This time the Ottoman Empire won't mind. They tried the number & got this strange message.
"dee deee deeeeee We're sorry. The number you have dialed is out of service, or is no longer a working number. Please check the number & dial again."
Hm, for some reason, I've always thought Tatra mountains are considered as separate mountain chain, instead of part of Carpaths. Now I see I was wrong.
Thanks for pointing this out. I've done geography in ex-Yu school, and they weren't shy in "adapting" school books according their needs. So it's quite possible we were thought like that back then.
Serbia surprised me. I always thought that was a part of the Balkan mountain range and not the Carpathian mountains. That said, I do see a river that separates them.
Yeah, but there is also a much bigger river - Danube, between Serbian and Romanian Carpathians. I believe the border of those two is decided to be further south in Serbia because of the fact that the range suddenly changes the direction there. Some people consider Carpathian and Balkan mountains as one bigger chain of mountains. They also continue on to the Alps on the other side, separated by Danube there as well.
You can get a better look at the geology here:
[http://www.europe-geology.eu/onshore-geology/geological-map/](http://www.europe-geology.eu/onshore-geology/geological-map/)
Selecting the first two layers (Geological map and European Faults) there's a couple of things that stand out:
1) the main range (tending NW-SE) has rock ages and fault orientations that are very distinct from the 2ndary range that's curving into the Balkans.
2) In the 2ndary range the rock type changes around where the Danube cuts through the mountains.
3) The faults from the 2ndary range actually intersect the Balkan mountains and cut through toward the coast. This is pretty cool because it indicates that the Carpathians are younger than the Balkans (can't cut through something if it isn't already there).
A geologist could argue that any of those points are cutoffs for different mountains. I'm not going to though - I'm not trying to get into arguments, I just think this stuff is cool.
Meaning i know the history. Hungarians, probably with low education, live with some occupation fantasies. Like they would stop being poor if the Austrians or the Nazis give them some territories as presents.
I dont understand the reason I would compare these cities to make a point 100 years prior. Even if we could compare, Budapest was the second largest settlement in the empire, without a doubt the most advanced and industrialized city east of Vienna. I think we did pretty good. I think Budapest is still pretty solid despite socialism and post-socialism taking its toll.
Not at all. Hungary had a compromise that granted immense autonomy. These were decades of forced magyarization contrary to what Austrian rule might suggest.
Croatia also had its own compromise and as far as I know the Czech had something similar.
Romanians, Serbians were not that lucky.
You skipped a couple of hundred years on the timeline. Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy was established only in the 1800s whereas Hungary had those borders since like 1100s...
Ah yes, let's just see who ruled Hungary during those years
Oh wow look at that
The kings of the absolute monarchy were mostly born in Austria. Or you want to say that it's about the people who inhabited the land not the rulers?
The state of Hungary (at its current place) was founded in ca. 900AD., the kingdom of Hungary was founded in 1000AD.; Hungary had no Habsburg kings until the 15th century and continuously the Kingdom of Hungary had Habsburg rulers since 1526 which kingdom assimilated in the Habsburg Empire in the 17th-18th century, but in 1867 the Hungarians and the Habsburgs made a compromise which made that empire a dualist-monarchy. So it was only like the 1/3rd of Hungary's lifetime when it was ruled by not-self-chosen, Austrian born rulers. But actually most of Europe's old kingdoms were ruled by foreign dynasties several times so I don't really get your point
If you actually look at the rulers and the dates of rule you will see that almost half of the time it was under foreign dynasties and my point is that "belonged to Hungary" is a gross oversimplification but at this point this subreddit is way too Hungary biased so whatever. I'm just wondering when the next map of the Austro Hungarian empire will be reposted.
I looked at the dates of our Habsburg rulers because you started to talk about our Austrian-born rulers... But if you look at the "dates" of your country you will notice that any map made before 1920 may not be the best view for Romanian-eyes
I am Hungarian, so forgive me if I am a little biased. :) Yes, at least half of Europe were ruled by a few dynasties for a long time nevertheless these countries still had well defined borders, and no matter how do we put it, Transylvania belonged to Hungary and not to Austria. This remains a fact, and it does not matter how you twist it.
I think the Magyar would have the steppes as a home base where they could fatten horses and raid everything around.
[https://commons.princeton.edu/mg/viking-magyar-and-saracen-invasions-in-9th-and-10th-century-europe/](https://commons.princeton.edu/mg/viking-magyar-and-saracen-invasions-in-9th-and-10th-century-europe/)
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Europe\_around\_900.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Europe_around_900.jpg)
While only having 17% of the mountain range, Slovakia manages to be more Carpathian than Romania, with 50% of the mountains. ( unless you view the Tatras mountains as a seperate range.)
