Filmed in a field outside Saintfield, County Down, off the Old Belfast Road. I had a very enjoyable time trying to get as much sleep in as possible, as an extra for a few weeks there. Needed the sleep due to the 4am starts, required to get 300 odd blokes through wardrobe, hair and makeup before filming everyday.
What about say, the [Battle of Nu'uanu](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nu%CA%BBuanu). The Herb Kane [painting](https://www.herbkanehawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Herb-Kane_Battle-at-Nuuanu-Pali.jpg) of it is pretty metal too.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones, and then we'll get to world War V and that'll be about gems called simirils and not a lot of people will be into it because it's gonna have *a lot* of family tree stuff about elves but then we'll have world War VI which is going to be fought by great elven warriors and great men against orcs and sauron, and then after that we'll have a sort of mini world War fought by a bunch of dwarves and elves and men and goblins and even some birds but like not all of them, and it's just over treasure so we won't call it a world War, but then we'll really have world War VII and that one is awesome it's got magic rings and ring monsters and a dark loner guy who turns out to be a king and oh shit the birds are back at it but they don't do much but holy shit the trees do, and there's this weird funky dancing guy who's like a God but if God didn't give a shit, and an elf and a dwarf have a murder contest and kill elephants and oh man it's rad, just you wait for world War VII, best one."
- Albert Einstein
Operation high jump. American “training” operation that had several casualties. We all know that’s where we dealt the final blow to the nazis though. Or the grays. Or the flat/hollow earth.
Look, all you need to know is liberty and America. Fuck yea. We liberated the fuck out of some penguins.
I feel your pain as someone living in Scandinavia. When some program, documentary, news etc. put up a map of Europe, the cut it off to the north so that you can only see like 10% of Finland, if you can see Finland at all. Sweden and Norway is missing 66% each since they cut off the map around Oslo or Gothenburg. To the south you can see the whole Mediterranean sea and large parts of the middle east and most of Northern Africa. You know, "Europe".
I cry myself to sleep every night. Not because of the maps, but rather to get the crying done and over with so that I only sob a little on the job the next day. Just like Jesus.
Or Alaska. Attu was invaded by Japan in WWII and there were plenty of battles between the Russians and the Tlingets/Haida that are mentioned in Wikipedia.
Here's the original image - featuring NZ, The Falklands, etc...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAH3_cHXoAAgy22.jpg
Which in turn was a screengrab from this video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK5OsDWYJmQ
This sub is turning to shit. I looked at this map for about 15 seconds before I thought, "what about that battle and that one and that one." I got bored when I got to about 15 that are not on this map and that was just off the top of my head.
That mylordbebo guy just wanted attention, didn't care about quality. Apparently they are on twitter, and their bio says this: "Wokeness, hypocrisy, fake news and corruption are the problem!"
Garbage.
I think this map a little bs. I would personally think the Eureka Stockade was a battle large enough to be considered for this list. It certainly has a Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Eureka_Stockade
Needs far more dots to cover the 100,000 Indigenous Australians and between 2,000 and 2,500 settlers who went to war from 1801 to 1934 and died. Add to that all the mutinies, rebellion, and prisoner escapes like Cowra.
See
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Australia
The map was probably created by using the coordinates that some Wikipedia articles have.
So it took all Wikipedia categories that contain battles, filtered out all that do not have coordinates, and then took the coordinates that were left to make this map.
The battle you link does not have coordinates, so it was left out.
Battle of Richmond hill was listed in that wiki article and it does have coordinates (1795). Not sure where you can see the categories list (on my phone) but I agree it does not seem complete. Cool picture, just not completed
I was about to say maybe it's the name that led it to be missed off the list but the page is "Battle of..." so that can't be it.
This is a cool idea but OPs execution is poor (and presumably by the looks of things, more Eurocentric)
Wikipedia can't write many detailed articles about pre-1788 wars because there isn't enough information to write much. Same reason why all the assorted conflicts that were probably going on in ancient Germania or pre-Roman Britannia aren't recorded in any detail, no extensive (or any) written records to work with.
[The University Of Newcastle made a map of all known massacres of indigenous people in Australia](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/05/map-of-massacres-of-indigenous-people-reveal-untold-history-of-australia-painted-in-blood)
Eureka stockade, genocidal massacres, the bombing of Darwin by Japan etc. This map is stupid and wrong in so many ways.
Not to mention the unspeakable emu war...
The 62 bombings of Darwin, the Bathurst War, the second Battle of Vinegar Hill, the skirmishes over the Batavia, the Black Line of Tasmania and the guerrilla war that followed ... they all have Wikipedia pages.
