Relative Power of Contemporary States, Nations and Empires
August 13, 2013 11:17 AM Subscribe
The Histomap: Four Thousand Years of World History
Four thousand years, up to 1931. It's a dated map, and a dated worldview.
Yale has a nice zoom-able version, if your browser doesn't handle the full image from Slate so well.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:26 AM on August 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
Yale has a nice zoom-able version, if your browser doesn't handle the full image from Slate so well.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:26 AM on August 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
Tilt your head and it's the end of a Civ4 game.
posted by Z. Aurelius Fraught at 11:27 AM on August 13, 2013 [15 favorites]
posted by Z. Aurelius Fraught at 11:27 AM on August 13, 2013 [15 favorites]
absalom, you might like this long write-up on the topic of classifying civilization, written by Susan Buck-Morss, a Professor of Political Philosophy and Social Theory in the Department of Government at Cornell University.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:30 AM on August 13, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by filthy light thief at 11:30 AM on August 13, 2013 [5 favorites]
I find it unsettling to see something on Slate that is so non-contrarian and "hey this is neat." I would be more comfortable with Everything You Know About the Histomap is Wrong.
posted by brain_drain at 11:30 AM on August 13, 2013 [7 favorites]
posted by brain_drain at 11:30 AM on August 13, 2013 [7 favorites]
Yeah, it's politically wrought from our point of view, but still an incredible effort.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:33 AM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by mr_roboto at 11:33 AM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
[checks to make sure that Civilization is mentioned; moves on...]
posted by Gelatin at 11:38 AM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Gelatin at 11:38 AM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
The library at work has this in the lobby leaning against a wall. I offered to take it off their hands back in 2006 or so but they said they liked it, but can't find a place for it. It's still leaning there.
posted by DU at 11:39 AM on August 13, 2013
posted by DU at 11:39 AM on August 13, 2013
Also, I can't wait for MeFi discussion threads to be unearthed by data archaeologists 80 years from now. "Boy, they sure were concerned about world views back then. Like, 90% of the comments on any story are about that. Kinda funny, knowing what we know now."
posted by DU at 11:41 AM on August 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by DU at 11:41 AM on August 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
They seems to really underplay Spain's conquest of the New World.
Right after this, Japan was massively smacked down.
posted by goethean at 11:43 AM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Right after this, Japan was massively smacked down.
posted by goethean at 11:43 AM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
THE HISTOMAP: Everything western civilization knew about the past in 1931 based on our cultural prejudices and lack of evidence.
Still, being a WASP, it's a nice tool to learn about my ancestors and how they viewed their ancestors.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:48 AM on August 13, 2013
Still, being a WASP, it's a nice tool to learn about my ancestors and how they viewed their ancestors.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:48 AM on August 13, 2013
If you have a negative reaction you could take an antihistomap.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:50 AM on August 13, 2013 [23 favorites]
posted by kirkaracha at 11:50 AM on August 13, 2013 [23 favorites]
Sheesh, why can't things like this come with appropriate disclaimers about western bias? It's a perfectly interesting map, but referring to it as the "entire history of the world."!?!? Just...ugh
posted by dry white toast at 11:50 AM on August 13, 2013
posted by dry white toast at 11:50 AM on August 13, 2013
THE HISTOMAP: Everything western civilization knew about the past in 1931 based on our cultural prejudices and lack of evidence.
This is a completely fair critique, but I'd still wager that that chart has more information about ancient and medieval non-western cultures than your average American high school history class in 2013.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:52 AM on August 13, 2013 [12 favorites]
This is a completely fair critique, but I'd still wager that that chart has more information about ancient and medieval non-western cultures than your average American high school history class in 2013.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:52 AM on August 13, 2013 [12 favorites]
Sheesh, why can't things like this come with appropriate disclaimers about western bias? It's a perfectly interesting map, but referring to it as the "entire history of the world."
I think saying it's from 1931 makes that pretty clear actually.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:07 PM on August 13, 2013 [10 favorites]
I think saying it's from 1931 makes that pretty clear actually.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:07 PM on August 13, 2013 [10 favorites]
I'd still wager that that chart has more information about ancient and medieval non-western cultures than your average American high school history class in 2013.
Seriously. I've been listening to Will Durant's "Story of Civilization". Volume 2 is "the Greeks" while Vol 1 covered Egypt, India, China, Japan (ancient only) and some others. Short shrift? Kind of. But how much Indian or even Chinese history did you learn in HS? I got zero. I took an Indian history class in college that didn't cover as much as Durant did. And Durant explicitly says he's really only writing about how western civ got where it is now.
