Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Topic: AE Chart: 200 BC update. Please submit DATES! Posted: 10-Mar-2005 at 18:44 |
UPDATED: 200 BC
Please help me find dates for the timelines, can comment on the accuracy.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
Gubook Janggoon
Sultan
Retired Global Moderator
Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Mar-2005 at 18:51 |
I wouldn't know...looking nice though..could stand to have some pictures added...
You have my Krn section..so I'm not too worried.
Edited by Gubukjanggoon
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 10-Mar-2005 at 18:57 |
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
|
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Mar-2005 at 01:15 |
1. Upper and Lower Egypt united. Add 3100 BC
2. 2750 BC Gilgamesh (legend). Should be lowered to 2650 BC.
3. Add "Third Dynasty of Ur" with or without the date caption 2114 BC. (Babylonia)
4. Add "Isin-Larsa Period" with or without the date caption 2000 BC (Babylonia)
5. Add Shamshi-Adad with or without the date caption 1813 BC under "Northern Mesopotamians"
6. Cut shorter the "Hittite Dominance" over "Northern Mesopotamians" to approximately 1275 BC and replace the rest with "Assyrian Dominance".
7. Add "Aramaean Migrations" about 1100 BC in the Mesopotamian section.
8. Extend Egypt to "525 Persian conquest"
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Mar-2005 at 19:02 |
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
|
|
Gubook Janggoon
Sultan
Retired Global Moderator
Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 17:53 |
When you start on China, this might be helpful...
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=124
Although you may have to ask General Zhaoyun permission to use it.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 19:09 |
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...
|
|
Gubook Janggoon
Sultan
Retired Global Moderator
Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 19:16 |
Originally posted 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...
|
Oh so that's how it works....
How about this, let's just put what is relavent to that particular
nation/people's history. Perhaps change the name from something
other than Empires...
As for the thickness..why don't we do it relative to the nation's history?
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 19:27 |
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
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 20:56 |
If you're curious, here's what I have so far (not complete to 200 yet). Big version coming soon.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
Gubook Janggoon
Sultan
Retired Global Moderator
Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2005 at 21:05 |
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!
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 07:27 |
Originally posted by Imperator Invictus
Actually, I'm planning on a cutoff at 1900 so that this would not
become "nationalistic" in any way.
|
Really? I don't think we should adapt to people who don't know how to behave themselves.
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 21:24 |
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.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2005 at 22:02 |
If a company as big as Rand McNally got away with biased charts like this, then I think
I'll give it a try. Furthermore, power comparison is not directly
stated, and the lines in my chart are more apparantly associated with geographic size.
Edited by Imperator Invictus
|
|
Anujkhamar
Chieftain
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1027
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 00:38 |
Please tell me that that map was never published!
|
|
Sharrukin
Chieftain
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1314
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 10:04 |
It was first copywrited in 1931. Since then it was re-copywrited at least 5 more times. The last that I know of was in 1990. I know. I've seen these since the 1970's.
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 10:37 |
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!
|
|
Miller
Baron
Joined: 25-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 487
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2005 at 16:36 |
I have seen them in store as late as last year. There is some bias in it but there is also some good information
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 22:44 |
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
|
|
Gubook Janggoon
Sultan
Retired Global Moderator
Joined: 08-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2187
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Mar-2005 at 23:03 |
I just looked at the chart...
I would much appreciate it if you took off the label
Chosen. That's the Japanese name for Korea and has Imperial Age
connotations..If your looking for the old romanization it's either Choson or Chosun.
Other than that..looks good.
Edited by Gubukjanggoon
|
|