The journey of Ibn Fadlan, as mapped out on the Tabula Rogeriana, gives insight into how Ibn Fadlan visualized his journey. It also aids in realizing how complicated his travels actually were. The Tabula Rogeriana was created in the 12th century. Ibn Fadlan traveled in the 10th century. So, this map was not available for Fadlan to follow to navigate his journey to Bulghar. Even if he did have it, it would have still been difficult to follow. The Tabula Rogeriana maps the known world in the 12th century. When Fadlan was traveling, there were places that were still unknown that were featured on the Tabula Rogeriana. My limited knowledge of labels and places on the mapping was frustrating. Fadlan would have been traveling essentially blind; this must have been frustrating. These potential frustrations can be examined by comparing Fadlan’s journey on a modern map versus the Tabula Rogeriana.

         The biggest difference between the modern map and the Tabula Rogeriana is the orientation. The Tabula Rogeriana is oriented south upwards. When he was traveling to the North, he was envisioning himself walking down towards the pole. This wouldn’t have affected his own view of his travel, as his worldview was south-oriented upward. This was a principle of the Islamic view of the world. However, what could’ve been difficult was if he got directions or insight from other travelers on how to find any of the locations he needed to go to. We know he interacted with people of different religions. The logic about where things are oriented may have been different from his, making travel difficult. Fadlan wasn’t just wandering through the Middle East and up into Europe. He had set locations where he was going. Therefore, he needed directions. Some of the places he stopped didn’t seem calculated; they weren’t a part of a “trip itinerary.” However, some of the locations were pre-planned. He stops in Bukhara to receive money for the mosque in Bulghar. He needed to know how to get here. Without having a map, this must have been very difficult.

         Another difficulty in his travels comes from the differences in geographical features. On the modern map, the Caspian Sea is (obviously) the correct shape. On the modern map, the Caspian Sea is a lot longer (it kind of looks like New Jersey); it is just generally bigger. However, on the Tabula Rogeriana, the Caspian Sea is significantly smaller. It is a lot more circular. The whole tale of it is missing. Obviously, the medieval map isn’t going to have the right shapes of every feature and country; everything is an estimation based on people’s accounts of their travels. Fadlan would have had a less accurate idea of the shape of the Caspian Sea. You can tell this by looking at the direction of his travels on both maps. On the modern map, Fadlan swings very widely to the left of the Caspian Sea. He goes out of his way to seemingly make sure he doesn’t intercept the sea. His stop in Bukhara was pre-planned; this was one of the locations he knew how to reach. This seems like a way to avoid geographical issues as well as completing tasks for the Calif.

         The last large difference between the two maps is the distance between the top and bottom (north and south). On the modern map, Bulghar is significantly farther from Baghdad than on the Tabula Rogeriana. The scale of the maps is completely different. The Tabula Rogeriana under-accounts the distance between the two places. I thought that the Tabula Rogeriana was out of scale; however, the scales of Egypt and Saudi Arabia are pretty consistently sized with the modern map. These scale differences wouldn’t have necessarily affected Fadlan’s travels. However, it does change the perspective of how people would have viewed Fadlan’s journey.

         In conclusion, Fadlan’s journey wasn’t much affected or changed by the differences in the two maps. The biggest difference between the two maps is the orientation and views of the world. This, to a modern traveler, seems foreign; however, to Fadlan, this would have been the norm. The only confusion could have been sparked by discussing directions with non-Islamic travelers. The second difference would be the ideas of the shape and location of geographical markers that could have affected the exact navigation of his journey. Since they didn’t know precisely where these geographical obstacles would have been, they could’ve over- or undercompensated for avoiding them. Overall, his actual journey was simply perceived differently by modern viewers and non-Muslim audien