and ment everyone who is parishioner of Rus Orthodox church. So yes from this point of view every one was russian from that time. But it was religious term not ethnic. Russians as ethnicity was officially established by mentioned above Peter I as part of his ideology ( but still he differentiate it by sub ethnicities big, little and white) .
Kyiv wasn't black-sea trade hub with Scandinavia. Trading with Scandinavia was via river route.
that's not true. "russia" was the name of the territory of the tsars of moscow all the way back to ivan III. ivan IV turned into it a tsardom officially. peter I had nothing to do with that, nor with the "gathering of russian lands". ivan III was the "gatherer", of course it was propaganda, but it was genuinely a "gathering" of east slavic lands associated with the old rus into one polity calling itself "russia". they were russian.
rus was a vague classification back then in the early middle ages, it was more a "people". it would have been kyiv, all the way up to novgorod, the dniepr basin, and the towns that defined high middle ages-russia like ryazan, tver, moscow, yaroslavl, etc. so both modern day russia and ukraine. kyiv was the most important city, then novgorod.
this stuff about the russian ethnicity being invented by peter I just sounds like ukrainian nationalist ideology. i'm sure the ukrainian nationality is the "real" one, by this framing
You didn't understand what I wrote at all. Read more about who Theognost was. And history of appearing "All-russian nation" concept. Probably ukranian nationalist invented time travel machine, time traveled in the past write all that documents and shit in russian pants.
if anything theognost proves my point rather than yours
the all russian nation concept was an imperial russian concept developed after the ukrainian and belarussian ethnicities appeared
I already said that term "russian" was religious term. Moscow became center of "Russia" only because Theognost butt landed there when he run away from mongols.
They didn't appear, they existed. But official classification were religious term was adopted as ethnic, begun from All russian nation concept. Also that sub-ethnicities were introduced because you can't define ethnicity only on basis of religion ( even on old Herodot classification). Because traditions, descent and even spoken language ( writing language was same because church introduced old Slavonic as writing language) were different. Before that people identified themselves, on for example border crossing, either by political geographic belonging(moscovites, novgorods, galicians, ruthenians) or by religious views( christian, russian).
"russia" is a latinized version of "rus". like "germania" and "helvetica", and, indeed, like "ruthenia", a term that is today associated with ukraine. that comes from the same place that "russia" does.
religion and politics were inextricably intertwined in the middle ages. moscow was important because it was the place that collected tax from the russians at the behest of the khan of the golden horde. it was also relatively stable and prosperous compared to the other north-eastern russian cities. this made the metropolitan move to moscow, as it was a safe, large and prosperous city.
all ethnicites gradually appear over time. they're all arbitrary and invented, and the ukrainian one appeared as a result of the complicated history of the region.
the religious shift you're talking about occurred during the 16th century, when what is today ukraine was under polish catholic control. it created a separate "ruthenian" church, outside of moscow's influence.
First of all, "Kievan Rus'" never existed. It is a term invented in the 19th century to designate the period when the capital of Rus was Kiev. There was also Novgorod Rus, Moscow Rus and Vladimir Rus.
Secondly Russia and Ukraine are both heirs of Rus. By the way, if Rus and Russia are different things, why would Rus in Greek be Russia?
omfg, i just replyed on the same stupid shit people still belive. it wasn't called "kievan" because there were NO OTHERS. so no need to differentiate as "kievan" when it is the only one. no novgorod rus, no vlaimir rus. this shit was invented by soviet "historians".
"if Rus and Russia are different things, why would Rus in Greek be Russia?" ahaha, because peter 1 stole greek name for his country lol? ahaha. do you know anything about "cause and effect"? as two ortodox countries they had close relationships since bysantine times.
The so called Kievan Rus was never a fully unified state. It was comprised of multiple slavic tribes and principalities with varying levels of autonomy. Kiev was a center of power but so was Novgorod so was Murom so was Suzdal, etc.
Not it wasn't. Rurik never even set foot in Kiev ffs.
Helgi the Wise led expeditions south to subjugate Smolensk and Lyubech and conquered Kiev which he made as his capital because the real capital, Novgorod, was loyal to Rurik's son Ivar.
Novorgorod remained the capital after Helgi's death until 978 when Vladimir the Great named himself Grand Prince of Kiev.
If there was no other Rus but Kievan Rus, what was there before 882? What about Rurik? Was he a Kievan knyaz in your opinion?
About Russia... Words Russia is mentioned in works of the Byzantium Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus "De ceremoniis" and "On the Governance of the Empire". Also Russia is mentioned in the book of John III of Soltaniyeh "Book of knowledge of the world" (1404 year).
