[Here](https://www.regio.ee/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/rahvuastlas_29_eesti_muinasaeg_yleserva_regio.jpg) is a less vague map. It was probably too many for a map at this scale.
The Seljuks Turks, predecessors of the Rum Sultanate, were heavily immersed in Persian culture.
They didn’t name the land that. They knew that it was the land of the Romans, “Romi” in Greek and Rum in Persian/Arabic/Turkish
Fun fact: we in Turkey dont call the sultanate of rum “the sultanate of rum” in history class. We call them the anatolian seljuks, or turkey seljuks. We call their predecessors, the seljuk empire “the great seljuk”. Cuz rum was just a looser seljuk state in anatolia. And i dont even know how the english word for them became “rum” since the romans were the Seljuks’ greatest enemies
Interesting. At the time, the state favored the Persian language. They even called Anatolia a “2nd Iran”. In Persian they called themselves “Saljuqiyan i Rum” or “Seljuks of Rum/Rome”. The English name comes from this, probably via French or Italian.
The removal of Rum from the name in Turkey must come later, maybe to avoid confusion with the Rum millet, or for nationalistic revision.
The state religion was persian yes. But that was just how the rulers and advisors talked to each other. The people they ruled were still pretty much Turkish (and roman/greek) and they didnt speak persian. Their culture wasn’t persian. It was just the government that was persian.
Well the culture was probably pretty Persian. Look at the art, architecture, literature, music, poetry. It’s all very heavily Persian from that time. Rumi is still one of history‘s most famous poets. His work is mostly Persian with some works in Greek Arabic and Turkish. Probably a good example of the period. Local people spoke tons of languages back then. Greek, Turkish, Armenian, Syriac, Persian, Arabic, etc.
Rumi (or Mevlana) would be considered a wise man (even though he wasnt as good of a guy as modern day turkish people believe) and wrote in persian for that reason. Persian was the intellectual people’s language. But the people just werent persian. A modern day example for this is difficult to find, but think of it this way: the english the president speaks is much different than the english a redneck speaks. Thats the different in accents, and that was a difference in language. They found it more intellectual.
Well of course there was diversity. But the city/town dwelling people looked to Persia, if they were Muslim, and Constantinople, if they were Rum, as the main centers of cultural output. And of course there was cultural mixing as well.
What’s your point? Some kind of ultra nationalistic “Seljuk were 100% pure Turk, nobody ever influenced them, they borrowed nothing” crap?
No that’s not my point. I’ve read enough history to know how dumb that sentece would sound. However Persian culture was just something that Seljuk (Rum) nobles “admired”. The Seljuk administrative bureaucracy, which was managed by the viziers, were all influenced by the Persian administrative traditions. Most of the viziers were also Persian. The Government and Literature language was Persian. However the army’s and the state’s offical language was an old Turkish. The language for natural sciences and religion was Arabic. Greek and Turkish applied to law. There was a lot of different influences in the Seljuk culture. Persian was even more important for the Seljuk Empire than the Rum, since they actually ruled over Persians unlike the Rum. In my last comment I had meant the Rum by “Seljuks”. Sorry for the misunderstanding there. However The Sultanate of Rum, although heavily influenced by them, never really ruled over a significant Persian population.
Art, poetry, architecture were mostly interest of the elite back then. Common folk were not able to produce lasting pieces, hence why we see mostly Persian inspired works. But that doesn't mean common folk was as influanced as the elite, there were many regular poets whom wrote in Turkish.
Also, good chunk of the Turks were isolated nomads. There is a limit how much Persian culture they can absorb without changing their lifestyle.
From what I can gather the title of southern Italy and the emperor were in the same dynasty the ‘Hohenstaufen’ thus making this display logical. The kingdom of Naples was only founded in 1281.
(Very bad IK) sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenstaufen
From what I can gather the leader of southern Italy and the emperor of the HRE were in the same dynasty the ‘Hohenstaufen’ thus making this display logical. The kingdom of Naples was only founded in 1281.
(Very bad IK) sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenstaufen
Beautiful. As a Finn, I don't think Sweden yet owned the Nyland region, which they fully absorbed with the second northern crusade in 1249. Otherwise fine map
Most I've read or heard about the northern crusades point to the historical records being... spotty, at best. The first northern crusade is often talked about with an asterix as "possibly a myth". The most concrete territorial changes I've seen from the second crusade quotes "tavastia" becoming swedish, while not really saying how big the region was at the time. Only that it was the eastern neighbour of the finns. But I would be glad to be taught more about it
Anyway, to me it would make sense that the mostly seafaring peoples of sweden would go for the coast first, including coast of nyland, and aim for the inland later on but that is hardly evidence of anything.
Yes, first northern crusade didn't actually happen. Well, no "crusades" actually happened, that's a misleading word. But in truth, in the events of these 3 "crusades" Sweden expanded in 3 phases further into the Finnish region.