He also goes into great detail about how each culture treats women, their role in society, rights, etc. Date written? The 1930s.
Durant is dead now. The author of this map probably is too. No amount of complaining will make the map more accurate. You'll have to enjoy it as-is. Or flag it and move on.
posted by DU at 12:10 PM on August 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
Seriously. I've been listening to Will Durant's "Story of Civilization". Volume 2 is "the Greeks" while Vol 1 covered Egypt, India, China, Japan (ancient only) and some others. Short shrift? Kind of. But how much Indian or even Chinese history did you learn in HS? I got zero. I took an Indian history class in college that didn't cover as much as Durant did. And Durant explicitly says he's really only writing about how western civ got where it is now.
He also goes into great detail about how each culture treats women, their role in society, rights, etc. Date written? The 1930s.
Durant is dead now. The author of this map probably is too. No amount of complaining will make the map more accurate. You'll have to enjoy it as-is. Or flag it and move on.
posted by DU at 12:10 PM on August 13, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm going to wait to read the "Six things the histomap got wrong" article on Cracked.com
posted by happyroach at 12:22 PM on August 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by happyroach at 12:22 PM on August 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
I think a diagram like this would be my rebuttal to people who think A People's History is a useless document. The dominant popular understanding of history is basically as a memorization rubric of who owned who when.
posted by threeants at 12:28 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by threeants at 12:28 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sheesh, why can't things like this come with appropriate disclaimers about western bias? It's a perfectly interesting map, but referring to it as the "entire history of the world."!?!? Just...ugh
Like MCMikeNamara said, to us the fact that it comes from 1931 makes it pretty clear where it's coming from. And to most people in 1931 the concept of western bias would be pretty alien.
posted by brundlefly at 12:32 PM on August 13, 2013
Like MCMikeNamara said, to us the fact that it comes from 1931 makes it pretty clear where it's coming from. And to most people in 1931 the concept of western bias would be pretty alien.
posted by brundlefly at 12:32 PM on August 13, 2013
Don't like it? Make your own histomap.
posted by Renoroc at 12:35 PM on August 13, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Renoroc at 12:35 PM on August 13, 2013 [5 favorites]
absalom: Otherwise obviously not does not merit a mention, since "Egypt" is lumped with "European Powers" because... because Africans can't build monumental architecture, I guess?"
Typically, "African" refers either to Bantu ("black Africans") or sub-Saharan African. As an Ethnic group, DNA evidence suggests that ancient Egyptians were from a Middle Eastern population; reflecting a "Eurasian" population. North Africa is essentially an island, with the Sahara separating it from the Bantu peoples to the south. Egypt was historically, liguistically, genetically and economically tied more to the Mediterranean and greater Eurasian world than to the continent below it. Their entire civilizational kit reflects the Eurasian model, with their crops being the same ones in Sumer, and the same ones later transmitted to Europe. Same goes for their dometicated animals. Sub-Saharan Africa's climate is quite different, leading to different crops and needs. (Except for the small-m mediterranean climate zone in South Africa; this is why European colonies thrived in places like Capetown, but found their domesticatated animals and crops didn't fare well further north.)
Egyptians are literally Africans in that their patch of land happens to be in the far corner of that tectonic plate, but it actually makes sense to group Egypt in with Eurasian societies rather than an even more artificial pan-African group.
posted by spaltavian at 12:38 PM on August 13, 2013 [10 favorites]
Typically, "African" refers either to Bantu ("black Africans") or sub-Saharan African. As an Ethnic group, DNA evidence suggests that ancient Egyptians were from a Middle Eastern population; reflecting a "Eurasian" population. North Africa is essentially an island, with the Sahara separating it from the Bantu peoples to the south. Egypt was historically, liguistically, genetically and economically tied more to the Mediterranean and greater Eurasian world than to the continent below it. Their entire civilizational kit reflects the Eurasian model, with their crops being the same ones in Sumer, and the same ones later transmitted to Europe. Same goes for their dometicated animals. Sub-Saharan Africa's climate is quite different, leading to different crops and needs. (Except for the small-m mediterranean climate zone in South Africa; this is why European colonies thrived in places like Capetown, but found their domesticatated animals and crops didn't fare well further north.)