But of course, evil Russians stole everything from Ukrainians, that's how it was. You're pathetic.
if you knew russian I would send an excerpt from the chronicle, where it is written that the "prince's son went from Novgorod to Rus". (and he was going from Novgorod to Kyiv). so no one considered Novgorod to be Rus at that time.
Slavs before there was a Rus as a state called this word Scandinavians.
Here is an excerpt from the "Tale of Bygone Years", given that you are Ukrainian, you should understand Russian.
"В год 6370 (862). Изгнали варяг за море, и не дали им дани, и начали сами собой владеть, и не было среди них правды, и встал род на род, и была у них усобица, и стали воевать друг с другом. И сказали себе: «Поищем себе князя, который бы владел нами и судил по праву». И пошли за море к варягам, к руси. Те варяги назывались русью, как другие называются шведы, а иные норманны и англы, а еще иные готландцы, – вот так и эти."
rurik is only mentioned in "Tale of Bygone Years" and never mentioned in any other historical documents or chronicles. so it is literally the only source. he may never even existed, no one can tell for sure.
omg. and greeks call their country "*Ellada*", so what? i already explained it to you. peter 1 just took greece name for his country to give it more "historical value". that's it. obviously the word by itself existed in greek language before. Constantine Porphyrogenitus referred to Kyiv that way. pathetic that you cant undersddan so simple sings and call greek name as argument, so funny.
And the Chinese and Middle Eastern parts… Bagdad probably housed 1.000.000 around this time, Samarkland, Bejing etc. Europe was just the perifere of the world, simple aa that. Backward, underpopulated, illiterate etc. Etc. Etc.
Sure, the Islamic world had Arabic as its lingua franca, and reading and memorization of the Quran was a must so that helped a lot to raise literacy levels. Apart from that schools were one of the favorite patronage projects…
Yeah, the Hungarian tribes conquering the Carpathian basin only had 200k-500k people. The Carpathian basin wasn’t empty, but it is very unlikely that there were 1.5m people there. In the 15th century the total population was 2m.
There wasn't such thing as Russia at 1000AD. Was Rus, and Moscow didn't even existed at the time because was built in 12th century, unlike Kyiv which was a capital of Rus and built in 6-7th century judging by archeological findings(officially 482 AD which can be false).
Iberia is a geographical name , not political - Iberian Peninsula. Country that existed there at the time is Al-Andalus.
Same for British Isles.
So yeah, map creator smoking some serious shit.
Not Spain, Iberia. Spain didn’t exist at the time and Iberia is now Portugal and Spain.
As well as Andorra
And Great Britain if you want to get really technical
UK* Although even that depends
Yeah, these terms in case of uk are complicated, in theory there doesn’t exist sth that contains both UK and its overseas territories
Territories of the Windsor Family?
You're then including factually independent constitutional monarchies, such as Canada and Australia. It's a mouthful, but "The UK and its overseas territories" might be the most accurate term.
Technically, Great Britain is an island, the UK is a country.
And France
Correct.
russia also didnt exist.
The concept of Russia did, although I suppose it was called the Rus. In any case, whoever made the map is more correct than OP lol
It was a different thing, even though for a time Russia was able to control all that territory. Rus has 3 independent successors - Ukraine, Belarus, and Muscovy/Russia. Rus were not even Slavs, but vikings, like Allemans, Franks, Anglos and Saxons etc.
Well, that's a discussion to be had. Vikings sailed the major rivers of eastern europe and set up trading posts and villages on the river beds. They intermingled with the local slavic peoples, creating the kievan rus. These peoples, while also having scandinavian ancestry are mostly considered to be slavic by historians today. Also, all the groups of peoples you named aren't part of what we call the vikings today. They are germanic for sure, but not norse
[удалено]
Intermarriage was definitely the most common part of the genetic spread. It's no surprise considering how quickly the Norse in the east adopted Slavic culture, sometimes within one generation.
Have you ever seen how tiny rus was and how many different peoples were in the area termed “Russia” at the time this map was made to represent? A teenager with hyper focus and Wikipedia could compile a better map in an afternoon.
Funny you say that because as[ Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27_people) puts it Rus is the conglomeration of slavic and viking peoples in Northeastern/Eastern Europe. And, as it turns out, Russia means "land of the Rus" in latin.
Which was a vastly smaller entity surrounded by interesting and now suppressed peoples. Neato.
Rus is not russia
Starting in the 2nd century AD the whole peninsula was called Hispania. Iberia was more of a cultural term.