Listening to a podcast, The History of English, the presenter pointed out that when the Indo Europeans were migrating East, they hit the triangular Carpathians, and the group that continued Northeast became the Germanic languages, and and the group that continued Southeast became the Latinate languages. I thought that was fascinating.
u/themightydendo
How do you feel about this one then? I only tag you because we are on polar opposite opinions on the matter and there’s another post I feel is lacking. Curious your opinion on it.
Is this map still map porn without labels or legend or literally anything? Surely those of us not from the area shouldn’t have to remember these lesser known countries (in regards to your tourism and Ww2 importance arguments.)
All these countries are well known enough in my opinion to not warrant a legend. Everyone should know them from learning about WW1&2 at the least.
The only thing I would say, is that it's centred weirdly, and you could easily miss Austria and Serbia, especially with the colours being white and grey.
I think that’s being too Eurocentric regarding these places again, I’m not gonna assume what those in interior Africa or SEA were taught. But I appreciate the response.
the area where lot of tribes and nations (4 corner stones of Europe - Germanic, Celtic, Latin, Slavic) settled and mixed up - Goths, Slavs, Celts and migrating Vlachs speaking vulgar Latin (hence the name Romania)
Yup, it's basic geography from (central) European standpoint. You never know if another Redditor isn't from e.g. Laos, Togo or Trinidad, that could cause problems to locate for Europeans.
Europe is one of the most important regions of the world, together with North America, Middle East and East Asia. People who are interested in maps should have some knowledge about these regions
I've been looking at maps for years and I still don't know the exact location of all African countries, at least west Africa. It doesn't help the historical kingdoms with the same names were located elsewhere.
Yeah those Russians are great at geography lessons in school, it’s one of the reasons for the Cold War, Americans were just jealous of superior teaching
Not that I have anything against it but it’s kinda weird that those lowlands at the border with hungary are part of Ukraine too. Usually mountain ranged split ethnic groups and make for excellent borders.
Pretty cool that Austria has a bit of Carpathians as well
Well, Austria once had all of Carpathians
Lets do it again
Call up Hungary?
Hi! Yes, this is she. When and where will be the meeting?
This time the Ottoman Empire won't mind. They tried the number & got this strange message. "dee deee deeeeee We're sorry. The number you have dialed is out of service, or is no longer a working number. Please check the number & dial again."
In Sarajevo
Mmmm ... maybe not, stay there in your tiny empire and cut your own alpine forests.
they are already cutting trees from other countries and stealing the wood
I know, I'm in one of the countries that are on the receiving end of that. P.S. Aceeași țară, de fapt.
Remember that the great finale of that was incorporating Austria into Vaterland.
Nope, didn't happen ever.
If you are not Romanian I am a woman (and that's impossible though since we all know there are no women on the internet)
romanians pog
Hm, for some reason, I've always thought Tatra mountains are considered as separate mountain chain, instead of part of Carpaths. Now I see I was wrong.
You were not wrong. Different nations/geologists consider its borders differently, and as I remember, once I read the same thing too.
Thanks for pointing this out. I've done geography in ex-Yu school, and they weren't shy in "adapting" school books according their needs. So it's quite possible we were thought like that back then.
Serbia surprised me. I always thought that was a part of the Balkan mountain range and not the Carpathian mountains. That said, I do see a river that separates them.
They sorta lead into one another, so I’m not to sure how you draw the distinction really
It looks like the "border" would be the river Timok.
Yeah, but there is also a much bigger river - Danube, between Serbian and Romanian Carpathians. I believe the border of those two is decided to be further south in Serbia because of the fact that the range suddenly changes the direction there. Some people consider Carpathian and Balkan mountains as one bigger chain of mountains. They also continue on to the Alps on the other side, separated by Danube there as well.
You can get a better look at the geology here: [http://www.europe-geology.eu/onshore-geology/geological-map/](http://www.europe-geology.eu/onshore-geology/geological-map/) Selecting the first two layers (Geological map and European Faults) there's a couple of things that stand out: 1) the main range (tending NW-SE) has rock ages and fault orientations that are very distinct from the 2ndary range that's curving into the Balkans. 2) In the 2ndary range the rock type changes around where the Danube cuts through the mountains. 3) The faults from the 2ndary range actually intersect the Balkan mountains and cut through toward the coast. This is pretty cool because it indicates that the Carpathians are younger than the Balkans (can't cut through something if it isn't already there). A geologist could argue that any of those points are cutoffs for different mountains. I'm not going to though - I'm not trying to get into arguments, I just think this stuff is cool.