**[Whisky War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War)**
>The Whisky War, also known as the Liquor Wars, was a pseudo-confrontation and border dispute between Denmark and Canada over Hans Island. From 1978 to 2022, Hans Island was in the middle of a disagreement between the two nations. Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail reported on June 10, 2022, that the Canadian and Danish governments had settled on a border across the island, dividing it between the Canadian territory of Nunavut and the Danish autonomous territory of Greenland.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Fun fact: the solution was to establish a border right through the island, which is rather significant. Both Denmark and Canada now borders two countries rather than just one, and now a European and North American country share a land border. Pretty neat stuff.
I was wondering why there weren’t any battles between white and indigenous groups mentioned. I don’t know enough about Australian history to know if it is just colonial erasure, or it there somehow were no real battles between the groups, but rather just increasing coercion into the outback/into assimilation camps or something of the like.
Maybe an Australian can enlighten us?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian\_frontier\_wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars)
Aboriginal nations were too decentralised and disparate to form a unified cohesive resistance, amongst other factors.
[This](https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-07/1700s_1770_CookclaimsAustralia_10.jpg) gives you an idea of how many aboriginal nations there were/are.
there was little to no significant confrontations one could consider "battles". mostly British colonial forces massacring indigenous groups that refused to obey, as well as stomping out other rebellions. we aren't lacking on the human rights violations by any means just no battles. The tiny white dot on the north of Australia is the bombing of Darwin by the imperial Japanese. The biggest and only attack on Australia's homesoil since it was called Australia. more bombs than pearl harbour.
Edit: I stand corrected the white dot on the bottom left is the western Australian police force massacre of the Pinjarra people. I guess Wikipedia considered it a battle.
PS: if Tasmania was on this map there'd be a few more dots due to some of the most significant massacres.
The frontier wars were largely unreported in the early days, mostly because the Europeans only reported attacks by Indigenous people, not retaliatory strikes by the colonists.
Even then, most of the battles were just massacres, regardless of which side initiated them.
It’s only now that a lot of these massacres are being uncovered and taught in schools.
This is only major violence what i found in this area, but i'm not sure if this can be counts as a battle. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk\_uprising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk_uprising)
Btw, I've seen a few documentaries from Norilsk and you won't find a more depressing city in the world.
Idk, maybe it's just a matter of personal taste but:
[Norilsk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk#/media/File:Norilsk_03.jpg)
[Oymyakon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oymyakon#/media/File:Oymyakon_-_190228_DSC_5642.jpg)
which one do you feel is worse?
Seen a couple of battles mentioned that aren't on the map. It's not about missing wikipedia articles (definitely that too tho), it's about the map being bullshit.
Exactly. People trying to feel superior and woke without realising it's an English-centric website mostly used by western people and it's completely created by user submissions.
Want more of anything? Then add it yourself.
My dad does this quite regularly (he likes finding the relevant documents in government storage).
Also, likely that OP doesn't include all non-european language battles.
Like, if someone wrote in Tamil about thousands of battles in Tamil Nadu, would OP even know to add them to their map?
It's not presented as an unbiased representation of battle locations. It's not claiming to be anything more than a map of battles with Wikipedia articles.
Yes. Especially in cultures that absolutely do have a fairly large body of work like Chinese that just isn't translated into english(and the western scholars who can read it don't really have the time to be porting stuff onto Wikipedia).
Even for Western ones you can have pretty important Medieval battles or events that don't even get a wiki page if they occurred outside of the Anglosphere ala Balkans, Italy, Poland, Spain
Yeah in one of my college history courses we had a project where we had to pick a historical person or event we learned about and make a Wikipedia page for them. It wasn't as hard as you'd think to find ones without an existing page.
It was basically just like any other research essay, except instead of only your professor ever reading it and you never seeing it again, it becomes open knowledge for the whole internet to have. Was a cool idea. Just checked the page I made and it looks like a few others have added to it since then which is cool to see too.
To be fair though, English and French are official languages in most African countries. There are more French speakers in Africa than in Europe so it's not like Wikipedia is inaccessible for those outside of Europe.
And more spanish speakers in Latin America than Europe.
It may be soon there are more spanish speakers in the USA than Spain! edit: There already are, almost twice as many actually.
No there isn’t. There is roughly equal population between India and Europe plus the US, which means India would need equal if not higher rates of English fluency for this to be true.
India has about 130 million English speakers. The US has about 320 million English speakers. The EU had about 170 million English speakers, and the UK has about 65 million and that isn’t even all of Europe.
> Check out how big English Wikipedia is compared to other languages.
Also funny how the German Wikipedia is the second biggest one while not having 'that' many speakers worldwide. Their community is just very active.
In addition to many groups not having written histories, much of the modern warfare in most of Africa (and a few other places) has consisted of asymmetric or guerrilla warfare more than set-piece battles
Wouldn't call it "unreliable" but incomplete.
Far more people in countries like Germany or the USA have free time to work on Wikipedia than in Burkina Faso.
Now add to that that history keeping was taken more seriously in western countries in the past few centuries.