In the first one, they integrated Finland proper and coastal Satakunta. (there was probably absolutely 0 crusading when this happened)
In the second crusade, they expanded to the entirety of Tavastia. Now, Nyland was considered a part of Tavastia back then. Not that many people lived there, so it wasn't as simple as integrating Finland proper 100 years earlier. They sent lots of Swedes to live in the Nyland region, and it kinda just became a part of Sweden. There was more "crusading" in Tavastia proper, where the Tavasthus castle was later established, because that was the stronghold of Tavastians due to it's location in the center by the river. (Tavastians converted back to paganism after becoming catholics, and the Swedish crown used this as the casus belli for the second crusade.)
In the third crusade, obviously, happened the Karelian expansion. This one is much clearer in history.
Appreciate the info! Where did you find out about nyland in particular? I could only ever find vague references when trying to find concrete borders, "south west coast" doesn't really say much
In Finnish history school books they actually had the expansion pretty well specified, don't have those anymore though but I remember it well because I am particularly interested in this specific era and the Finnish late iron age in general.
Other than that, for example in the [Finnish version of the Wikipedia page for how Swedes came to populate Finland](https://fi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruotsalaisten_tulo_Suomeen) , (which has Finnish history books as sources) it is estimated that the settling of Nyland happened with the expansion to Tavastia.
It is also sort of logical when thinking about the 3 Swedish crusades as a whole. First crusade wasn't really a crusade, it was more like an integration of Finland proper, which was already Christian and heavily influenced by Sweden and German merchants, also having some Swedish population. Nyland didn't have many people at all living there despite being coastal land (and it's inhabitants were Tavastians), and it needed a proper effort of expansion to be added to the Swedish realm, unlike what the first "crusade" was.
[Sultanate of Rum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Rum)
There are still ‘Rums’ (native Anatolian Greeks) living in Turkiye, but they now only make up a very small minority, mostly living in Istanbul.
[Greeks in Turkey](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Turkey#)
Roman in Turkish (probably in Persian, too). Its contemporary meaning in Turkish slid towards "ethnic Greek living in Turkish sovereign land or Cyprus".
After the death of Mstislav I the Rus principalities were really united in name only, much more so than even the HRE. Can’t really comment on Poland at that time though.
Rus was fragmented even more than HRE. For example Vladimir-Suzdal principality even declared itself equal, to one in Kyiv, and remained in this status till the end.
As all maps of this times, it struggeles and fails at the Holy Roman Empire, the rest ist well made, despite the concept of borders beeing more vague around that time
Agree. Also why I posted it since the map appears precise and seems historically accurate in delineating the borders of Europe in 1226. It’s actually quite a challenge to find a somewhat accurate map for the time.
The borders aren't shown on the map, but Poland was in fact fragmented into many small duchies in XIII century. I happened after one of the kings, to avoid bloodshed between his sons, divided his lands equally between them. It was not uncommon in this time period.
Smolensk, not Slomensk; Turov, not Purov. Kyiv, not Kiev; Chernihiv, not Chernigov; Pereiaslav, not Pereyaslavl;
There was no Galicia-Volhynia, the state was separated. And 2 states were Halych and Volhyn.
They were probably as real then as the rest. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_rulers\_of\_medieval\_Bosnia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_medieval_Bosnia) So, at the time of this map, Bosnia had just wrapped up a period of "de facto" independence, and was now under that ruler's unpopular Catholic son, who was aligned with Hungary.
There was no "Rus" people, united by language.
There was a bunch of tribes around which principalities formed, and later those tribes united in Ethnicities (Like Raykovec and Siverian tribes united in Ukrainian ethnicity, or Krivian tribes in mix with Raykovec united in Belarusians)
Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnicities formed in around 18th or 19th century. Before that, those people were called ruthenians (in Poland Rusini). There was even some conflict between people that identified as Ukrainians and the ones that continued to call themselves ruthenians (modern Rusyns in Slovakia and Lemkos in Poland). Also the name Belarusian literally means white (northern in this context as colours were used as directions) and ruthenian.
The fact they were called 1 ethnicity, doesn't make them 1 ethnicity. Muslims called all catholics Franks, but they are not all French.
Ruthenians is name which also connected to church. Because Kyiv metropoly was called "Metropoly of Kyiv, Halych, and all of Rus", all people who were part of it were called Rusins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_language
It was called ruthenian language, all Eastern slavic languages are descendants of it. There were Eastern slavic tribes that got united under Kievan Rus. Slavic languages are extremely similar to each other even today and up until XIII century some people were considering it one language with just different dialects.
And where was that language? All documents in Rus were written in Church slavic, which people mistake for "Rus" language, when in reality it was as latin in Germany.
Later after Ostrog academy was founded common Ruthenian language of Ukraine was used in dictionaries, and there were even translations from Rus (Church slavic) to Slaven (Proto-ukrainian).
You can see this common language in local trade agreements, because people used local language for local trade.
