Interesting Maps

08-04-2021 10:58am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Go even further east and you'll find them on menus :eek:

Saw them on spits in Vietnam....just couldn't ever bring myself to try a bit, and I eat everything!!!

breezy1985 · 08-04-2021 11:01am

1huge1 wrote: »

I took away the same thing from looking at that, shocking the breed of dogs that are most popular the further east you go.

I find the whole map shocking. The things we have done to dogs especially in regards to breeding must be one of the weirdest aspects of human society

08-04-2021 12:11pm

breezy1985 wrote: »

I find the whole map shocking. The things we have done to dogs especially in regards to breeding must be one of the weirdest aspects of human society

Pugs another example, they can't even breath properly if they do much exercise. An awful mess.

My sister owned one and had to be put down, was less than 5 years old. And as above, she paid a small fortune in vet fees and was devastated when she died.

KevRossi · 08-04-2021 12:47pm

JupiterKid wrote: »

I see that the most popular dog breed here in Ireland is the Golden Retreiver. Wonderful dog - as a family growing up we had one for 14 years. She had two litters of pups and was such a good, gentle dog.

I also see the most popular breed in Gibraltar is the Rottweiler. Seige mentality of the die-hard subjects of Blighty?

Actually, looking at those maps again I see the Rottweiler is very popular in a depressingly large number of countries. Tells you a lot about the mentality of the people there IMO. As for the countries that favour the extremely dangerous Cane Corso - best avoided in my future travel plans.

Rottweilers are work dogs. Excellent dogs for cattle, sheep and goats. Also handy for guarding them at night against predators such as foxes and wolves. I've seen them used a lot for this in some countries, they are highly valued for that and for being excellent family pets.

They have a load bark and can snarl to ward off people or other animals. Due to the amount of work they traditionally do they tend to be fit and broad shouldered. I think that's why they are feared/respected.

Of course, they sadly became popular with the dickhead set in the 70's, 80's and 90's and got a wrongly deserved reputation. They also became badly inbred and are now often sought out when mixed with Pointers.

I knew a few people in Germany and Austria when I lived there who had them, and I'd take one at the drop of a hat if I had the time for one.

SEPT 23 1989 · 08-04-2021 12:55pm

Labradors are the most dangerous dog

magicbastarder · 08-04-2021 1:00pm

when i first started going out with my now wife, my father in law was looking into the possibility of getting a boerboel - so i looked it up. traditional south african farm dog, bleedin' enormous, 'does not take kindly to strangers'.

i did wonder whether i was being sent a message.

murpho999 · 08-04-2021 2:24pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Labradors are the most dangerous dog

Not at all.

I've never met one type of dog that's constantly dangerous.

I fine it all depends on their owner for training, health, mentality and socialisation with people.

In general I've always found bigger dogs to be more relaxed and friendly.

Gloomtastic! · 08-04-2021 2:30pm

murpho999 wrote: »

Not at all.

I've never met one type of dog that's constantly dangerous.

I fine it all depends on their owner for training, health, mentality and socialisation with people.

In general I've always found bigger dogs to be more relaxed and friendly.

I believe Labradors are behind the most attacks on people simply because they are one of the most popular dogs. You take a dog’s food from them, they may bite, regardless of breed.

Hurrache · 08-04-2021 4:40pm

Brian? wrote: »

Cockapoo/Cavapoo/Labradoodle etc aren’t dog breeds yet. They’re cross breeds.

Mongrels, they're mongrels. Well back in my day anyway any dog that wasn't a thoroughbred were simply mongrels. None of that fancy stuff of making up names to match who the parents were.

josip · 08-04-2021 4:55pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Mongrels, they're mongrels. Well back in my day anyway any dog that wasn't a thoroughbred were simply mongrels. None of that fancy stuff of making up names to match who the parents were.

Where I grew up, the mongrels were pure bred mongrels and could trace their pedigree back through generations of mongrels before them.
A dog that had any kind of breed detectable in them, usually belonged to someone who had 'notions'.