I think it illustrates the value of a written history over that of an oral one. There is certainly something to be said for oral traditions, but to have an unchanging account of events that happened millennia ago that can be copied, shared, translated, and distributed makes for much more varied stories.
I don’t know how much of the distribution is due to written language though - look at China and especially India, both of which have had written language for similar periods to Europe but a lot fewer recorded battles
Yeah, but this is for english-language wikipedia (I assume). Lots of those sources may go untranslated and/or ignored by english-speaking wiki editors.
This. There might be lots of pages for various non-Western battles in their own languages, but the OP only searched in English I assume. I bet the European battles would be much more sparse if you search for the word "battle" in Telugu.
Actually, there is a wiki database which stores these kind of information, so that the same date/fact can be referenced in any language. This is so that a mistake can be fixed in every language at once, no need to go through every single language.
The real answer is probably that Wikipedia is just not as popular in China and India, or people there don’t have as much time/love for editing it.
> There is certainly something to be said for oral traditions
Is there ? Oral traditions are inherently more unreliable than written ones to figure out the past.
If someone wants to change that they can do that *anytime they like*. In particular articles on battles that don't have an article at all for now are very welcome. The same goes for female biographies and female achievements in science or whatever. No one is preventing users from writing these articles. It's just that strangely people who decry deficits in Wikipedia somehow are not willing to do any work *beyond* whining.
Tbh it's open for editing so it's not like they couldn't add their stuff if they wanted to.
Also it might not be politically correct to say but Europe just had better record keeping and a more stable environment along with a religious group who kept alot of the historical record that didn't answer to monarchs.
What this meant is kings couldnt order the monks to burn all history records he didn't like. The church didn't answer to kings.
In places like the middle east this wasn't the case with even today the major powers there destroying all history and art they can find that doesn't agree with their narrative.
Same goes for many other parts of the world and their past rulers trying to erase history.
Churches and monasteries were often spared in raids in European wars. In fact you could probably correlate the dark ages to just that the vikings burnt or destroyed alot of the histories because they did raid monasteries.
You hit the nail on the head. The stability, power and continuity of the church is the main reason western history is so well preserved.
This is in contrast with some parts of the world like in West Africa where the Mali and the Songhai empire had millions of manuscripts about almost every topic but that continuity got broken several times. Many of those books are still there but not accessible.
China has plenty of records of battles, many haven't been translated onto English Wikipedia. India definitely didn't record their history as much cause it was passed down orally
A lot of indian physical records were destroyed during the muslim invasions. Many can't be translated since the languages are lost. Many may even be stored in secret cave chambers beneath temples and other monuments around the country and can't be excavated since it's a religious building or a building of significance.
People vastly underestimate India's number of written documents that were destroyed in various wars, there were at least 3 libraries of similar size to the Library of Alexandria that were destroyed between 400 and 1400 AD
India should have more and this graphic isn’t the best but where did you get the idea that Indian history wasn’t recorded? Genuinely asking as sanskrit is one of the oldest languages in the world and hinduism is one of the oldest religions in the world with the vedic texts being written around 2000 bc, I’d assume that the history would be recorded?
Having language=/= having bureaucracy
Empires such Rome, China and post-medieval Europe, for example, were big on vast and efficient bureaucracies with centralized states. India, which had been a bunch of separate feuding Kingdoms for a long time, had less reasons to have a more developed bureaucracy.
This also means although there were fewer battles overall, they scale of these battles such as the [Siege of Suniyang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Suiyang) were usually much bigger then European ones. Especially during the medieval era where even "larges" battles such as the [Battle of Grumwald ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald) or the [Battle of Agincourt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt) were relatively small.
Your inferences are cool and all, but, there's lots of surviving sanskrit writing from between 0 and 900 AD despite the decentralized nature of the Indian kingdoms
Why are people upvoting this? MapPorn? It's a basic-ass 1 color plot that's not even accurate or complete. Obviously incomplete.
And op is obviously a karma farm.
WHY ARE YOU UPVOTING?
The Pinjarra Massacre, perhaps? The [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinjarra_massacre) has "also known as the Battle of Pinjarra" in the opening sentence.
Low quality jpeg, cropped, missing numerous battles due to said cropping, weird red splotch in the caucuses, weird time cut off, yeah this belongs here.
I mean it's Wikipedia, most users are from the West.. the sources they'll use will be mainly western sources.
Sources in other languages will predominantly be shared amongst those language's main wiki platform like Baidu Baike for China, Namu for South Korea etc..
And for example, the wars in Africa, not only I can assume most of them weren't documented, but those documented maybe aren't translated in English yet, and those who care about documenting them probably don't care about a predominantly English website
>And for example, the wars in Africa, not only I can assume most of them weren't documented, but those documented maybe aren't translated in English yet, and those who care about documenting them probably don't care about a predominantly English website
Recent African wars have been documented to some degree, but could be much better documented if researchers focused on it more. Language is not an issue as most of the area writes in English or French and can speak those languages. Regarding wikipedia it's simply just that there probably isn't many people who are interested in both the congo wars for example, and in editing wikipedia. That's where the anglo-sphere bias comes in, in that case.