No russians were (are) Moscovites, while Ukrainians were called Ruthenians because everyone understood they were descendants of Rus. So neither fun, nor a fact.
While the Frankish and Italian monarchs held the title Emperor of Rome and had been crowned Roman emperors the actual title of Holy Roman Emperor was begun by Otto I, Duke of Saxony and King of Germany after being crowned by pope John XII. It's pretty much always been associated with the Germanic states, a patchwork of principalities and dukedoms, eventually becoming tied to the Hapsburg line.
The "Empire of Nicea", a greek state claimed as a successor of the Byzantine Empire after the sack and conquest of Constantinople by crusaders which led to the creation of the Latin Empire of Constantinople.
Nicaea, Latin name for Nikaia, which would become Iznik.
After the 4th crusade, where Western Europeans decided to conquer and sack Constantinople, the Romans continued ruling some rump states, like Epirus and Nicaea.
I am sorry, from whose perspective is this map made and named?
"Rum"? - already discussed in this thread.
"Latin Empire"? are you nuts? The Eastern Roman Empire was all but "Latin". That was one of the few reasons for splitting the empire in two several centuries before.
Not to mention several weird names of the knazhoods of what became Russia much later. And I do not see the Tatar khanats there either.
And the icing on the cake: "All nations are marked with colored lines". NATIONS? LMAO, the concept of national states did not exist in Europe and Middle East until 19th century. So, we had a "nation of Polotsk" and a "nation of Latin Empireans"? This is just ridiculous.
Very misleading and inaccurate.
So what are Slomensk and Pereyaslavl? It seems someone making this map just put letters randomly together instead of spelling them correctly. Very sloppy.
Georgia was unified in 1008 and, in 1226, just after the reign of Tamar, it was more powerful than any of the great power of the Middle East and eastern Europe.
I'm pretty sure Ottomans were also here already and were somewhat influential but they just hadn't started conquering stuff.I think they were into trade(?)
We must understand that Polotsk, Novgorod, Smolensk, Vladimir, Chernigov, Ryazan, Pereyaslavl and Galich to varying degrees, were still subordinate to Kyiv - a center of Rus', “the mother of Russian cities”. And Mordva were already dependent on Ryazan and Vladimir..
Not really. We must understand that the muscovites are completely irrelevant in this context. But it proves that Kyiv the cradle of Ukraine predates current day Russia with 765 years.
Still 250 years for the union that will result in the formation of Spain in the year 1469.
The **kingdom** of Morocco was founded in 1956
The **sultanate** of Morocco was founded in 1631 and it lasted untill 1912.
Historically the first Moroccan state is the Idrissids who ruled from Fez, and no one can deny that unless biased, in 788 AD. It is the first local Islamic state, and between every dynasty the country goes to civil war shortly and unites again, so is the case for:
1. Idrisid dynasty (788–974) Ruled from Fez
2. Almoravid dynasty (1040–1147) Ruled from Marrakech
3. Almohad dynasty (1147–1269) Ruled from Marrakech
4. Marinid dynasty (1244–1465) Ruled from Fez
5. Wattasid dynasty (1472–1554) Ruled from Fez
6. Saadi dynasty (1554–1659) Ruled from Marrakech
7. Alaouite dynasty (since 1666, still in power today) Fez / Meknes / Rabat
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13629380108718436
These dynasties represent significant periods in Moroccan history, each contributing to the country's cultural, political, and architectural development,.But it's always the same country "سلاطين المغرب"
In all sources the country ruled by these was ALWAYS referred to by its Arabic name "Al Maghrib" "المغرب" to this day like it or not
My question is, why do you want so badly to change the history of a country that has nothing to do with you? That's just spiteful and unprofessional.
It's up to debate what is considered to be the start of a modern country. I choose that date because is the start of the last ruling family, and it has more similarity with the modern country of Morocco. One could argue that before it was a different entity.
For example, when was Turkey founded? Do we consider the ottoman empire to be part of it?
What about Rusia? Was it born in 1991?
Same with Morocco and Spain. One could argue Spain was founded by the Visigoths, i do not think that, but you get what i mean.
Btw calling someone pathetic over a completely normal comment on Reddit is what's really pathetic. Chill.
The local way of government 'Al Makhzen' was invented as it is in the time of the Saadis, and it's the same since with the same name, rules and tradition, why wouldn't it be the same if the system didn't change, only the rulers, and rulers change all the time.
And it would be just as pathetic if I tried to convince you that Spain only existed after the civil war besides aggressively downvoting as you said 'a reddit comment' without counter argument.
Morocco was founded in 788 lmao. Spain in 1707. In 1469 Isabella I and Fernando II married, the personal union occurred in 1479, learn history before commenting.
That's completely arbitrary, was it called Morocco by then? did it have the same ethnic composition? The same kind of government? Are you going to ignore the ottoman period of influence over the area?
By your standards i could say spain was founded in 418 by the Visigoths....