Egyptians are literally Africans in that their patch of land happens to be in the far corner of that tectonic plate, but it actually makes sense to group Egypt in with Eurasian societies rather than an even more artificial pan-African group.
posted by spaltavian at 12:38 PM on August 13, 2013 [10 favorites]
I think the description of the map is fairly "disclaimer-y," emphasizing that it's a product of its time, that "the chart emphasizes domination, using color to show how the power of various “peoples” (a quasi-racial understanding of the nature of human groups, quite popular at the time) evolved throughout history." And pointing out that it's not clear what the hell the X axis even means.
But what the article giveth, the headline taketh away.
posted by edheil at 12:43 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
But what the article giveth, the headline taketh away.
posted by edheil at 12:43 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
"Egypt" is lumped with "European Powers"
It looks to me like it's labelled as "Mediterranean People", which is why it gets grouped with Rome etc. Spaltavian has a better explanation of the details that I'd have been able to write. Note too that Carthage in present-day Tunisia is part of that same group - like Egypt, it had more cultural ties to other nations on the Mediterranean than to any of the cultures further south on the African continent.
posted by echo target at 12:52 PM on August 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
It looks to me like it's labelled as "Mediterranean People", which is why it gets grouped with Rome etc. Spaltavian has a better explanation of the details that I'd have been able to write. Note too that Carthage in present-day Tunisia is part of that same group - like Egypt, it had more cultural ties to other nations on the Mediterranean than to any of the cultures further south on the African continent.
posted by echo target at 12:52 PM on August 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Don't like it? Make your own histomap.
Tempting, actually. You'd have to have a pretty explicit definition of what it is on the X axis. Sparks claims it's 'relative power' without explaining it further. Maybe you could base it on population under a particular governmental system, or people who would have claimed a shared ancestry, though of course there's a lot of guesswork. Not sure how you'd deal with quasi-independent vassal states and protectorates - lump them in with their dominant state and you make lots of groups look like they're springing in and out of existence, but leave them out and you'd be grossly misrepresenting the influence of the dominant state. I'm thinking of the places taken over by the Romans, the Turks, the British, etc.
posted by echo target at 1:03 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Tempting, actually. You'd have to have a pretty explicit definition of what it is on the X axis. Sparks claims it's 'relative power' without explaining it further. Maybe you could base it on population under a particular governmental system, or people who would have claimed a shared ancestry, though of course there's a lot of guesswork. Not sure how you'd deal with quasi-independent vassal states and protectorates - lump them in with their dominant state and you make lots of groups look like they're springing in and out of existence, but leave them out and you'd be grossly misrepresenting the influence of the dominant state. I'm thinking of the places taken over by the Romans, the Turks, the British, etc.
posted by echo target at 1:03 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Sheesh, why can't things like this come with appropriate disclaimers about western bias? It's a perfectly interesting map, but referring to it as the "entire history of the world."
TRIGGER WARNING:
posted by cosmic.osmo at 1:07 PM on August 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
TRIGGER WARNING:
posted by cosmic.osmo at 1:07 PM on August 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
A map of this style done purely with population might be interesting, but considering the numbers, it might cause more confusion-- total world population looks like a rounding error before about 500 years ago.
posted by gwint at 1:08 PM on August 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
posted by gwint at 1:08 PM on August 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
There is also the Histomap of Evolution, which probably has a bunch of inaccuracies but is so damn gorgeous I've been meaning to frame it and hang it in my living room.
posted by gwint at 1:15 PM on August 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by gwint at 1:15 PM on August 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
I find it unsettling to see something on Slate that is so non-contrarian and "hey this is neat." I would be more comfortable with Everything You Know About the Histomap is Wrong.
Why the Histomap Actually Gets Eurocentricism Right
How the Histomap Predicts a Hilary Clinton Presidency
Did the Histomap Inspire Elon Musk to Create the Hyperloop?
Why Edward Snowden Belonged to the Huns Column on the Histomap All Along
Could the Histomap Fix Obamacare?
How a New Study Tells Us Your Brain Was Already a Histomap
Breaking Bad on the Histomap: Latin America Meets the Huns
*ahem*
Sorry, once I get started on #slatepitches I don't know how to stop ...
posted by gompa at 1:18 PM on August 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
Why the Histomap Actually Gets Eurocentricism Right
How the Histomap Predicts a Hilary Clinton Presidency
Did the Histomap Inspire Elon Musk to Create the Hyperloop?
Why Edward Snowden Belonged to the Huns Column on the Histomap All Along
Could the Histomap Fix Obamacare?
