Q-Bam Historical Map Thread

[LSCatilina]

You'd probably should put an outline for Panama and Cuba, as it looks like they're american states at this point. Depending on the date, you may want to check up on the situation on Honduras where American troops were present along the fruits companies holdings in 1907.

That said, I'm not sure all these colours are really relevant. It's probably not a RCS map, granted, but it still makes the map less clear due to sheer irrelevance of colour (if everything have one, the point giving it is a bit moot)

Personally, for redability reasons, I always double the outlines on Q-BAM.

 

[Chris S]

They should be distinct enough.

What about the situation re: Outlines?

Outlines after 1955 I would reckon.

 

[Lord Hastur of Carcosa]

@LSCatilina, does your thread "Ask me about Medieval France" still exist? Would you make another for modern pre-revolutionary France?

 

[Chris S]

You'd probably should put an outline for Panama and Cuba, as it looks like they're american states at this point.

They are actually American occupied at this point, hence why no outline. Outlining would indicate influence as opposed to occupation. At this point there was even an American governor for Cuba I think as opposed to a Cuban president.

Depending on the date, you may want to check up on the situation on Honduras where American troops were present along the fruits companies holdings in 1907.

When in 1907 though and where in Honduras (if you happen to know)? Because the date for the map is January 1, 1907.

 

[Stateless]

I've updated the Americas a bit - I've changed the borders and claim lines in the Amazon basin (I think that Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia based them of rivers), and spent an insane amount of time double checking every lake, to see weather it is a reservoir or not, then add it to the map if It is a natural feature. I've still got northern Argentina, Maine, and a good portion of Canada left to go. This is still work in progress.

Fun fact, there are no reservoirs in Nunavut or the Northwest territories. On the downside, there's still a seemingly infinite supply of lakes that I had to add. It's like they're fractal - there is no end. It was maddening.

Anyway, here's the map:

Constructive criticism welcome. (Also, I'm still a bit unsure about how to show the Quebec-Newfoundland border, and the Tacna-Arica dispute).

You've got Isla Navarino as part of Argentina, but it's actually part of Chile. Also at this time Nicaragua would have been claiming San Andrés y Providencia.

 

[LSCatilina]

They are actually American occupied at this point, hence why no outline. Outlining would indicate influence as opposed to occupation. At this point there was even an American governor for Cuba I think as opposed to a Cuban president.

Outline doesn't point influence (that's the influence shade) but a de jure situation. Basically, a de jure independent Cuban state (outline) is under American occupation (filled with american "core" shade). I wouldn't use it for occupation during a war or a conflict without an agreelent of sort between occupier and occupied (for exemple, having an outline for Vichy France, but not for Soviet Russia), but I think it does fit the situation in Carribeans.

When in 1907 though and where in Honduras (if you happen to know)? Because the date for the map is January 1, 1907.

According the Armenian Genocide,

as part of the so-called Banana Wars all around the Caribbean, Honduras saw the insertion of American troops in 1903, 1907, 1911, 1912, 1919, 1924 and 1925.[20

Making a quick search, tough, it seems that it was related to the Honduras-Nicaragua war of 1907 and the American opposition to Zelaya, and not before March at best; with an occupation of Puerto Cortes but as well in the hinterland as part of the counter-attack against Zelaya. So, if the map if January, it's not yet a case.

That said, there's room for arguing Honduras should be debicted as ongoing civil troubles, which caused the Ncaraguan intervention..