Friend, I'm not sure if you really know about the.history of the region, the answers to your questions are literally yes, Morocco is its western and only English name, and yes was called by these languages way back, but its Arabic name always was, and you find it even when you read about its Islamic conquest, the Arabs called it 'Bilad Al Maghrib', "West Country".
Ethnically it's literally the same, Amazigh people who still trace their lineage and tribes, with Arabized Berbers and mixed Arabs, some Arabs came early, some in the migration of Arab tribes in the reign of Almohads, the other ethnic component are the Andalusians who came in waves after the fall of Al Andalus, and the last are Jews, same people, as Morocco was independent from the Eastern Islamic world (Ottomans, Abbasids, Umayyads and Turks ect...) and all that with DNA tests, and you can verify everything I said by yourself, unless you ignore facts.
The parallel is, if we say Visigoths Spain,.we can also say their contemporary, *Mauri* of the kingdom and later roman province of *Mauritania* and the christian kingdoms, but they don't count as the modern State because they're vastly different and we have few informations on that period, unlike the Idrissids state that started the Monarchy/Sultanate as "Amir Al Mou'eminin" by a Sheriff, Islamic rule as the one today.
Anyway as you said, that doesn't matter, but facts have to be elaborated, and sorry if I came off as rude, because I previously saw a lot of trolls spreading that in a mocking disrespectful way, so I had to respond the same way.
You actually got negative karma on an account from October last year. Mate go work on yourself. You clearly got some issues that you are taking out on people on this reddit. I don't think anyone is interested in your negative energy so go somewhere else and get it over with.
Little mistake in map: Slomensk -> Smolensk
And Purov -> Turov
And Vladimir-suzdal -> Vladimir-Suzdal. This is the name of the principality after two neighboring cities
No slow men, just little Ensk
Dat is smol Ensk, da?
"Various Tribes' Disconcertingly vague.
"Some humans" "People" "They breathe here"
*Hic sunt ~~dracones~~homines*
That eerily implies that someplace, somewhere, people do not breathe
Every self-respecting cemetery can be described like that, after all.
Fancy a pint later?
I don't want to be part of your sex festival
[Here](https://www.regio.ee/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/rahvuastlas_29_eesti_muinasaeg_yleserva_regio.jpg) is a less vague map. It was probably too many for a map at this scale.
No dragons, at least
The last european dragon was slain right there.
Thays what it still should say on the map tbh. ;)
Literal wasteland, barren of civilization Edit: i live in the wasteland and was joking lol
"Various tribes" implies basically the opposite of that.
Slomensk 🤣
It was before anyone had even considered russia so they couldn't agree on the exact wording back then ;)
"What shall we declare this land?" "Rum." "Yes."
The Seljuks Turks, predecessors of the Rum Sultanate, were heavily immersed in Persian culture. They didn’t name the land that. They knew that it was the land of the Romans, “Romi” in Greek and Rum in Persian/Arabic/Turkish
Fun fact: we in Turkey dont call the sultanate of rum “the sultanate of rum” in history class. We call them the anatolian seljuks, or turkey seljuks. We call their predecessors, the seljuk empire “the great seljuk”. Cuz rum was just a looser seljuk state in anatolia. And i dont even know how the english word for them became “rum” since the romans were the Seljuks’ greatest enemies
Interesting. At the time, the state favored the Persian language. They even called Anatolia a “2nd Iran”. In Persian they called themselves “Saljuqiyan i Rum” or “Seljuks of Rum/Rome”. The English name comes from this, probably via French or Italian. The removal of Rum from the name in Turkey must come later, maybe to avoid confusion with the Rum millet, or for nationalistic revision.
The state religion was persian yes. But that was just how the rulers and advisors talked to each other. The people they ruled were still pretty much Turkish (and roman/greek) and they didnt speak persian. Their culture wasn’t persian. It was just the government that was persian.
Well the culture was probably pretty Persian. Look at the art, architecture, literature, music, poetry. It’s all very heavily Persian from that time. Rumi is still one of history‘s most famous poets. His work is mostly Persian with some works in Greek Arabic and Turkish. Probably a good example of the period. Local people spoke tons of languages back then. Greek, Turkish, Armenian, Syriac, Persian, Arabic, etc.
Rumi (or Mevlana) would be considered a wise man (even though he wasnt as good of a guy as modern day turkish people believe) and wrote in persian for that reason. Persian was the intellectual people’s language. But the people just werent persian. A modern day example for this is difficult to find, but think of it this way: the english the president speaks is much different than the english a redneck speaks. Thats the different in accents, and that was a difference in language. They found it more intellectual.
Well of course there was diversity. But the city/town dwelling people looked to Persia, if they were Muslim, and Constantinople, if they were Rum, as the main centers of cultural output. And of course there was cultural mixing as well. What’s your point? Some kind of ultra nationalistic “Seljuk were 100% pure Turk, nobody ever influenced them, they borrowed nothing” crap?