How a New Study Tells Us Your Brain Was Already a Histomap
Breaking Bad on the Histomap: Latin America Meets the Huns
*ahem*
Sorry, once I get started on #slatepitches I don't know how to stop ...
posted by gompa at 1:18 PM on August 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
total world population looks like a rounding error before about 500 years ago
Well, you'd have to do it as a percentage, of course. Same way this chart's laid out. I'd like to see what proportion of the world's population is included in what we think of as world history. For example, at the time of Rome's height, what percentage of the total population of the world had even heard of them?
Since that won't include anyone in the Western hemisphere, and I don't think there was too much contact with China at the time, and Africa south of the Sahara was mostly untouched by them, plus all the people in northern Asia and southeastern Asia and Australia and the Pacific islands...I'm guessing not many.
posted by echo target at 1:18 PM on August 13, 2013
Well, you'd have to do it as a percentage, of course. Same way this chart's laid out. I'd like to see what proportion of the world's population is included in what we think of as world history. For example, at the time of Rome's height, what percentage of the total population of the world had even heard of them?
Since that won't include anyone in the Western hemisphere, and I don't think there was too much contact with China at the time, and Africa south of the Sahara was mostly untouched by them, plus all the people in northern Asia and southeastern Asia and Australia and the Pacific islands...I'm guessing not many.
posted by echo target at 1:18 PM on August 13, 2013
There is also the Histomap of Evolution, which probably has a bunch of inaccuracies but is so damn gorgeous I've been meaning to frame it and hang it in my living room.
You probably don't want stuff like "Negroid tribes become a serious social problem" and "Danger of reduction in standard of living leads to selective immigration of healthier and more easily assimilated peoples" hanging on your wall.
posted by theodolite at 1:22 PM on August 13, 2013
You probably don't want stuff like "Negroid tribes become a serious social problem" and "Danger of reduction in standard of living leads to selective immigration of healthier and more easily assimilated peoples" hanging on your wall.
posted by theodolite at 1:22 PM on August 13, 2013
And oh hey I missed Literal Hitler over there with the "The Renaissance in Western Europe was possibly directly due to renewed vitality as a result of the absorption of new Alpine blood and the complete fusion of this with old Nordic (Caspian) and Mediterranean blood."
posted by theodolite at 1:24 PM on August 13, 2013
posted by theodolite at 1:24 PM on August 13, 2013
INSECTS still a menace to man
posted by junco at 1:25 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by junco at 1:25 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Where are the pre-columbian americans?
posted by maximum sensing at 1:26 PM on August 13, 2013
posted by maximum sensing at 1:26 PM on August 13, 2013
Where are the pre-columbian americans?
If you look veerrrrry carefully over on the left down by 1400 or so you'll find the names of a few of the largest precolumbian civilizations jammed in next to much more important stuff, like Black Price At Battle of Crecy.
posted by theodolite at 1:29 PM on August 13, 2013
If you look veerrrrry carefully over on the left down by 1400 or so you'll find the names of a few of the largest precolumbian civilizations jammed in next to much more important stuff, like Black Price At Battle of Crecy.
posted by theodolite at 1:29 PM on August 13, 2013
Or, as the evolution map puts it, "American Indians" are driven west and finally succumb to the superior European civilization of French, English, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, and German colonies.
posted by theodolite at 1:30 PM on August 13, 2013
posted by theodolite at 1:30 PM on August 13, 2013
echo target: and I don't think there was too much contact with China [and Rome] at the time,
Contact was certainly spotty, but they were aware of each other. China referred to Rome as "Da Quin", roughly meaning "Great China" as a recognition of Rome as China's counterpart in the Western World. They didn't seem to know of any Roman lands other than Syria specifically, but clear knew the Roman world advanced far beyond that.
There was some direct contact with apparently a Roman mission reaching the Han Court in 166.
Had regular and permanant relations been established, it's hard to predict the impact on history. Anything from an earlier Black Death to the existence of the Roman state to the modern day seems possible.
maximum sensing: Where are the pre-columbian americans? It's a map of relative power; not a compherensive list of the every society. The pre-Columbian civilizations of America would not seem terribly powerful compared to their Eurasian counterparts.
posted by spaltavian at 1:36 PM on August 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
Contact was certainly spotty, but they were aware of each other. China referred to Rome as "Da Quin", roughly meaning "Great China" as a recognition of Rome as China's counterpart in the Western World. They didn't seem to know of any Roman lands other than Syria specifically, but clear knew the Roman world advanced far beyond that.
