A shame that a TTL counterpart to the Republic of South Maluku didn't show up here's, though I suppose the POD might have butterflied things away, depending just how far back it was. The people of the island were apparently then and now majority Christian and were pro-Dutch. If this is your timeline, maybe look over the issue for a future update? Not saying you need to change you map, but if you hadn't already then a mention of how the Nusatarans are fairing in that outpost surruonded by less than thrilled neighbors, both on the islands and the nearby ones. Suppose the traders and soldiers who worked for the Dutch so often might have been driven to New Guinea or New Rotterdam. Even though they are Protestant, I am sure New Lusitania wouldn't mind a few of them to help stack the deck against Nustaran feelings among portions of the population.
Map Thread XVIII
- Thread starter FesteringSpore
- Start date
-
- Tags
- map thread maps
- Status
Fair enough. It could also be interpreted as, like, the Oklahoma of British Natives, as well. They just get injected into wherever has not too many Natives, and in censuses they're blended together to just "Indian" or "Iroquoian Indian"Nice! But I'm afraid I find the size of the native lands a bit over-optimistic: the British in Canada weren't quite as dickish to native Americans as the US was, but they were still pretty bad. [1] (And let's not forget the British Empire were the folks that put Tasmania on the Genocide Hits List.)
[1] Not to mention that even the saintliest Europeans penetrating the interior will, as OTL, bring whole new waves of devastating disease in the century after 1770whatever.
I'll definitely consider this, thanks. New Lusitania are a conservative apartheid state, and New Rotterdam are being careful to not look like they miss their imperial past, so Maluku becoming part of either of those is a long shot.
Ahhh, no no. I was meaning that if large numbers of Christian Moluccans were expelled or fled then both of those areas, as well as West Papau, might be willing to take them, as they have religious, commercial, and occasionally racial (reaaaaally complicated mixtures of genes on those islands from the last six hundred years) ties to all three of them. I think everyone would be happy if they stayed independent, if only because that pushed the navy and maritime claims of Nusatra out of the Banda Sea. By the way, what is the story with Brunei and Sabah? Seems that they would have been independent or the Borneans or Filipinos would have stepped in, rather than Nunstara. If they didn't come willingly, I can see some border changed to make things more rounded or straight there. Maybe also some shading or dotted lines, incase you wish to show disputed borders. Though in a map like this, it might be impossible to show fully.
Faeelin
Banned
Why is it that if Britain wins the Revolution, Anglo-Americans never seize California?
May be that the British slow down the steady push of settlement farther and farther west. The Spanish (depending on if nothing else shakes the colonies loose from Bourbon Spain) might be able to... actually, still trying to think of a way they could pour people up there. Maybe shiploads of Mexicans and Gautemalans (here meaning most do Central America) when gold is discovered before the Anglophobics can rush over there by wagon or boat. Might be gold isn't discovered until much later, assuming Sutter never gets his grant, nor anyone else. Considering the map, it seems that everyone just kept to river boundaries and basins, so people might have seen those areas as one big backwater, too distant to worry about.
Faeelin
Banned
I struggle with the British (who already have control of much of North America) looking at San Francisco and thinking "gross, a huge bay overlooking the Pacific."
True, though bays are usually best when next to something you want. It would have made more sense for the British to not take as many sugar islands (though they might have decided to just monopolize the supply now, rather than look out for their own domestic needs) as well as to not rationalize the borders when, according to the map's extra text, they supported the independence of so much of Latin America. I imagine they wouldn't necessarily take it as their own land, but would get an understanding with the Mexicans that British traders and sailors go wherever they please.
Why is it that Anglo-Americans seizing all of North America like it was their God-given, undisputable right should always be a constant in every single North American map?
Jesus, someone could post a map here with a PoD in Ur III or prehistoric Java, and someone would complain that it's implausible that California isn't part of the invariably Anglo, invariably wanked US analogue.
Which is not invariably going to happen (plus the US could be some poor third world country, therefore being unable to fulfill it's destiny)
Considering the old colonial charters involving the provincial boundaries going sea-to-sea, I am actually surprised there aren't maps of - Caro-Georgian California. Or at least claims. We can scarcely find more alternate history styled maps than the real world ones the colonies and British printed, giving their own preferences to various colonial claims.
North America in 1836
The loss to the French in the War of 1763 after the defeat at Montreal weakened Great Britain's position in the Americas just before the Great Revolution.
Paradoxically, although the Colonies had become more militarized this worked against the Home Government as the best trained troops were raised from local sources.
When War came again the forces facing Britain were far better trained and supplied and the Colonies were lost far quicker than anyone expected. Allied with France and Spain, British bases in America were isolated and defeated in detail.
After the War of Independence the Colonies, now States, tried to hold together and Federate but any small differences were magnified by French interference.
The Colonies broke apart and formed alliances between themselves, never following the example of the Five Nations of the Iroquois which grew in power as a Democratic Federation.
It was the 1795 intervention by the Five Nations that stabilized the situation in the north, neutralizing Pittsburgh as a Free City and acting as mediator to fix borders.
The conflict between Virginia and Georgia, however, continued for some time after, devastating the land between. People streamed into the "empty lands" to the west, creating the Kentucky Territories.
In the 1804 treaty of Wilmington [held in the ruins of Wilmington, North Carolina] buffer states were set up.