 

[Chris S]

Outline doesn't point influence (that's the influence shade)

There isn't an influence shade as far as I know. There is a protectorate shade which shows a territory which is formally linked to another territory and thus not fully independent. Cuba was a protectorate of the US insofar as the Cuban Constitution gave the US rights to intervene that it gave no other foreign country. That lasted from 1902 until the 1930s after which Cuba was as separate from the US as Argentina was. The convention for showing influence from the establishment of the UCS type schemes has pretty much always been to show the outline of the independent country's colour (note, a protectorate is not by definition fully independent, hence why they are shown differently; former protectorates for instance are eligible to join the Commonwealth just like former full British territories, merely influenced areas like what were considered part of Britain's "informal empire" i.e. Iran, Argentina, parts of the Chinese hinterland etc). The background behind that was that while the country in question was externally independent (in foreign relations it did maintain its own separate relations), internally it was heavily influenced by another power. Protectorates on the other hand have their independence formally restricted - so that foreign relations are conducted for them by the protecting power (e.g. princely states and the protectorates in Africa by the UK) or another power has the actual right to limit their foreign relations (e.g. the US can handle international relations on behalf of and can disallow any foreign military force on the territories of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia or Palau. It doesn't need to do this informally through influence on those countries governments (as would be the case with an influenced but independent country) but can do so outright and as a result of the terms of the compact of free association, such a move would work and be implemented)

but a de jure situation. Basically, a de jure independent Cuban state (outline) is under American occupation (filled with american "core" shade).

That situation is already covered for the most part by the use of borders, e.g. between Germany and Poland. You can show de jure independent Poland being occupied by Germany by simply keeping the international border. That was how the system originated. What your proposing would end up (and I believe I've seen examples where it did end up) showing two different situations with the same scheme. If i am not mistaken I think I once saw a map showing Cuba (influenced by the US) as being the same as Bulgaria (then occupied by the USSR). If you use the protectorate colour for the influence then you will have to show the protectorates as outright colonies and collapse the whole distinction of Dominion/Colony/Protectorate which was built up and elaborated.

Perhaps showing borders in the seas between countries would help (that's where having an international border colour distinct from the shoreline colour comes in handy) as is done sometimes in atlases.

I wouldn't use it for occupation during a war or a conflict without an agreelent of sort between occupier and occupied (for exemple, having an outline for Vichy France, but not for Soviet Russia), but I think it does fit the situation in Carribeans.

I may have misunderstood what you wrote here, but it sounds like you are proposing to use a particular scheme differently for the Caribbean as opposed to some other parallel situations. But wouldn't that make for inconsistency across the map and defeat the purpose of a colour scheme?

That said, there's room for arguing Honduras should be debicted as ongoing civil troubles, which caused the Ncaraguan intervention..

That would be splendid I think. But we would need to know where the rebels were operating to map it.

 

[LSCatilina]

There isn't an influence shade as far as I know. There is a protectorate shade which shows a territory which is formally linked to another territory and thus not fully independent.

Influence and protectorate are two names for the same shade.

As for Cuba, it basically means an American protectorate/SoI outline and an occupying power fill. You have precedent, such as with French Tunisia : technically a protectorate, but in fact all the power was under the resident's hands, so I'm not sure what the issue is, to be honest.

I may have misunderstood what you wrote here, but it sounds like you are proposing to use a particular scheme differently for the Caribbean as opposed to some other parallel situations. But wouldn't that make for inconsistency across the map and defeat the purpose of a colour scheme?

I said that occupations issued from a settled agreement shouldn't be shown the same way than an occupation due to, for exemple, an ongoing invasion.
Hence why Vichy France, postwar Germany or Cuba should get an outline (either coloured, either shaded), when it shouldn't be the case for territories occupied by Germany in Soviet Union.

That would be splendid I think. But we would need to know where the rebels were operating to map it.

Apparently, a bit everywhere (or rather without a particular base for what I gather : this era and place isn't my best part). For this sort of situation, I generally goes by using the "unorganized Rebels" for all the country, tough : it's a bit cheating but it's still better than not representing it, IMO.

 

[Chris S]

Influence and protectorate are two names for the same shade.

As for Cuba, it basically means an American protectorate/SoI outline and an occupying power fill. You have precedent, such as with French Tunisia : technically a protectorate, but in fact all the power was under the resident's hands, so I'm not sure what the issue is, to be honest.