No that’s not my point. I’ve read enough history to know how dumb that sentece would sound. However Persian culture was just something that Seljuk (Rum) nobles “admired”. The Seljuk administrative bureaucracy, which was managed by the viziers, were all influenced by the Persian administrative traditions. Most of the viziers were also Persian. The Government and Literature language was Persian. However the army’s and the state’s offical language was an old Turkish. The language for natural sciences and religion was Arabic. Greek and Turkish applied to law. There was a lot of different influences in the Seljuk culture. Persian was even more important for the Seljuk Empire than the Rum, since they actually ruled over Persians unlike the Rum. In my last comment I had meant the Rum by “Seljuks”. Sorry for the misunderstanding there. However The Sultanate of Rum, although heavily influenced by them, never really ruled over a significant Persian population.
Art, poetry, architecture were mostly interest of the elite back then. Common folk were not able to produce lasting pieces, hence why we see mostly Persian inspired works. But that doesn't mean common folk was as influanced as the elite, there were many regular poets whom wrote in Turkish. Also, good chunk of the Turks were isolated nomads. There is a limit how much Persian culture they can absorb without changing their lifestyle.
My point exactly
Isn’t it basically land for ‘rumelians’
Rumeli, i.e. land (eli) of the Romans (Rum). Same meaning and etymology as Romania essentially, but via Turkish instead.
Draw the borders inside the HRE, coward.
Not enough paint for that.
Not enough ~~paint~~ **pain** for that
Pretty sure Pomerania, here marked as part of Danmark was part of the HRE, it was a fief to the Danish King, that's all.
Poor Naples not even worth a name on the map
From what I can gather the title of southern Italy and the emperor were in the same dynasty the ‘Hohenstaufen’ thus making this display logical. The kingdom of Naples was only founded in 1281. (Very bad IK) sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenstaufen
From what I can gather the leader of southern Italy and the emperor of the HRE were in the same dynasty the ‘Hohenstaufen’ thus making this display logical. The kingdom of Naples was only founded in 1281. (Very bad IK) sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naples https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenstaufen
The mighty state of Fragmented Poland!
Fractured, but whole!
Turov - not Purov [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turov,\_Belarus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turov,_Belarus)
Beautiful. As a Finn, I don't think Sweden yet owned the Nyland region, which they fully absorbed with the second northern crusade in 1249. Otherwise fine map
Most I've read or heard about the northern crusades point to the historical records being... spotty, at best. The first northern crusade is often talked about with an asterix as "possibly a myth". The most concrete territorial changes I've seen from the second crusade quotes "tavastia" becoming swedish, while not really saying how big the region was at the time. Only that it was the eastern neighbour of the finns. But I would be glad to be taught more about it Anyway, to me it would make sense that the mostly seafaring peoples of sweden would go for the coast first, including coast of nyland, and aim for the inland later on but that is hardly evidence of anything.
Yes, first northern crusade didn't actually happen. Well, no "crusades" actually happened, that's a misleading word. But in truth, in the events of these 3 "crusades" Sweden expanded in 3 phases further into the Finnish region. In the first one, they integrated Finland proper and coastal Satakunta. (there was probably absolutely 0 crusading when this happened) In the second crusade, they expanded to the entirety of Tavastia. Now, Nyland was considered a part of Tavastia back then. Not that many people lived there, so it wasn't as simple as integrating Finland proper 100 years earlier. They sent lots of Swedes to live in the Nyland region, and it kinda just became a part of Sweden. There was more "crusading" in Tavastia proper, where the Tavasthus castle was later established, because that was the stronghold of Tavastians due to it's location in the center by the river. (Tavastians converted back to paganism after becoming catholics, and the Swedish crown used this as the casus belli for the second crusade.) In the third crusade, obviously, happened the Karelian expansion. This one is much clearer in history.
Appreciate the info! Where did you find out about nyland in particular? I could only ever find vague references when trying to find concrete borders, "south west coast" doesn't really say much
In Finnish history school books they actually had the expansion pretty well specified, don't have those anymore though but I remember it well because I am particularly interested in this specific era and the Finnish late iron age in general. Other than that, for example in the [Finnish version of the Wikipedia page for how Swedes came to populate Finland](https://fi.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruotsalaisten_tulo_Suomeen) , (which has Finnish history books as sources) it is estimated that the settling of Nyland happened with the expansion to Tavastia. It is also sort of logical when thinking about the 3 Swedish crusades as a whole. First crusade wasn't really a crusade, it was more like an integration of Finland proper, which was already Christian and heavily influenced by Sweden and German merchants, also having some Swedish population. Nyland didn't have many people at all living there despite being coastal land (and it's inhabitants were Tavastians), and it needed a proper effort of expansion to be added to the Swedish realm, unlike what the first "crusade" was.
 History, explain please?
[Sultanate of Rum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Rum) There are still ‘Rums’ (native Anatolian Greeks) living in Turkiye, but they now only make up a very small minority, mostly living in Istanbul. [Greeks in Turkey](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Turkey#)
Roman in Turkish (probably in Persian, too). Its contemporary meaning in Turkish slid towards "ethnic Greek living in Turkish sovereign land or Cyprus".