There was some direct contact with apparently a Roman mission reaching the Han Court in 166.
Had regular and permanant relations been established, it's hard to predict the impact on history. Anything from an earlier Black Death to the existence of the Roman state to the modern day seems possible.
maximum sensing: Where are the pre-columbian americans? It's a map of relative power; not a compherensive list of the every society. The pre-Columbian civilizations of America would not seem terribly powerful compared to their Eurasian counterparts.
posted by spaltavian at 1:36 PM on August 13, 2013 [2 favorites]
I stand corrected. I suppose it also depends on when you call it Rome's peak. Our guy here seems to have it either at 50 BC or AD 100.
posted by echo target at 1:43 PM on August 13, 2013
posted by echo target at 1:43 PM on August 13, 2013
I had the same initial reaction about the missing Aztec, Inca, and Mayan civilizations, but on reflection those societies were tiny compared to empires like Rome, China, or Maurya. And of course, in the 1930s we still knew next to nothing about the Mezo-american civilizations and couldn't really read any of their writing. It's funny how hard it is to put down my 2013 self and imagine a time when this would've not just been reasonably neutral, but a pretty accurate snapshot of the best information Western civilization had at its disposal about world history.
posted by 1adam12 at 1:48 PM on August 13, 2013
posted by 1adam12 at 1:48 PM on August 13, 2013
Here's a histomap of world population (text in German but not too hard to figure out).
posted by gubo at 1:49 PM on August 13, 2013
posted by gubo at 1:49 PM on August 13, 2013
A couple of years ago I spent several days scouring the Internet for good timeline graphs of world history. After much searching, this is the best one I found, by far. Also available in "jumbo" size. Hanging near our dining table, it's a great conversation piece and it has even generated some history discussions with my kids.
posted by Triplanetary at 1:50 PM on August 13, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by Triplanetary at 1:50 PM on August 13, 2013 [5 favorites]
Don't get me wrong, I love the histomap. I've actually had a high rez copy on my hard drive for years before it got the viral treatment. It's beautiful and painstakingly done.
BUT, Slate, don't pitch it as "the history of humanity in one chart" because, for starters, it absolutely is not. I'm not trying to be needlessly pedantic here, or being the thoughtless, HAR HAR ARROGANT EUROPE contrarian, although my tone probably makes it come off that way.
Simply put, besides that framing being completely and ridiculously biased and reductive and myopic, and in addition to it feeding into the myth of Glorious Western Civilization, just saying "look at this!" without context ignores what is really and truly interesting about it, at least in my opinion.
It's fascinating not because it's a particularly accurate (or even useful) infographic, but because it's a powerful example of historiography and of what the people generating this document *felt* was important. European states, Big Name Leaders, and Military Engagements. The Histromap is an example of how far the profession of history has come in the past two or three generations. By simply existing as the epitome of "one damn thing after another" history, it illustrates how vibrant and dynamic the discipline of history really is.
posted by absalom at 1:54 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
BUT, Slate, don't pitch it as "the history of humanity in one chart" because, for starters, it absolutely is not. I'm not trying to be needlessly pedantic here, or being the thoughtless, HAR HAR ARROGANT EUROPE contrarian, although my tone probably makes it come off that way.
Simply put, besides that framing being completely and ridiculously biased and reductive and myopic, and in addition to it feeding into the myth of Glorious Western Civilization, just saying "look at this!" without context ignores what is really and truly interesting about it, at least in my opinion.
It's fascinating not because it's a particularly accurate (or even useful) infographic, but because it's a powerful example of historiography and of what the people generating this document *felt* was important. European states, Big Name Leaders, and Military Engagements. The Histromap is an example of how far the profession of history has come in the past two or three generations. By simply existing as the epitome of "one damn thing after another" history, it illustrates how vibrant and dynamic the discipline of history really is.
posted by absalom at 1:54 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
I suppose it also depends on when you call it Rome's peak. Our guy here seems to have it either at 50 BC or AD 100.
Gibbon did say that the time from Domition to Commodus (81-192) was the one that any person would instantly name as the time, "during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous."
posted by Copronymus at 1:58 PM on August 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
Gibbon did say that the time from Domition to Commodus (81-192) was the one that any person would instantly name as the time, "during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous."
posted by Copronymus at 1:58 PM on August 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
Wow, that world population histomap is...remarkably consistent. So I am remarking.
posted by echo target at 2:00 PM on August 13, 2013
posted by echo target at 2:00 PM on August 13, 2013
I mean, he has the Frankish Empire as being equivalent in power to the Abbasid Caliphate in 750CE. That's absurd, but the absurdity is interesting because of what it says about the people writing this document. Rome and Han are so comparable in time and power and even population that it's literally the go-to example for comparison of civilizations in the classical era for survey classes, and yet China never seems to amount to much of anything on the Histomap despite being greater than Europe in technological production until the 1500s maybe, greater in output and production until the 1800s, and greater in population basically always.
