Altered maps VIII: World borders just got garbage-dayed

[sophie]

I still think "Cymru Newydd" sounds much better than boring old Quebec. Coincidentally the Welsh decided to be very unoriginal: Quebec in Welsh is Québec, despite the fact that you never really see a ue diphthong, and the fact that Q does not exist in Welsh

 

[W|M]

New Wales? I prefer Québec!

 

[Luckymoose]

Two maps yeah:

1942:

Spoiler :

1942: Alliance system on the brink of WW2.

Yellow: Allies led by Denmark
Red: Commitern led by Union of German Socialist Republics
Dark Green: Axis (Fascist Nations led by Leon and Russia)
Bright Green: Roman Defensive Pact
Black: Japanese Empire and Puppets
Blue: Islamic Alliance
Grey: Neutral

Spoiler :

 

[Mango Elephant]

Lots of medieval states or states derived from medieval states survived until WWI IRL.

Ok, I know this post is waaay to late, but

You're saying Denmark could've controlled England for close to a thousand years? I'm sorry, but that's sorta funny.

 

[madviking]

 

[Luckymoose]

Ok, I know this post is waaay to late, but

You're saying Denmark could've controlled England for close to a thousand years? I'm sorry, but that's sorta funny.

No less ridiculous than alot of things really. It all depends on how well you form the government.

 

[spryllino]

Lord of Elves: Every single border that is not on a river appears to be ridiculously smooth. I cannot see a single well-defined border on the map except for the river borders

For example, the border of Texas is wrong, and I wonder why it has changed like that; the border of Brazil needs some explaining: why is it so big? That Austria thing is practically square; the Italian border in the north is all curved, and therefore veers shy of the Alps. The border between Hungary and Poland looks like an arbitrary curve, as does the border between Alaska and Canada. Either draw a straight line or a topologically sensible border there. The border between Persia and Mesopotamia is fairly random too.

Also, you have boundaries along the Indus, the Loire, and the Elbe. These are valleys that are, and have always been, I think, the centres of cultures that have lived along both of them, and it makes no sense whatsoever to draw boundaries along those rivers. They do not form plausible natural boundaries for nation states. For example, just look at the Hundred Years War, and consider the fact that the Loire, despite being a huge river, did not at any point, IIRC, form the boundary between the English and the French. The fact is that these rivers are the centres, not the boundaries, of economic areas, and so they cannot conceivably be boundaries.

 

[Mango Elephant]

It all depends on how well you form the government.

So the only way Denmark could control England would be if Denmark gave all control to England. Or is there another way I'm missing?

 

[Luckymoose]

So the only way Denmark could control England would be if Denmark gave all control to England. Or is there another way I'm missing?

No? Empires controlled vast sways of land for hundreds of years far away. A good outcome to Cnut could have stabilized England under Danish rule. A couple hundred years of consolidating and the place is practically Denmark.

 

[Mango Elephant]

No? Empires controlled vast sways of land for hundreds of years far away. A good outcome to Cnut could have stabilized England under Danish rule. A couple hundred years of consolidating and the place is practically Denmark.

Well, I suppose this is your altered map or whatever so you can do whatever you want. Let the whole world be Danish!

 

[Lord of Elves]

Lord of Elves: Every single border that is not on a river appears to be ridiculously smooth. I cannot see a single well-defined border on the map except for the river borders

For example, the border of Texas is wrong, and I wonder why it has changed like that; the border of Brazil needs some explaining: why is it so big? That Austria thing is practically square; the Italian border in the north is all curved, and therefore veers shy of the Alps. The border between Hungary and Poland looks like an arbitrary curve, as does the border between Alaska and Canada. Either draw a straight line or a topologically sensible border there. The border between Persia and Mesopotamia is fairly random too.

Also, you have boundaries along the Indus, the Loire, and the Elbe. These are valleys that are, and have always been, I think, the centres of cultures that have lived along both of them, and it makes no sense whatsoever to draw boundaries along those rivers. They do not form plausible natural boundaries for nation states. For example, just look at the Hundred Years War, and consider the fact that the Loire, despite being a huge river, did not at any point, IIRC, form the boundary between the English and the French. The fact is that these rivers are the centres, not the boundaries, of economic areas, and so they cannot conceivably be boundaries.

Alright, thanks. When you say better-defined, do you mean use a larger brush so that the borders are more noticable on the map?

In regards to Portugal, you are correct, I misinterpreted the definition of the term "personal union".