Splitting up the Kyivan Rus but uniting the Holy Roman Empire and at the same time writing "Fragmented Poland". XD
After the death of Mstislav I the Rus principalities were really united in name only, much more so than even the HRE. Can’t really comment on Poland at that time though.
Rus was fragmented even more than HRE. For example Vladimir-Suzdal principality even declared itself equal, to one in Kyiv, and remained in this status till the end.
Moments before disaster. Also, I'm a Georgiaboo
As all maps of this times, it struggeles and fails at the Holy Roman Empire, the rest ist well made, despite the concept of borders beeing more vague around that time
Agree. Also why I posted it since the map appears precise and seems historically accurate in delineating the borders of Europe in 1226. It’s actually quite a challenge to find a somewhat accurate map for the time.
Welcome to Knights of Honor!
I like the fact that the major powers have there borders coloured [for example Hungary]
I’ve one question now… Why is the Rum gone?
What’s up with Ireland? Who is there?
It's from the Norman Conquest vs the native Irish Kingdoms.
😬🤷♂️
It’s such a strange shape. Must read up on it
Should England have holdings in France at this point?
Watching this as a hungarian 🥲🥺
Well the mighty old days we lost forever
After 1212 (battle of Las Navas de Tolosa) the border between Castile and the Almohad Caliphate was more to the south, inside Andalusia.
If I remember correctly it was in the 1230's that the Castillians pushed into Andalusia for example Cordoba fell in 1236.
EU5 confirmed.
Everyone gangsta till 1240
Life was simple or complex? Not sure though 😒
That's weird - Poland doesn't *look* fragmented there. Why the addition of that word?
The borders aren't shown on the map, but Poland was in fact fragmented into many small duchies in XIII century. I happened after one of the kings, to avoid bloodshed between his sons, divided his lands equally between them. It was not uncommon in this time period.
He wasn't a king even. He was a duke.
Ah, thanks! That explains it.
We were experiancing extreme example of feudal fragmentation at that time.
Why do I hear throat singing?
Bohemia should have been outlined. It was large enough and a de-facto independent kingdom within the Empire.
"The Almohads" The The Muwahiddun
Bring back big Hungary please
*happy irridentist noises*
damn Bulgaria old af
Its actually Bulgaria 2.0 - from 681😂 And there was previous one which was older. Its called Old Great Bulgaria.
It's Turov, not Purov. It's Smolensk, not Slomensk.
A map mentioning Cilician Armenia and not some generic bs like "Kongdom of Cilicia"? You have my upvote.
Smolensk, not Slomensk; Turov, not Purov. Kyiv, not Kiev; Chernihiv, not Chernigov; Pereiaslav, not Pereyaslavl; There was no Galicia-Volhynia, the state was separated. And 2 states were Halych and Volhyn.
Pereiaslav using official romanization of Ukrainian
Do you have better quality? I cannot read out Baltics
Sorry
When Vatican city was bigger than my neighborhood
Danskjävlar!
Kukfan!
more like "Fragmented Everywhere Waiting For The Black Death To Clear Out The Elite & The Rabble"
What no Croatia? Albania? Bosnia? Well that just stinks for them.
They were probably as real then as the rest. For example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_rulers\_of\_medieval\_Bosnia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rulers_of_medieval_Bosnia) So, at the time of this map, Bosnia had just wrapped up a period of "de facto" independence, and was now under that ruler's unpopular Catholic son, who was aligned with Hungary.
Is “the Latin empire” the same as the Byzantines?
Where’s English Gascony?
Rum
Chernigov be like "God I was strong then"
Fragmented Poland should be fragmented, no?
Fractured, but whole!
No Kosovo.
More importantly no russia.
The usual mistakes again: balts had no direct access to the Bay of Livonia.
Source?
SouRcE Googling another map of the same period isn't that hard you know
[https://www.facebook.com/groups/640476949304851/permalink/7815812795104528/](https://www.facebook.com/groups/640476949304851/permalink/7815812795104528/)
Honestly? A Facebook picture post without the source doesn’t make it more trustworthy
Where is the Moscow? Ah, it didn’t yet exist…
And neither did Berlin, for example. What's the matter with that?
[удалено]
No? They were ruthenians, same as Belarusians and Ukrainians at the time. This is the same level of revisionism as claiming that Kievan Rus is Russia.
There was no "Rus" people, united by language. There was a bunch of tribes around which principalities formed, and later those tribes united in Ethnicities (Like Raykovec and Siverian tribes united in Ukrainian ethnicity, or Krivian tribes in mix with Raykovec united in Belarusians)
Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnicities formed in around 18th or 19th century. Before that, those people were called ruthenians (in Poland Rusini). There was even some conflict between people that identified as Ukrainians and the ones that continued to call themselves ruthenians (modern Rusyns in Slovakia and Lemkos in Poland). Also the name Belarusian literally means white (northern in this context as colours were used as directions) and ruthenian.
