Base Maps from 550 BC to Modern Day, all in UCS!

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Just a question (as everything look fine) why did you reverted the changes made to North America. Regarding the convention, we have now rebels against the wilderness.

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

It's the generic 'multiple states of the same cultural area with unknown/undrawable borders.'

However, it should be 240,240,240 which is a lighter grey than the rebel colour. Have you got the right shade WB?

If so I might sort out darkening the rebel shade.

It was my understanding that the generic 'multiple statelets of the same culture with unknown/undrawable borders' uses the darker grey I have featured there; which I'll note is still a different shade than the rebellion color. I used RGB 192/192/192 for the cultures, and 216/216/216 for rebellions. Also note the differences in the 1500 map between the cultural areas and nearby states (e.g. the Tarascan and the Chichimeca, the Muisca and the Tairona, or the Mossi and the Akan).

EDIT: Upon further review some slight corrections were needed to the 1560 map in regards to the above, to show the difference clearly.

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

It was my understanding that the generic 'multiple statelets of the same culture with unknown/undrawable borders' uses the darker grey I have featured there; which I'll note is still a different shade than the rebellion color. I used RGB 192/192/192 for the cultures, and 216/216/216 for rebellions. Also note the differences in the 1500 map between the cultural areas and nearby states (e.g. the Tarascan and the Chichimeca, the Muisca and the Tairona, or the Mossi and the Akan).

EDIT: Upon further review some slight corrections were needed to the 1560 map in regards to the above, to show the difference clearly.

The key's got 240,240,240. Would it be worth doing a quick test to see which works better?

[LSCatilina]

Just going back again on this : what about unsticking this thread in order to avoid use of too out of date maps, while keeping its use as a working thread?

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Just going back again on this : what about unsticking this thread in order to avoid use of too out of date maps, while keeping its use as a working thread?

Pm a mod, I guess. It makes sense to me; this thread gets updated often enough that it should stay near the top anyway, and those who frequent it should be able to find it pretty easily enough anyway.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

The key's got 240,240,240. Would it be worth doing a quick test to see which works better?

The latest scheme I've seen uses 240/240/240 for generic states, and 216/216/216 for rebellions (with 170/172/170 for the borders of rebellions when applicable); though its been quite a while since we've had an official update (hint-hint). I simply took the values of the cultures from the maps that were being posted when we worked out the 'statelets within cultural borders' convention - its the same color that has been used for the disunited Mongols & Japanese for quite some time, afaik.

IMHO its useful to have a different color for generic states and one for statelets within the same culture, as the colors for an international border (black), and one for an unknown/undefined border; as used by cultures (75/64/41), is fairly impossible to tell apart from a glance, especially considering we're talking about pixel width borders. The difference in in colors help to emphasize that the Mississippians, for example, aren't one huge empire.

[Basileus Giorgios]

Okay, here's a patch for 1500, showing English Calais and an attempt at showing Wales as it was, divided between the domain of the Principality (partially autonomous, especially in law, but under the English Crown), and those areas properly considered "English". I've probably made a mess of this, so others should feel free to mop up!

[Basileus Giorgios]

And here's a map of the Byzantine Empire somewhere around the year 1050.

[Dangimill]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

1600 corrected with Iberic Union, France (Bourbon states? In 1600?), Personal union France/Navarre-Bearn, Italy.

Nope, I haven't finished the 1600 map yet. Is that what the Iberian Union should look like? I think it would be more logical to show somehow which vice-royalties control what.

EDIT: Here's a WIP of 1600. Forgive the abhorrent coloring in the Iberian Union: I' still trying to figure out what's going on with the vicreoyal councils.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by Basileus Giorgios

And here's a map of the Byzantine Empire somewhere around the year 1050.

On what did you base those borders? If it is one of the Times History atlases (because the patch above greatly reminds of the borders found there) it is wrong especially on the western end.

Byzantine Empire never controled the land between the Sava and Drava rivers outside sporadic control of the Sr(ij)em/Syrmia region. Also Istra was frimly in HRE control and Venetia (as a vassal) if that what this map is showing did not come into possession of the first coastal tiwns until the 13th century.

