BoPMOD

[orimazd]

Why the Frisian Islands are drawn in all current maps like islands but as martmol said "is not an island anymore"?

I'm not talking about current maps. I really don't know the answer to your question, and I'm not sure at all what it has to do with my point

 

[Eraclio]

I'm not talking about current maps. I really don't know the answer to your question, and I'm not sure at all what it has to do with my point

If also in the today's maps the Netherlands don't have the Frisian islands (as martmol wrote), but they have only a connected terrain with the continent, why in today's maps are drawn Frisian islands? And therefore: if also then the Frisian islands were in reality connected to the continent as nowadays in 700 AD, why should I do her different from as they are drawn today?

 

[orimazd]

If also in the today's maps the Netherlands don't have the Frisian islands (as martmol wrote), but they have an only a connected terrain with the continent, why in today's maps are drawn Frisian islands? And therefore: if also then the islands Frisian were in reality connected to the continent as nowadays in 700 AD, why should I do her different from as they are drawn today?

If I understand correctly what you are saying...

It has no gameplay value unless you want to make some of the now-submerged lands into provinces on their own. And with all the extra land, there most definitely will be enough space for provinces, though I'm pretty sure the region at the time was dirt poor (sand and peat bogs don't lend much to agriculture, and Northern Europe didn't get a crazy amount of trade in the 400s-800s).

 

[Eraclio]

My questions isn't what you understand. My questions are a bit complicated to understand. I try to make you understand with a scheme:

1) Conditions:
1. in the today's maps the Netherlands don't have the Frisian islands
2. they have only a connected terrain with the continent

1) Question:

why in today's maps are drawn Frisian islands? (and not a mainland?)

2) Condition
1. also the Frisian islands were in reality connected to the continent in 700 AD like nowadays

2) Question
1. why should I do the Frisian Islands different from as they are drawn today?


I changed some words to make it more understandable.

 

[KaRei]

If also in the today's maps the Netherlands don't have the Frisian islands (as martmol wrote), but they have an only a connected terrain with the continent, why in today's maps are drawn Frisian islands? And therefore: if also then the islands Frisian were in reality connected to the continent as nowadays in 700 AD, why should I do her different from as they are drawn today?

You are speaking about different area now

On nowaday maps there are drawn islands and a gulf...

because there really is some water flooding the area

Martmol was referring about the area more to the west. The source he provided more or less corresponds with nowadays maps. Did you ever look on map he posted at all?
He did not say that whole the Netherland is a solid land, only that the west is.
Orimazd is then all the time trying to tell you, that also the eastern part, where are in all the nowadays maps and satelite views still islands and a gulf (as shown on pictures above), and where by the way are also on Martmols source drawn islands and a gulf, was in time of your mod a dry land, because it was protected by a barrier, and it flooded many years after your mod ends.

So nowadays maps are showing the islands and water in the eastern part becase there simply IS a water. But in the ancient times the water was not present there at all

About Martmol's point, compare his source, especially the area around Texel island and Wieringen, with the modern maps, and you'll understand what he ment with his "not islands anymore".
If you don't see it, I'll give you a hint. Wieringen in his source is an island, while in modern maps it's a part of a solid land. This is the area the Martmol was referring to. The area Martmol says is a land and not an island anymore is also in official nowadays maps drawn as a solid land. You however looked too much east and thought that Martmol was speaking about the islands that modern maps are still showing there. No, he wasn't speaking about those. Those are still technically islands.

 

[KaRei]

1) Conditions:
1. in the today's maps the Netherlands don't have the Frisian islands
2. they have only a connected terrain with the continent

1) Question:

why in today's maps are drawn Frisian islands? (and not a mainland?)

No, they are not drawn there. Wieringen is drawn as a mainland already. Only the eastern islands that still technically exist as islands are drawn as islands on maps. So in this are the maps correct.

