So I've spent all of the last 10 minutes creating this map of countries whence historically significant empires/civilizations etc. formed throughout history.
For example, Western Europe has the colonial empires. Saudi Arabia has Islam and the subsequent expansion of it. Iran/Iraq/Egypt don't need explanation. Pakistan and India have the Indus civilization, India has many more, etc. I chose to include the Incas and Aztecs/Mayas, not because they were historically significant, but because they managed to develop fairly impressive civilizations in total isolation, (unlike for example Sub-Saharan Africa and Aboriginals in Australia)
Countries in South-America, Canada and Australia might not be red but the fact of the matter is that most ancestors of those populations are European anyway. I chose to make the US red because they dominate the world today.
Slavs and African diaspora, please contain your potential anger, this is not a map to show superiority or inferiority.
Do you guys agree or disagree? Can anyone make a case as to why I should include other countries (or perhaps exclude a country)? I'd like to learn about new civilizations.
You mean civilizations that are relevant to you?
Do you understand that every person is going to have different criteria and standards for what constitutes relevancy?
Someone from fucking Nigeria or whatever is probably going to shade most of central, West, East and Northern Africa but will leave Europe grey aside from Britain and France.
Looks accurate enough, though I'd argue it's hard to agree on whether you should Highlight a country according to whether it inherited the name of the ancient empire, the demographic most closely resembles that of the ancient empire, or highlight instead the geographical area that made up the beginnings of the empire.
No, to the development of the current world as we know it. As I say in the OP, I decided to include Inca's/Aztecs/Maya's anyway because they developed impressive civilizations in total isolation. Unlike for example Australian aboriginals, who have never done anything of note (except maybe invent the boomerang).
>he thinks the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was irrelevant
But there are obviously massive swathes of the world that you know nothing about. How is Sweden more relevant than the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or the Kingdom of Axum?
>Unlike for example Australian aboriginals, who have never done anything of note (except maybe invent the boomerang)
How many books on Australian aboriginal history have you read? How many professors of their history have you consulted? How do you know this? I
You seem like the type of people who should browse tumblr instead of /his/. Australian aboriginals have absolutely no notable achievements. At least Polynesians were masters of sea-faring. I'm guessing aboriginals have had to be too at one point to end up in Australia, but other than that they have absolutely done nothing to warrant being deemed historically significant in any shape or form.
Austria-Hungary + Hunnic empire + Kingdom of Hungary.
Peru was the center of their empire. I also didn't include Cyprus even though they were part of the Roman empire, or Tajikistan because they were part of the Russian empire/Soviet Union.
I'm sorry that I didn't include Chile/Ecuador/whatever country you're form, but this is not a thread about nationalism.
Thought about it.
Not historically significant at all.
Not even close to historically significant, I would include Brazil before the Belgian empire.
I asked you a question that you haven't answered. How many books about the history of Australian Aboriginals have you read? Have you consulted any experts in that field? How did you come to this conclusion?
Dude, maybe you had good intentions but your map is way too simple, especially seeing how it tries to adjust ancient kingdoms to modern political boundaries, but even that's just a drop in the bucket of reasons why it's bad.
You should start out by adding notations of the year and empires you're referring to alongside the geographical area.
I've read dozens of books about them and consulted many experts in this field of history. On top of that, I've traveled through Australia and have had the opportunity to live with the Aboriginals in their original habitat.
I came to the conclusion that they are not even as historically advanced as the Sumerians in 3000BC were.
Ah, yes. European was my second thought.
Though I must admit Europeans have much better knowledge of geography than Americans.
Americans think the world consists of America.
Europeans think the world consists of America *and* Europe.
Brazil's empire was hugely important in the shaping of South American geopolitics coming into the modern era.
Belgium's empire is relevant, for all the wrong reasons.
>The administrative, political, and military center of the empire was located in Cusco in modern-day Peru.
You're obviously a butthurt Chilean or whatever. Obviously it's not perfect, but I will not include a country like Chile or Ecuador or another historically insignificant shithole because the Incas conquered a part of their land.
The fact that I even included Peru was not necessary, as all Pre-Columbian civilizations have had absolutely no impact on world history.
