DBWI Question: I found this bizarre map

[Deleted member 93645]

Moctezuma's nuts.There's no way Britain could ever be a breadbasket of an empire.Besides,Operation Sea Lion was no where close to being successful as you have mentioned.How many times do we have to debate about this?There's a whole glossary pinpointed by the mods on this subject regarding why it's ASB.

Was crossing the Atlantic to invade Albion a crazy idea? Yes.

But the Aztecs were the greatest industrial power in the world. If Moctezuma XXVI didn't invade the Apache Confederacy and the Inca Empire at the same time, creating a two-front war, then he could have spent those resources on building a more capable Aztec navy. And that navy would have been big enough to establish a foothold in Ireland, from which Operation Sea Lion would have been not only possible, but a decisive Nahua victory.

I mean, it's not like land-based powers haven't successfully done amphibious invasions before. Just look at the Mongol conquest of Japan, or the Vietnamese conquest of Indonesia. Did they get lucky? Sure. Doesn't mean that their victory was "unlikely". If the Mongols failed to take Japan the first time, they would have tried again and succeeded, barring some ASB "divine wind" type scenario like in that awful TL where Japan invades China, Malaya, and Hawaii.

 

[fluttersky]

Here's a suggestion: it's an Indian-British dynastic union.

Agreed, it's the only logical explanation.

The map shows that Canada is a part of this *empire, and has a long straight-line border; this means that it was almost certainly a colony of this Empire rather than its origin.

If this empire is based out of somewhere like Egypt or India, I can't imagine why they would choose to colonize such an out-of-the-way part of the Canadian hinterland. (and, to a lesser extent, colonization of Albion also seems a bit pointless). The only realistic explanation is that Albion is quite an important part of this empire, probably one of its centers.

On the other hand, Albion obviously can't be this empire's sole center, as they wouldn't be able to hold down the Indian subcontinent and that much of Africa.

How about this:

Albion somehow unites into a relatively powerful kingdom, with a few overseas colonies (maybe they'd be able to colonize the eastern coast of Canada, as well as Vinland)

Meanwhile, a powerful ruler goes about uniting India.

Now, Albion and India need to unite; why would they do so? As a guess: shared religion would help. So, let's say that by some quirk of fate Albion and India are the only two major states in the world that are ruled by Shia Muslim dynasties. The Queen of Albion and the Emperor of India wed, thus entering the two countries in a personal union forever.

Such a country would probably be powerful enough to be able to control the areas shown on this map; the fact that they're a multiethnic and multicultural empire would help encourage the African territories to accept being a part of this empire.

Quite an interesting map, if not particularly plausible.

 

[Saphroneth]

Was crossing the Atlantic to invade Albion a crazy idea? Yes.

But the Aztecs were the greatest industrial power in the world. If Moctezuma XXVI didn't invade the Apache Confederacy and the Inca Empire at the same time, creating a two-front war, then he could have spent those resources on building a more capable Aztec navy. And that navy would have been big enough to establish a foothold in Ireland, from which Operation Sea Lion would have been not only possible, but a decisive Nahua victory.

I mean, it's not like land-based powers haven't successfully done amphibious invasions before. Just look at the Mongol conquest of Japan, or the Vietnamese conquest of Indonesia. Did they get lucky? Sure. Doesn't mean that their victory was "unlikely". If the Mongols failed to take Japan the first time, they would have tried again and succeeded, barring some ASB "divine wind" type scenario like in that awful TL where Japan invades China, Malaya, and Hawaii.

This is getting off topic, please stick to the OP.
There's a forum for those questions, this isn't it.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

I would agree if only the North American territory borders the Aztec Empire,but it's not.This Empire's north American territory's centered mostly on wasteland,so it couldn't support a lot of people.

I dunno. I'm speculating here, of course, but a lot of that wasteland is arable. It is probable that settlement began on the Atlantic coastline then worked south of the inland lakes before spreading west.

Probably some sort of pressure from a more southerly civilization forced them north to the area shown on the map. I would guess that either the southern civilization thought that this pushed the northerners back far enough to be no problem or that the southerners reached the end of their rope as far as resources to pursue/remove them. That left a lot of agricultural land but seems to have removed most of the waterpower resources and possible, later, coal reserves from this northern civilization. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, that would have left a lot of people with a lot of excess food to trade. No one else in the hemisphere would have been much of a market. That would explain the Caribbean/South American colonies. That odd European island group might have been an early transoceanic market (but what that collection of soggy rocks in the North Sea would have supplied, God only knows).

