Sorry, didn't saw it before. I don't have a river maps, I'm working with the whole political river stuff. And I'm not sure it's even updated since nobody really minds to update a list or anything. (I did it for Worlda, and frankly, I'm not digging into entiere threads anytime soon).
Q-Bam Historical Map Thread
- Thread starter The Alternative
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical maps q-bam
I already said the 1300 map is very bad compared to yours or any other map here, so you can be as critic as you want.
What I found is the next: The garrison of the Pashalik of Timbuktu pledged allegiance to the Alaouites in 1670 and remained there until 1787 when Tuareg forces came in and vassalised the Pashalik. So yeah, my mistake.
Hah, then we have a problem here. Geographical concepts trend to have very vague borders and are not as specific as I would want them to be. I could make a "round" borderline, pretty much like those you did in Maghreb as a solution.
Alex Richards
Donor
This is turning into a bit of an epic. I've realised it's going to be simpler to just redraw all the rivers from scratch, end result being that there's going to be a lot more rivers on the map and you can just edit down as appropriate.
Welcome to my world : you could replace rivers as borders and political entities, and you'll have me, doing ancient and medieval maps.
Last edited:
Does someone have a passing knowledge of Eastern Han Dynasty imperial organisation? I've mentions of subservient kings within Sichuan, but in the same time it's said it was under direct Chinese control.
Nothing but a small patch, but there's a simplified map of Aquitaine in 918.
(I may work a bit too much on posts about relatively obscure details on Xth century)
(I may work a bit too much on posts about relatively obscure details on Xth century)
I guess it depends how much one is willing to dig into almost-plausible-but-not-really genealogies and accounts, and have access to welcome sums as Jean Penent's. But the result is certainly disproportionate.
How WIP is that? I think I recognize something similar to Franche Comte, an approximation of the Normandy/Bretagne domain and even Anjou, and Aquitaine. I understand that borders are approximate and often dictated by geography anyway, so there must be some landmark that forges the polities into a definite form (I'm thinking lake Geneva, or the Dauphines) Can you tell me your sources? I don't understand French, but I may give it a shot just the same.
That would be the Sequani.
Armoricans, on the (plausible) assumption they formed sort of a confederation. (altough their composition may vary)
Andecavi
Not worked yet on Aquitaine, mostly because it's really a complex mess of people.
It's generally assumed that civitate limits are heavily borrowing on pre-conquest tribes rough limits, so you usually find map like these but as well this one that I prefer as it still keep departemental limits for better localisation.http://www.uxellodunum.com/media/images/hist_carte-des-provinces.jpg
It's a bit harder for what became Narbonensis, but we have admittedly more litterary sources to have rough limits in addition to inner borders.
As you said, it's really approximative, and rather a guesstimate (I wouldn't dare make a map for the IIIrd century myself), but it's a fair guesstimate which is more or less backed by litterary and archeological sources
Now, I didn't represented all confederations and hegemonies because there will be a shortage of coulours (for Bituriges, Alloborges, Volcae, Vocontii, Salyes,,etc.) Altough maybe Salyes in ligurian violet, but it might be misleading.
I see. It makes a little more sense in the clusterfuck that i'm used to work with (Atlante DeAgostini isn't very accurate on anything pre-roman) for example, I would have said the Sequani were further north. I see you used the Norman color for Armorica. Are the Green one Veneti (Vennes) or a different tribe?
Sequani are considered neighbouring Aedui, and Helvetii after their settlement in modern Switzerland. How much south is anybody's guess as they weren't AFAIK neighbouring Allobroges, but while Sequani didn't (or no longer) extended their archê up to the Rhine, they still were bordered by Jura. Their northern border is harder to determine, tough, but as most central Gallic peoples they might have a southern tropism.
I'm a big believer in color recycling : as I said, we might lack enough colours for Central Gaul only, without even mentioning the 'arguably less, much less known situation in Belgica and Germania.
Frankly, it's a problem for Celto-Ligurian peoples, whom hegemonies are berely discernables except for Vocontii : as the Roman intervention more or less provoked a domino reaction from regional hegemonies, having the possibility to highlight Allobroges could be interesting.