Will agree to disagree. Influenced states and protectorates were historically shown differently throughout these schemes as far as I know. French Tunisia was always shown as a protectorate once the Dominion/Territory/Protectorate shading system developed.

I said that occupations issued from a settled agreement shouldn't be shown the same way than an occupation due to, for exemple, an ongoing invasion.
Hence why Vichy France, postwar Germany or Cuba should get an outline (either coloured, either shaded), when it shouldn't be the case for territories occupied by Germany in Soviet Union.

As far as I know the reason why Vichy France is shown as outlined is because Vichy France was not, in fact, occupied. Southern France was left unoccupied by a surrender agreement that left France as being influenced (hence outlined) with the northern part actually occupied. So northern France was occupied, much as territories in the USSR were. Same with Bulgaria in 1946 and Cuba in 1907. All were occupied. Vichy France (southern France) from 1941 to 1944 was not.

Apparently, a bit everywhere (or rather without a particular base for what I gather : this era and place isn't my best part). For this sort of situation, I generally goes by using the "unorganized Rebels" for all the country, tough : it's a bit cheating but it's still better than not representing it, IMO.

Good idea.

 

[LSCatilina]

French Tunisia was always shown as a protectorate once the Dominion/Territory/Protectorate shading system developed.

It's mostly because most map makers were more or less ignorant of colonial realities in Tunisia : giving that we're correcting depictions of situations when we can, earlier precedents aren't that relevant if they collide with historicity : Tunisia was technically a protectorate, but puppetized in fact.

As far as I know the reason why Vichy France is shown as outlined is because Vichy France was not, in fact, occupied. Southern France was left unoccupied by a surrender agreement that left France as being influenced (hence outlined) with the northern part actually occupied. So northern France was occupied, much as territories in the USSR were. Same with Bulgaria in 1946 and Cuba in 1907. All were occupied. Vichy France (southern France) from 1941 to 1944 was not.

I think you made a, admittedly common, mistake there : Vichy France was actually split between an occupied and non-occupied zone until 1942. After 1942, Vichy France get entierly occupied, but didn't disappeared in the latest.

Vichy France is outlined to point out where its authority was still the legal basis of administrative and political run-off (basically on the entiere territory safe Alsace-Moselle) critically when we need inner borders to depict the German occupation organisation.

 

[Chris S]

It's mostly because most map makers were more or less ignorant of colonial realities in Tunisia : giving that we're correcting depictions of situations when we can, earlier precedents aren't that relevant if they collide with historicity : Tunisia was technically a protectorate, but puppetized in fact.


I think you made a, admittedly common, mistake there : Vichy France was actually split between an occupied and non-occupied zone until 1942. After 1942, Vichy France get entierly occupied, but didn't disappeared in the latest.

Yes, sorry. Should have written 1942 instead of 1944, but the rest of what I wrote still applied.

Vichy France is outlined to point out where its authority was still the legal basis of administrative and political run-off

Huh? In which maps? For the most part I remember Vichy France only being outlined until fully occupied by Germany in 1942 and then that was it.

 

[LSCatilina]

Yes, sorry. Should have written 1942 instead of 1944, but the rest of what I wrote still applied.

It doesn't : you're confusing Vichy France and non-occupied zone.

Huh? In which maps? For the most part I remember Vichy France only being outlined until fully occupied by Germany in 1942 and then that was it.

Most of the Q-BAM WWII maps I have on my harddisk.

 

[Tanystropheus42]

I have made a few small changes based on recommendations, and added a few more lakes, but I don't think this is enough to need another massive map.

Is there a consensus about how to show the Carribean? It has been an interesting debate, but I want to know what needs to change.

Also does it matter what colour scheme I use? so far I've been using TOASTER (because it has a colour for literally everything), but everyone else is using a different one, and I really don't want to have to recolour the whole map.

 

[LSCatilina]

Also does it matter what colour scheme I use? so far I've been using TOASTER (because it has a colour for literally everything), but everyone else is using a different one, and I really don't want to have to recolour the whole map.