There was probably a period of stalemate that left the north/south divide to become the new normal (as mentioned above, that long, straight border in the west just screams "fortified"-though that fortification could be little more than a fence line with watchtowers). I would further speculate that this mystery southern civilization withdrew their threat but not as a result of the northern civilization. This would suggest that the southern withdrawal was after a period of time that the northerners had accepted the border as the de facto boundary. Either the southern civilization was a transitory, short term threat (maybe something like the short lived Swedish Empire) or a longer term threat that eventually declined (possibly this civilization extended far enough south to have crossed paths/swords with the Aztec Empire?).

I'd say that either because of a reluctance to re-open hostilities (especially if the southerners remained as some sort of buffer from more distant threats), the northerners moved to the seas for trade/conquest/colonization. The rest, as the map seems to say...is history.

 

[Shiva]

Maybe it's not an Empire but an alliance, like in history classes when they have maps showing who was allied with who in the First, Second, and Third Global Wars.

Since it's red and a lot of the borders are unusually neat maybe this is a pre 'First Global War' map of an alt timeline showing the Communitarian Alliance (or a version of it).

Granted it's weird that France isn't red but Britain is, but that's alternate history for you.

Maybe there's other maps wherever you found this showing the other alliances, like a map marked with blue nations would be the 'Authoritarians Bloc', or the yellow marked map would represent the 'Asian Axis', etc, etc.

 

[Avrorrange]

I dunno. I'm speculating here, of course, but a lot of that wasteland is arable. It is probable that settlement began on the Atlantic coastline then worked south of the inland lakes before spreading west.

Probably some sort of pressure from a more southerly civilization forced them north to the area shown on the map. I would guess that either the southern civilization either thought that this pushed the northerners back far enough to be no problem or that the southerners reached the end of their rope as far a resources to pursue/remove them. That left a lot of agricultural land left but seems to have removed most of the waterpower resources and possible, later, coal reserves from this northern civilization. With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, that would have left a lot of people with a lot of excess food to trade. No one else in the hemisphere would have been much of a market. That would explain the Caribbean/South American colonies. That odd European island group might have been an early transoceanic market (but what that collection of soggy rocks in the North Sea would have supplied, God only knows).

There was probably a period of stalemate that left the north/south divide to become the new normal (as mentioned above, that long, straight border in the west just screams "fortified"-though that fortification could be little more than a fence line with watchtowers. I would further speculate that this mystery southern civilization withdrew their threat but not as a result of the northern civilization. This would suggest that the southern withdrawal was after a period of time that the northerners had accepted the border as the de facto boundary. Either the southern civilization was a transitory, short term threat (maybe something like the short lived Swedish Empire) or a longer term threat that eventually declined (possibly this civilization extended far enough south to have crossed paths/swords with the Aztec Empire?).

I'd say that either because of a reluctance to re-open hostilities (especially if the southerners remained as some sort of buffer from more distant threats), the northerners moved to the seas for trade/conquest/colonization. The rest, as the map seems to say...is history.

A lot of it's wilderness or arctic.It's also far too up the north and too cold for the arable land to be as productive as land south around the Misiziibi River.The fact that the border with the country south of the North American territory is almost a straight line,I would suggest that this territory is colonial territory.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Most European countries do require a permit because it's native to the region and therefore conserved but in places where it was introduced by traders the same restrictions don't apply.

I have to say I visited Guyana recently and it's astonishing how well they flourish over there considering the wildly different climate.

The ones introduced to the south atlantic islands must be a bit sad, though.

This thread should probably be moved to chat in that case.

Agreed. I'll PM a mod.

Anyway, a lot of people in this sub forum are not pro hunting so probably should be a little sensitive to their needs.

 

[The Knight]

From this map I can't determine where the centre of this empire is but I would guess the indian Ocean somewhere. But I have determined some things.
This is a trade empire. A lot of it is on trade routes. Even the little islands in the mediterranian suggest some kind of trade route through that sea.
They certainly faced some pretty powerful rivals which explains some of the unusual colonies. The British Isles lookes like an attempt to get into Europe after the mediterranian coast was blocked. Canada looks like a failed attempt to outflank a southern power and get into the praries, Or to avoid being outflanked, in what became a race for the Pacific.
One curious point. The African colonies seem to have a lot of internal borders the sub continent however as none. I wonder why.
I would love to see a map showing the territory of their rival or rivals.