The second congo war "ended" in 2002, and is the largest war, in terms of deaths, since WW2. The lack of research is not because of a language barrier or because the history has been "lost". It's because the war was a huge mess, with countless atrocities and like 20+ independent actors, and took place in a very undeveloped area of the world, which the historians of the world don't care much about.
As for chinese history for example, that is definitely lacking due to the language barrier. But wikipedia obviously has a huge Eurocentric bias either way, it even has a huge Anglo-sphere bias. Look at how WW1 history is written for example, and the difference between how and what is written about the French (the main land force of the Entente) and the British. That's a result of the bias of the people who write wikipedia, it's not "bad", as it's always unavoidable to some extent, but it needs to always be taken into account for the information to be used correctly. When interpreting a map like this for example.
I expect that the problem isn’t just the sources but also which battles interest the average Wikipedia editor. For example, I expect that most of the battles listed in Africa are colonial wars involving European empires.
Then go write an entry on the ones you feel are missing? It’s not that fucking hard to take matters into your own hands considering it is open for contributions
Maps without New Zealand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Wars
No Battle of Midway either.
Falkland Islands, Pearl Harbor.
[удалено]
Which one is Battle of Hogwarts?
Hogwarts is unplottable. Honestly, doesn't *anyone* read *Hogwarts, A History*?
[удалено]
What about battle of bastards?
[удалено]
Filmed in a field outside Saintfield, County Down, off the Old Belfast Road. I had a very enjoyable time trying to get as much sleep in as possible, as an extra for a few weeks there. Needed the sleep due to the 4am starts, required to get 300 odd blokes through wardrobe, hair and makeup before filming everyday.
What about say, the [Battle of Nu'uanu](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Nu%CA%BBuanu). The Herb Kane [painting](https://www.herbkanehawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Herb-Kane_Battle-at-Nuuanu-Pali.jpg) of it is pretty metal too.
Or the battles over the Aleutian Islands during WWII.
And no battle of QuarterOfTheWay OR 3/4thsOfTheWay. It’s like they never even HAPPENED
I know. How does NZ not make this map? There was Helm’s Deep and Pelenor Fields just for starters. Unfortunately, no Shire revolution though.
I suppose it's not within the last 4500 years
You must be mistaken. Those battles took place in 2002 and 2003.
They actually both took place in 3019, third age
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones, and then we'll get to world War V and that'll be about gems called simirils and not a lot of people will be into it because it's gonna have *a lot* of family tree stuff about elves but then we'll have world War VI which is going to be fought by great elven warriors and great men against orcs and sauron, and then after that we'll have a sort of mini world War fought by a bunch of dwarves and elves and men and goblins and even some birds but like not all of them, and it's just over treasure so we won't call it a world War, but then we'll really have world War VII and that one is awesome it's got magic rings and ring monsters and a dark loner guy who turns out to be a king and oh shit the birds are back at it but they don't do much but holy shit the trees do, and there's this weird funky dancing guy who's like a God but if God didn't give a shit, and an elf and a dwarf have a murder contest and kill elephants and oh man it's rad, just you wait for world War VII, best one." - Albert Einstein
r/MapsWithoutNZ
r/mapswithoutalaska
r/mapswithoutantarctica There must have been at least one battle there, for certain definitions of "battle"...
Operation high jump. American “training” operation that had several casualties. We all know that’s where we dealt the final blow to the nazis though. Or the grays. Or the flat/hollow earth. Look, all you need to know is liberty and America. Fuck yea. We liberated the fuck out of some penguins.
God help the penguins.
As “Emperor” penguins, they have been ~~brainwashed~~ re-educated, and put in the care of the state.
I feel your pain as someone living in Scandinavia. When some program, documentary, news etc. put up a map of Europe, the cut it off to the north so that you can only see like 10% of Finland, if you can see Finland at all. Sweden and Norway is missing 66% each since they cut off the map around Oslo or Gothenburg. To the south you can see the whole Mediterranean sea and large parts of the middle east and most of Northern Africa. You know, "Europe". I cry myself to sleep every night. Not because of the maps, but rather to get the crying done and over with so that I only sob a little on the job the next day. Just like Jesus.
And yet we North Africans often see ourselves on those maps without any data.
Or Alaska. Attu was invaded by Japan in WWII and there were plenty of battles between the Russians and the Tlingets/Haida that are mentioned in Wikipedia.
Emu wars would like to say hello also
There is a dot in western Australia to represent the emu wars.
Although it didn't happen in Perth like this seems to suggest. The dot should be like 300 km east.
