Are most historical maps bullshit

>year 1000
>ancient

File: 1460390023592.jpg (25KB, 480x494px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x494px

>Empire of the Romans
>Roman Empire

>>2976127
>""""""""Roman"""""""" Empire

>>2976130
I mean i didn't think we were gonna autistic with it. I think it's easy to understand what I meant even if it is not technically correct. So I will say maps made before the modern era.
>>2976134
>>2976137
Never mind it is full autism.

>>2976144
I'm not even sure what you're asking. Cartography has gotten more precise in terms of scale and the general shape of the continents over the years, but just like modern maps they had a variety of different types of maps for different purposes. There were maps for planning wars, maps for trade routes, maps showing every town and village of note for the purposes of taxation and demography, local maps, regional maps, etc. Maps were used as a political tool too, where you drew borders could start a war potentially. You could use a map to create an association between groups of disparate peoples, or you could use it to create arbitrary and minute distinctions by separating them.

People long ago didn't know as much about the world and their ability to observe it was more limited, but they used maps in pretty much the same way.

>>2976127
>Are they anything but gross over simplifications.
Depends entirely on when you're talking. Generally, the decentralized nature of pre-modern societies meant that you had less a border and more zones of control with gray areas between. This held particularly true in areas like Outremer, where the "true" borders were arguably dependent on which side sent the last patrol through the area.

On the other hand, more legalistic areas would end up with more clearly defined borders. The later HRE was a good example of this, although it too would start off with more vague borders.

File: Fish.gif (4MB, 708x480px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 708x480px

>>2976127
Usually, historians go through the historical records and agreements between the different kingdoms of the times to make historical maps. The accuracy of the maps depends on the accuracy of the records. Sometimes, it's extremely straightforward: "This side of the river is mine, the other is yours", but sometimes it isn't: "My kingdom extends up to the tall grass/the big tree, you have everything south of it".

>>2976127
A good 70% of them are bullshit

>>2977613
I think more often its finding named towns/villages then generalizing the land that was farmed or controlled by the inhabitants.

>>2976127
Historical maps in general only give a very simplified view of the past and this is true for pre-1650 maps
Things like vassal states, personal unions or alliances between states lead to a lot of confusion.

>>2977613
>"My kingdom extends up to the tall grass/the big tree, you have everything south of it".

>Be southern kingdoom
>Hire Swiss mercenaries to move the tree north a few feet every year
>Eventually you'll capture your rival's capital

Checkmate.

File: DCbaUQyUQAIHSlc.jpg (40KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 400x400px

>>2976127
>"Empire of the Romans"

It gets tricky when it comes to places like the HRE, personal unions, vassals and autonomy and all that shit. Some parts of the maps are accurate because the borders are well defined by a mountain range or a river, but I notice the borders in Eastern Europe and North Africa are a little sloppy, and that's because there was no clear borders there

>>2978411
There were, the man who made this map is just a retard believing that Slavs couldn't define their borders.

>>2976137
Voltaire go home

Constantinopel was Roman as fuck