Really, it just makes me want to know more about John B. Sparks.
posted by absalom at 2:08 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Really, it just makes me want to know more about John B. Sparks.
posted by absalom at 2:08 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
This would make a nice illustration in a reissue of 1066 And All That: it's essentially a chart of "who was the Top Nation" at any given time. One America gets to be Top Nation, of course, history comes to a .
posted by yoink at 2:09 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by yoink at 2:09 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
You probably don't want stuff like "Negroid tribes become a serious social problem" and "Danger of reduction in standard of living leads to selective immigration of healthier and more easily assimilated peoples" hanging on your wall.
Holy shit. "Driven to tropical countries, the Negroids lost most incentives to progress and evolution ceased almost entirely."
posted by brundlefly at 2:11 PM on August 13, 2013
Holy shit. "Driven to tropical countries, the Negroids lost most incentives to progress and evolution ceased almost entirely."
posted by brundlefly at 2:11 PM on August 13, 2013
Is anyone printing this thing so I can put it on my wall? I suppose it's technically still copyrighted but I doubt it's possible to figure out who has the rights.
posted by miyabo at 2:21 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by miyabo at 2:21 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Whoooa, I never looked too closely at the text of the evolution histomap, especially towards the end. Yikes.
posted by gwint at 2:32 PM on August 13, 2013
posted by gwint at 2:32 PM on August 13, 2013
I think it would be neat to have it on your wall, but you might want to give some context when guests come over.
posted by brundlefly at 2:35 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by brundlefly at 2:35 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
If you want a print you can just click to get the fullsize version and send it off to your favorite printing service. It's big enough to do roughly 7x32 inches at 300dpi. If you don't have a favorite printing service, I get all my own photos done by Perfect Posters, who are quite good despite the Web 1.0 interface on the site. I've got no affiliation with them other than being an occasional customer.
posted by echo target at 2:36 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by echo target at 2:36 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
> BUT, Slate, don't pitch it as "the history of humanity in one chart" because, for starters, it absolutely is not.
Understand what a tall task it is to ask a Slate headline to sacrifice the grandiose for the precise. Donald Trump speaks with far more nuance than your average Slate headline.
posted by savetheclocktower at 2:48 PM on August 13, 2013
Understand what a tall task it is to ask a Slate headline to sacrifice the grandiose for the precise. Donald Trump speaks with far more nuance than your average Slate headline.
posted by savetheclocktower at 2:48 PM on August 13, 2013
Whoooa, I never looked too closely at the text of the evolution histomap, especially towards the end. Yikes.
Oh, it's not all glum news: Heavy Immigration of English and Scotch (Nordic-Mediterr), German (Nordic-Alpine), Irish (Mediterr), Scandinavians (Nordic), Italian (Mediterr), and Slavs (Alpine-Caspian) perople sucessively. Blending of these allied types gives new vitality and results in new race of "AMERICANS." Well done, then!
As an aside, as someone whose forefathers were mostly Irish, I have never thought of myself as being Mediterranean before. Must be the damnable Papism that moves us into that category.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:52 PM on August 13, 2013
Oh, it's not all glum news: Heavy Immigration of English and Scotch (Nordic-Mediterr), German (Nordic-Alpine), Irish (Mediterr), Scandinavians (Nordic), Italian (Mediterr), and Slavs (Alpine-Caspian) perople sucessively. Blending of these allied types gives new vitality and results in new race of "AMERICANS." Well done, then!
As an aside, as someone whose forefathers were mostly Irish, I have never thought of myself as being Mediterranean before. Must be the damnable Papism that moves us into that category.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:52 PM on August 13, 2013
ricochet biscuit: As an aside, as someone whose forefathers were mostly Irish, I have never thought of myself as being Mediterranean before.
The theory being that Celts are closer in relation to Italic peoples than Germanic ones; which doesn't seem so crazy if you look at a map of Europe from 500 BC. Old Celtic languages may have a closer relationship to Italic ones than German ones, but the these relationships are not clear.