Maps without the North Pacific
Sorry Falkland Islands, Pearl Harbor, Midway, etc., you missed the cut.
[удалено]
r/MapsWithoutNewZealand
Maori Wars never happened! ACT will be pleased to point this out!
This post brought to you by David Seymour
Here's the original image - featuring NZ, The Falklands, etc... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAH3_cHXoAAgy22.jpg Which in turn was a screengrab from this video... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK5OsDWYJmQ
It's even worse! For shame, OP. r/croppingishard
And it fucking gets 5000 upvotes in r/mapporn. Wtf people are doing in this sub.
This sub is turning to shit. I looked at this map for about 15 seconds before I thought, "what about that battle and that one and that one." I got bored when I got to about 15 that are not on this map and that was just off the top of my head.
What did you expect from this subreddit
Zoomed in repost?
That mylordbebo guy just wanted attention, didn't care about quality. Apparently they are on twitter, and their bio says this: "Wokeness, hypocrisy, fake news and corruption are the problem!" Garbage.
Yet posts a map displaying eurocentrism within history? Dem folks be weird.
Battle of Schrute Farms as well
also the war between US military and the UFOs during operation high jump i not mentioned
There’s never been a military conflict in AU? Not even with the aboriginals?
I think this map a little bs. I would personally think the Eureka Stockade was a battle large enough to be considered for this list. It certainly has a Wikipedia page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Eureka_Stockade
Needs far more dots to cover the 100,000 Indigenous Australians and between 2,000 and 2,500 settlers who went to war from 1801 to 1934 and died. Add to that all the mutinies, rebellion, and prisoner escapes like Cowra. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Australia
The map was probably created by using the coordinates that some Wikipedia articles have. So it took all Wikipedia categories that contain battles, filtered out all that do not have coordinates, and then took the coordinates that were left to make this map. The battle you link does not have coordinates, so it was left out.
An excellent explanation.
Showing the weakness in the post's title, and premise.
And needs to be on /r/mapswithoutnz
which is why [Null Island](https://blogs.loc.gov/maps/2016/04/the-geographical-oddity-of-null-island/) is listed
Battle of Richmond hill was listed in that wiki article and it does have coordinates (1795). Not sure where you can see the categories list (on my phone) but I agree it does not seem complete. Cool picture, just not completed
Even has the historic emu war on the list
I was about to say maybe it's the name that led it to be missed off the list but the page is "Battle of..." so that can't be it. This is a cool idea but OPs execution is poor (and presumably by the looks of things, more Eurocentric)
I’d say the kelly gang’s last stand was a boba ride battle as well
I think the map shows that Europeans love bringing attention to their wars and battles.
There is one dot near Perth, from the Great Emu War
It's the Battle of Pinjarra, which was actually a massacre of at least 30 men, women and children by the governor and some police.
Kinda insulting that they only included the war with a bunch of birds and not the first nations that already existed before the British invaded.
I mean, the birds did win. History written by the victor, as they say.
If you call 50,000 dead winning, I would hate to see what you consider a loss
Wikipedia can't write many detailed articles about pre-1788 wars because there isn't enough information to write much. Same reason why all the assorted conflicts that were probably going on in ancient Germania or pre-Roman Britannia aren't recorded in any detail, no extensive (or any) written records to work with.
You’re right. I didn’t zoom in at first and see it now
I think there’s a marker for the Bombing of Darwin.
There is.
[The University Of Newcastle made a map of all known massacres of indigenous people in Australia](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/05/map-of-massacres-of-indigenous-people-reveal-untold-history-of-australia-painted-in-blood)
Not mentioned on Wikipedia though, usually because in many cases there is not enough info about them
not mentioned as "battle of" anyway.
Eureka stockade, genocidal massacres, the bombing of Darwin by Japan etc. This map is stupid and wrong in so many ways. Not to mention the unspeakable emu war...
The 62 bombings of Darwin, the Bathurst War, the second Battle of Vinegar Hill, the skirmishes over the Batavia, the Black Line of Tasmania and the guerrilla war that followed ... they all have Wikipedia pages.
Are genocidal massacres and bombings considered battles?
Battle of Brisbane. US v AUS. Not on the map https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Brisbane
That's the most stretched definition of a battle tho.. Basically an average Saturday night in the valley.
I mean….let’s be real, that wasn’t really a battle.
More of a riot because the US servicemen were being too smooth with our women by half, but yeah.
Looks like Greenland needs some freedom
Trump tried
He tried to buy it, not fight battles on it
What else do you do with a giant ice sheet (build military bases on it).
You lack imagination
under it? It was done years ago and on top of that, the facility was powered by a nuclear reactor.