>So I've spent all of the last 10 minutes creating this map of countries whence historically significant empires/civilizations etc.
>Includes Israel, Sweden, Syria, Iraq, and what I think is Uzbekistan or Turkmenistan
>Doesn't include Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, or Mali.
Yes, also many other Turkic civilizations and historically relevant cities like Samarkand and Bukhara.
>cutting off the hands of some Africans
I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it (lel).
I'm not. I'm saying that the Sumerians in 3000BC were already more advanced than Aboriginals are now.
You asked a stupid question, I gave an answer. Now you ridicule my answer. Nice moving goalposts.
The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was historically significant and you're a fool to think otherwise.
>to the development of the current world as we know it
>not including Polish-Lithuania
I don't remember the swedes stopping the advance of the Ottomans and saving Europe, oh that's right, they didn't. They sat up north jacking it to Gustav.
>Effecting anything in the long run
After the battle of Lechfeld the Hungarians were pretty meh in overall influence, the Bulgars ravaged the Eastern Roman Empire so many times that they could be considered a larger factor in its eventual collapse than the Turks.
If you think that Israel, Syria and Iraq are not TEN times more relevant than Poland, Lithuania, Bulgaria and Mali you're an absolute fucking retard.
>birthplace of Abrahamic religions
>some of the first permanent settlements (Jericho)
>Damascus capital of the Ummayad caliphate
>cities thousands of years old
>Baghdad and Abbasid Caliphate
Let me guess, you're a Slav? Sod off.
He questioned your legitimacy to make proper claims, which is hardly a stupid notion. You answered him with a complete bullshit answer. You're too dense to see that the significance of certain empires might be valued differently depending where you are from. If you weren't born in Holland but in Ethiopia you might have scratched off Holland because all they did was trade and pirate English fleets.
Please have some patience. It takes some time to digest the information he got from reading so many books and from consulting so many experts in the field of history. This map took him 10 minutes, imagine if he had taken 15!
>Europeans think the world consists of America *and* Europe
The world is european clay after all.
>>birthplace of Abrahamic religions
>>some of the first permanent settlements (Jericho)
Not really that major an effect on history as a whole compared to say the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth containing Ottoman expansion or the Bulgar Empire which was a major factor in the decline of the Eastern Roman Empire.
>>Damascus capital of the Ummayad caliphate
The Ummayads didn't originate in Damascus though nor did they take their culture from Damascus, it was simply a big city they set up as their capital. Using your logic Mongolia shouldn't be on the map because the Mongol Empires never used Mongol cities as their capitals after the establishment of the Mongol Empire.
>>cities thousands of years old
Just because cities existed doesn't mean that they effected anything, ancient cities existed in modern Sudan too.
OP, what does historically significant mean to you? Because every single person and every single action has shaped history in some way, because history is the record of humanity. Your European biases are showing like a giant red exclamation mark on your head.
Updated version, included Poland, Lithuania (iffy on this one, but whatever) and Bulgaria.
So you say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam (all a direct consequence of what happened in the area which now corresponds to Israel) on a whole has not had as big an effect on history as Poland-Lithuania? That's honestly the dumbest thing I've heard on 4chan in the last week. Thrashed.
Which is why I have included many Asian countries too, right? Aboriginals were not historically relevant, deal with it.
>not including Korea whose Admiral Yi checked and slowed Japanese expansion long enough for the Chinkadinks to come in and drive them back
It's like you want to be called a mouth breathing retard or something.
Jesus christ dude, because I think you're a dumbfuck doens't mean I came from reddit. I ain't got shit for the abo's, throw ethiopia on that map though. They were just as civilized as the egyptians or sumerians were except they did not build flashy giant piramids so you would read about them in your highschool history books.
Meh, Afghanistan has mostly been influenced by the Persian civilizations in the West, Turkic civilizations up north and Indian civilizations in the East. Not worthy of a place on the list, with all due respect, Afghan.
Uzbekistan. Spawned many Turkic empires (including the Timurid empire), Samarkand and Bukhara were important cities which spawned many scientists, poets, etc. For example, both Avicenna and al-Khwārizmī (two of the most important Muslim scholars during the Golden Age) were actually from this region.