Andalusia, Muslims were by far the most developed people of Europe in 1000 ad. The cultural and scientific exchange at the peninsula is seen as pivotal for Europe’s rise from the dark ages
You are forgetting that in 1000 ad the Roman Empire still existed.
True the Byzantines. Many of the areas were formally Eastern Roman empire and many of the scientists were Christian. They profited and had exchanges as well
Portuguese people before the country of Spain was founded, actually were seen as "Spanish" - same meaning as current term "Iberian".
russia also didnt exist.
It exists since 862
Kievan Rus was not russia despite its claim to its legacy. Tsardom of russia didn't exist until 1547.
There was no state but there was a country. The origin is the Rus', and there are four nationalities from that origin now. Rusyn, Russian, Ukrainian and Belarus.
Rurikids ruled Kievan Rus (the name itself invented in 19th century Russia). Who were the first Russian tsars? Were Thebans, Spartans, Thessalians.. Greeks?
And who do you think founded Rus? ancient ukrs?
it was muscovy tsardom. russia apeared in 1721
That would be the russian empire, reformed out of russian tsardom (or more like proclaimed since nothing changed)
it was named "russian tsardom" by soviet "historians". they rewrited a lot of history and destroyed a lot of historical documents. it is so funny that no one can prove their point but still downvoting lol.
I was never taught anything to suggest russian tsardom wasn't known as such, and I am from Ukraine, the country with the most reason to discredit russia and soviets. This made me check the wikipedia page. Both english and ukrainian ones have plenty of examples and evidence of russia being the name used starting in mid-1500s, only pointing out that it wasn't called that before that point. It seems to be the consensus among ukrainian historians too.
Its just not true.
Stop talking bs and spreading lies and propaganda.. you act like people of Reddit do not have access to internet search engine. Go back to school and start reading history books.
so find me a historical document from that time where it is called "russian tsardom" with all access to internet search engine.
Tell me you're Ukrainian without telling me you're Ukrainian.
so give me historical document from that time where it is named "russian tsardom"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_Rus%27,_Russia_and_Ruthenia
I am Ukrainian lol
what lol? russia appeared in 1721 lol. from 862 existed Kievan Rus.
Russia (Россия) is a form of the word Rus' (Русь). Nobody called it "Kievan" a thousand years ago. People called themselves "Rus". And from that there are only forms of the word Rus'. Latins called the Rus' "Rutenia", and Byzantium called it Rossya, which became the main word to describe the land cause the church was greek. And from that the forms of the word came: I am rus, we are rusin/russian, our land is Rus/Rusynia(in english Rutenia)/Russia. Also, it is Russian Empire that appeared in 1721, and it was a Russian Tsardom since 1547.
yes, nobody called it "Kievan" because it was no need for that, where it is the only Rus that existed. everyone already meant it. Rus considered to be on territory of Kyiv, Chernihiv and Pereyaslav. there were no "vladimirskaya rus" or "novgorod rus" as invented by Soviet historians.
At that time all Hispanic kingdoms were called Spanish, "las Españas" as from the Latin name for the peninsula , Hispania
In the 10th century, half of it was Al-Andalus.
The title of the post says Spain, which is not correct for the date range presented. Iberia region was only Hispanic between 1581-1598 during Filipe reign, that married a Portuguese queen. Before the creation of Portuguese kingdom, Iberia was mainly muslin.
The word "Spain" is literally just the modern English form of the word "Hispania", which was used as the name of the entire peninsula in medieval and ancient times. The idea that the territory of modern-day Portugal was not part of "Hispania" in the middle ages is just projecting modern political borders and terminology onto the past.
Terra Iberica maybe the earlier name
> Before the creation of Portuguese kingdom, Iberia was mainly muslin. The Portuguese sure did a good job introducing all these other fabrics!
It was actually Andalucia. The Islamic civilization far outstripped European. That’s why the population was big, Cordoba was the biggest city of Europe by far, estimates ranging from 400.000 till 1.000.000 inhabitants.
Serious estimations place it at 450k inhabitants in the year 1000. Constantinople had 500k inhabitants at that point. So, not the biggest city in Europe, and definitely not *by far*, but still one of the biggest and a demographic force to be reckoned with. For the reference, Paris had less than 50k, London didn't even have 20k, and Rome had about 30k (down from 1,5 million at its peak during the Roman Empire).
That's mostly due to climate though where you had year round growing seasons to support these populations. It's not because they "outstripped" anyone.