2) Condition
1. also the Frisian islands were in reality connected to the continent in 700 AD like nowadays

2) Question
1. why should I do the Frisian Islands different from as they are drawn today?

Your conditions are wrong.
Nowadays the island of Wieringen is part of mainland, while Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. are still islands.
In AD 700 was also Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. part of mainland.

EDIT:
The development was as follows:
AD 700 - Wieringen, Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. are part of mainland
After AD 1000 - flooding makes from Wieringen, Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. an islands
Nowadays - Wieringen became again part of mainland, while Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. remained islands

Note: Martmol was in his post reffering about the Wieringen and it's close islands to the west, not about the Texel, Terschelling, and other islands to the east.

EDIT2:
Area on map shown below was after flooding after AD 1000 the "west frisian islands".
Later it became part of mainland and nowadays they are not islands anymore.
As you see, the modern maps are already displaying the area correctly as mainland.

 

[Eraclio]

Henceforth I want your source links.

Anyway, if what you wrote is true, maybe this inflences only Wadden area and not also the persian Gulf, for the reasons that I explain before.

Besides I think that Wadden area was a inhabited place, but with very bad and particular life styles for the people that lived in, as Pliny wrote, so I am undecided whether to put it as a lake

Thanks for your immediatly replies and suggestions

 

[Eraclio]

So nowadays maps are showing the islands and water in the eastern part becase there simply IS a water. But in the ancient times the water was not present there at all

Note: Martmol was in his post reffering about the Wieringen and it's close islands to the west, not about the Texel, Terschelling, and other islands to the east.

Ok, so you understood that martmol refers to Wieringer, insted of all Frisian islands. But, why martmol wrote this?

the netherlands are way out of shape i can tell you, i have seen enough map mods that done the same thing and the "west frisian islands" is actualy one, that is not an island anymore.

Why? Maybe I don't understan again...

EDIT:
The development was as follows:
AD 700 - Wieringen, Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. are part of mainland
After AD 1000 - flooding makes from Wieringen, Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. an islands
Nowadays - Wieringen became again part of mainland, while Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. remained islands

I require source links.

EDIT2:
Area on map shown below was after flooding after AD 1000 the "west frisian islands".
Later it became part of mainland and nowadays they are not islands anymore.
As you see, the modern maps are already displaying the area correctly as mainland.

(images)

Ok, so you confirmed what before I said. Nowadays there is a mainland. Look at the normal Google maps. There are some islands. Why? Look at post 84 and try to reply to that 2 question

 

[KaRei]

For the sources just look around. You have them all right under your nose all the time

Source 1: Orimazd posted a map reconstruction of coasts in AD 100 and AD 900
(Similar "all land" maps of Netherlands are all the maps reconstructing the coast for the period before AD 1000)
English article of Frisia on Wikipedia hosts a GIF image showing expansion of Frisia kingdom in the first millenium, and what a surprize, it's too showing Netherlands as "all land".

Source 2: Martmol posted a baroque map of coasts.

Source 3: Google maps + satelite views of modern coasts.

Put the maps in chronological order and you'll see the development.
Both Orimazd and Martmol brought a proof for their opinions in the form of maps, showing exactly the coasts in various times and proving enough how the coasts were changing.

 

[Eraclio]

The development was as follows:
AD 700 - Wieringen, Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. are part of mainland
After AD 1000 - flooding makes from Wieringen, Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. an islands
Nowadays - Wieringen became again part of mainland, while Texel, Terschelling, Ameland, etc. remained islands

I require source links.

For the sources just look around. You have them all right under your nose all the time

Source 1: Orimazd posted a map reconstruction of coasts in AD 100 and AD 900
(Similar "all land" maps of Netherlands are all the maps reconstructing the coast for the period before AD 1000)
English article of Frisia on Wikipedia hosts a GIF image showing expansion of Frisia kingdom in the first millenium, and what a surprize, it's too showing Netherlands as "all land".

Source 2: Martmol posted a baroque map of coasts.

Source 3: Google maps + satelite views of modern coasts.