I'm not that Aboriginalaboo anon, I'm just asking for some sort of methodology. Why are you not including the Khmer? The Kingdom of Mali? Greater Serbia? Ethiopia? Brazil? All of these countries have, at one point in history, been major powers in their regions. Also, pick Sweden, during the 16th-17th centuries, the Zulu in South Africa, etc. I'm just saying that you need to have some sort of consistency and transparency here, nerd.
>So you say that Judaism, Christianity and Islam (all a direct consequence of what happened in the area which now corresponds to Israel) on a whole has not had as big an effect on history as Poland-Lithuania?
As a whole yes. The only real major effects of Judaism and its successor religions were a single unified religion in Europe and the expansion and migrations of the Turks and Arabs. Outside of that they didn't effect much. The Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth meanwhile helped to slow Turkish expansion in Europe as well as acting as a delaying effect and a vector for the expansion of numerous other empires depending on the era and its relative state of decline. Not to mention the ethnic clusterfuck that it Poland being the spark that finally ignited the second world war.
Sure as hell more important than Peru and Sweden at least, not to mention Hungary.
Ah yes, winning an argument by proclaiming that you won it.
Ok Kim-Yong Un, thanks for your contribution.
Nope, the reason is that the Netherlands was the most powerful country financially and militarily for almost a century.
Educate yourself, senpai.
Why are they relevant?
Why are they relevant?
>Why are you not including the Khmer? The Kingdom of Mali? Greater Serbia? Ethiopia? Brazil?
>I don't think they impacted history in a major way
He's just going by what he "thinks". I mean I thought being a significant force in stopping the Japanese Empire from coming about a few hundred years ahead of schedule was a significant impact on history but clearly he does not.
My last reply to you because you seem to be genuinely the dumbest person alive right now, but Christianity and Islam have been so massively important throughout history and still are, it's not even debatable. They wouldn't even have been an Ottoman empire without Islam. Entire continents were converted by Christians. Entire empires were created for religious reasons.
But you're a Pole, obviously butthurt as shit about everything. No reason to reply to you at all,
>Nope, the reason is that the Netherlands was the most powerful country financially and militarily for almost a century.
WE WUZ KINGS N SHEIT
WE WUZ BUILDIN' SHIPS N TRADIN WHILE THOSE LIMEYS WUZ STILL LIVIN IM CAVES!
OP isn't responding to any of the big criticisms with anything more than memes, so this is obviously a troll thread. Anyone want an African cityscape dump? I always find those interesting.
>the Netherlands was the most powerful country financially and militarily for almost a century.
WE WUZ MERCHANTS
Wow, so out of the entire timespan of human history, the Netherlands was relevant for less than 100 years
THERE IS LITERALLY A GUY WHO CLAIMS THAT ETHIOPIA COMES CLOSE TO EGYPT IN TERMS OF INFLUENCE
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP.
I swear, a /his/ without Slavs and African diaspora would be so great.
>besides being in contact with greeks and romans during the antiquity
Not OP but that is much more significant than you give it credit for. Being in contact with other nations is what gives them the ability to impact history, being isolationist and out of the way is what makes you a foot note.
>the Netherlands was the most powerful country militarily and financially for over a century
desu you did not show places where significant empires have been formed, but where empires that are commonly known/taught in the schooling system were formed. That being said, this is biased by the western view. if an african would make this map, he'd mark the yoruba kingdom, egipt and other things significant for his culture and history.
They make great spaghetti there.
Everyone always tells me how great Ethiopian food is but when I was there it was basically just piles of really tender meat you scoop up with a pancake.
It's pretty tasty but it looks like vomit so it's hard to get into it
>not including the Empire whose Kings were the richest men in history and haven't been eclipsed even today
>not including the Empire who controlled one of the largest urban conurbations prior to industrialization
Yeah no, OP
They were only isolated from Europe, which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. The fact that europe dominates the world a good 3000 years later does not mean african or arabian history is now irrelevant. Make this thread on a somali shitposting website and you'll have a completely different map.
Besides, if the american civilizations are getting credit for building impressive societies why don't the Ethiopians get credit for doing the same a few thousand years earlier.