 

[gangleri2001]

I still think "Cymru Newydd" sounds much better than boring old Quebec. Coincidentally the Welsh decided to be very unoriginal: Quebec in Welsh is Québec, despite the fact that you never really see a ue diphthong, and the fact that Q does not exist in Welsh

Do you speak welsh?

 

[Luckymoose]

Well, I suppose this is your altered map or whatever so you can do whatever you want. Let the whole world be Danish!

It's really not that unfeasible. Why the hate of Denmark? I think you just lack understanding of just how crappy England was at the time and how awesome Denmark always is.

 

[Mango Elephant]

It's really not that unfeasible. Why the hate of Denmark? I think you just lack understanding of just how crappy England was at the time and how awesome Denmark always is.

It just seems really weird. A thousand years. A thousand years of England being controlled by Denmark. It's that weird? Of course it's unfeasible. I don't know any empire that has held a piece of foreign land for that long that's so far away and that isn't their culture entirely. Wouldn't the English be tired of their government being based in Denmark? And it's not like England is a depressed land that doesn't have any people in it, Nowadays it has more than 40 million people in it while Denmark has less than 5.

Like I said, it's your map so I really don't care, but it couldn't happen in the real world.

 

[spryllino]

I mean, by better defined, that borders should not be curvy or straight, but sort of wiggly so they actually look like real borders. This is best achieved by zooming in and redoing the borders, pixel by pixel, and actually trying to match the borders of real-life provinces as far as possible.

In other words, you should look at a map of Texas, find the border, and then copy it precisely onto your map, and failing that, you should draw practically anything in preference to an arbitrarily smooth border. You should find the Italian border on a map, and copy that precisely too, and probably copy and paste it directly onto your map, from one of the many existing maps of the world on these forums, such as the political map of the modern world on the first post of the NESing Maps thread. If that border is wrong for your timeline, then you should edit it so that it is more appropriate, but you should get the basic shape of the border right before you draw in your timeline's version of it.

 

[Luckymoose]

It just seems really weird. A thousand years. A thousand years of England being controlled by Denmark. It's that weird? Of course it's unfeasible. I don't know any empire that has held a piece of foreign land for that long that's so far away and that isn't their culture entirely. Wouldn't the English be tired of their government being based in Denmark? And it's not like England is a depressed land that doesn't have any people in it, Nowadays it has more than 40 million people in it while Denmark has less than 5.

Like I said, it's your map so I really don't care, but it couldn't happen in the real world.

You're not seeing the big picture. Comparing this England with our England is wrong. Totally different. They wouldn't get tired of it because they wouldn't identify as English, they would be Danish. They would speak Danish and be tied to Denmark/Norway economically. The North Sea is not that large. Especially for an uncontested naval power. Back then the populations were no where near as lopsided. If the Romans could hold the majority of the known world for hundreds of years I really see no issue in doing something that was happening in OTL and extending it. The Danes were rather popular anyway so it wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Arakhor]

I think you just lack understanding of just how crappy England was at the time and how awesome Denmark always is.

Define "crappy". England under Edward the Confessor was one of the wealthiest, most modern countries in Europe at the time. Are you really suggesting that in the 50 years between Cnut's empire and Edward's death, England went from "crappy" to pretty damn awesome?

 

[Luckymoose]

Define "crappy". England under Edward the Confessor was one of the wealthiest, most modern countries in Europe at the time. Are you really suggesting that in the 50 years between Cnut's empire and Edward's death, England went from "crappy" to pretty damn awesome?

Yes.

 

[Traitorfish]

You're not seeing the big picture. Comparing this England with our England is wrong. Totally different. They wouldn't get tired of it because they wouldn't identify as English, they would be Danish. They would speak Danish and be tied to Denmark/Norway economically. The North Sea is not that large. Especially for an uncontested naval power. Back then the populations were no where near as lopsided. If the Romans could hold the majority of the known world for hundreds of years I really see no issue in doing something that was happening in OTL and extending it. The Danes were rather popular anyway so it wouldn't be an issue.

But England had a rather greater economic and cultural influence than Denmark, even when it was actually ruled by it- I'm lead to understand that Cnut actually treated England as his primary kingdom, and his Scandinavian kingdoms- all of which where relatively poor until the late 19th century in our timeline- rather as the Stewarts treated Scotland. Don't forget, by 1066 half the English aristocracy was of Danish extraction as it was, and they had still come to think of themselves as English first and foremost.

 

[Arakhor]

Yes.

Just checking.