Put the maps in chronological order and you'll see the development.
Both Orimazd and Martmol brought a proof for their opinions in the form of maps, showing exactly the coasts in various times and proving enough how the coasts were changing.

Ok. So, I ask you for the source link of what have you written, with also the relative quote (look at post #88), and you then wrote to me these generic three sources for all the post in this topic? Obviously I have already seen these three source links.

You have confirmed that also now that terrain of the Low Countries are not islands and they belong to a mainland instead, therefore I have written you of reply to my two questions (because you've confirmed a condition of them), written in the post #84. If you don't answer to them, I think that you don't have reasonings anymore. Don't you agree?

EDIT:

Did you understand what I meant with "normal Google Map"? I meant the map with the cities, not the other

 

[orimazd]

http://www.geo.uu.nl/fg/palaeogeography/rhine-meuse-delta

How's that for a source?

 

[KaRei]

Ok. So, I ask you for the source link of what have you written, with also the relative quote (look at post #88), and you then wrote to me these generic three sources for all the post in this topic? Obviously I have already seen these three source links.

Does not those show you the development clearly enough? I wonder what more sources you'll need

You have confirmed that also now that terrain of the Low Countries are not islands and they belong to a mainland instead, therefore I have written you of reply to my two questions (because you've confirmed a condition of them), written in the post #84. If you don't answer to them, I think that you don't have reasonings anymore. Don't you agree?

Answer what? The questions in #84? I answered them already in #86.
Or do you mean some other questions?

Did you understand what I meant with "normal Google Map"? I meant the map with the cities, not the other

I provided these as well. Look in the posts above
Except the satellite images I am bringing everywhere also normal map views

 

[Eraclio]

http://www.geo.uu.nl/fg/palaeogeography/rhine-meuse-delta

How's that for a source?

In this source, how you can look at the relative links that you write in this topic, the Wadden sea is an intertidal area, so is the area that is exposed to the air at low tide and underwater at high tide.

Does not those show you the development clearly enough? I wonder what more sources you'll need


Answer what? The questions in #84? I answered them already in #86.
Or do you mean some other questions?


I provided these as well. Look in the posts above
Except the satellite images I am bringing everywhere also normal map views

You don't answer to kind!

1) You wrote that also now Frisian islands aren't in reality islands, but are only a mainland
2) Then I aswer to you that you could read again and answer to #84, because you answer to #84 with #86 believing that martmol refers only to Wieringen.

If you look at google maps with terrain or normal mode you may see Frisian Islands. Ok? So what you said is totally wrong.

 

[Eraclio]

Eastern Africa

 

[KaRei]

1) You wrote that also now Frisian islands aren't in reality islands, but are only a mainland

Look at the map of the 17th century (or so) Marmol provided. Look at Wieringen. There you'll see it's an island.
If you look on modern map, you'll see that the area is drawn as mainland.

2) Then I aswer to you that you could read again and answer to #84, because you answer to #84 with #86 believing that martmol refers only to Wieringen.

Cartography supports this point. Wieringen was an island and in modern time it's already not. Map is showing this correctly. Moreover Martmol was speaking about his location, which he named to be "Wieringen".
If you think that whole the area (and not just the Wieringen) is in reality a mainland, then how you'll explain the satellite images?

If you look at google maps with terrain or normal mode you may see Frisian Islands. Ok?

No, you don't see those Frisian islands there. They are drawn there as mainland.
There are drawn some islands more to the east, however their presence is CONFIRMED by satellite images, so they for sure ARE islands.

 

[orimazd]

In this source, how you can look at the relative links that you write in this topic, the Wadden sea is an intertidal area, so is the area that is exposed to the air at low tide and underwater at high tide.

It wasn't the Waddenzee back then, it was lake flavo, which was freshwater until some flood or other in the 1100s. It couldn't have been freshwater if it was flooded during high tide. Storm tides are what caused the disastrous (permanent) floods 800-1000 years ago. Logically, these accepted facts contradict what you are saying. I seriously don't understand what's so difficult about what we are saying, which is backed up by both historical record and science.

 

[Eraclio]

Look at the map of the 17th century (or so) Marmol provided. Look at Wieringen. There you'll see it's an island.
If you look on modern map, you'll see that the area is drawn as mainland.

Cartography supports this point. Wieringen was an island and in modern time it's already not. Map is showing this correctly. Moreover Martmol was speaking about his location, which he named to be "Wieringen".
If you think that whole the area (and not just the Wieringen) is in reality a mainland, then how you'll explain the satellite images?

No, you don't see those Frisian islands there. They are drawn there as mainland.
There are drawn some islands more to the east, however their presence is CONFIRMED by satellite images, so they for sure ARE islands.

+

I seriously don't understand what's so difficult about what we are saying, which is backed up by both historical record and science.

You don't answer to kind! I wrote that if also now is a mainland and in 700 AD was a mainland and not islands, but in normal and terrain Google maps there are Frisian islands, why should I draw mainland and not islands? Answer to this question.

It wasn't the Waddenzee back then, it was lake flavo, which was freshwater until some flood or other in the 1100s. It couldn't have been freshwater if it was flooded during high tide.

I already wrote that I want sorce links.

Storm tides are what caused the disastrous (permanent) floods 800-1000 years ago. Logically, these accepted facts contradict what you are saying.

But, do you understood or not what I'm saying? I don't said which effects made the floods permanent, I meat if there was a high or low tide, so temporary effects, as have already write in #93. As you can see lake Flavo is only a bit part of the current Wadden sea, the other parts were Intertidal area. I may draw a border line to separate the lake from intertidal area. And for intertidal I prefer to don't draw terrain, or I might make a map that change day by day with low or high tide?

 

[orimazd]

You don't answer to kind! I wrote that if also now is a mainland and in 700 AD was a mainland and not islands, but in normal and terrain Google maps there are Frisian islands, why should I draw mainland and not islands? Answer to this question.

Historical accuracy.

I already wrote that I want sorce links.

Would you have a problem if I cited wikipedia? Its the best I want to look for while I'm at work.

But, do you understood or not what I'm saying? I don't said which effects made the floods permanent, I meat if there was a high or low tide, so temporary effects, as have already write in #93. As you can see lake Flavo is only a bit part of the current Wadden sea, the other parts were Intertidal area. I may draw a border line to separate the lake from intertidal area. And for intertidal I prefer to don't draw terrain, or I might make a map that change day by day with low or high tide?

The only mention in my link I found of a place being intertidal was this:

The back-barrier intertidal and estuarine deposits were formed during two main periods of transgression: during the Atlantic (8000 - 5000 yr BP) and during the Subatlantic (3000 yr BP to the present).

Therefore, what is now waddenzee were not intertidal during the time period of this game. Even then, what I was thinking about is what is now the zuiderzee (which is what lake flavo became).

 

[KaRei]

You don't answer to kind! I wrote that if also now is a mainland and in 700 AD was a mainland and not islands, but in normal and terrain Google maps there are Frisian islands, why should I draw mainland and not islands? Answer to this question.

This your question was already answered several times by me. Mainland in AD 700 was much larger than nowadays.
It's not true when you say that all the Frisian islands are nowadays a mainland

Normal and terrain Google map is NOT showing any mainland as islands.
Normal and terrain Google map is showing islands only on places where really ARE the islands.
You can easily check it by looking at satellite images.

Or show me the Google map, that is showing the mainland as islands:
Bring here the map showing islands, and a satellite image where the area is in fact mainland

 

[orimazd]

I could post my map of central asia and iran now if you would like. In the places that were populated, I think I've reach the point where some will have to go--especially along the silk road. There are some cities mapped out in the rest of the middle east, and the west indian coast, but I've generally left those regions alone, unless you'd rather have me take care of those places too.