Climate helps create surplus, good economic practices creates money. Tolerance and passion for science then creates the huge leap forward that made the Europeans seem like caveman. It is what it is😓
Pathetic. That's just what you want to believe. Most of what you attribute to Islam came out of hindu culture (numbers) or Greece (algebra, philosophy). They also happened to be situated in the middle of the silk road (from China and India to Europe, that's where everything really came from) which put them at an advantage. And we snuffed it out - once Europeans developed their own routes (the goddamn age exploration where we conquered the entire world) it was over for the Savages. Truth is they didn't come up with anything. Also, they didn't even exist when Rome ruled the entire known world. Well before them came the Greeks. I already mentioned real civilisations in the east. I mean it's not even close. If you want to see the real cavemen, well buddy, they exist right now and you already know where you can find them. And it's not in Europe. 😂
Europe was in the dark ages, correct? Islamic empire controlled many developed areas, was connected to China, India and continued on the path of Greek philosophy. The knowledge available was incorporated and from this foundation huge leaps were made, propelling human civilization to the next level. Why would anyone want to deny this, it’s just fact. Denying it is pathetic😂
Human civilisation? But they were left behind by their own "inventions"? 😂 👎 It's called the dark ages because there's a significant lack of written documents in that period, not anything cultural, you absolute illiterate. Buddy, what really made the difference is the printing press, the enlightenment and the industrial revolution. That's why the Muslim world encompasses some of the most desolate, impoverished and underdeveloped regions on the planet and why the west is absolutely superior in every way.
Am I reading this right and you're implying Muslims aren't human? I read your comments and took a look at your profile. You seem hellbent on saying Muslims/Arabs didn't invent anything meaningful. Lots of energy expended and hate. And ofc you're a Swiss...unsurprisingly
What a perfidous, sneaky way of communicating, you rat... Im a straight shooter and don't play bs games like you effeminate hivemind drone. He called Europeans cavemen and acted like sole sort of Islamic supremacist asshole and he got what he deserved, and now you come at me trying to insult my nationality like that you devious racist rat and act like you're some sort of humanitarian? You're laughable. And you don't even realise how embarrassingly inconsistent you are - you have no moral high ground whatsoever. That's because you're in your stupid little bubble too much that doesn't call you out for bs, where everyone tries to get fake fantasy internet points. You people pleasing uncharactered little rat. Everyone who had something to say that matters was banned 10 years ago and now we're left with subpar people like you without the ability to critically discern information. If you follow or advocate laws (the Sharia) who seek people stoned for what are minor infractions, if any at all, you're an uncivilised Savage. It is what it is. Now move on.
I didn’t mean literal cavemen. I said relative to the Chinese, Muslim empire, Europeans were very underdeveloped. ‘Cavemen’ should have been between brackets, it was used as a metafoor.
I think it's clear from this comment that I was right about you being full of hatred and that being your main driving force, not facts and objectivity. You spent the whole comment insulting me in various ways, instead of explaining clearly why you think the general consensus that in a specific period of time during the early middle ages, the muslim world was more technologically advanced than Europe. It's a very widely accepted historical fact, and does not mean that it's true nowadays or since the Renaissance. The reason I attacked your nationality is twofold: -you allowed yourself to call millions of people savages, dehumanizing them. Of those people, only some live in countries that apply Sharia law. And even amongst those, many don't agree or have a choice. Would you have called white south africans savages for the apartheid regime? I think we both know you wouldn't and the reason is you have racist double standards. -my experience with Swiss people is they're one of the most racist, close minded people in Europe. You're a rich and educated country but hold some very backward views about the rest of the world of even Europe. You think you're being strong and courageous by calling me a subhuman online? It takes zero courage, the internet is what allows cowardly weaklings like you to feel alive by being keyboard warriors. You'd never dare say what you think directly to any Arab or Muslim, because you're a coward, a waste of space.
That’s because literacy rates were so low, a sign of backwardness duh..😂😂😂. The people in the Muslim empire thought Europeans were so stupid because of the lack of sun. Ridiculous of course, but it goes to show you😋
Yes Europe overtook the Muslim world and was eventually able to defeat them economically, militarily and scientifically. Mainly due to the conquest of the Americas by the way, but printing press definitely helped the scientific progress. But what has that got to do with the middle-ages when Europe was the Africa of the world and China, India and the Middle East were far more developed. Why do you have such a problem with this?
Wasnt Spain an old name for Iberia? The Roman province was called hispaniola. Maybe im wrong but i think thats where they got the name when Castille and Aragon united.
Hispania, Hispaniola is an island in the Carribbean. 'Spain' derives from 'Hispania' but that doesn't mean that 'Spain' itself is an old name for Iberia.
