AE Chart: 200 BC update. Please submit DATES!

UPDATED: 200 BC

Please help me find dates for the timelines, can comment on the accuracy.



Edited by Imperator Invictus

Thx. I'll see how pictures will come into play. Most likely, a move rollover, but that will be implemented way in the future. I'll work on Far east and  Greeks/Romans next, up to 1 AD.


Edited by Imperator Invictus

Thanks. I'll post the next update when everything up to 200 BC is complete. At 1 AD, I think it'll be good enough to go online.

The major slowdown will occur at 1500 since I don't know anything aftter that time period, and there are too many nations to keep track of.



Edited by Imperator Invictus

Thx. Actually the three main problems I'm having right now are:

1. The order that the line appears in. I'm making them mostly from west to east (Americas to Europe, to Near east, to Central Asia to Far East), but that make it difficult to put in Africa, India, SE Asia).

These two will come once the update is posted:

2. The number of lines that appear. Since the theme is "Empires" I'm inclined to put in only the significant powers, but people have differing opinions on what is significant.

3. The thickness of the lines, reflecting size, power, wealth and influence. For example, in terms of regional dominance, Qin and Macedon were about the same, but then someone starts arguing that the former had a larger army, etc. you know...

I'm not sure what you mean by relavence to that particular nation. Actually, I'm planning on a cutoff at 1900 so that this would not become "nationalistic" in any way.  Also, many empires, such as the Hittites, Phoenciains, Carthaginians, etc do not have any national relavance. I think thickness based on the world makes a much more useful chart.

But I think it's actually not that bad. I think most of the thickness/lines are fairly agreeable. Hang on a bit until I finish the chart to 200 BC.


Edited by Imperator Invictus

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus I'm not sure what you mean by relavence to that particular nation. Actually, I'm planning on a cutoff at 1900 so that this would not become "nationalistic" in any way.  Also, many empires, such as the Hittites, Phoenciains, Carthaginians, etc do not have any national relavance. I think thickness based on the world makes a much more useful chart. But I think it's actually not that bad. I think most of the thickness/lines are fairly agreeable. Hang on a bit until I finish the chart to 200 BC.

Eh..that's not what I meant but w/e...do whatever makes you tick...I'll probably end up liking it in the end anyways.  Good luck!

 

 Actually I think those charts are way too complex and therefore prone to be erroneous. What I suggest is simplicity. Make a general table for all civilisations, to each civilisation a URL to the page where you can described each indivdual civ fully. History is too complex to be represented on a simple chart. One person will do the general table, people with high lvl of expertise on a particluar civlisation will do that civilisation, with pictures and all with simplicity for all to enjoy. Better avoid the power base comparaison of civilisations, not only this cannot be accurately compared but it also can lead to nationalistic resentment. The merit of my methods is you can easily upgrade or correct the errors in the database with greater ease.

Please tell me that that map was never published!

That part of the chart doesn't show the really biased parts, eg. the Roman Empire spans over half the entire width, while everything else like Han dynasty is only 1/6 its size. In fact, that chart is in my school!

I haven't been working on this for almost a week, but here's the update to 200 BC.

Please contribute Dates, especially cultural events.

And of course, general comments on accuracy. As said, this chart is probably prone to errors unless we have "specialists" to help the work.




Edited by Imperator Invictus