 

[WeissRaben]

Hey guys, crazy ASB idea here. But maybe it's an uh, Albionic Empire? Eh? Eh?

...it's not impossible - I might be wrong, but Albion is stupidly rich in good coal, which would make it an ideal cradle for industrialization... as long as the foundations are there. OTL, they very much weren't, and I struggle to find a way to build them. Maybe some kind of merchant republic fostering trade through the Atlantic? Trading colonialism isn't anything unknown, and it could have given birth to a merchant class and eventually protocapitalism. Being an island sure would encourage a strong navy (and it did, OTL, until the deals with Alba broke and they had very real enemies who needed no ships to invade).

All in all, it requires a PoD that goes back, like. Waaay back. Plus a lot of things going in this nation's favor. Hard to tell if it's ASB, without the whole story.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

May not be a empire or other political entity at all. Could be a suggested demographic illustration. ie: distribution of a gentic marker. Or perhaps where a type of religious preference exists? Or nations using a similar economic policy? The commonality may not even be concurrent, some areas having the trait earlier & other later?

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

A lot of it's wilderness or arctic.It's also far too up the north and too cold for the arable land to be as productive as land south around the Misiziibi River.The fact that the border with the country south of the North American territory is almost a straight line,I would suggest that this territory is colonial territory.

A good point, and sound reasoning. Yet, I wonder, why would anyone colonize the whole of that area up to the Arctic Circle for the few hundred mile strip of arable land that would support a population? And, with the size of the population that land could support, why not push further south? And pushing further south just leads to more resources, which supports a larger population, etc. Now, it could be that these lands were originally populated by tribes of proto-Sioux peoples that eventually developed a separate identity after the Great Dispersion in the wake of the Aztec Wars and Cherokee Conquest but that seems too recent to have otherwise escaped from historical notice. IMHO, the most likely possibility is some tribe(s) from the Confederacy of the Seven Nations wandering west on their own. Once the home lands south and east of the Inland Lakes were lost, you have a race of people similar to the nomadic Huns as far as ability to project, and protect, a widespread civilization across a vast herding/grazing and, later, agricultural area.

Another consideration: If it were just a colony, then colonized from where? If it was from the southern part of the continent, those lands would be shown on the same map. So, if there was nothing there to attract anyone from the south, or from the east, then we would have to look west, where the Pacific Ocean would be an even greater barrier, especially given the distance to the Odd Little Continent.

(I may have to amend my earlier remarks about the map being drawn in recognition of the OLC completing a globe circling polity-they could simply have regarded it as the opposite end of a flat Earth. Just because modern society accepted Pope Galileo I's pronouncement on the spherical nature of the earth does not mean that everywhere else on the globe had as advanced a scientific and technical scholarly tradition as the Holy Bulgarian Church.)

The Indian subcontinent is possible, with its population and advanced civilizations. The collection of borders along the east side of Africa could then suggest various colonial advances at intervals far enough apart to allow each to gain a permanent identity. But, then, why the jump to the Odd Little Continent as one single colony? Also, why then curve around and make that weird Albionian colony? To corner the global market of export moss? No, I think we may safely assume that this colonization originated in North America and moved across the Atlantic from west to east...

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Another possibility is this is not showing all the territories conquored by the empire. Some may have been split off. Its been pointed out the straight line borders at some locations may be the result of peace treaties or political settlements. So its possible portions have already been split away.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

At this point I suspect the most likely explination is this is not a empire, but a alliance or some sort, or several nations or smaller empires. Perhaps a coalition in some global war?

 

[DracoLazarus]

A good point, and sound reasoning. Yet, I wonder, why would anyone colonize the whole of that area up to the Arctic Circle for the few hundred mile strip of arable land that would support a population? And, with the size of the population that land could support, why not push further south? And pushing further south just leads to more resources, which supports a larger population, etc. Now, it could be that these lands were originally populated by tribes of proto-Sioux peoples that eventually developed a separate identity after the Great Dispersion in the wake of the Aztec Wars and Cherokee Conquest but that seems too recent to have otherwise escaped from historical notice. IMHO, the most likely possibility is some tribe(s) from the Confederacy of the Seven Nations wandering west on their own. Once the home lands south and east of the Inland Lakes were lost, you have a race of people similar to the nomadic Huns as far as ability to project, and protect, a widespread civilization across a vast herding/grazing and, later, agricultural area.