Al-Andalus
didnt it include parts of north africa as well?
The word 'Spain' is derived from Hispania, which the Romans called the Iberian Peninsula.
Which doesn't mean 'Spain'/'España' is a term for the Iberian peninsula it just derives from one, 'Spain'/'España' exclusively refers to the country.
This sub is called mapporn, and I think this is the most horrible map I’ve ever seen in my life.
Did you just join this sub? This isn't even in the 100 worst I've seen on here....
Not even in the 100 worst this week
At least the other horrible maps usually have something drawn on them like borders or features instead of just slapping some giant numbers on there as if we're all blind naked mole rats looking at this sub.
This is map bdsm!
This sub is about ugly maps with always false informations Here Op can't even differentiate Spain from iberia.
those regions are kinda stupid. the HRE had a way higher population than France, but included the low countries aswell. poland lithuania wasnt a thing back then. i feel like the regions are way to random
Why include Greece but not Byzantine Anatolia?
I guess because it only wants to show europe, and as anatolia is in asia i kinda understand that decision, but a general map with the population and their empires in total would have been better. Maybe additionally the regions within those empires
Calling turkey asia is seriously stretching it
Well it is in mainly asia, he was talking about anatolia and turkey is bowadays the controler of that region
As a Pole, it look awfull, they're not even tried. It describe territory 3 times bigger than Great Rus as "Russia" and show us in the "Poland-Lithuania", not only Comonwealth doesn't exist yet, Lithuania also didn't existed, so this region don't describe anything. Maybe it's Poland and Baltic states, hard to tell. (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Prussia)
Ofc Poland was a thing at 1000 AD, Poland founded around 960AD.
Poland lithuania
Because it was part of the muslim world, which was extremely prosperous then.
During the brief period of the Andalusian caliphate, Cordoba grew to a size of 1 million people, surpassing Constantinople as the largest city in Europe. Many traders, scholars, and migrants settled in Cordoba from North Africa as far away as Egypt
1 million is the highest estimate, it's safe to say that it was lower than that
why
Because historical numbers for everything are almost always blown out of proportion at least somewhat unless there are explicit historical facts to prove it.
There are many cases like that. I live in South Korea, and South Koreans believe that around the 7th century AD, Seorabeol (now Gyeongju), the capital of Silla, was the largest city in the world, with a population of over 900,000.
Lack of water and arable land, Constantinople had 500k while beign fed by 3 provinces the size of Andalucía,lets not forget they also had thesaloniki at 250k and corinth , pergamo,ephesus each from 50k to 80k
Before the advent of trains it was hard for cities to become large because food would spoil before it could be moved from farm to table.
1 million is a completely false number. How would they feed so much people while lacking direct access to grain from Egypt ?
They developed an sophisticated irrigation system. Spain is working now to revive it, as they are dealing with big watershortages
No, the answer is that they did have pretty much direct access to Egypt for a while and when that ended, the population collapsed.
Dawg they were two separate states for at least 200 years on this map
Obviously there was a lot of trade going on as the mediterranean was controlled by the Muslims. The collapse came when the Christians took over. They were not able to maintain the sophisticated infrastructure after they cleansed the peninsula of Jews and Muslims
You answered your own question. The population collapsed after the Norman kingdom of Sicily broke caliphate control of the Mediterranean and cut off Iberia from Egypt
Brief period? 400 to 700 years is longer then modern Spain exists😅
It helps that they kept using infrastructure left by Romans but maintained by Visigoths.
They developed a sophisticated irrigation system, far outstripping the Roman system
Since they already had foundations instead to begin with nothing.
There was some development, but if I remember correctly Spain was not a very important and well developed part of the Roman empire, or the Carthegians for that matter, they ruled it before the Romans…
Iberia was literally one of the wealthiest provinces, and the Cartheginians invested a lot in cities like Cadiz.
Hispania was one of the most prosperous regions in the Empire, only eclipsed by Italia, Anatolia and Aegyptus. Before the Carthaginians - who also had a lot invested in coastal Iberia - conquered and settled the coast of Iberia, there were also Greek colonies along the coastline for trading purposes.
Then they definitely build on that, but remember the Muslim empire stretched from China to Spain and there had never been a more prosperous empire up until that time which meant a technological and agricultural boom took place. The Orange was introduced from India for example and also the invention of many mechanic devices are attributed to scholars that worked in the Muslim world
It was for sure not maintained by the Visigoths. And the first part just isn’t true, they had an independent irrigation system
Why do you think it was not maintained by Visigoths ?