The Egyptian Empire at its height.

cameramonkey · 09-04-2021 12:03am

Mongol empire at its height. Pretty Impressive spread and all done on horseback.

mikhail · 09-04-2021 10:50am

cameramonkey wrote: »

Mongol empire at its height. Pretty Impressive spread and all done on horseback.

I recommend a book "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", by Jack Weatherford. It's a very readable history from Genghis' childhood to the point where the empire starts to break up among the grandkids.

retalivity · 09-04-2021 2:38pm

mikhail wrote: »

I recommend a book "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World", by Jack Weatherford. It's a very readable history from Genghis' childhood to the point where the empire starts to break up among the grandkids.

I remember playing Age of Empires 2 and invading China, Persia, Russia, Hungary and Poland.

knucklehead6 · 09-04-2021 3:57pm

retalivity wrote: »

I remember playing Age of Empires 2 and invading China, Persia, Russia, Hungary and Poland.

hmmm

Now you're making me want to download it again!!

Capt'n Midnight · 09-04-2021 5:33pm

Capt'n Midnight · 11-04-2021 9:55pm

Itssoeasy · 11-04-2021 10:24pm

Brian? wrote: »

The Rottweiler is a great dog breed. Loyal, intelligent and great with people. Nothing dangerous about them.

Most big dogs get a bad reputation for some reason which is based on a perception and not actually any good reasons. I had two boxer dogs as an adult and had two as a kid and my family had them back to the 1950s. Absolutely beautiful dogs and they are big eijits but excellent around kids and good family dogs. And despite what is said about them they are very smart.

Mimon · 11-04-2021 11:13pm

josip wrote: »

Where I grew up, the mongrels were pure bred mongrels and could trace their pedigree back through generations of mongrels before them.
A dog that had any kind of breed detectable in them, usually belonged to someone who had 'notions'.

The Egyptian Empire at its height.

When was this? No way the Egyptians had an empire that included Sicily. Does it include Greek controlled areas during the Ptolemaic Kingdom or something?

breezy1985 · 12-04-2021 1:26am

Mimon wrote: »

When was this? No way the Egyptians had an empire that included Sicily. Does it include Greek controlled areas during the Ptolemaic Kingdom or something?

Thats what I was assuming too. Some of the later dynasties could barely be called Egyptian too

Gorteen · 12-04-2021 6:33pm

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

I believe Labradors are behind the most attacks on people simply because they are one of the most popular dogs. You take a dog’s food from them, they may bite, regardless of breed.

I recall an extensive survey of all dog bites on humans, carried out in US. I'm talking about hundreds of thousands of bites. The breed most likely to bit was cocker spaniel. The "usual suspects", pit bulls, Rottweiler, etc weren't even in the top five!

upupup · 12-04-2021 8:30pm

"To hell or to Connacht"
Cromwells plan for Ireland.

One mile deep belt around the coast reserved for english settlers.

breezy1985 · 13-04-2021 12:36am

upupup wrote: »

One mile deep belt around the coast reserved for English settlers.

I have heard that this is why for an island nation we have so little fish in or diet or traditional recipes

13-04-2021 1:52am

breezy1985 wrote: »

I have heard that this is why for an island nation we have so little fish in or diet or traditional recipes

But it didn't happen. Very few people were ever transplanted, and the plantations failed, except in Ulster.

Most people in Ireland were never intended to be transplanted, only very wealthy (mostly combatant) landowners and other soldiers, and probably Roman Catholic priests.

Under Cromwell's plans, most of the natives were intended to remain in situ as tenant farmers and workers.

I'm afraid a lot of primary school teachers have allowed their imagination to run away with themselves. Nobody ever said "To Hell or to Connacht" either.

Cromwell was a very bad man, but he didn't go around killing unarmed native civilians, let alone transplanting innocent people or hiding our fish recipes. The real truth about Cromwell is sufficiently bad. No need to embroider whatever blood he spilled!

breezy1985 · 13-04-2021 8:59am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But it didn't happen. Very few people were ever transplanted, and the plantations failed, except in Ulster.

Most people in Ireland were never intended to be transplanted, only very wealthy (mostly combatant) landowners and other soldiers, and probably Roman Catholic priests.

Under Cromwell's plans, most of the natives were intended to remain in situ as tenant farmers and workers.

I'm afraid a lot of primary school teachers have allowed their imagination to run away with themselves. Nobody ever said "To Hell or to Connacht" either.

Cromwell was a very bad man, but he didn't go around killing unarmed native civilians, let alone transplanting innocent people or hiding our fish recipes. The real truth about Cromwell is sufficiently bad. No need to embroider whatever blood he spilled!

Except for the ones he sent off to Jamaica and Barbados including women and children.

The Irish confederacy should have backed him though instead of switching sides

stopthevoting · 13-04-2021 9:30am

upupup wrote: »

"To hell or to Connacht"
Cromwells plan for Ireland.
...
One mile deep belt around the coast reserved for english settlers.

I just noticed from the second map that County Galway has 3 baronies with the same names as other counties; Clare, Leitrim and Longford.

fergiesfolly · 13-04-2021 9:35am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But it didn't happen. Very few people were ever transplanted, and the plantations failed, except in Ulster.

Most people in Ireland were never intended to be transplanted, only very wealthy (mostly combatant) landowners and other soldiers, and probably Roman Catholic priests.

Under Cromwell's plans, most of the natives were intended to remain in situ as tenant farmers and workers.

I'm afraid a lot of primary school teachers have allowed their imagination to run away with themselves. Nobody ever said "To Hell or to Connacht" either.

Cromwell was a very bad man, but he didn't go around killing unarmed native civilians, let alone transplanting innocent people or hiding our fish recipes. The real truth about Cromwell is sufficiently bad. No need to embroider whatever blood he spilled!

So, is the map fake or taken out of context. Who drew it up?

1huge1 · 13-04-2021 9:51am

breezy1985 wrote: »

I have heard that this is why for an island nation we have so little fish in or diet or traditional recipes

I listened to a podcast from David Mcwilliams recently who talked about just that.

The main reason why Ireland isn't a country that eats a significant amount of fish despite us being an island has more to do with the quality of our arable land being of such a level that livestock and crops were a more suitable option to feed the country.

On the other hand, the likes of Sweden which also has a massive coastline but much less arable land had to focus on fishing considerably more. This is one of the reasons why Irish people are much more likely to get a sunburn than Swedish people even though our skintype looks similar at first glance. Something to do with a diet of fish giving them a more natural protection over the generations. A similar reason to Ireland having a igher proportion of red haired people too.

Now this has happened over many 1000s of years, not just in the past 500.

I found this interesting as I too had fallen into the trap of assuming it was just down to the British exporting our fish back to Britain.

yagan · 13-04-2021 10:14am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But it didn't happen. Very few people were ever transplanted, and the plantations failed, except in Ulster.

Most people in Ireland were never intended to be transplanted, only very wealthy (mostly combatant) landowners and other soldiers, and probably Roman Catholic priests.

Under Cromwell's plans, most of the natives were intended to remain in situ as tenant farmers and workers.

I'm afraid a lot of primary school teachers have allowed their imagination to run away with themselves. Nobody ever said "To Hell or to Connacht" either.

Cromwell was a very bad man, but he didn't go around killing unarmed native civilians, let alone transplanting innocent people or hiding our fish recipes. The real truth about Cromwell is sufficiently bad. No need to embroider whatever blood he spilled!

While it is true that the main targets of the transplantations were the catholic landowners of the confederacy and others how had supported redress to poynings law, the simple fact is that that period was a huge disruptor of native tenure which led to persistent starvations culminating in the greater hunger of the 1840s.