Showing Duklja/Doclea as a vassal is ok, but by 1050 Croatia was fighting wars against Byzantine towns along the coast. There was a shord period when Croatia had been a Byzantine vassal. It was following the civil war at the turn of the 11th century. In 1018 Basil II presided over peace agrement between Croatia, Venetia and Dalmatian towns and following that agrement the Imperial records considered Croatia a vassal of the Empire. It is still questionable considering how Byzantines treated other states what was the exact form of vassalage. But when a Byzantine general abducted the wife of the King of Croatia and took her to Constantinople the situation was on an edge and the following year the tribute failed to arrive to Constantinople and was never again resumed, these events took place in 1024/25. So Croatia as a Byzantine vassal can only be considered between 1018 and 1025.

Cheers

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by Dangimill

Nope, I haven't finished the 1600 map yet. Is that what the Iberian Union should look like? I think it would be more logical to show somehow which vice-royalties control what.

EDIT: Here's a WIP of 1600. Forgive the abhorrent coloring in the Iberian Union: I' still trying to figure out what's going on with the vicreoyal councils.

I don't think it's really correct to show the Viceroyalties as Spanish Dominions, though I could be wrong.

[wolf_brother]

1600 needs the Americas and Africa updated. Some missing states/cultures, some that shouldn't be there, and some that should be drastically altered. I'll try to get around to it today or tomorrow, but if anyone else wants to step in please do so.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

I don't think it's really correct to show the Viceroyalties as Spanish Dominions, though I could be wrong.

Regarding the reality, and not the juridic situation, you could show both colonies AND kingdoms with spanish colors.

Aragon and Navarra AND Portugal were totally under castillan administration. And for Grenada, it shouldn't be any kingdom there.

Furthermore, why did you revert the changes made to Italy? Tuscany had really weird looking border there.

[Alex Richards]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Regarding the reality, and not the juridic situation, you could show both colonies AND kingdoms with spanish colors.

Aragon and Navarra AND Portugal were totally under castillan administration. And for Grenada, it shouldn't be any kingdom there.

Furthermore, why did you revert the changes made to Italy? Tuscany had really weird looking border there.

In which case, flip it the other way round. Grenada gets merged with Castille, Aragon, Portugal and the Viceroyalties get outline in the national colour and infilling with Castille/Spain.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

In which case, flip it the other way round. Grenada gets merged with Castille, Aragon, Portugal and the Viceroyalties get outline in the national colour and infilling with Castille/Spain.

Aragon and Portugal with an outline would mean they have had last an independent administration submitted to Castile and they didn't had even that in reality, which is one of the reason of Portugal's revolts (or Aragon's revolts), except if we consider juridic existance as real one.

EDIT : Also, I removed Spain's suzerainty on its own dominion. Dominion colour implies suzerainty.

RE-EDIT : I also changed coulours of inner romanian borders into princeley states. Probably what you wanted to show, but using the wrong colour that is not used in RCS I think.

[Marko]

Trasylvania should be shown as separate from Moldavia and Walachia since it was legaly an Ottoman supported successor of Hungary ruled by a local based Hungarian family.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Marko

Trasylvania should be shown as separate from Moldavia and Walachia since it was legaly an Ottoman supported successor of Hungary ruled by a local based Hungarian family.

Didn't Michael the brave just took over all rumanian principalities in 1600?

[Marko]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Didn't Michael the brave just took over all rumanian principalities in 1600?

You are right he did hold the title and land from 1599. to 1600. but not as part of some kind of a joint dominion with his other posessions but rather as a Habsburg governor of the region, so I would still chose to show all three principalities as separate entities ruled by a single person with Wallachia and Moldavia shown as Ottoman vassals and Transylvania shown as Habsburg vassal.

Rather complex as almost everything is east of Vienna

[Beedok]

There are a few reservoirs on that 1600 map.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by Marko

Rather complex as almost everything is east of Vienna

Indeed. Could you make the change, as you're propably more able than me to correct that?
That said, I'm going to heal the headache these explanation just gave me

[Dangimill]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Aragon and Portugal with an outline would mean they have had last an independent administration submitted to Castile and they didn't had even that in reality, which is one of the reason of Portugal's revolts (or Aragon's revolts), except if we consider juridic existance as real one.

EDIT : Also, I removed Spain's suzerainty on its own dominion. Dominion colour implies suzerainty.

RE-EDIT : I also changed coulours of inner romanian borders into princeley states. Probably what you wanted to show, but using the wrong colour that is not used in RCS I think.

Thanks for taking the initiative and providing your expertise with Spanish history. I'll be working on the Russian borders next, and I think someone should take a look at Southeast Asia.