Altered Maps 2: Uber-Yugoslavia FTW

Status
Not open for further replies.
May I suggest: Altered Maps 3: Ahistorical Misfortunes (Inspired by this post)

Anyways I've found a nice little website. Here's a few maps from there.

Wow the maps on that link are horrible!

One map has Poland reaching Greece, another placing it in the Caucasus, a third that is placed during the Mongal invasions of Europe but some how Prussia already exists, and controlls half of Poland, most of Northern Germany and parts of Russia. Not to mention the raised sea level map with Venezuela's mountains under water but with it's flat areas as islands, Australia split in two, Somehow England is connected to Europe with higher sea levels and the horn of Africa is an island, but it stretches from northern Egypt to the middle of South Africa.

The quality of the maps are very bad, i must say.
 
Britannia.png

Wow, because that map's not racist. Not at all.
 
warpus said:
What's so "racist" about it?

Clearly Cheezy is pissed about the lack of dirty Turks... :(

TheLastOne36 said:
Australia split in two

That is a distinct possibility considering that a large part of Central Australia is below Sea level of just slightly above it (it used to be an a sea at some stage). A rise in sea levels of five meters would flood lake Eyre and provide a source of salt-water for Central Australia (something that was explored back in the sixties FYI).
 



After the American Revolution was crushed, the leaders of the revolutions as well as thousands of colonials fled the 13 colonies to out of fear reprucussion from the British, determine to return back and establish a new Republic. Some of them, such as Benjamin Franklin fled to France, the old time ally, however, most escaped to hinterlands of the American frontier and into Mexico.

The British, established the Haudenosaunee republic, a homeland for the Iroquois Confederation for having supported the British in war after the Britian's decisive win at Yorktown, the French repulse at Chesapeake and the sucessful "Long Trek South" Campaign. As agreed upon, the Indians were left to their devices.

The Quebec provinces remained in the Canadian commonwealth til the 1943 Quebec Act. Taking advantage of the new land to the south with a common culture, the Quebecois move south to resettle in the Missisippi Basin.

In 1807, the British Empire abolished Slavery, causing a revolt in the Southern colonies. While Britain, as they did 20 years before were able to crush the rebellion in the East Coast colonies, the Napoleonic wars stopped them from entirely supressing the Orleans rebellions which also spreaded to the Marshes of Florida. In 1809, West Florida and New Orleans were given indepedence. East Florida remained in British hands until 1897 when the population voted to secede.

As the British moved Westward in their Manifest Destiny, it left a string of newly established states loyal to the crown.

In 1836, Texas and California seceded from the Mexican Union.
 
I balkanized northern Europe
Spoiler :
attachment.php

1. Nord-Norge (Northern Norway)
2. Trøndelag
3. Vestlandet (Western Norway)
4. Norge (Norway)
5. Sápmi
6. Norrland
7. Jamtlann (Jamtland)
8. Dalarna
9. Värmland
10. Svealand (Sweden)
11. Götaland (Geatland)
12. Gutland (Gotland)
13. Skåneland (Scania)
14. Jylland (Jutland)
15. Sjælland (Zealand)
16. Schleswig
17. Kainuu (Kvenland)
18. Savo (Savonia)
19. Österbotten (Ostrobothnia)
20. Häme (Tavastia)
21. Åland
22. Södra Finland/Etelä Suomi (South Finland)
23. Länsi-Karjala (West Karelia)
24. Itä-Karjala (East Karelia)
25. Кольский полуостров, Kol'skij poluostrov (Kola Peninsula)
26. Inkeri (Ingria)
27. Eesti (Estonia)
28. Lääne-Eesti saarestik (West Estonian archipelago)
29. Võro
30. Vidzeme
31. Kurzeme (Courland)
32. Latgola
33. Žemaitėjė (Samogitia)
34. Lietuva (Lithuania)
35. Пруссия (Prussia)
 

Attachments

  • balkanisednorden.PNG
    balkanisednorden.PNG
    25.9 KB · Views: 479
What's so "racist" about it?

Calling it the "Saracen Caliphate" is basically the equivalent of naming South Africa "Niggerland." It was a very derogatory name for basically all Muslims. There's a BS explanation that it means "not from Sarah," since Arabs claim descendance from Hagar, Abraham's other son, but I think its bullcrap.

I would also take the time to rant further about layman's usage of "Caliphate" as some random catch-all term for an Arab or Muslim empire, but I'm in a rush, so I won't.
 
Yeah, its a little late for it to be called a Caliphate... but what I'm still wondering is what's up with the cross in the background?
 
Calling it the "Saracen Caliphate" is basically the equivalent of naming South Africa "Niggerland." It was a very derogatory name for basically all Muslims. There's a BS explanation that it means "not from Sarah," since Arabs claim descendance from Hagar, Abraham's other son, but I think its bullcrap.

What, it's derogatory? Sure, it's one of those middle age catch-all exonym terms, but derogatory?
 