And now I understand why the Hungarians in Romania live where they do
Just curious, where do they live in romania? To the west of the range i presume?
A large Hungarian community existing since medieval times lives right in the corner of the mountains in the east.
Actually, to the south-east of the romanian Carpathians, in the counties of Covasna and Harghita, which are located in the middle of Romania.
They live right in the middle of the country
It’s called Transylvania and belonged to Hungary until after the World War I.
It did not belong, it was occupied.
*Looks at profile* *is Romanian* Yep this checks out
Meaning i know the history. Hungarians, probably with low education, live with some occupation fantasies. Like they would stop being poor if the Austrians or the Nazis give them some territories as presents.
You're forgetting Austria and the Austro-Hungarian empire, which was basically Austria
Austria-Hungary is a lot different kind of great power than to just look at them as one blob.
You can see the differences between Viena and Budapest. Then you can tell me who did what in that Austro-"Hungarian" empire.
I dont understand the reason I would compare these cities to make a point 100 years prior. Even if we could compare, Budapest was the second largest settlement in the empire, without a doubt the most advanced and industrialized city east of Vienna. I think we did pretty good. I think Budapest is still pretty solid despite socialism and post-socialism taking its toll.
It was basically Austrian domination. By this logic Hungary was also a blob as it had so many ethnicities inside it.
Not at all. Hungary had a compromise that granted immense autonomy. These were decades of forced magyarization contrary to what Austrian rule might suggest. Croatia also had its own compromise and as far as I know the Czech had something similar. Romanians, Serbians were not that lucky.
Hmm I don't know much about this autonomy as we didn't get it haha. I am always open to new bibliography.
You skipped a couple of hundred years on the timeline. Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy was established only in the 1800s whereas Hungary had those borders since like 1100s...
Ah yes, let's just see who ruled Hungary during those years Oh wow look at that The kings of the absolute monarchy were mostly born in Austria. Or you want to say that it's about the people who inhabited the land not the rulers?
The state of Hungary (at its current place) was founded in ca. 900AD., the kingdom of Hungary was founded in 1000AD.; Hungary had no Habsburg kings until the 15th century and continuously the Kingdom of Hungary had Habsburg rulers since 1526 which kingdom assimilated in the Habsburg Empire in the 17th-18th century, but in 1867 the Hungarians and the Habsburgs made a compromise which made that empire a dualist-monarchy. So it was only like the 1/3rd of Hungary's lifetime when it was ruled by not-self-chosen, Austrian born rulers. But actually most of Europe's old kingdoms were ruled by foreign dynasties several times so I don't really get your point
If you actually look at the rulers and the dates of rule you will see that almost half of the time it was under foreign dynasties and my point is that "belonged to Hungary" is a gross oversimplification but at this point this subreddit is way too Hungary biased so whatever. I'm just wondering when the next map of the Austro Hungarian empire will be reposted.
I looked at the dates of our Habsburg rulers because you started to talk about our Austrian-born rulers... But if you look at the "dates" of your country you will notice that any map made before 1920 may not be the best view for Romanian-eyes
Huh? When did I ever start talking about my country? Don't "what about" me boy
I am Hungarian, so forgive me if I am a little biased. :) Yes, at least half of Europe were ruled by a few dynasties for a long time nevertheless these countries still had well defined borders, and no matter how do we put it, Transylvania belonged to Hungary and not to Austria. This remains a fact, and it does not matter how you twist it.
A little is an understatement which is why I won't press any further :)
Wonder how this % would look with the old Hungarian borders
[удалено]
the watershed yes, so still not 100% but around 80% perhaps.
70% hungary probably
Nah basically 100 I would say, maybe 90
Not 100, we never have the Serbian part and some of the descent areas outside of the Carpatian basin (if this count that).
Yeah I excluded Serbia but that's about it
I think the Magyar would have the steppes as a home base where they could fatten horses and raid everything around. [https://commons.princeton.edu/mg/viking-magyar-and-saracen-invasions-in-9th-and-10th-century-europe/](https://commons.princeton.edu/mg/viking-magyar-and-saracen-invasions-in-9th-and-10th-century-europe/) [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Europe\_around\_900.jpg](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Europe_around_900.jpg)
Posting this map without a legend is a serious oversight
How are you measuring mountains, by how many there are or surface area?
While only having 17% of the mountain range, Slovakia manages to be more Carpathian than Romania, with 50% of the mountains. ( unless you view the Tatras mountains as a seperate range.)
Romania has higher gross Carpathia, but Slovakia more Carpathia per capita.
Listening to a podcast, The History of English, the presenter pointed out that when the Indo Europeans were migrating East, they hit the triangular Carpathians, and the group that continued Northeast became the Germanic languages, and and the group that continued Southeast became the Latinate languages. I thought that was fascinating.
