Altered Maps 4: Partitioning Eastern Europe Like In The Good Old Days
- Thread starter holy king
- Start date
- Status
holy king
Deity
no data available, it seems.
gangleri2001
Garbage day!!!
Alaska inside the other continental states:
From Charleston to San Francisco!
Edition:
I LOVE YOU!!!!!
From Charleston to San Francisco!
Edition:
While I'm here, I have a treat for Gangleri from my story:
Spoiler :
I LOVE YOU!!!!!
Alaska inside the other continental states:
From Charleston to San Francisco!
I do not acknowledge any islands past New Mexico as part of the Aleutians. Every time there is a map of the Continental U.S., and it shows Alaska in a box by itself, it cuts it off at that point.
Federal Law or an amendment to the constitution might have legalized it everywhere.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Spoiler :
After a day of research, I have finished a map of the world in 1700.
Though, I am sure that I am missing several Kingdoms of the Congo and West Africa. The lack of any information led me to have wide spaces of nothing in Myanmar. If someone can give me information, I'll add it.
I reformed French, Spanish and Portuguese colonial borders of the Americas to areas that they actually control, as in "Areas of influence, Forts and Factories" don't count. It must be a permanent settlement of at least a few hundred people or large control of the native population (Like cossacks in Siberia).
For some borders (Americas, Central Asia), I have slightly exaggerate the borders to make it more uh.. pretty.
Anyway, Countries on the map
Europe:
Spoiler :
Asia
Spoiler :
Africa
Spoiler :
Americas
Spoiler :
Others
Tui Tonga Empire
Have fun folks
Mowque
Hypermodernist
This is OTL?
PiMan
Deity
Alaska inside the other continental states:
From Charleston to San Francisco!
Meh, Australia's largest state is the size of Alaska, Texas and California combined. Our second largest state is also slightly bigger than Alaska.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
aronnax, northern Italy is wrong. Other borders are poorly drawn; you could have probably stolen them off of NES maps. I know I've made a better border for the eastern Holy Roman Empire.
kangaru, why the Byzantine Empire would fail to keep Syria and the Levant and instead go after useless North African and colonial territory is beyond me. Basically your map makes no sense in that regard
kangaru, why the Byzantine Empire would fail to keep Syria and the Levant and instead go after useless North African and colonial territory is beyond me. Basically your map makes no sense in that regard
Nylan
Characters Welcome
It's actually easier to guess Spanish words than German, or at least it always was for me.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
You sure you aren't exaggerating the borders in the Americas to much?
For example, one eye catching thing is how much Portuguese Colonization of Brazil goes so far inland into the rainforest.
For example, one eye catching thing is how much Portuguese Colonization of Brazil goes so far inland into the rainforest.
Jan H
Prince
The border between the Northern en Southern/Spanish Netherlands doesn't seem to be correct. The Bishopric of Liege was not part of the Spanish Netherlands. It was part of the HRE. Also the borders around Maastricht are not correct. I think you just used the current borders of the Netherlands? They were only formed after the Belgian revolution in 1830-1839
Oh, and your lucky that the map is from 1700, because in 1701 the Spanish Netherlands became the Austrian Netherlands
For the rest: nice job!
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
http://www.euratlas.com/big/europe_1700.jpg
Well I based it off this. But Im sure my borders of the innard state is wrong. As well as Savoy. Can you edit it for me then? The Eastern Border? But I didn't steal this from other NES maps. Which borders? Can you tell me? I want to improve this map as much as possible.
I remember something about the Portuguese using the Amazon River as part of their trade routes rather heavily into the Amazon inner regions to their trading post. That to me feels like economic domination (Being the only ones there) just like the Russian Cossacks. Also by 1726, the Portuguese settled in Mato Grosso which leads me to infer that there was heavy activity in the 1700s already. Though I would not mind if you edit the map into what you think is the deepest penetration
The border between the Northern en Southern/Spanish Netherlands doesn't seem to be correct. The Bishopric of Liege was not part of the Spanish Netherlands. It was part of the HRE. Also the borders around Maastricht are not correct. I think you just used the current borders of the Netherlands? They were only formed after the Belgian revolution in 1830-1839
Oh, and your lucky that the map is from 1700, because in 1701 the Spanish Netherlands became the Austrian Netherlands
For the rest: nice job!