Now both Virginia and Georgia contest for political hegemony in the Carolina Conference. Kentucky Territory is becoming closer to the French colonies because of the disruptive and often lawless nature of the Conference, trade with the French is easier.
Having seen the results of the American Revolution, when the French had their "Time of Unrest" popular support was low and easily put down. Their habit of deporting their rebels to the colonies may have backfired, however, as they are destabilizing relations in the Native Protectorates.
The loss to the French in the War of 1763 after the defeat at Montreal weakened Great Britain's position in the Americas just before the Great Revolution.
Paradoxically, although the Colonies had become more militarized this worked against the Home Government as the best trained troops were raised from local sources.
When War came again the forces facing Britain were far better trained and supplied and the Colonies were lost far quicker than anyone expected. Allied with France and Spain, British bases in America were isolated and defeated in detail.
After the War of Independence the Colonies, now States, tried to hold together and Federate but any small differences were magnified by French interference.
The Colonies broke apart and formed alliances between themselves, never following the example of the Five Nations of the Iroquois which grew in power as a Democratic Federation.
It was the 1795 intervention by the Five Nations that stabilized the situation in the north, neutralizing Pittsburgh as a Free City and acting as mediator to fix borders.
The conflict between Virginia and Georgia, however, continued for some time after, devastating the land between. People streamed into the "empty lands" to the west, creating the Kentucky Territories.
In the 1804 treaty of Wilmington [held in the ruins of Wilmington, North Carolina] buffer states were set up.
Now both Virginia and Georgia contest for political hegemony in the Carolina Conference. Kentucky Territory is becoming closer to the French colonies because of the disruptive and often lawless nature of the Conference, trade with the French is easier.
Having seen the results of the American Revolution, when the French had their "Time of Unrest" popular support was low and easily put down. Their habit of deporting their rebels to the colonies may have backfired, however, as they are destabilizing relations in the Native Protectorates.
*blushes* it's not like I don't get jokes or anything ... BAKA
Sure, maybe there's not a lot of Carolinian California, but it's because those claims are absurd. You don't see any maps of a Sea-To-Sea-Perú either, but they also claimed basically all of South America at first. You can say the same about a Sea-to-Sea Senegal, or Angola, or whatever.
And sure, I don't see almost any Carolinian Californias, but I'm not complaining about an ubiquity of Carolinawanks, I'm just saying it's seen as a fact that the US will always exist, always be Anglo, and will always span the whole continent, even if, as in the map in question, Westward expansion is apparently so weak that the Iroquois, the Great Lake Indians, and the Louisiana French are majority.
This is not the place to discuss it but ... I think "weebs" receive much more disliking than they really deserve. As long as they are not being mean ore something ... and I don't think I'm a weeb on anything x3
Brunei and Sabah weren't controlled by princes in this TL, only Sarawak was (in British Borneo, anyway). When decolonisation began, the Sarawak rulers managed to hang on to power, along with several local princes in the eastern bit of Dutch Borneo (hence the weird borders between Nusantara and West Borneo and the concentration of SAR's in Nusantara's western Borneo). Brunei and Sabah were under direct british control, which means there weren't really anyone but the revolutionaries to seize power after the brits left.
No no, Caro-Georgian. Carogeaian California. On a more serious note, the reasons people so often show Anglophilic people controlling the Eastern Seaboard and expanding inwards is due to the lack of a credibility alternative, in which a country would have people both willing and able to move over and set up colonies with their own funding. Getting merchants and noblemen to fund sugar plantations is one thing, but having colonies where people are mostly the same as your homeland and who life long productive lives rather than being slaves, natives, deportees, or indentured servants worked to death (bad example when talking about Georgia and the Carolinas) is another. I expect if the Scottish or Dutch both got a good location and had a large enough rural population who could go over and slowly build things up while not relying on the fur trade, then you might have some feasible alternatives. Same with the Scandinavians I suppose, but in all these cases there is the issue of getting people over to the New World, as well as getting them back, as well as keeping ships free from marauding privateers. The French captured hundreds of American ships up to Napoleon seizing power, and a bit after. It doesn't matter if you are an enemy or slightly friendly neutral when it comes to countries not being able to buy your stuff so just taking it and selling it for a large profit. The last stuff is somewhat irrelevant I suppose, but imagine the English just swatting every ship that leaves the Baltic.
Actually, that is another matter. Deciding whether to focus on colonies in the area of the Thirteen Colonies that can provide material similar it at home (and the English said early in that the timber there was inferior to European wood, so they kept making ships in England). Sugar from the Caribbean was profitable due to how it is delicious, and the Spanish and Italians already paid loads of gold to Turks, Egyptians, and Asians in general in order to get spices. Beaver and otter pelts were also good as they were waterproof in a cold and rainy climate. I guess you will need to look over what countries could set up a triangle trade. I expect that those that get areas filled with gold or silver (in mineable form, rather than that simply taken from natives who had dug it for centuries) won't necessarily have the largest population of European immigrants. A lot of this is coming down to definitoins of what a colony is, as the British are some of the only European groups to have managed it both deliberately and successfully. Though that might mostly be because Spanish colonists kind of slid into the greater Hispanic identity of Latin America, and the treatment of ethnic Spaniards as being second to those directly from Spain help bring them closer to each other. Each other as in Latin American countries.
- Status