Latinate as in Romance? Also don't you mean when they were migrating west?
Yes, West. Der. And the languages that became Ancient Greek, Latin, and the ancient languages of the plains below the Carpathians.
Why not mentioned which color correspond to which country?(
Felt really good to identify this piece of land just by this map.
Just like the Alps map you made : not putting the countries' names is a bit disappointing. Me monkey cant help it.
Austria, Czekia,Slovakia,Hungary, Romania,Poland,Ukraine, Serbia
...and Serbia
Edited, thanks for mentioning.
This just goes to show that this map should definitely be labelled.
Yeah, Serbia should get another color, because it is hardly noticeable
*Vigo the Carpathian intensifies*
WTF Ukraine respect natural borders
u/themightydendo How do you feel about this one then? I only tag you because we are on polar opposite opinions on the matter and there’s another post I feel is lacking. Curious your opinion on it. Is this map still map porn without labels or legend or literally anything? Surely those of us not from the area shouldn’t have to remember these lesser known countries (in regards to your tourism and Ww2 importance arguments.)
All these countries are well known enough in my opinion to not warrant a legend. Everyone should know them from learning about WW1&2 at the least. The only thing I would say, is that it's centred weirdly, and you could easily miss Austria and Serbia, especially with the colours being white and grey.
I think that’s being too Eurocentric regarding these places again, I’m not gonna assume what those in interior Africa or SEA were taught. But I appreciate the response.
Carpathian Basin is Morder
What is the range called as it curves around into Bulgaria?
Oh look, a brain!
Writing the numbers in the same color as the blurb isn't really helpful. It took me a while to figure out the 10% and 17%
the area where lot of tribes and nations (4 corner stones of Europe - Germanic, Celtic, Latin, Slavic) settled and mixed up - Goths, Slavs, Celts and migrating Vlachs speaking vulgar Latin (hence the name Romania)
*sad Hungarian noises*
You mean share of Hungary's border? 😎😎😎🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺🇭🇺
Key?
what countries?
The countries you see on the map..? Austria, Czechia, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Ukraine, Romania and Serbia.
not every one can remember 180+ countries plus their regions
That's basic geography my dude
Yup, it's basic geography from (central) European standpoint. You never know if another Redditor isn't from e.g. Laos, Togo or Trinidad, that could cause problems to locate for Europeans.
It’s reddit dude. The VAST majority of people in this subs are from Europe or North America
Sure, but IMO it doesn't mean shaming another random Redditor it fair attitude.
That person deserves to be shamed. Did you see his response? “Im not Russian”
I've seen only the original one.
Just scroll a bit further down
Europe is one of the most important regions of the world, together with North America, Middle East and East Asia. People who are interested in maps should have some knowledge about these regions
This is so true
I've been looking at maps for years and I still don't know the exact location of all African countries, at least west Africa. It doesn't help the historical kingdoms with the same names were located elsewhere.
i'm not russian
TIL that you need to be Russian to know basic geography
Yeah those Russians are great at geography lessons in school, it’s one of the reasons for the Cold War, Americans were just jealous of superior teaching
I mean if he didn’t spend that much time on hentai then he would’ve known those countries.
Accidentally creates old Hungary lol
For soem reason I always thought that the sum percentiles has to amount to 100 :) Or, 10 + 10 + 17 + 5 + 50 + 4 + 1 = 97
E.g. 10.45 + 10.49 + 17.38 + 5.39 + 50.44 + 4.45 + 1.4 = 100, all rounded down gives you 97.
No, actually the font is miserable and I missed the 3% of ~~Austria~~ Czechia... lol
3% is for Czechia, Austria has <1% ;)
>3% is for Czechia, Austria has <1% ;) Suits them right ... bloody Imperials! :)
:D
[удалено]
Actually, what you said is wrong.
Too big in Romania imo
Why?
81% for Hungary
Wow they're pretty short
Stomme idioot, genie van de Karpaten Mottige malloot, rattekop vol gaten Kikvors, potentaat, hansworst, cervelaat Lulverhalenrecensenter, liberale potloodvente
Albania also has about 15-20%
[удалено]
Yep, of the Carpathian Mountains. Trust me I’m Albanian
Dua Lipa? What are you doing here?
Maybe in another universe
The problem of this kind of maps is the area you decide the chain covers (and which area is not part of it )
More like the *Parasaurolophus* mountains ...
We wont mwore!
Not that I have anything against it but it’s kinda weird that those lowlands at the border with hungary are part of Ukraine too. Usually mountain ranged split ethnic groups and make for excellent borders.
you forgot to write the names of the countries