>hurr your culture and history are irrelevant fucking subhumans
>go back to /pol/ you nationalist fuck how dare you claim otherwise?
The simple fact that remnants of Egyptian culture influence us today. Ethiopian culture is badass and deserves note for being a real life version of Wakanda. (They were the only African nation to BTFO the colonists).
So yes, Ethiopians are relevant, hell no they aren't as relevant as the Egyptians
But what do you mean by "impacted history"? The people in those countries were certainly impacted by those empires.
Do you have any historical sources to substantiate that claim
only because of your perspective. It all depend where you come from and what influenced your history and culture. i gave yoruba kingdom as an example because that literally the only thing important that i know south of egipy/mali empire.
>the reason is that the Netherlands was the most powerful country financially and militarily for almost a century.
This is you.
Lads, I updated the map. Here, "green" means particularly irrelevant, more so than other countries.
It's part of a concentrated shitposting strategy.
A regular run of the mill shitpost is factually wrong or at least an exaggerated reality that's meant to inspire emotions of rage, but are usually seen through quickly and therefore fail.
A great shitpost requires a veil of tainted truth that attracts the attention of those who think it might just be regular ignorance, so that it can then fluorish into a full on bait.
You're missing the point.
Every country is going to be relevant in some way to someone.
An Ethiopian is going to think Axum and the Swahili coast are more relevant than China or Peru.
A South African is going to think that The Zulu Kingdom and the Netherlands are more relevant than Sweden or Turkey.
The entire map might as well be red. It's all relative.
Oh, this is a SJW forum i see
Yes of course, Northern Africa is something to feel proud about, and Europe is not awe-inspiring at all, oh nono, this is our "cultural bias", this is why thousands of Northern Africas flock to Europe in a daily basis.
There is no opinnions, only truth.
>An Ethiopian is going to think Axum and the Swahili coast are more relevant than China or Peru.
Yeah, well, that's why Ethiopia is a 3rd world shithole no one cares about
>muh historical relativity
yeah, you can gtfo now.
No this is not a forum like that. But this is a thread which mentions historical significance and relevance. Which countries in Africa had plenty of in the past. Not relevance at this point in time. Which Africa has very little of. Get your head out of your ass.
>Every country is going to be relevant in some way to someone.
And this thread is for countries who were relevant on a global scale, not just to little pablo or mohammed in his cave or bikkibactu sleeping on the plains.
>Get your head out of your ass.
Maybe you should, explain to me what relevance has Africa (outside of Egypt) had in comparisson with, say, the UK
You are just a picky little bitch who wants to give a medal to anyone
Im not even from a shaded country, but im not a moron
That relativity is bullshit for losers
>Which countries in Africa had plenty of in the past.
NAME IT AND EXPLAIN IT FAGGOT
What did they change? How did it impact the world?
>traded with fags
>zomg they launched a revolution
Yeah, no, that's laughable.
>inb4 posting a link
Explain it and stop bitching that OP isn't listening, he's already revised the map once which shows he's open to suggestion if the case is compelling enough, if he isn't listening to you it's because you suck at arguing your case.
ALLOCHTOON-CENTRIC EDUCATION has robbed the dutch of ower place in history
we were KINGS
we were MERCHANST
that's what they don't want u to no...
history might tell u for example that seán pilib ó huallachain was an irishman??
well you've been DECEIVED!!
the English version of his name is 'john phillip **HOLLAND**'
he was a DUTCHMAN
For the people who think the Netherlands shouldn't be on the list
Just some wiki pages to read. Thanks.
Oh i see, now i can't call you what you are in case people go looking the interwebs and finds out that the Anon who has been being a little bitch trying to relativize the most simplest of things and bring confusion into the discussion for the sake of being politically correct, is actually very well documented as a subculture of whiny armchair transgenders who are "activists" on various internet forums?
What a wasted opportunity for lulz.
First five responses should have been:
>is love truth?
>What is love?
>Baby don't hurt me..
>Don't hurt me...
Makes me sick to me stomach I tell you what.
>what relevance does this place have in comparison with one of the most relevant countries of all time
Yeah because that's fair.