It doesn't really matters, it's just that giving a colour to everything not only makes the use of colour moot (it makes it as particular than leaving everything white) but a bit unreadable.
Now, if you're more comfortable with any colour scheme of your choice, that's fine by me (altough you'd probably end up with someone recolouring it at some point, would it be only to keep a coherence with the rest of the database).

 

[Chris S]

It doesn't : you're confusing Vichy France and non-occupied zone.

No, I know Vichy France is often used as a shorthand for the non-occupied zone in the English speaking world, which is the usage I'm using when I say "I remember Vichy France only being outlined until fully occupied by Germany in 1942 and then that was it". I know legally Vichy France covered all of France and that by the surrender agreement northern (Vichy) France was occupied and southern (Vichy) France was left unoccupied.

Most of the Q-BAM WWII maps I have on my harddisk.

Who were those maps done by and where on the board were they put up?

Because these maps don't show that, and I remember them well having done them up with Morgan Hauser years ago.

These maps and these don't show that kind of scheme either.

And even this QBAM (which is linked to in the original QBAM improvement thread) doesn't show it that way.

That's also not the convention used here or here.

 

[Chris S]

I have made a few small changes based on recommendations, and added a few more lakes, but I don't think this is enough to need another massive map.

Is there a consensus about how to show the Carribean? It has been an interesting debate, but I want to know what needs to change.

Also does it matter what colour scheme I use? so far I've been using TOASTER (because it has a colour for literally everything), but everyone else is using a different one, and I really don't want to have to recolour the whole map.

You use the colour scheme you want of course. The consensus is that whatever scheme you choose to do should have consistency if you don't plan to use a key. So if you show one area as being occupied using a particular convention, then all other areas on the full map should be shown the same way in order to avoid confusion.

 

[LSCatilina]

No, I know Vichy France is often used as a shorthand for the non-occupied zone in the English speaking world

Hence why I said it was a common mistake I didn't held against anyone there. Still, it doesn't make it less of a mistake.

I know legally Vichy France covered all of France and that by the surrender agreement northern (Vichy) France was occupied and southern (Vichy) France was left unoccupied.

I won't go into details, but it was more than a matter of legal technicalities : French state had a level of subservient autonomy in both zones as Robert Paxton demonstrated.

Who were those maps done by and where on the board were they put up?

I honestly don't remember, as maps I have are copies of copies (my harddisk burned out twice) : but giving that the wiki hasn't been seriously updated for what matter Q-Bam, it's hardly a more reliable evidence, i'd rather think.
It's perfectly possible that what I gathered is more recent and in the minority : it doesn't make these less wrong : I'm not sure what your point is? That if someone did a map of 1942, we should stick it to this even if we could represent things more accuratly?
I mean, giving we still have a majority of ancient and medieval maps on the database made on early 2010's, you could as well argue that all the maps I did since aren't to be used or considered updated, because they go against a work which is still objectively badly done, but done earlier.

That said, we discussed for the 1940 map there and there depicting a vichy outline for the whole of the territory, so while you could change your mind on it, I don't know what you consider you never saw it before...

 

[Chris S]

Hence why I said it was a common mistake I didn't held against anyone there. Still, it doesn't make it less of a mistake.

Oh okay.

I won't go into details, but it was more than a matter of legal technicalities : French state had a level of subservient autonomy in both zones as Robert Paxton demonstrated.

Okay. Would be interesting to hear more about those details though

I honestly don't remember, as maps I have are copies of copies (my harddisk burned out twice) : but giving that the wiki hasn't been seriously updated for what matter Q-Bam, it's hardly a more reliable evidence, i'd rather think.
It's perfectly possible that what I gathered is more recent and in the minority : it doesn't make these less wrong : I'm not sure what your point is? That if someone did a map of 1942, we should stick it to this even if we could represent things more accuratly?
I mean, giving we still have a majority of ancient and medieval maps on the database made on early 2010's, you could as well argue that all the maps I did since aren't to be used or considered updated, because they go against a work which is still objectively badly done, but done earlier.

That said, we discussed for the 1940 map there and there depicting a vichy outline for the whole of the territory, so while you could change your mind on it, I don't know what you consider you never saw it before...

Yes, we did. I had forgotten about that (my apologies LS). Apart from your proposal (which still looks really nice; though I'm now wondering if that red border could save the trouble of the need for outlining at all but to reverse the depiction - so have a black border showing the de facto belgian-french border and having a red border along the old franco-belgian border to show that France still claimed it...), I've never seen it replicated anywhere so i was honestly confused.

And of course if we can aim for a more accurate depiction we should, I wasn't arguing in favour of not doing so.

An overhaul of the maps on the wiki is probably due.

 

[LSCatilina]

Okay. Would be interesting to hear more about those details though

Well, for instance, it's known that French State did pre-empted several german requests : on the status of Jews and the subsequent repression (that was enacted before Germans asked anything) for exemple, but as well on economical parts (the management of Relève and STO was let to Vichy, which went on it to proove it wasn't really a client state, no siree, stop asking questions). On some respect, it's closer to what existed in Danemark than in various Reichkommissariats.
German responsibles let a fairly important decisional power to french police on this respect (see Bousquet-Oberg agreements).

The autonomy was of course less present in northern zones (and more formal than anything in the forbidden zone, for obvious reasons) but was still a key feature of everyday management (safe in Alsace-Moselle) but was crystal-clear in the French State colonies in Africa or Asia, where Vichy troops directly fought not only Free France troops but United Nations interventions (Syria, Algeria, etc.) without the need of a direct German sanction.

It's of course a relative autonomy, which gets less and less present even in everyday formalism, from 1942 onwards (disbandement of Armée d'Armistice, for instance) to reach an all-time low in 1944, which explains the rise of "vichysto-resistants", groups opposed to Nazi Germany but not hostile to Petainist policies if not supporting them (as Giraud was).
But that Pétain was able to get rid of Laval in 1940 because he was too close from occupying responsible is telling, IMO of the status of political auxiliary rather than puppet in the strictest sense of Vichy France.

though I'm now wondering if that red border could save the trouble of the need for outlining at all but to reverse the depiction

I'm not sure : it depends a lot of local German policy. Until 1941 you could argue the pressure that existed on the whole of forbidden zone did influed as well in Nord/Pas-de-Calais but it never really went as far as disbanding Vichy France structures, and after the abandon of these policies it turned quickly to "normal".
That said, German occupation there had a more direct management than in Northern France, so I'd still keep the red border between N/PDC and the rest of Northern France while Vichy outline over these departements.

I've never seen it replicated anywhere so i was honestly confused.

I didn't saw it on this particular situation to be honest, but I saw a general use of Vichy colour along the line describen in OTL and ATL maps.

An overhaul of the maps on the wiki is probably due.

I did for worlda+ siome years ago, and it was...unpleasant digging whole threads one page at a time to search for maps and patches. I'd commend anyone motivated enough to do it.

 

[LSCatilina]

@LSCatilina, does your thread "Ask me about Medieval France" still exist?

Well, it's not locked or anything but it's not active : if you have a question you can't get answer from a more recent thread, we can always try but I can't promise I could do something : I'm still supposed to do the second part of the summary on French armies in the HYW (I stopped after the end of Caroline phase, but I do plan to finish someday, Kiff)

Would you make another for modern pre-revolutionary France?

No : I wouldn't be comfortable enough for answering a lot of questions, especially on social and cultural matters.
I mean, you'd have more chance of me pulling a thread on pre-Roman Gaul, that's how much I'd prefer to not advance myself too much on XVII/XVIIIth century. Still, you can send me PM, but there's fair chances that my answers would go basically this way "I don't know. Magnets, probably".