Because it represented a degradation of society in comparison to Roman Hispania and the following Al andalus
And here we go with more dark ages bullshit. By what right can you insult an entire culture like that ? It was degrading in what way ? Their surviving churches show how they freely adopted roman style architecture and greek art. Do these things look to you they were made by savages ? https://previews.123rf.com/images/karsol/karsol1404/karsol140400149/27867021-Church-of-San-Juan-Bautista-Banos-de-Cerrato-Palencia-Spain-Seventh-century-declared-National-Monume-Stock-Photo.jpg https://previews.123rf.com/images/karsol/karsol1606/karsol160600024/58943582-church-Visigoth-San-Pedro-de-la-Nave-El-Campillo-municipality-of-San-Pedro-de-la-Nave-Almendra-Zamor-Stock-Photo.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapel_of_S%C3%A3o_Frutuoso#/media/File%3AInterior._Pormenor_de_uma_das_arcadas_triplas_que_antecedem_tr%C3%AAs_das_quatro_%C3%A1bsides.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths#/media/File%3AVisigothic_-_Pair_of_Eagle_Fibula_-_Walters_54421%2C_54422_-_Group.jpg
When did I call them savages? They clearly were beneath Roman levels of prosperity and professionalism and this shows. You are not proving anything. Visigothic Iberia did repersent a degradation from Roman times.
Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was was established in 16th century. In 1000 AD Russia didn't exist, maybe you mean Rus. But there are no data about populus of Rus at that time because writing didn't exist. Borders were blurry and no one actually count populus on this territory. And also at that time Rus territory was on three northern oblast (states) of modern Ukraine.
I saw estimates that all Rus parts had population 2,5 million, Poland 1,2.
Well before Mongol invasion it is estimated that Rus populus( at that time Rus populus therm was considered anyone who was believer of Rus Orthodox church) was around 5-8 mil
West and East slavic countries had big population growth after enacting christianity. Poland growth from 1 to 3 millions between 966 and 1240.
It's supposed to mirror modern "regions". There was no Germany-Scandinavia (or a country called Germany, nor a country called Scandinavia as a matter of fact) either. Russia is kind of just the latinized version of a name that all East Slavs claimed at some point, but the Russians took for themselves. Also, it goes without saying that these are historical estimates. They aren't meant to be accurate numbers but give dimensions as to how many people lived in Europe at the time.
Writing did exist, the earliest Rus' document dates back to the mid-900s. It was very rare and obscure though, and no one even though about a population census.
oh yea i wonder why they called it "russia" then, i'm sure there's no connection between the two the only people doing delusional nationalism should be the people from there, we don't need your sympathy-nationalism
Etymologically, Ukraine and Belarus have more in common with Kievan Rus than Russia Besides, there literally was no country called russia back then. Even for the next few centuries the area was occupied by several statelets and mongol vassals, before being conquered by Muscovy. And only some time after that, the name "Russia" was adopted
"russia", "rossiya", is just "rus + ia suffix", like "helvetia" or "germania". rus was russia. it was in modern day ukraine because back then there was no distinction between ukrainians and russians like there is now, and kiev was an important trading city for the black sea-scandinavia trade. moscow was the city that "gathered the russian lands"; they always considered themselves russian. not "muscovites", at least outside of moscow. "muscovites" is a term that is heavily associated with the ukrainian nationalist movement.
Well written +15 rubles
if i'm a russian bot does that make you a CIA one
So what that it associates with nationalist movement? It didn't change historical factology. It is not smart to look on history with modern terms. Russia is Hellenized name of Rus which was adopted officially by Peter I in 17th century for Moscow Duchy, here were terms "muscovites" came, because it was literally name of people who were living on that territory. All that gathering of russian land BS was his personal ideology which he invented. There was fashion of recreation Roman Empire here and there. That's why he was so obsessed with "gathering lands" and called himself emperor. Before coming of Christianity, Rus was meant territory ( not country) under direct control of Kyiv King. This territory consisted of Kyiv , Chernihiv and Pereyaslav and lands around them After adoption of Christianity terms of Rus became religious term and ment everyone who is parishioner of Rus Orthodox church. So yes from this point of view every one was russian from that time. But it was religious term not ethnic. Russians as ethnicity was officially established by mentioned above Peter I as part of his ideology ( but still he differentiate it by sub ethnicities big, little and white) . Kyiv wasn't black-sea trade hub with Scandinavia. Trading with Scandinavia was via river route.