Cromwell did instigate a slash and burn campaign as he went to deny all Irish habitants of food, his own campaign being supported by grain from England and confiscated cattle as they marched. One estimate I read in Lecky's histories based upon letters of the period from Dublin castle estimated that in the decade of direct commonwealth rule three quarters of all cattle were consumed by upheavals and there were many instances of mass starvations of those ruled.

Edit to add, the Cromwellian term for their slash and burn campaign was "Denial", as in denying the native of their sustenance. It is thought that is was then that the potato became integral as a food source as it survived in the ground after the crop burnings.

Mimon · 13-04-2021 10:21am

breezy1985 wrote: »

I have heard that this is why for an island nation we have so little fish in or diet or traditional recipes

Nah, it goes back way further. We are mostly descended from pastoralists from the Russian Steppe so they brought no tradition of eating seafood. On the other hand these people left us with the highest level of adult lactose tolerance in the World.

Balmed Out · 13-04-2021 10:28am

yagan wrote: »

Cromwell did instigate a slash and burn campaign as he went to deny all Irish habitants of food

As cruel and terrible as that was it was typical of the time. It had already happened in Ireland during the desmond and ulster rebellions. Proportionally more of munster died in the famines related to the desmond rebellions than the great hunger of the 1840s.

humberklog · 13-04-2021 1:11pm

Refreshing not to see the "fish for Friday/penury food" nonsense being wheeled out.

I was listening to a really interesting podcast about Pre- Christian Norwegians out in Iceland, Greenland and most likely North America.
The ones on Greenland were having Mickey-fits because they were sending the furs back but good meat wasn't being sent to them in the promised supplies and were bemoaning to having to eat fish like the "Skraelings" (the locals).

13-04-2021 2:01pm

fergiesfolly wrote: »

So, is the map fake or taken out of context. Who drew it up?

The map is legit, but it didn't happen. And it's more complex than it looks. The minority of landowners who were to be transplanted were themselves intended to retain a significant status, displacing local landowners. They were intended to become planters.

It gets even more complex still:some Connacht landowners who lost (or forfeited) their lands to irish newcomers were transplanted within Connacht, and they also became 'planters'. These transplantees were in many ways quite lucky: some people who were never sent to Connacht, but remained in Leinster and Munster, became destitute. In any case, we are talking about very small numbers of transplants.

The map is very interesting but it's a sort of counter-factual history, i.e. it allows us a glimpse of what was intended, and it's interesting to imagine what might have happened thereafter — probably including battles in Connacht between native Irish.

yagan · 13-04-2021 2:29pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The map is legit, but it didn't happen. And it's more complex than it looks. The minority of landowners who were to be transplanted were themselves intended to retain a significant status, displacing local landowners. They were intended to become planters.

It gets even more complex still:some Connacht landowners who lost (or forfeited) their lands to irish newcomers were transplanted within Connacht, and they also became 'planters'. These transplantees were in many ways quite lucky: some people who were never sent to Connacht, but remained in Leinster and Munster, became destitute. In any case, we are talking about very small numbers of transplants.

The map is very interesting but it's a sort of counter-factual history, i.e. it allows us a glimpse of what was intended, and it's interesting to imagine what might have happened thereafter — probably including battles in Connacht between native Irish.

By stating it never happened sets you up as a denialist of the cromwellian confiscations. This is for another thread.

Perhaps it would be more accruate to say that transplantation did happen, as can be even seen from surnames like Minogue that were mostly in Kilkenny suddenly cluster in north Clare in the latter part of the 1600s.

Cromwellians did oust many landowners, but in time many sold off the land grants they'd gained under the adventurers act.

Anyway despite your assertion plantations did happen.

13-04-2021 2:32pm

yagan wrote: »

Anyway despite your assertion plantations did happen.

plantations and transplantation are two different policies.