I'd say that having the richest man as their king, who to this day has not been overtaken means that they're historically relevant
Ok quick question, which countries', histories contribute the most to understanding the world as it is, and how it came to be. On a global level mind you.
Name only ten for your list. Yes I'm asking for opinions.
>you don't understand the concept of a differing opinion
Then give it, don't just tell me my opinnion is wrong cause im not "inclusive" or "fair".
Just fucking throw facts to support whatever you believe in, stop being a policeman
Updated version. I removed the Latin American countries. Even though I think they're impressive, they were too isolated to have impacted the world.
Also, do you guys think that Japan belongs on the list or not? They were isolated for a very long time.
but that's exactly what the term means, the fact that there was a tiny trade colony in japan doesn't mean Japan was effectively colonized. There was simply a tiny enclave that allowed trade between the two empires.
Algeria and Morocco had their moment with the invasion of Spain and barbary piracy
Mali was an important center of learning that muslim scholars from around the world visited
Ethiopia too because of aksum and the ethiopian empire.
>OP wants to make a "World Relevance map"
>Anon says is not fair to do it that way, you should shade all the countries
>he actually believes in the boogeyman
I'm just a dude who thinks you're a retard, could you please stop spewing your memes and effectively shitting up this board. It's not even a week old, it's too young to be abused like this.
I can search up any country and golden age and get a wikipedia page or book about it anon. Can you please make an argument not based upon your opinion and actually back it up with some evidence?
u poor, poor allochtoon fools
so you think John MacDonald was..
heh, not likely
if he was Scottish, then how did he know so much about the Flying DUTCHman???
and then u have John o'Groats, a Scottish town named after a Dutch trader, fair enuf...
But why in Scotland?
Because ALL SCOTS are DUTCH
The Celts STOLE our history...
>equating ancient civilzations to modern countries
>comparing ancient and modern civilizations
Is there any use for this map besides bragging rights on /pol/?
Just copy the countries from civilzation m8.
Eh, I would re-add them.
Their cultures live on today, Mexico wouldn't be what it is if it wasn't for the Tlaxcalans, Aztecs, Mayans and other inigenous groups.
In Mexico they domesticated several kinds of crops used in a wide array of cuisines and industries. Corn for example is the single largest reason we have industrial cattle and pork production as it¿s the main source of feed for the animals.
Similarly potatoes (originating from the Inca region) is one of the single largest contributors to the explosion in population seen after the Colombian exchange.
In fact, the importance of the Colombian exchange to human histry cannot be overstated.
/pol/ is leaking already
it was fun while it lasted /his/
On what grounds? Because I recognize history is non-objective? That it represents compiled accounts? That these accounts are largely biased by cultural perspective?
None of that is wrong. You people just get your panties in a twist because you not only want to be sincerely devoted to your culture's superiority, but you want it to be a concretely accepted fact.
Sorry snow nigger, there's no such thing as objective history.
audrey hollander CLAIMS to be an american of native, scottish and german ancestry..
LOOK AT HER LAST NAME!!!
does not sound very native american, scottish, or German 2 me....
Can you actually provide any source of something historical important they did that had an impact on the world as we know it? Egypt did, China did, as did most european nations. Anorigines didn't.
How am i the one shitting it?
I come into a thread about shading countries that give rise to relevant civilizations of the world, and the first post is unironically "all countries matter, shade them all, muh relativity", then they say everyone who disagrees is a "/pol/ nazi", and when you associate them with the other internet group that behaves the same way you invite me to go away because im "decreasing the quality of your board"
national colour of Holland is orange, this is accepted..
but look at Mars!!
This thread was a shitpost from the moment it included aztec and mayan empires but called for only relevant countries.
Simple truth is that relevancy can be measured in a variety of ways and OP is using a fuckton of measuring sticks to fit his world view.
Korea: Relevant if they start WW3
Uzbek: Hasn't been relevant since BC
Syria: Only relevant when under muslim rule, so not sure if this counts as arab influence and not syrians in particular.
Lithuania: Not relevant
Bulgaria: Not relevant
Denmark: Not relevant since vikings
Sweden: Not relevant since Thirty Years War
>Syria is irrelevant
Look at where it is on the map, remember what we had there?