Yes Liege... I forgot that. And yes you are right about Masstricht.. Can't fool any of you guys. =p Anything else?
The Byzantines would have a better navy in this TL.
See above. Almost complete naval supremacy in the Mediterranean (you see Venice does not exist in the map).
Winner said:
Neither did the English, French, Portuguese, Dutch, etc.
kangaru, why the Byzantine Empire would fail to keep Syria and the Levant and instead go after useless North African and colonial territory is beyond me. Basically your map makes no sense in that regard
Strong Arab state blocking the way. The Byzantines had attempted to take Syria but that ended after their defeat in 1683 in the Battle of Damascus.
My maps don't usually have much in the way of plausibility.
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
But of course!
I may have formed Spain later on in the game, but at least feel comfort in the knowledge this union is dominated by Aragón, rather than Castilla(unfortunately, I do not know Catalan and thus have to settle for using Castilian in the story. 
)!My maps don't usually have much in the way of plausibility.
I see you and I share a similar desire for fun in making our maps rather than plausibility. As I say to history fanatics - though I love history myself - when they complain about unrealistic things such as rampant conquest in games like Europa Universalis, "If you want history and realism, go read a textbook. Or the thousands of books written on it. Meanwhile, I want to enjoy my game, mmkay? And I enjoy it by beating every great conqueror from Cyrus to Timur... world domination in the 1500s, baby!"
kangaru's map isn't based off a game, Tanicius.
- it doesn't make sense for the Byzantines to be able to hold the parts of Kurdistan that they do control without being able to take Antioch and the Syrian coast, especially with that allegedly stronger navy. Borders shouldn't be based on the modern ones, but more natural things. Take a gander at the Byzantine eastern borders from Tzimiskes to Zoe if you want to see what I mean.
Sure, I'll do something, probably going to be copypasta from the St.NES map that I made most of. I have four hours before class that I have to kill somehow, and I'm just about sick of reading about and playing as Greeks, Macedonians, and Germans for the time being.
Well even if that strong Arab state is blocking the way - for centuries, though?Strong Arab state blocking the way. The Byzantines had attempted to take Syria but that ended after their defeat in 1683 in the Battle of Damascus.
My maps don't usually have much in the way of plausibility.
- it doesn't make sense for the Byzantines to be able to hold the parts of Kurdistan that they do control without being able to take Antioch and the Syrian coast, especially with that allegedly stronger navy. Borders shouldn't be based on the modern ones, but more natural things. Take a gander at the Byzantine eastern borders from Tzimiskes to Zoe if you want to see what I mean.
As I say to history fanatics - though I love history myself - when they complain about unrealistic things such as rampant conquest in games like Europa Universalis, "If you want history and realism, go read a textbook. Or the thousands of books written on it. Meanwhile, I want to enjoy my game, mmkay? And I enjoy it by beating every great conqueror from Cyrus to Timur... world domination in the 1500s, baby!"
That's why I stopped going to althist.com - too many users essentially say, "That's impossible! It never would've happened because X didn't do/think Y, and because X didn't do/think Y, it didn't happen, therefore, it never would've happened!
". Kind of defeats the purpose of Alternate History. 
BTW, ever finish that Great North American War series of posts from the other thread? Interesting read. I wanna find out if 'Canada' and the south are going to form a North American empire. Anyway, a map of Asia (and then some) -
Tani Coyote
Son of Huehuecoyotl
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 15,195
I'm well aware!
I was just taking an opportunity to make a jab at plausibility/historicity enthusiasts. My friend once said, on the topic of Magna Mundi, "Historicalness > mad conquest." Oh. The fun we had. I made sure to use what I said about reading a textbook rather than playing a game if one wants history involved.- Status
Similar threads
