This subverse focuses on topics of interest to the Western world from politics to high culture.
Free speech is respected here. Just please observe the following:
Please click New to see the most recent submissions.
Is Voat a fed nest?
Very possibly. Particularly in the system subs where brigading is possible. But this sub is an oasis from it. Their downvotes will have no effect on your CCP here.
We reserve the right to ban anyone we deem to be disruptive without notice.
If you are observed calling another poster Jewish on Voat you will be banned in this sub.
Sort: Top
[–] 12818338? 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
There were no "states" or "nations" as we know them today in 1000 AD. The feudal system was rather blurry on geographical details, and rather defined by feudal liege-vassel relations between people then by area, down to knights and the freemen and bondsmen within their knight's fee. Ecclestial holdings scattered through all of Europe that weren't directly integrated into the temporal political system blurred matters and exact borders further.
And particularly the Holy Roman Empire was very fuzzy and constantly oscillating around its edges, being an united and unified nation more in theory than in practice - day-to-day politics was rather decided by the prince-electors, and the Kaiser was largely powerless but for the power of declaring imperial free cities.
[–] TheRealMaestro [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The heavily decentralised nature of mediaeval power is noted by the cartographer: indeed, such allows Germany, Italy and Bohemia to be listed as extant despite existing under one crown. Still, many nations of our day already existed in one form or another even at this early time.
[–] TheRealMaestro [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The cartographer, a Hungarian, also has a similar map for the Orthodox world, though Byzantium is not considered as Greece, and a map of the changing boundary between the two.
[–] Oswy ago
Hilarious how, on the last map, Roman domination is "accepted", while Orthodoxy is "forced"! :D
[–] avgwhtguy1 ago (edited ago)
this east-west thing seems like a useless concept in regards to culture. Can anyone tell me the important difference (in culture, not location)?
[–] TheRealMaestro [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
The East here refers to the Eastern Orthodox Church: the division between Western civilisation and Orthodox was made popular by Huntington in his Clash of Civilizations. Because of the heavy Byzantine and Turkic influences upon the Orthodox nations, and their relative isolation from most defining trends in Western history in the past 600 years, many believe it ought to be considered entirely separate from the West. Personally I maintain my reservations, though many here, including the subverse owner, like the scheme, and the maps which I had provided also feature it.
[–] Oswy 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
It's nothing to do with "Turkic influence", which doesn't apply in Russia's case. It's simply the Orthodox Graeco-Slavonic world. You can add parts of the Caucasus and Levant, to taste. "isolated" isn't the best word either. Contact was constant, they just did their own thing. The West is Roman Catholicism, Germano-Latin civilisation, with Gothic architecture, feudalism and castles. Some modern Western places like Ireland and Gaelic Scotland were excluded in the beginning, and later brought into the same system, usually kicking and screaming.
I share your reservations, and would point out that there are other important divisions between north and south - with the territory of viticulture versus beer being quite significant, for instance. The VERY important January isobars roughly approximate the West East thing, though.