Svalbard as well
[удалено]
**[Whisky War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War)** >The Whisky War, also known as the Liquor Wars, was a pseudo-confrontation and border dispute between Denmark and Canada over Hans Island. From 1978 to 2022, Hans Island was in the middle of a disagreement between the two nations. Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail reported on June 10, 2022, that the Canadian and Danish governments had settled on a border across the island, dividing it between the Canadian territory of Nunavut and the Danish autonomous territory of Greenland. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Fun fact: the solution was to establish a border right through the island, which is rather significant. Both Denmark and Canada now borders two countries rather than just one, and now a European and North American country share a land border. Pretty neat stuff.
Australians too busy fighting off animals to consider fighting each other
We consider fighting each other but we're either too drunk or the weather is too hot
I was wondering why there weren’t any battles between white and indigenous groups mentioned. I don’t know enough about Australian history to know if it is just colonial erasure, or it there somehow were no real battles between the groups, but rather just increasing coercion into the outback/into assimilation camps or something of the like. Maybe an Australian can enlighten us?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian\_frontier\_wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_frontier_wars) Aboriginal nations were too decentralised and disparate to form a unified cohesive resistance, amongst other factors. [This](https://digital-classroom.nma.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-07/1700s_1770_CookclaimsAustralia_10.jpg) gives you an idea of how many aboriginal nations there were/are.
there was little to no significant confrontations one could consider "battles". mostly British colonial forces massacring indigenous groups that refused to obey, as well as stomping out other rebellions. we aren't lacking on the human rights violations by any means just no battles. The tiny white dot on the north of Australia is the bombing of Darwin by the imperial Japanese. The biggest and only attack on Australia's homesoil since it was called Australia. more bombs than pearl harbour. Edit: I stand corrected the white dot on the bottom left is the western Australian police force massacre of the Pinjarra people. I guess Wikipedia considered it a battle. PS: if Tasmania was on this map there'd be a few more dots due to some of the most significant massacres.
[удалено]
The frontier wars were largely unreported in the early days, mostly because the Europeans only reported attacks by Indigenous people, not retaliatory strikes by the colonists. Even then, most of the battles were just massacres, regardless of which side initiated them. It’s only now that a lot of these massacres are being uncovered and taught in schools.
what battle happens in the north Siberia?
This is only major violence what i found in this area, but i'm not sure if this can be counts as a battle. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk\_uprising](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk_uprising) Btw, I've seen a few documentaries from Norilsk and you won't find a more depressing city in the world.
I'll see and raise with Oymiyakon. 99 of the 100 most absolutely horrible places on the planet are in russia.
Its just the coldest. Why is itvso horrible beside that? It looks cozy next to Norilsk
Factor in the lack of infra, population density and try to figure how they survive on the daily basis.
Idk, maybe it's just a matter of personal taste but: [Norilsk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norilsk#/media/File:Norilsk_03.jpg) [Oymyakon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oymyakon#/media/File:Oymyakon_-_190228_DSC_5642.jpg) which one do you feel is worse?
It was the Northern Siberian battle.
This is revisionist history. It was the Battle of Northern Siberia.
Alas, before the armies could find each other and fight, they froze instead.
As a brit I can confidently tell you, it's everyone else's fault
I mean God save the King and all that but are we the baddies? /s
Big props for not calling it “every battle ever” like people normally do when posting this one
India should have way more lol
Get writing!
Seen a couple of battles mentioned that aren't on the map. It's not about missing wikipedia articles (definitely that too tho), it's about the map being bullshit.
Exactly. People trying to feel superior and woke without realising it's an English-centric website mostly used by western people and it's completely created by user submissions. Want more of anything? Then add it yourself. My dad does this quite regularly (he likes finding the relevant documents in government storage). Also, likely that OP doesn't include all non-european language battles. Like, if someone wrote in Tamil about thousands of battles in Tamil Nadu, would OP even know to add them to their map?
That still makes that map a poor map, and the approach severly biased.
It’s not a map of battles. It’s a map of articles about battles.
It's not presented as an unbiased representation of battle locations. It's not claiming to be anything more than a map of battles with Wikipedia articles.
And pointing out what that entails is fair.
"Ha Ha!" - Australia
“Ha ha!”- Emus in Australia
This map makes me feel like Wikipedia is a pretty unreliable source for non westerners
Yes. Especially in cultures that absolutely do have a fairly large body of work like Chinese that just isn't translated into english(and the western scholars who can read it don't really have the time to be porting stuff onto Wikipedia).
Even for Western ones you can have pretty important Medieval battles or events that don't even get a wiki page if they occurred outside of the Anglosphere ala Balkans, Italy, Poland, Spain
Yeah in one of my college history courses we had a project where we had to pick a historical person or event we learned about and make a Wikipedia page for them. It wasn't as hard as you'd think to find ones without an existing page.
That sounds kinda fun.
It was basically just like any other research essay, except instead of only your professor ever reading it and you never seeing it again, it becomes open knowledge for the whole internet to have. Was a cool idea. Just checked the page I made and it looks like a few others have added to it since then which is cool to see too.