Oh, it's not all glum news: Heavy Immigration of English and Scotch (Nordic-Mediterr), German (Nordic-Alpine), Irish (Mediterr), Scandinavians (Nordic), Italian (Mediterr), and Slavs (Alpine-Caspian) perople sucessively. Blending of these allied types gives new vitality and results in new race of "AMERICANS."
Honestly, this should be considered quite inclusive for the time.
posted by spaltavian at 4:55 PM on August 13, 2013
The theory being that Celts are closer in relation to Italic peoples than Germanic ones; which doesn't seem so crazy if you look at a map of Europe from 500 BC. Old Celtic languages may have a closer relationship to Italic ones than German ones, but the these relationships are not clear.
Oh, it's not all glum news: Heavy Immigration of English and Scotch (Nordic-Mediterr), German (Nordic-Alpine), Irish (Mediterr), Scandinavians (Nordic), Italian (Mediterr), and Slavs (Alpine-Caspian) perople sucessively. Blending of these allied types gives new vitality and results in new race of "AMERICANS."
Honestly, this should be considered quite inclusive for the time.
posted by spaltavian at 4:55 PM on August 13, 2013
THE FUTURE.
For the next several thousand years it is improbable that there will be any extensive glaciation or other drastic change in physical living conditions which might bring about a "life crisis" of such severity as to inaugurate further evolution in the anatomical structure of Man.
Further, Man has adapted himself to extremes of climate, and can readily migrate to more temperate zones if necessary.
But economic competition is undoubtedly bringing about evolution in mental powers, and further evolution in spiritual perception will certainly result from the accompanying social activity and emotional stress.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:01 PM on August 13, 2013
For the next several thousand years it is improbable that there will be any extensive glaciation or other drastic change in physical living conditions which might bring about a "life crisis" of such severity as to inaugurate further evolution in the anatomical structure of Man.
Further, Man has adapted himself to extremes of climate, and can readily migrate to more temperate zones if necessary.
But economic competition is undoubtedly bringing about evolution in mental powers, and further evolution in spiritual perception will certainly result from the accompanying social activity and emotional stress.
posted by Apocryphon at 6:01 PM on August 13, 2013
One thing I noticed about the map, because I went on an epic Wikipedia bender on the history of France a few weeks ago, is how the Charlemagne/Franks portion segues cleanly into the France portion. It was apparently not nearly so cut and dried. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, the first Capetians—while being the kings of France—were among the least powerful of the great feudal lords of France in terms of territory possessed.
Having grown up in the U.S. with an emphasis on the point of view of England in European history, I had always assumed that France was always about the same size and always a unified nation. My impression had been that, sure, some Vikings occupied the north coast for a century or two, but that didn't last long. And the whole Henry V story was pretty cool, how he just conquered about half the country. I didn't realize that he actually captured most of what in those days was actually France.
But now I'm really impressed at how the Capetian kings started out with maybe 400 square miles of land including Paris and Orleans and slowly expanded it over a few hundred years to cover all of what is now France. They were continually fighting off the Normans/English, Brittany resisted any kind of integration, Aquitaine was always rebellious, and the south of France spoke pretty much a different language that the north slowly repressed. I'm not saying the French domination of its territory was a wonderful thing. I just didn't realize that it had an interesting story of how it came to be a nation from a very fragile start, something you don't hear about in standard U.S. history classes.
posted by A dead Quaker at 6:49 PM on August 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
Having grown up in the U.S. with an emphasis on the point of view of England in European history, I had always assumed that France was always about the same size and always a unified nation. My impression had been that, sure, some Vikings occupied the north coast for a century or two, but that didn't last long. And the whole Henry V story was pretty cool, how he just conquered about half the country. I didn't realize that he actually captured most of what in those days was actually France.
But now I'm really impressed at how the Capetian kings started out with maybe 400 square miles of land including Paris and Orleans and slowly expanded it over a few hundred years to cover all of what is now France. They were continually fighting off the Normans/English, Brittany resisted any kind of integration, Aquitaine was always rebellious, and the south of France spoke pretty much a different language that the north slowly repressed. I'm not saying the French domination of its territory was a wonderful thing. I just didn't realize that it had an interesting story of how it came to be a nation from a very fragile start, something you don't hear about in standard U.S. history classes.
posted by A dead Quaker at 6:49 PM on August 13, 2013 [4 favorites]
I'd love to see this redone with better data. Either % or total population, land-control, wealth, etc.
posted by rebent at 7:41 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by rebent at 7:41 PM on August 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, any time I hear someone reference "cheese eating surrender monkeys" I tell them to picture a big, badass armored knight on horseback. This kind of thing. Okay, can you see it in your mind? Good, you're picturing a french knight.
posted by VTX at 5:52 AM on August 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by VTX at 5:52 AM on August 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Yeah, any time I hear someone reference "cheese eating surrender monkeys" I tell them to picture a big, badass armored knight on horseback. This kind of thing. Okay, can you see it in your mind? Good, you're picturing a french knight.