They are, with their client relation with Namnetes. It's not entierly clear if Veneti were tied up with Armoricans, but I think the contrary or at least to highlight their own network makes more sense.
Last edited:
I see on your map some names I recognize from Cisalpine Gaul as well. There was a group of Aedui a little east of where I live, AFAIK the river Adda took its name from them. Also the Cenomans' territory included the current provinces of Brescia and possibly Bergamo, with a spike beyond the Po.
The Senones briefly migrated from that very spot in Gaul to the edge of the Roman Territory.
Can't be more precise, if you want to study the history of Northern Italy before 222 BCE you have to look up french maps anyway.
Can't find them even on your map. I guess they fit in the arguably less less known.
I see.
Hey, not only Xth Century is the period in between the fall of the Carolingians and the rise of the Ottonians, but also marks the passage between the Vendel Period and the Viking Era in the North. You can't fill enough details of that
.
Last edited:
It's less a migration of these peoples from this region in Gaul strictly speaking, than having groups sharing same names and settling differently while being possibly related : altough the Senones of Italy are likely made out of several people, some of them related to Celtica's Senones, let's not forget that Senones is a name that was as well used by Celtified peoples as Suevi, without a clear relation with Gallic and Gallo-Italic entities.
Just to give an idea at the problem, there's the later appearance of Volcae (to be compared with ancient vision of migrations) or a simplified map of Boii.
These are aproximations and suggestions, but you see the trend.
They actuallty represent a fair chunk of south-eastern Gaul/
It's arguably better known for parts of the North, would it be because closer to royal and imperial centers. We don't know really much of Gascony in the Xth (there's an entiere data gap between the late IXth and mid Xth, sort of local Dark Ages if you will), and most of problem in Francia border comes from the complexity of boundaries in a not-entierly-territorial geopolitics.Hey, not only Xth Century is the period in between the fall of the Carolingians and the rise of the Ottonians, but also marks the passage between the Vendel Period and the Viking Era in the North. You can't fill enough details of that
Well, Carthagian holdings is about right, but I think you could arguably put some influence shade in the most close chiefdoms. That's an hard call to make, tough.
Ibero-Aquitains should probably be represented as well on this map; as well as the Ibero-Celto-Ligurian people of Elysices.
@LSCatilina I forgot to add the brown mark to those small kingdoms in the Bay of Viscay, so they're the proto-Basque. About the Elysices I only found them to be in the Pyrenaic Area, yet info wasn't clear enough for me to spot them correctly.
And for Carthage, 300 BC is before the massive Carthaginian intervention in Iberia, no kingdom was actually their vassal.
And for Carthage, 300 BC is before the massive Carthaginian intervention in Iberia, no kingdom was actually their vassal.
You could, without too much trouble, represent people up to Garonne (Ibero-Aquitains) as part of the Iberic world.
They are, roughly, present up to Pyrenees from Orb or Aude rivers.
I made this map a long ago, that while allohistorical for the peninsula, is historically correct (if really, really aproximative) for Elysces.
For what matter aRCS, lighter shade doesn't indicate vassality (which is represented by a coloured outline) but a state of dependence or clientship such as being tributary, under political/military dependence, unequal treaty, etc.
I'm usually better at late medieval to modern Asian history, but as far as I can remember the Han used to have a bunch of vassal kingdoms until a rebellion in about 145 BC or thereabouts, after which the power of the vassal kings was highly reduced, and then again after another rebellion about a decade after that. I think they first lost the right to appoint important officials, and then after that they basically became nominal heads of their lands, and the administration became subordinated to the central government in full. IIRC it was a gradual process, spread out over a series of reforms. I guess it depends on when your map is- before 145 BC I'd put it as autonomous vassals, after that as provinces. Since you're asking about the Eastern Han, then I'd guess it would be the latter. Again, I could be wrong, so don’t take my word for it. But I think it should be about right.
Alex Richards
Donor
Good news everyone, I've found a better way of doing the Chinese Rivers that takes a much shorter time, is consistent across all Provinces and prevent overdetailing.