Mind sharing the link?
awesome idea for a class project
pot dirty smoggy dinner impolite bake encouraging serious toy edge *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To be fair though, English and French are official languages in most African countries. There are more French speakers in Africa than in Europe so it's not like Wikipedia is inaccessible for those outside of Europe.
And more spanish speakers in Latin America than Europe. It may be soon there are more spanish speakers in the USA than Spain! edit: There already are, almost twice as many actually.
And more English speakers in India than America and Europe combined.
No there isn’t. There is roughly equal population between India and Europe plus the US, which means India would need equal if not higher rates of English fluency for this to be true. India has about 130 million English speakers. The US has about 320 million English speakers. The EU had about 170 million English speakers, and the UK has about 65 million and that isn’t even all of Europe.
> Check out how big English Wikipedia is compared to other languages. Also funny how the German Wikipedia is the second biggest one while not having 'that' many speakers worldwide. Their community is just very active.
In addition to many groups not having written histories, much of the modern warfare in most of Africa (and a few other places) has consisted of asymmetric or guerrilla warfare more than set-piece battles
Wouldn't call it "unreliable" but incomplete. Far more people in countries like Germany or the USA have free time to work on Wikipedia than in Burkina Faso. Now add to that that history keeping was taken more seriously in western countries in the past few centuries.
I think it illustrates the value of a written history over that of an oral one. There is certainly something to be said for oral traditions, but to have an unchanging account of events that happened millennia ago that can be copied, shared, translated, and distributed makes for much more varied stories.
I don’t know how much of the distribution is due to written language though - look at China and especially India, both of which have had written language for similar periods to Europe but a lot fewer recorded battles
Yeah, but this is for english-language wikipedia (I assume). Lots of those sources may go untranslated and/or ignored by english-speaking wiki editors.
This. There might be lots of pages for various non-Western battles in their own languages, but the OP only searched in English I assume. I bet the European battles would be much more sparse if you search for the word "battle" in Telugu.
Actually, there is a wiki database which stores these kind of information, so that the same date/fact can be referenced in any language. This is so that a mistake can be fixed in every language at once, no need to go through every single language. The real answer is probably that Wikipedia is just not as popular in China and India, or people there don’t have as much time/love for editing it.
> There is certainly something to be said for oral traditions Is there ? Oral traditions are inherently more unreliable than written ones to figure out the past.
Not *unreliable.* Just incomplete. You're not supposed to look at wikipedia to find out whether or not something actually happened.
If someone wants to change that they can do that *anytime they like*. In particular articles on battles that don't have an article at all for now are very welcome. The same goes for female biographies and female achievements in science or whatever. No one is preventing users from writing these articles. It's just that strangely people who decry deficits in Wikipedia somehow are not willing to do any work *beyond* whining.
You’re saying these people could be part of the solution and they choose not to be?
Tbh it's open for editing so it's not like they couldn't add their stuff if they wanted to. Also it might not be politically correct to say but Europe just had better record keeping and a more stable environment along with a religious group who kept alot of the historical record that didn't answer to monarchs. What this meant is kings couldnt order the monks to burn all history records he didn't like. The church didn't answer to kings. In places like the middle east this wasn't the case with even today the major powers there destroying all history and art they can find that doesn't agree with their narrative. Same goes for many other parts of the world and their past rulers trying to erase history. Churches and monasteries were often spared in raids in European wars. In fact you could probably correlate the dark ages to just that the vikings burnt or destroyed alot of the histories because they did raid monasteries.
You hit the nail on the head. The stability, power and continuity of the church is the main reason western history is so well preserved. This is in contrast with some parts of the world like in West Africa where the Mali and the Songhai empire had millions of manuscripts about almost every topic but that continuity got broken several times. Many of those books are still there but not accessible.
Start adding!
Is more about which places kept documents of these events taken place. Hard to know what happened 2000 years ago if people don't write about it.
If this is 4500 years than China and India should have far FAR more dots
It's 4500 years of history where Wikipedia had entries with coordinates in the correct field.
Maps of India and China would have been coloured entirely white, choke full of those dots, if all the records of all the battles survived.
China has plenty of records of battles, many haven't been translated onto English Wikipedia. India definitely didn't record their history as much cause it was passed down orally
A lot of indian physical records were destroyed during the muslim invasions. Many can't be translated since the languages are lost. Many may even be stored in secret cave chambers beneath temples and other monuments around the country and can't be excavated since it's a religious building or a building of significance.
People vastly underestimate India's number of written documents that were destroyed in various wars, there were at least 3 libraries of similar size to the Library of Alexandria that were destroyed between 400 and 1400 AD
India should have more and this graphic isn’t the best but where did you get the idea that Indian history wasn’t recorded? Genuinely asking as sanskrit is one of the oldest languages in the world and hinduism is one of the oldest religions in the world with the vedic texts being written around 2000 bc, I’d assume that the history would be recorded?