Joecoolyo said:
Yeah, its a little late for it to be called a Caliphate... but what I'm still wondering is what's up with the cross in the background?

Why? The POD seems to be rather early and with that in mind there is no reason why the Umma might not have been kept together under the rule of the Caliphs.

Bill3000 said:
What, it's derogatory? Sure, it's one of those middle age catch-all exonym terms, but derogatory?

... they didn't have a Political Correctness department back in the day! I wonder what the presumably non-dirty Turkic state called the *shrugs* Europeans?
 
Calling it the "Saracen Caliphate" is basically the equivalent of naming South Africa "Niggerland." It was a very derogatory name for basically all Muslims. There's a BS explanation that it means "not from Sarah," since Arabs claim descendance from Hagar, Abraham's other son, but I think its bullcrap.

I am starting to like that term...

... they didn't have a Political Correctness department back in the day! I wonder what the presumably non-dirty Turkic state called the *shrugs* Europeans?

On a side note, the Arabs Saracens called the European crusaders "Franks" regardless of their origin, if I am not mistaken.
 
I was under the impression that the Saracens where one specific tribe of Turks that the Crusaders encountered fairly early on and soon afterward started using the term to refer to Muslim people in general. I don't see how it is any worse than the Arabic world still calling the Crusaders and by extension any other western peoples seen to be improperly interfering in the middle east (especially Americans) "Franks."


I never heard the "not from Sarah" explanation before. Hagar is of course not the name of Abraham's other son, but of said son's mother.

Edit: from wikipedia, it seems it derived from the Arabic word for "easterners." I guess that wouldn't mean a specific Turkish group, although Turks would qualify as easterners.
 
Winner said:
On a side note, the Arabs Saracens called the European crusaders "Franks" regardless of their origin, if I am not mistaken.

Fancy that they were stereotyping!

MagisterCultuum said:
Edit: from wikipedia, it seems it derived from the Arabic word for "easterners." I guess that wouldn't mean a specific Turkish group, although Turks would qualify as easterners.

The term refers historically from my understanding almost exclusively to Arabs and not Turks. You also appear to have neglected the most useful bit "though the Oxford English Dictionary (s.v.) calls etymologies from this "not well founded". "
 
Calling it the "Saracen Caliphate" is basically the equivalent of naming South Africa "Niggerland." It was a very derogatory name for basically all Muslims. There's a BS explanation that it means "not from Sarah," since Arabs claim descendance from Hagar, Abraham's other son, but I think its bullcrap.

I would also take the time to rant further about layman's usage of "Caliphate" as some random catch-all term for an Arab or Muslim empire, but I'm in a rush, so I won't.

:lol:

1234567890
 
No, it isn't.

Well its the 1800's in the pic, and Caliphates mostly appeared during the Medieval and Renaissance periods. And according to Wikipedia, the last true Caliphate to exist was in the 13th century, and there is only one after if to claim to have a Caliph, but is considered to be a Shadow Caliphate (not really a true one) as their Caliphs were only there for religious leadership, not governmental. The rest that existed during the medieval age were eventually conquered by the Ottoman Empire (in which its leaders were called Sultans, and rarely Caliphs, so it really isn't a true Caliphate). So yes, 1825 is a little late to still have a Caliphate hanging around the Mediterranean.
 
Well its the 1800's in the pic, and Caliphates mostly appeared during the Medieval and Renaissance periods. And according to Wikipedia, the last true Caliphate to exist was in the 13th century, and there is only one after if to claim to have a Caliph, but is considered to be a Shadow Caliphate (not really a true one) as their Caliphs were only there for religious leadership, not governmental. The rest that existed during the medieval age were eventually conquered by the Ottoman Empire (in which its leaders were called Sultans, and rarely Caliphs, so it really isn't a true Caliphate). So yes, 1825 is a little late to still have a Caliphate hanging around the Mediterranean.
Yeah the idea here is that it's an alternate TL and that, theoretically, the separation of religious and secular authority wouldn't have happened in the manner it actually did. Further, I recall few qualms by the Ottoman Sultan in claiming the title of khalifa even before it was formally ceded to him after Selim Yavuz's conquest of the Mamluk Sultanate. So it's eminently reasonable for a khalifa to hold the reins of a Muslim government again, at least titularly, presuming a relatively early PoD; from the looks of what the Gothi didn't do, I suppose it's been a good 1400 years since said PoD...meaning modern limitations such as the relative nonexistence of the salafi ideological platform until the very late 18th century (and even then not widely) are really not applicable at all.
 
Well it is alternate reality, so whoever thinks it up can create whatever he or she wants. So I guess there is nothing wrong with a 19th century Caliphate with a derogatory name that happens to own N. Africa, Arabia, Italy and has a cross in the background of their map :D
 
I'm just not surprised, is all. Then again, it's kinda suspect that Islam formed with a PoD that far back, but everybody has their limits I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom