File talk:Map Byzantine Empire 1045.svg

This file is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles

Greece

This file is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles

Comments

The name CHIOS is written over the island of Lesbos. Chios is a little below, just above the name SAMOS, so this must be corrected. It's not PELOPONESUS, but PELOPONNESUS. The island of Lemnos, just below the name THESSALONIKE, is not drawn correctly. Ngpyron (talk) 17:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be arsed to login but... Taranto is in Calabria on this map, it should be at the northeastern point of the gulf of Taranto - round from where it is now, and Brindisi is too far north, and should be on the eastern coast of the Salento peninsula. Oh and while we're at it the Republic of Venezia wasn't part of the empire, as it's name kind of suggests, it's currently bordered within it. 82.2.161.147 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zara was JADERA or ZADAR, Spalato was SPALATUM or SPLIT. Also where is Kingdom of Croatia there, Dioclea too, Dalmatian theme was much smaller - only a few cities and almost non-existant in the middle of 11th century. See Talk:Pagania section: Removal of map, there's discussion ongoing and a few much more precise maps. Zenanarh (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map can be improved , no need for removal.Megistias (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

??? :) Megistias, I've just given a link to the page Talk:Pagania and discussion in the section "Removal of map" where a lot of details are presented concerning Croatia, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Serbia etc... This "removal" goes for a map from that article (not this map) which was temporary removed from the article until it's improved through mentioned discussion in the talk page. And this map can be largely improved by info and other much more accurate maps presented there. Since some huge errors are drawn here. Get it? Zenanarh (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pardon missed the linkMegistias (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the new version is more accurate. Lovely map. Hxseek (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary

There are a lot of mistakes regarding Hungary: there was not a separate Transylvania, was not a separate 'Cenad' territory and Croatia was part of Hungarian Kingdom at that time. --Zimmy (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the first two, not the latter though Hxseek (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbasid Caliphate?

I'm not sure I understand the basis for the territorial divisions in the Middle East marked on the map. The Abbasids basically held no secular power at all in 1045. Most of the lands marked "Abbasid" on the map were actually ruled by the Buyid emir from Ahvaz. The Buyid state was beginning to crumble by 1045, but that is mostly in the east, and there's certainly no good reason to mark the territory as Abbasid. john k (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erzurum and Theodosiopolis

Erzurum is the Turkish name for Theodosiopolis, but why is the city of Erzurum itself placed outside of the theme of Theodosiopolis? Could it be a mistake? -- Davo88 (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion nomination

With these many mistakes the map should not be used in an encyclopedia. A nomination for deletion should take place in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.75.34.109 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Croatia and Dioclea were certainly not Byzantine vassals after 1040, the opposite (as indicated) is a crucial mistake. Er-vet-en (say) 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]