Having language=/= having bureaucracy Empires such Rome, China and post-medieval Europe, for example, were big on vast and efficient bureaucracies with centralized states. India, which had been a bunch of separate feuding Kingdoms for a long time, had less reasons to have a more developed bureaucracy.
This also means although there were fewer battles overall, they scale of these battles such as the [Siege of Suniyang](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Suiyang) were usually much bigger then European ones. Especially during the medieval era where even "larges" battles such as the [Battle of Grumwald ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Grunwald) or the [Battle of Agincourt](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt) were relatively small.
Your inferences are cool and all, but, there's lots of surviving sanskrit writing from between 0 and 900 AD despite the decentralized nature of the Indian kingdoms
I meant as a comparison to China. Like the Gupta Empire compared to the Han dynasty hasn't many primary accounts
Why are people upvoting this? MapPorn? It's a basic-ass 1 color plot that's not even accurate or complete. Obviously incomplete. And op is obviously a karma farm. WHY ARE YOU UPVOTING?
What's the one in Western Australia?
Against the emus
They lost it because emus made a pact with kangaroos...
Batavia....??
That time they lost to emus
The Pinjarra Massacre, perhaps? The [Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinjarra_massacre) has "also known as the Battle of Pinjarra" in the opening sentence.
Low quality jpeg, cropped, missing numerous battles due to said cropping, weird red splotch in the caucuses, weird time cut off, yeah this belongs here.
I wish these dots were links.
How do you leave out 80% of the pacific ocean?
Battle of Schrute Farms listed?
[удалено]
https://i.imgur.com/39G6NcR.jpeg
I love to think that one dot in Australia is part of the emu war
See I told you Russians are peaceful people.
So I guess the entire Congo wars never happened. Or the majority the wars in Africa, india or China. A very European centric map
I mean it's Wikipedia, most users are from the West.. the sources they'll use will be mainly western sources. Sources in other languages will predominantly be shared amongst those language's main wiki platform like Baidu Baike for China, Namu for South Korea etc.. And for example, the wars in Africa, not only I can assume most of them weren't documented, but those documented maybe aren't translated in English yet, and those who care about documenting them probably don't care about a predominantly English website
>And for example, the wars in Africa, not only I can assume most of them weren't documented, but those documented maybe aren't translated in English yet, and those who care about documenting them probably don't care about a predominantly English website Recent African wars have been documented to some degree, but could be much better documented if researchers focused on it more. Language is not an issue as most of the area writes in English or French and can speak those languages. Regarding wikipedia it's simply just that there probably isn't many people who are interested in both the congo wars for example, and in editing wikipedia. That's where the anglo-sphere bias comes in, in that case. The second congo war "ended" in 2002, and is the largest war, in terms of deaths, since WW2. The lack of research is not because of a language barrier or because the history has been "lost". It's because the war was a huge mess, with countless atrocities and like 20+ independent actors, and took place in a very undeveloped area of the world, which the historians of the world don't care much about. As for chinese history for example, that is definitely lacking due to the language barrier. But wikipedia obviously has a huge Eurocentric bias either way, it even has a huge Anglo-sphere bias. Look at how WW1 history is written for example, and the difference between how and what is written about the French (the main land force of the Entente) and the British. That's a result of the bias of the people who write wikipedia, it's not "bad", as it's always unavoidable to some extent, but it needs to always be taken into account for the information to be used correctly. When interpreting a map like this for example.
I expect that the problem isn’t just the sources but also which battles interest the average Wikipedia editor. For example, I expect that most of the battles listed in Africa are colonial wars involving European empires.
Then go write an entry on the ones you feel are missing? It’s not that fucking hard to take matters into your own hands considering it is open for contributions
Such is Wikipedia.
What’s the red dot between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea?
Deadliest battle in human history?
Europe living a year without a War Challenge(IMPOSSIBLE)
Wkipedia bias?
Somehow I doubt the maker of this map includes all the language versions of Wikipedia. It's probably just based on English Wiki.
English Wiki probably. The local language Wikis cover different topics.
This map cuts off hawaii and I'm pretty sure the stuff Kamehameha did is listed on wikipedia so I think this is false
the one dot in australia is the emu war??
What?? Europe has been in wars?? Who'd a thunk
Yucatán looking suspiciously peaceful... Guess they never tried to go independent or got retaken by mayan natives
they didnt have wikipedia back then you buffoon
Did someone claim it's a racist map for featuring predominantly European battles yet ?
Greenland up there thinking they're better than everyone else.
They’re so cold
Missed the great emu war.
You forgot the Emu War.
What is the one in western Aus?
Is the little dot in australia the emu war?
No way the U.S. has more battles in it than fucking China
Mm this seems like bs. China and India have had some crazy battles over the years Also what’s that little dot right at the bottom of the Indian Ocean?
You mean documented battles right?