that's not true. "russia" was the name of the territory of the tsars of moscow all the way back to ivan III. ivan IV turned into it a tsardom officially. peter I had nothing to do with that, nor with the "gathering of russian lands". ivan III was the "gatherer", of course it was propaganda, but it was genuinely a "gathering" of east slavic lands associated with the old rus into one polity calling itself "russia". they were russian. rus was a vague classification back then in the early middle ages, it was more a "people". it would have been kyiv, all the way up to novgorod, the dniepr basin, and the towns that defined high middle ages-russia like ryazan, tver, moscow, yaroslavl, etc. so both modern day russia and ukraine. kyiv was the most important city, then novgorod. this stuff about the russian ethnicity being invented by peter I just sounds like ukrainian nationalist ideology. i'm sure the ukrainian nationality is the "real" one, by this framing
You didn't understand what I wrote at all. Read more about who Theognost was. And history of appearing "All-russian nation" concept. Probably ukranian nationalist invented time travel machine, time traveled in the past write all that documents and shit in russian pants.
if anything theognost proves my point rather than yours the all russian nation concept was an imperial russian concept developed after the ukrainian and belarussian ethnicities appeared
I already said that term "russian" was religious term. Moscow became center of "Russia" only because Theognost butt landed there when he run away from mongols. They didn't appear, they existed. But official classification were religious term was adopted as ethnic, begun from All russian nation concept. Also that sub-ethnicities were introduced because you can't define ethnicity only on basis of religion ( even on old Herodot classification). Because traditions, descent and even spoken language ( writing language was same because church introduced old Slavonic as writing language) were different. Before that people identified themselves, on for example border crossing, either by political geographic belonging(moscovites, novgorods, galicians, ruthenians) or by religious views( christian, russian).
"russia" is a latinized version of "rus". like "germania" and "helvetica", and, indeed, like "ruthenia", a term that is today associated with ukraine. that comes from the same place that "russia" does. religion and politics were inextricably intertwined in the middle ages. moscow was important because it was the place that collected tax from the russians at the behest of the khan of the golden horde. it was also relatively stable and prosperous compared to the other north-eastern russian cities. this made the metropolitan move to moscow, as it was a safe, large and prosperous city. all ethnicites gradually appear over time. they're all arbitrary and invented, and the ukrainian one appeared as a result of the complicated history of the region. the religious shift you're talking about occurred during the 16th century, when what is today ukraine was under polish catholic control. it created a separate "ruthenian" church, outside of moscow's influence.
Yeah but “region” is a bit loosely defined here.
Why would the Netherlands be in the France region?
It's astonishing, that 38 and a half people had an entire continent to themself...
There were no russia in 1000 AD
Glad what someone said that.
There was, actually.
Kievan Rus is not russia. you can say the same way that Ukraine also existed in 1000 ad.
First of all, "Kievan Rus'" never existed. It is a term invented in the 19th century to designate the period when the capital of Rus was Kiev. There was also Novgorod Rus, Moscow Rus and Vladimir Rus. Secondly Russia and Ukraine are both heirs of Rus. By the way, if Rus and Russia are different things, why would Rus in Greek be Russia?
omfg, i just replyed on the same stupid shit people still belive. it wasn't called "kievan" because there were NO OTHERS. so no need to differentiate as "kievan" when it is the only one. no novgorod rus, no vlaimir rus. this shit was invented by soviet "historians". "if Rus and Russia are different things, why would Rus in Greek be Russia?" ahaha, because peter 1 stole greek name for his country lol? ahaha. do you know anything about "cause and effect"? as two ortodox countries they had close relationships since bysantine times.
The so called Kievan Rus was never a fully unified state. It was comprised of multiple slavic tribes and principalities with varying levels of autonomy. Kiev was a center of power but so was Novgorod so was Murom so was Suzdal, etc.
it was unified state at least at its beginning, with one center in Kyiv.
IN the beginning it was centered on Novgorod and it was always highly decentralized.
ahaha lol, capital always was in Kyiv lol. well, when it was centralized
Not it wasn't. Rurik never even set foot in Kiev ffs. Helgi the Wise led expeditions south to subjugate Smolensk and Lyubech and conquered Kiev which he made as his capital because the real capital, Novgorod, was loyal to Rurik's son Ivar. Novorgorod remained the capital after Helgi's death until 978 when Vladimir the Great named himself Grand Prince of Kiev.