Op isn't talking about the nations themselves but rather the nations that once rose from that geographical location.
>there's no such thing as objective history
Who won 2008 American election?
What year and month did the twin towers fall?
Stop being retarded, history is objective, all opinnions are lies, there is only one truth
This is a convincing argument. Together with the many books and experts in the field of history OP has consulted, I am now convinced the Netherlands is as historically relevant as the UK and Spain.
It doesn't matter when they were relevant, as long as their relevancy had a significant effect on the world.
By this definition for example you can't include a country like Ethiopia, but you can include for example the Netherlands.
It's the cries of muh SJWs muh cultural marxism /pol/ shit that nobody wants to see. They're nothing but buzzwords that mean shit and aren't even used properly. It's like calling someone a commie for supporting gun control.
They are not buzzwords, a SJW is someone who believes in Social Justice, which is an ideology whose maximum exponent was Juan Domingo Peron, to this day it shits Argentina, and it has expanded like a cancer into the 1st world left, due to progressive film-makers who do revolutionary documentaries about Hugo Chavez and Nestor Kirchner
Cultural Marxism, on the other side, is a word to address the new market based on "revolution". From academia publishings to che guevara shirts, the 2010s most consumed market is that of Revolution. Punk, feminism, anarchist, social justice, psychodelia, constructivism, deconstructivism, hackers, cyberpunk, communism, kink, queer theory, animu.
All tangled together in one same disjointed group of consumers who can't even tell if they are men or women, so much have they been psychologically deconstructed by revolutionary media.
Yeah, but we wouldn't have made it an issue if we didn't know he was dutch, we owuld have jjust seen:
>he included the netherlands
>well that's weird
And gone about our fucking day, instead we're making jokes about it.
>Peron was an SJW now? Who knew
He always was
He didn't address language because it was the 50s, but "Social Justice" was uttered like one million times, the party is even called "Partido Justicialista"
Just because you don't understand how and why a word is used doesn't mean its a buzzword, m8, im trying to illuminate you into what other posters mean when they call you that way, maybe you could look up the things and realize you are not that special on your "original opinions"
Kingdom of Hungary, Hunnic empire, Austria-Hungary
Phoenicians (were important in seafaring, also Phoenician alphabet, from which the Arabic and Greek and thus Latin script were derived), also later founded Carthage.
I doubt we would have concentrated so much on it if we didn't know he included it just because it was where he's from. Afterall, no one is bitching bout Sweden and they're about as relevant.
1) you are literally a fascist mate, have been expecting to shut me down by telling me im unwanted and trying to project some sort of meme devil on myself
2) you don't justify, you just adhominem
3) you are literally a little faggot who is afraid of /x/ing his mind
also, you keep relativizing shit and you are attacking /x/ at the same time, which means you are not some Eris faggot creating chaos, just a SJW faggot with blue haired asshair
You explained its origins but did not even come close to explaining it's meaning. So if your intent was to 'illuminate' me, it was the worst attempt i've ever seen.
Nonetheless I know exactly what the term is used for, someone arguing that the historical significance of a nation relies heavily on who makes the list is not inherently advocating 'Social Justice'. And even it is was, pointing out that it is social justice does not make his arguments moot. It's literally a buzzword that lost all its meaning when retards like you throw it around.
I made one of these years ago, before I realized what a stupid idea it was.
Not OP, but I tried with a better system. This may be a bit inaccurate for some areas of the world so do inform me if I am wrong concerning certain countries.
You are right on that one, i just explained the origins, not the meaning, is just that for me the origins explain why they are inherently wrong and severly outdated.
I also react to it, because its political insertion. This threads makes it obvious that we are supposed to discuss in an objective way, there is nothing to gain if all of us, from different countries, mention OUR relevant countries, but there is all to gain if we try to make a list that sticks for the whole world.
Arguing that this is impossible, is again, political insertion, and doesn't belong here, and needs to be atacked by /pol/lackry to create balance.
>LSD CIA operatives on PSYCHOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY
nah m8, is the mkultra the tinfoilery, this ones are documented and real