Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Maps of the world in 1268, 1453 and 1500. (Patreon)

Published:
2020-12-13 02:59:24
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Files

Previews only

Comments

Anonymous

This is the closest map I found to the one you're using in your "What if the Mongol Invasions Never Happened" video on 2:22. Wanted to point out two things: 1) you totally butchered the pronunciation of Khwarazm. You keep calling it "Shwarazm" or "Korasan" (almost "Coruscant", lol). It's actually pronounced closer to "Horezm". Fun fact: the word "algorithm" is a romanized version of "al-Horezmy", which means "from Horezm" in Persian. Full names of people in the Middle East often include a person's place of birth, and the middle eastern scholar who invented the concept happened to be from Khwarazm. 2) Mongols never assimilated Tatars and Kazakhs, because neither existed yet at the time. The ancestors of Volga Tatars (the largest and most prominent group of Tatars - specifying this is necessary because Russians ended up giving a "Tatar" label to all the Turkic-speaking ethnicities they encountered during their expansion, even though they were often totally different and barely related) are Volga Bulgars, and the ancestors of Kazakhs are Kipchaks. The Mongolian invasion was the very event that triggered ethnogenesis of the former out of the latter. "Tatar" was most likely the name of the Mongolian ruling clan that ended up leading the Golden Horde when the larger Mongolian empire fell apart. But only that ruling clan actually had Mongolian ethnicity and spoke Mongolian language. The majority of Golden Horde population were Kipchaks, and Kipchak Turkic was lingua franca of Golden Horde. So most people who are called "Tatar" today have little to no Mongolian ancestry, and only some Kipchak ancestry, while the bulk of Volga Tatar genes comes from Volga Bulgars (turkified Sarmatians) + Uralic natives of the Volga region. That's why depicting "Tatars" alongside "Mongols" on that map, especially that far west, doesn't make sense. You should've put Kipchaks and Cumans there, or at least more generalized "Turkic speakers". "Tatars" is too confusing and general of a term to be used without specifying what exact kind of Tatars you're talking about. And I'd also depict Volga Bulgaria as a state, not as a tribe - they were already sedentary at that point, and had government. It's not uncommon in history for nations and countries to bear names and identities of their own conquerors of the distant past. Bulgars were initially a Scythian/Sarmatian tribe, and Magyars were initially a Uralic tribe, and yet modern Bulgarians and Hungarians are genetically almost indistinguishable from other Slavs of the Balkan region. Heck, even England bears the name of German Angles, even though English people are half-Bretonnic (Celtic). Similarly, modern Volga Tatars are mostly "white", and only have some central Asian admixture through Kipchaks. They have nothing to do with Mongols.