Another consideration: If it were just a colony, then colonized from where? If it was from the southern part of the continent, those lands would be shown on the same map. So, if there was nothing there to attract anyone from the south, or from the east, then we would have to look west, where the Pacific Ocean would be an even greater barrier, especially given the distance to the Odd Little Continent.

(I may have to amend my earlier remarks about the map being drawn in recognition of the OLC completing a globe circling polity-they could simply have regarded it as the opposite end of a flat Earth. Just because modern society accepted Pope Galileo I's pronouncement on the spherical nature of the earth does not mean that everywhere else on the globe had as advanced a scientific and technical scholarly tradition as the Holy Bulgarian Church.)

The Indian subcontinent is possible, with its population and advanced civilizations. The collection of borders along the east side of Africa could then suggest various colonial advances at intervals far enough apart to allow each to gain a permanent identity. But, then, why the jump to the Odd Little Continent as one single colony? Also, why then curve around and make that weird Albionian colony? To corner the global market of export moss? No, I think we may safely assume that this colonization originated in North America and moved across the Atlantic from west to east...

Another possibility is this is not showing all the territories conquored by the empire. Some may have been split off. Its been pointed out the straight line borders at some locations may be the result of peace treaties or political settlements. So its possible portions have already been split away.

I could see the big rectangle between Vinland and the Mexica being once part of the uber-vinland before it was fully developed, and then (since it has a much higher carrying capacity) seceding. However, that hypothesis precludes an Indian-based Empire who would've had the riches and the manpower to bring down the rebellion.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Maybe the rebellion was aided by some other state or empire. & the empire cut its losses? This may be map of a empire in decline.

 

[XFE]

What about Cathay and Japanese colonies on the new world? I would think that Japan, as per history would have at least some parts of north america, while Cathay would have colonies in the South. Looking at the borders on the new world, would these be colonial departments or breakaway states?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Yup, a Cathay empire is is possible. This map not only indicates the Han peoples united, but possessing extended territories in central Asia & NE Asia. Thats happened before & is possible now. So a Han or Chathay power extending across the Pacific to the lesser continents is not ASB.

On the Internet I found this rather bizarre map

Where the hell would be the territorial center of this country?

But I am seriously thinking this map does not represent empire but some sort of alliance in a global conflict. Either economic or outright war. Note how the red territories are deliniated with internal bounadaries. Other obvious empires like the Cathay or whatever that massive Euro-Asian thing is in the north, are not subivided. So, maybe India in conflict with the Cathay entity that has ramifications globally?

 

[DracoLazarus]

Maybe the rebellion was aided by some other state or empire. & the empire cut its losses? This may be map of a empire in decline.

I can hardly see an Empire capable of standing up to that one, unless you assume it has a direct competitor. If it's some kind of Albionic Empire, according to my old Age of Knights history books, its direct competitor would tend to be a Frankic Empire; and the African divisions would suggest Algiers, West Africa and the weird-shaped bit in Central Africa could very well be Frankic.

What about Cathay and Japanese colonies on the new world? I would think that Japan, as per history would have at least some parts of north america, while Cathay would have colonies in the South. Looking at the borders on the new world, would these be colonial departments or breakaway states?

Well, having the Horde go East at first against the Xixia and Qin instead of starting with the Khwarezmians would effectively slug down the Chinese abilities to colonize. Japan could either be invaded by the Horde or be saved by a freak accident (Divine Wind), which would both encourage isolationism.

IMO, that little bit of *NAmerica West of the Red Vinland is probably Japanese though. Still better than nothing. Also, there seems to be a broken down Tuhantinsuyu in *SAmerica.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Other Peculiarities

First note the boundary of the Mexicana Empire is a lot further south than present. the mineral & agricultually rich regions of the Tejas, the upper Mexicana river, & west to the Colorado river basin and Pacific coast are part of the mystery state to the north.

As noted before there is a mystery state (empire?) covering northern Asia.

Third, the west African empire seems to be displaced somewhat south across the Sahara region, and extends further to the east, nearly to Egypt.

Also, there seems to be a broken down Tuhantinsuyu in *SAmerica.

Yes, that is odd.

Five the West African Empire Existing S of the Equitorial Congo region is either greatly reduced or does not exist at all.

 

[leave61]

I'm guessing you guys are done with this?

It was the British Empire starting in England in "Albion".