Plantations happened, and failed, except for limited success in Ulster.
Transplantation, as stated previously, was only attempted in very small numbers. It isn't of much historical significance.

Nqp15hhu · 13-04-2021 2:53pm

The plantation was very successful in Ulster. I speak as someone who has remnants of it in my dna, almost 40% Scottish.

BonnieSituation · 13-04-2021 3:03pm

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

The plantation was very successful in Ulster. I speak as someone who has remnants of it in my dna, almost 40% Scottish.

That would make you 60% Irish?

---

For a moment there I wasn't clear on whether the Plantation of Ulster was successful or not. Thanks for clearing that up.

Nqp15hhu · 13-04-2021 3:11pm

Well if it was unsuccessful few people would have Scottish Dna in Ulster. I have numerous matches who are 70%+ Scottish.

BonnieSituation · 13-04-2021 3:12pm

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

Well if it was unsuccessful few people would have Scottish Dna in Ulster. I have numerous matches who are 70%+ Scottish.

I don't think you got the point. Anyway, the Dal Riada called!

Nqp15hhu · 13-04-2021 3:16pm

No..my y Dna is from the borders as is most of the Scottish Dna. So don’t try to dispute my ethnic make up.

13-04-2021 3:18pm

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

No..my y Dna is from the border as is most of the Dna. So don’t try to dispute my ethnic make up.

That's some accurate profiling right there. Worth the money I'd say.

13-04-2021 3:20pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

plantations and transplantation are two different policies.

Plantations happened, and failed, except for limited success in Ulster.
Transplantation, as stated previously, was only attempted in very small numbers. It isn't of much historical significance.

The deliberate destruction of an elite is always of importance.

yagan · 13-04-2021 3:21pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

plantations and transplantation are two different policies.

Plantations happened, and failed, except for limited success in Ulster.
Transplantation, as stated previously, was only attempted in very small numbers. It isn't of much historical significance.

It was hugely significant in land rights in the 17th century.

Again for another forum, but to assert that the Cromwellian confiscations were insignificant shows you've only a superficial understanding of the subject.

BonnieSituation · 13-04-2021 3:36pm

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

No..my y Dna is from the borders as is most of the Scottish Dna. So don’t try to dispute my ethnic make up.

I'm disputing your ability to get a snide comment that was made at your expense.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's some accurate profiling right there. Worth the money I'd say.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

13-04-2021 3:37pm

yagan wrote: »

Again for another forum, but to assert that the Cromwellian confiscations were insignificant shows you've only a superficial understanding of the subject.

Again — transplantation, which is what the map is about, wasn't historically significant. Not to be confused with confiscation/plantation, which was very significant.

Leaving it at that, ran out of ways to clarify the same thing.

josip · 13-04-2021 4:06pm

Going a bit further north than NI or Scotland, what kind of projection does Google Maps use?
Svalbaard looks disproportionately large compared to Scandi.

Doing some very rough measurements in Google Earth, the archipelago measures 485km across,

slightly shorter than the 500km from the Norwegian-Finnish coastal border to an arbitrary point in Russia.

But things change a lot on Google Maps, the Svalbard looks 50% bigger.
In this pic, the 2 blue lines are the same length.

BonnieSituation · 13-04-2021 4:22pm

It uses a variant on Mercator called Web Mercator/Spherical Mercator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Mercator_projection

mzungu · 13-04-2021 5:19pm

A Gallup poll found that The Philippines is the world’s most emotional country. Singapore is its least.

emotional_countries.0.jpg

KevRossi · 13-04-2021 5:39pm

Italy is less emotional than Switzerland?

josip · 13-04-2021 5:41pm

KevRossi wrote: »

Italy is less emotional than Switzerland?

Gallup

Gallup, Inc. is an American analytics and advisory company...

Fake Scores · 13-04-2021 5:49pm

KevRossi wrote: »

Italy is less emotional than Switzerland?

Self reporting

Interesting Maps

Comments