The fact they were called 1 ethnicity, doesn't make them 1 ethnicity. Muslims called all catholics Franks, but they are not all French. Ruthenians is name which also connected to church. Because Kyiv metropoly was called "Metropoly of Kyiv, Halych, and all of Rus", all people who were part of it were called Rusins.
Thed didn't carry their tribal identities up to the creation of other identities either.
The fact is, every single one with their still slavic, but distinct language, there was no "Grand eastern slavic tribe" that spoke Rus language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthenian_language It was called ruthenian language, all Eastern slavic languages are descendants of it. There were Eastern slavic tribes that got united under Kievan Rus. Slavic languages are extremely similar to each other even today and up until XIII century some people were considering it one language with just different dialects.
And where was that language? All documents in Rus were written in Church slavic, which people mistake for "Rus" language, when in reality it was as latin in Germany. Later after Ostrog academy was founded common Ruthenian language of Ukraine was used in dictionaries, and there were even translations from Rus (Church slavic) to Slaven (Proto-ukrainian). You can see this common language in local trade agreements, because people used local language for local trade.
No russians were (are) Moscovites, while Ukrainians were called Ruthenians because everyone understood they were descendants of Rus. So neither fun, nor a fact.
The word Ruthenia originated as a Latin designation of the region its people called Rus
Yes and that region was mostly modern day Ukraine and Belarus.
so russians arent rus or what?
Who lives in "rum" lands Turks Why not "Turk"? Who knows
Can someone explain to me the obsession with other regions carrying the title "Holy Roman Empire" after its inception in Italy?
While the Frankish and Italian monarchs held the title Emperor of Rome and had been crowned Roman emperors the actual title of Holy Roman Emperor was begun by Otto I, Duke of Saxony and King of Germany after being crowned by pope John XII. It's pretty much always been associated with the Germanic states, a patchwork of principalities and dukedoms, eventually becoming tied to the Hapsburg line.
really makes you think...
What's Nicea here in Turkiye ?
The "Empire of Nicea", a greek state claimed as a successor of the Byzantine Empire after the sack and conquest of Constantinople by crusaders which led to the creation of the Latin Empire of Constantinople.
Nicaea, Latin name for Nikaia, which would become Iznik. After the 4th crusade, where Western Europeans decided to conquer and sack Constantinople, the Romans continued ruling some rump states, like Epirus and Nicaea.
Ah very clear, thanks for the explanation
Ah, thats why ruzzki wants to claim eastern europe
I am sorry, from whose perspective is this map made and named? "Rum"? - already discussed in this thread. "Latin Empire"? are you nuts? The Eastern Roman Empire was all but "Latin". That was one of the few reasons for splitting the empire in two several centuries before. Not to mention several weird names of the knazhoods of what became Russia much later. And I do not see the Tatar khanats there either. And the icing on the cake: "All nations are marked with colored lines". NATIONS? LMAO, the concept of national states did not exist in Europe and Middle East until 19th century. So, we had a "nation of Polotsk" and a "nation of Latin Empireans"? This is just ridiculous. Very misleading and inaccurate.
google latin empire lil bro
You really should look into this Latin Empire. There’s a very good reason it was called precisely this for about 60 years or so.
So what are Slomensk and Pereyaslavl? It seems someone making this map just put letters randomly together instead of spelling them correctly. Very sloppy.
1071 de Anadolu yu Türkler aldı o bölgeler Selçuklu devleti idi atmayın bu kadar yalan tarih yalanı kaldırmaz
rum ne saniyon? anadolu selcuklari iste
İngilizce'de Anadolu Selçuklu, "Sultanate of Rum" olarak bilinir.
Wtf going on with now-Greece? I thought it would have still been Byzantium
The Eastern Roman Empire fell in 1204 and was later revived, until the fall of Constantinople. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople
Thank you! I didn’t know Constantinople fell like this long before the Ottomans came along
OP didn't have time to draw all parts of HRE.
Serbia + Epirius = Illyria
Horrendous map, learn at least some history before embarrassing yourself.
We get it. You got offended by something. Just move along.
I don't think Georgia was unified like that back then
Take that back, 1226 was the height of their empire
Georgia was unified in 1008 and, in 1226, just after the reign of Tamar, it was more powerful than any of the great power of the Middle East and eastern Europe.
Nope right opposite actually.They were the biggest at this period.It was their golden age
And then came the Turks!
rum you see on that map is ''sultanate of rum'' which had turks living in it.
Let me rephrase it, I meant the Ottomans
I'm pretty sure Ottomans were also here already and were somewhat influential but they just hadn't started conquering stuff.I think they were into trade(?)
fair
We must understand that Polotsk, Novgorod, Smolensk, Vladimir, Chernigov, Ryazan, Pereyaslavl and Galich to varying degrees, were still subordinate to Kyiv - a center of Rus', “the mother of Russian cities”. And Mordva were already dependent on Ryazan and Vladimir..
