Historic /maps/

...

This map is what I love. I did a thread of modern analysis of historical data the other day but nobody responded.

This is a great map.

I'm not in least bit empathetic your highness

contamination or temperature? I incline most for contamination
absolute state of dalmatia

I'll always how one of our authors rode to Vienna from Carniola before the railway and it took him two weeks.

wew, according to google it would take about three days walking non-stop.

It might've been a bit dramatised but that's still 80 to 90 hours on an optimal modern route.

wtf is Warsaw and Amsterdam referring to?

Horses aren't as much faster than people on long distances as they might appear from races and such

You also have to take into account that roads were in far worse condition than today and were much more limited by terrain and also, you're not going to stay on the road 24/7.

detroit quality of life is warsaw-tier
and gdp per capita is amsterdam-tier

This vastly overestimates complexity in Andean cultures at the time. You don't see truly urban, state socieites till around 0ad at the earliest. I'm not saying that because /pol/ or whatever, i'm a precolumbianaboo (mesoamerica in particular), but my understanding is that Caral and such weren't actually cities and were proto-urban sites at best.

Unless that image is just using a low standard for what orange and blue aren, which they don't seem to be, then Norte Chico there should be orange, not blue, and Valvida and Chinchoros should maybe be green.

Here's a zoomed in look at the core of itt in the valley of mexico, though the key is sort of confusing: The only citties here that aren't Aztec controlled are Tlaxcala/Tlaxcallan, Cholula/Cholollan, and Huexotzinco/Huexotzingo. I think the scale is also off, compared to other maps I've been told by actual experts are pretty accurate stuff is bunched closer together here. I also question the sheer amount of cities/towns shown here and that would be implied to be not shown in the image you posted: The region was dense with cities and towns and was predominately, to be sure, but the amount here seems way higher then what I'm familar with, the Aztecs are normally said to control 30-40 cities, tthe implication from extrapolating the density here to that image would imply hundreds.

If they all are contemporary settlements to the Aztecs, then a lot of them are likely small villages and towns with populaitons only in a few hundred to a few thousand, with only the many thousand to tens of thousands being shown in the larger image and even then probably some of those probably aren't quite that big.

I also really hate how that image implies excludes info about the other states in the region.

for context, here's one of two maps I know for a fact are pretty accurate.

Though this one has the disadnvtage of not showing specific Maya states, and has the opposiite issue of and that it is likely excluding a lot of smaller/less influentual towns and cities, vs those including absolutely tiny ones that robably don't even qualify as actual cities or towns/may not even exist.

I should ask the archaeologist i';m friends with what the right balance would be as far as that.

And the other one I know is very accurate, which sidesteps the city/town issue entirely by just showing state borders (though stuff noted as "terrtorio" aren't actual political states, but just space occupied by unorganized tribal cultures)