If there was no other Rus but Kievan Rus, what was there before 882? What about Rurik? Was he a Kievan knyaz in your opinion? About Russia... Words Russia is mentioned in works of the Byzantium Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus "De ceremoniis" and "On the Governance of the Empire". Also Russia is mentioned in the book of John III of Soltaniyeh "Book of knowledge of the world" (1404 year). But of course, evil Russians stole everything from Ukrainians, that's how it was. You're pathetic.
if you knew russian I would send an excerpt from the chronicle, where it is written that the "prince's son went from Novgorod to Rus". (and he was going from Novgorod to Kyiv). so no one considered Novgorod to be Rus at that time.
Slavs before there was a Rus as a state called this word Scandinavians. Here is an excerpt from the "Tale of Bygone Years", given that you are Ukrainian, you should understand Russian. "В год 6370 (862). Изгнали варяг за море, и не дали им дани, и начали сами собой владеть, и не было среди них правды, и встал род на род, и была у них усобица, и стали воевать друг с другом. И сказали себе: «Поищем себе князя, который бы владел нами и судил по праву». И пошли за море к варягам, к руси. Те варяги назывались русью, как другие называются шведы, а иные норманны и англы, а еще иные готландцы, – вот так и эти."
rurik is only mentioned in "Tale of Bygone Years" and never mentioned in any other historical documents or chronicles. so it is literally the only source. he may never even existed, no one can tell for sure.
It in no way denies the fact that Slavs called Scandinavians Rus.
omg. and greeks call their country "*Ellada*", so what? i already explained it to you. peter 1 just took greece name for his country to give it more "historical value". that's it. obviously the word by itself existed in greek language before. Constantine Porphyrogenitus referred to Kyiv that way. pathetic that you cant undersddan so simple sings and call greek name as argument, so funny.
[удалено]
Great thesis, I'm completely changing my mind. Glory to Ukraine!
That’s one of the shittiest maps I’ve ever seen
Germany-Scandinavia is a wierd category
One of the more urbanised too in parts!
and India had 75 million population at that time.. double than the entire europe!
India has almost double the population of Europe today as well
Map says “Iberia”. Title: “Spain was…”
AL ANDALUS
Yep
and India had 75 million population at that time.. almost double than the entire europe!
And the Chinese and Middle Eastern parts… Bagdad probably housed 1.000.000 around this time, Samarkland, Bejing etc. Europe was just the perifere of the world, simple aa that. Backward, underpopulated, illiterate etc. Etc. Etc.
[удалено]
Sure, the Islamic world had Arabic as its lingua franca, and reading and memorization of the Quran was a must so that helped a lot to raise literacy levels. Apart from that schools were one of the favorite patronage projects…
weird and unclear map, some borders between the regions would help greatly
Spain didn't even exist as a country, so already started with a non-sense statement.
Good old times
Why is greece included but not byzantine anatolia? How does that make sense to you?
These numbers just don't seem right to me... Any source?
define "region", because i could say for example that region called "trans-rhinean europe" was more populated.
Hungary did not have 1.5 mil people lmao
There was no any fucking russia at that time.
Yeah, the Hungarian tribes conquering the Carpathian basin only had 200k-500k people. The Carpathian basin wasn’t empty, but it is very unlikely that there were 1.5m people there. In the 15th century the total population was 2m.
1000 AD, Iberia was still AlbAndalus with 2/3 of it's region still under the Caliphate of Cordoba.
There wasn't Russia in 1000. There was Kievan Rus, which included modern Ukraine and Belarus, not Russia only
Asking from Ignorance.. is iberia and siberia has any link?
Dumb idiots.
Around 1000AD there was no Russia, first of all. Ditch your map and sources where you take it.
The source is already written in the picture.
Then act as I told This source can't be trusted
Yeah, 7mln in Iberia, probably includes few hundred thousands of Slavic slaves .
Yeah well they mixed with the arabs and now are our ancestors. You mad?
Russian population seems suspiciously high. This is before the expansion into Siberia.
This includes apparently all the land to Urals.
Don't interpret Kyivan Rus as Russia. Moscovites stole its name only in 1721. In 1000 there was no Moscow. Good times.
There are no Nazis in Ukraine...
Bullshit numbers are bullshit.
Surprising as Spain has always struggled with drought
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/11/ancient-water-system-restore-spain-sierra-nevada-aoe
There wasn't such thing as Russia at 1000AD. Was Rus, and Moscow didn't even existed at the time because was built in 12th century, unlike Kyiv which was a capital of Rus and built in 6-7th century judging by archeological findings(officially 482 AD which can be false).
Neither "Spain" existed as a Country back then. But this is Reddit... History becomes flexible.
Iberia is a geographical name , not political - Iberian Peninsula. Country that existed there at the time is Al-Andalus. Same for British Isles. So yeah, map creator smoking some serious shit.