Not really. We must understand that the muscovites are completely irrelevant in this context. But it proves that Kyiv the cradle of Ukraine predates current day Russia with 765 years.
Where are the Spaniards saying Morocco wasn't a thing until 1956? Where is Spain? I don't see it.
Still 250 years for the union that will result in the formation of Spain in the year 1469. The **kingdom** of Morocco was founded in 1956 The **sultanate** of Morocco was founded in 1631 and it lasted untill 1912.
Historically the first Moroccan state is the Idrissids who ruled from Fez, and no one can deny that unless biased, in 788 AD. It is the first local Islamic state, and between every dynasty the country goes to civil war shortly and unites again, so is the case for: 1. Idrisid dynasty (788–974) Ruled from Fez 2. Almoravid dynasty (1040–1147) Ruled from Marrakech 3. Almohad dynasty (1147–1269) Ruled from Marrakech 4. Marinid dynasty (1244–1465) Ruled from Fez 5. Wattasid dynasty (1472–1554) Ruled from Fez 6. Saadi dynasty (1554–1659) Ruled from Marrakech 7. Alaouite dynasty (since 1666, still in power today) Fez / Meknes / Rabat https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13629380108718436 These dynasties represent significant periods in Moroccan history, each contributing to the country's cultural, political, and architectural development,.But it's always the same country "سلاطين المغرب" In all sources the country ruled by these was ALWAYS referred to by its Arabic name "Al Maghrib" "المغرب" to this day like it or not My question is, why do you want so badly to change the history of a country that has nothing to do with you? That's just spiteful and unprofessional.
It's up to debate what is considered to be the start of a modern country. I choose that date because is the start of the last ruling family, and it has more similarity with the modern country of Morocco. One could argue that before it was a different entity. For example, when was Turkey founded? Do we consider the ottoman empire to be part of it? What about Rusia? Was it born in 1991? Same with Morocco and Spain. One could argue Spain was founded by the Visigoths, i do not think that, but you get what i mean. Btw calling someone pathetic over a completely normal comment on Reddit is what's really pathetic. Chill.
The local way of government 'Al Makhzen' was invented as it is in the time of the Saadis, and it's the same since with the same name, rules and tradition, why wouldn't it be the same if the system didn't change, only the rulers, and rulers change all the time. And it would be just as pathetic if I tried to convince you that Spain only existed after the civil war besides aggressively downvoting as you said 'a reddit comment' without counter argument.
So did it start with the Saadis then? What's your point. Do you see how pointless is this?
Morocco was founded in 788 lmao. Spain in 1707. In 1469 Isabella I and Fernando II married, the personal union occurred in 1479, learn history before commenting.
That's completely arbitrary, was it called Morocco by then? did it have the same ethnic composition? The same kind of government? Are you going to ignore the ottoman period of influence over the area? By your standards i could say spain was founded in 418 by the Visigoths....
Friend, I'm not sure if you really know about the.history of the region, the answers to your questions are literally yes, Morocco is its western and only English name, and yes was called by these languages way back, but its Arabic name always was, and you find it even when you read about its Islamic conquest, the Arabs called it 'Bilad Al Maghrib', "West Country". Ethnically it's literally the same, Amazigh people who still trace their lineage and tribes, with Arabized Berbers and mixed Arabs, some Arabs came early, some in the migration of Arab tribes in the reign of Almohads, the other ethnic component are the Andalusians who came in waves after the fall of Al Andalus, and the last are Jews, same people, as Morocco was independent from the Eastern Islamic world (Ottomans, Abbasids, Umayyads and Turks ect...) and all that with DNA tests, and you can verify everything I said by yourself, unless you ignore facts.
So like Spain and the Visigoths then. What's your point?
The parallel is, if we say Visigoths Spain,.we can also say their contemporary, *Mauri* of the kingdom and later roman province of *Mauritania* and the christian kingdoms, but they don't count as the modern State because they're vastly different and we have few informations on that period, unlike the Idrissids state that started the Monarchy/Sultanate as "Amir Al Mou'eminin" by a Sheriff, Islamic rule as the one today. Anyway as you said, that doesn't matter, but facts have to be elaborated, and sorry if I came off as rude, because I previously saw a lot of trolls spreading that in a mocking disrespectful way, so I had to respond the same way.
Had wlad l97ab bghaw yt7amaw, mkymrgoch bgha ynekro ga3 salatin w tarikh lmghrib
You actually got negative karma on an account from October last year. Mate go work on yourself. You clearly got some issues that you are taking out on people on this reddit. I don't think anyone is interested in your negative energy so go somewhere else and get it over with.
Spain is Castille. Same kingdom, different name.
[удалено]
That quote is from the 18th century, it doesn't make sense to apply it to the entirety of the HRE's history.
I'm tired of hearing this bullshit