[OShellszz]

So this is like the post-game review in Civ?

[pIp83Uns]

Originally posted by Ecthy
There are some nice recent tendency in dynamic historiographics (molly ) and some nice tools out there to visualize stuff. Thanks for the info. and tongue-in-cheek namecheck.

Of course those tools can only be as precise as the standard of information used allows, so...

However I do already utilise sophisticated tools called
'The Penguin Atlas of Ancient History' (and its successors), various Larousse encyclopedias and more specialized volumes such as 'The Twentieth Century Book Of The Dead', 'The Penguin Atlas Of Diasporas' 'The Geography Of Human Affairs' and such like.

Even individual volumes on particular states such as 'The Heritage Of Persia' by Richard Frye or accounts of the migrations of the Vikings or Celts often have very detailed maps of areas not frequently covered in depth by less focused books.

[jPNy2BP5]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Nice collection

There is however a huge difference between a collection of maps and a dynamic map. Oh, I know.

It's the difference between reading a description of a suit of armour or a battle, seeing the illustration on Trajan's column, looking at modern interpretations (such as in Angus McBride's art in Osprey military history books) and then seeing someone wearing the armour in a reenactment.

I'd love to see the ebb and flow of human settlement, migration, exile, the Caliphate extending its reach into Central Asia and North Africa, the waves of Viking migrations across the North Atlantic and voyages as far as Morocco and Italy, the different Persian Empires expanding and contracting...

..it was one of the real delights of the early Civ games for me seeing the recapitulation of the states' histories...happy days.

or even cultural. Hardest of all to calculate I would imagine. Even in 17th Century Europe there were still areas where folk beliefs were flourishing and Christian civilization was something of a veneer.

[Dilangfh]

Originally posted by Ecthy
Well it can't be "calculated", but a map could feature current states of affairs, like spread of religion, institutions etc. I think the problems with calculating spread of religion are manifold- obviously from the viewpoint of later devotees, exaggerating the early effectiveness of their faith is a good thing; from my point of view, looking at things like the witch craze in 16th and 17th Century Europe, the continued existence of folk beliefs and lack of real religious knowledge in the laity in 17th Century England (something the Puritans complained bitterly about) and syncretistic practices in Islam in Africa and India, it's easy to show that religions 'spread' but less easy to say for certainty that they spread either in their original form, or that they penetrated very deeply.