You may also wish to remind them of that time in the 1790s when the French Republic picked a fight with literally every significant military power in the world and won. Or how it took all of those powers to eventually defeat the French Empire in the rematch, and even they needed a nail-biter of a tie breaker to really make it stick.
posted by snottydick at 7:47 AM on August 14, 2013
You may also wish to remind them of that time in the 1790s when the French Republic picked a fight with literally every significant military power in the world and won. Or how it took all of those powers to eventually defeat the French Empire in the rematch, and even they needed a nail-biter of a tie breaker to really make it stick.
posted by snottydick at 7:47 AM on August 14, 2013
You may also wish to remind them of that time in the 1790s when the French Republic picked a fight with literally every significant military power in the world and won. Or how it took all of those powers to eventually defeat the French Empire in the rematch, and even they needed a nail-biter of a tie breaker to really make it stick.
Even later than that; in WWI French soldiers were probably pound for pound the best the allies had; but they had abysmal leadership.
posted by spaltavian at 10:14 AM on August 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
Even later than that; in WWI French soldiers were probably pound for pound the best the allies had; but they had abysmal leadership.
posted by spaltavian at 10:14 AM on August 14, 2013 [1 favorite]
My understanding is that the only reason the Germans had such an easy time of things in France in WWII is because France had suffered so many casualties in WWI that they just didn't have many fighting men available.
Ah, here we are. Some more fine journalism from the good folks at Cracked.
posted by VTX at 10:54 AM on August 14, 2013
Ah, here we are. Some more fine journalism from the good folks at Cracked.
posted by VTX at 10:54 AM on August 14, 2013
My understanding is that the only reason the Germans had such an easy time of things in France in WWII is because France had suffered so many casualties in WWI that they just didn't have many fighting men available.
Well, yes, but it's more complicated than that. There were also some political factors related to the national PTSD from WWI. Also, the Allies didn't lose the Battle of France so much as the Germans won it. The truth is that Germany's military leadership culture was just far and away the best in the world at that time and that led to their officers having an superior understanding of the appropriate tactical implementation of new military technologies. The German military capably executed the right strategy to achieve the task they faced and it's really sort of twisted the way that gets portrayed as some sort of moral failure on the part of the French.
posted by snottydick at 2:16 PM on August 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
Well, yes, but it's more complicated than that. There were also some political factors related to the national PTSD from WWI. Also, the Allies didn't lose the Battle of France so much as the Germans won it. The truth is that Germany's military leadership culture was just far and away the best in the world at that time and that led to their officers having an superior understanding of the appropriate tactical implementation of new military technologies. The German military capably executed the right strategy to achieve the task they faced and it's really sort of twisted the way that gets portrayed as some sort of moral failure on the part of the French.
posted by snottydick at 2:16 PM on August 14, 2013 [2 favorites]
As another data point, there's also this chart that measures economic GDP of ten major powers in the last 2000 years. It's interesting how in the linked chart, China and India contributed about 60 to 70 percent of the world's GDP until 1700, but in the histomap the only time they take over more lateral space is when the Huns or Mongolians were fighting.
posted by FJT at 2:16 PM on August 14, 2013
posted by FJT at 2:16 PM on August 14, 2013
Well, yes, but it's more complicated than that.
True, then again, this could be said about...almost anything.
posted by VTX at 7:23 PM on August 14, 2013
True, then again, this could be said about...almost anything.
posted by VTX at 7:23 PM on August 14, 2013
« Older Meritocracy is..fluid.. | You know what Jack Burton says at a time like this... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"I can't help but notice that "the Asiatic Powers" (aka like 4/5ths of the world's population) are relegated to, like, one inch in the far right corner.
Also: What's Africa? Where diamonds come from, I guess. Otherwise obviously not does not merit a mention, since "Egypt" is lumped with "European Powers" because... because Africans can't build monumental architecture, I guess?"
posted by absalom at 11:24 AM on August 13, 2013 [4 favorites]