There is no over dedication of detail to Africa in this map.
I notice you didn't copy/paste Ireland close to the most problematic regions. As in Great Lakes and central Nigeria : there we have 2/3 pixels representing one entity. Several of these regions have represented identities being smaller than it.
(And of course, way smaller than other political ensembles covering statelets, Ireland being among the smallest with Wales)
Please note that I didn't said there was an "overdedication of detail to Africa". I can safely said that I tried giving maps I did as much information on African states I could find, arguing of the necessity to use new colours to better represent their importance, so I'd be pleased if you don't put this in my mouth.
Within the same map India is given even more detail.
To be really frank, the "But someone did it first" doesn't strikes me as the best defense (and how India is represented, is largely coming from other maps rather than AR's specific work).
All over the planet in all kinda of time periods features and even states that have so little importance or are distinguished in no significant way are rendered even when they're smaller than a pixel.
Yes, when it doesn't really harm the reading and the clarity of a map : it's why, in several cases, I simply get rid of some stuff like 2/3 entities that gave few informations and prevented an easier reading of the general situation.
There's no reason why something like the single pixel scale divisions of the German empire or British India should be depicted when the relatively large divisions in Africa would not be.
Giving that I think we shouldn't dedicate too much room for anything one pixel-wide in German Empire (it's not like depicting its divisions is really sound geopolitically) or British India (the degree if information about several individual pocket-princely states being dangerously close to 0)...
I remember having been criticized for not representating every federal entity in US, even when it made no real geopolitical sense doing so : the whole "we do so for Europeans" doesn't really have a big weight for me. If something I think we should do less for European/American states, and get really relaxed on many inner borders for what matter worlda, unless it implies an important change from political norm (such as territories, for exemple)
And applying a different standard depending on the time period is definitely not something desirable in my opinion.
As it would mean geopolitical matters and definition never ever changed during millenias I completly disagree with you : of course these are more of a matter about cultural/political conceptions than time period, but it would be hugely confusing using two or more different legend standards on a same map (I think it was Hastur arguing using an equivalent of aRCS for some regions even after 1648, but it would be a nightmare to implement, without really solving the issue).
The continent itself suffers no lack of clarity except for possibly the Wolof States, but that is more down to their actual shape, the way they have to be depicted and the intrusions of colonial powers.
Unless Alex Richards is being deliberately misleading then I think he's figured out that there is enough geopolitical reason not to conglomerate them.
An historical map isn't about depicting the exact situation, but giving an as best interpretation of the former you can give giving the sources and the representation material.
There's, it's not about sources (I'm sure AR did his job), but about the scale of the map which is really reduced : would have the basemap be a Q-BAM, it wouldn't have been a problem.
We're talking about how depicting really small states on a worlda without loosing too much readability, not about the "right" of a political entity to be represented in all its particularities no matter the context.
It's why "statelets" colour is a thing since quite a time. Because it definitely helps when borders are either unknown or unclear when it come to depict them at this scale; and it's why we use different scales : small ones are good for general context, larger ones are good for particular context.
If there is then it would definitely be on a state by state basis, and you'd have to counter him on his specific choices, not a large premise.
I disagree : again, I changed borders made by AR's maps on ulterior correction NOT because they were incorrect, but because they provided too few worthy informations for the absence of clarity that their depiction
Clarity isn't something accessory : it's a basic carthographical principle.
Nobody was or is required to have special knowledge on an era or region to point and ask if it couldn't be made otherwise (or at least, I don't remember it being argued there)
I just said that the Great Lakes region could use simplification (which is AGAIN, not about saying it WAS simple, but about being able to tell what's going on there), and I ask if the geopolitical situation there couldn't lead to gather these political entities, because of a principle of as much clarity you can get without getting rid of too much information.
Do you think that when the mapmaker get to sources and is honest ("unless you think he's deliberately misleading us" is just plain stupid, to be polite, even for being snarky for the sake of it*) it means they can't be criticized about representating what he gathered?
I know that it happen a lot of time for me, hence why I go back to maps regularly to correct and if possible simplify them (some were nightmarish, especially the 1115) : it's not about AR being personally wrong, it's about (using similar tools, and having each other commenting our maps) knowing that it's something everyone can fall into. Basically why it's a collaborative thread.
*Let's be clear : I don't take very well any insinuation that I would consider AR (someone with I had nothing but most cordial exchanges when it came to map and map criticism) as a liar or a fraud.
Now, case by case?
Keeping in mind using different borders for inner politics (as with Waddai and states under its direct dominance).
90 to 93 seems to be either close, if not issued from 91 culturally and politically. While Bunyoro-Kitara Empire may be only a mythological reference, that it's known in both sides of Great Lakes kingdom may at least be considered as the sense of a political/cultural continuity. And eventually ground to consider these kingdoms close enough for being gathered in a statelet group on worlda scale to me.
Sokoto case is a bit harder, and AR's points are sound. Nevertheless, I'm not sure representing each border of these entities (whom main common point is to be associated, more or less, with Sokoto) and vague enough to have AR not being entierly sure of their characteristics (up to their name) is that a of a good idea.
I understand we're facing a structural limitation there, as gathering them all could make a confusion with "one big Sokoto client" instead of a large set of statelets with various degrees of independence. That's what you get applying Westphalian definition of sovereignty to regions where it can't really be applied.
But, why not playing on borders there? As in plain border for the whole of Sokoto "confederation" (including northern states) but using inner political borders (and colouring differently the regions, as letting "northern caliphate" blank)?
I reckon it would still let the problem of lumping together different entities, but we actually did so for medieval France, giving the lack of choice (clarity trumping exactitude) : eventually the best choice would be to lumping them there, and distinguish them on Q-BAM, to me.
As for Wolof states...I wonder if it wouldn't be more clear without colour, to be honest.
