Before I get to replying to your wall of text, I did want to say thanks for asking questions! I'm saying this now, because some of my explanations might come off as petty or rude and I don't want you to think that. I appreciate the feedback, in fact this one comment makes up the majority of all feedback I've received, and you did raise up many issues/errors/general good points about the timeline. Now to the questions, which I separated as best I could.
I am unsure the wisdom of using some of those borders between the US and Canada. Some are straight lines, some are in the middles of rivers, and others are drainage basins. I feel there would have been a lot of confusion over where a border really was. You can think of it like the Lake of the Woods from IOTL. A border I don't think you have used here. I am unsure if that is wise, as while I think was based on incorrect information on where the source of the Mississippi was, it was the best guess they had at the time.
The borders for Canada were the first done ITTL, as the POD is a severely harsh Treaty of Ghent. The border was redrawn from the Maumee River until hitting the 42nd Parallel North, going west until hitting the Mississippi and following it until reaching the established US-Canada border. In this timeline, the British do not give away the Red River Valley to a recent enemy and as a result, there is no Treaty of 1818. The Oregon Border is a little more complicated; it consists of parts of the Snakes and Columbia rivers, as well as the height of land between the established border, that one isn't too great, but I couldn't think of a different border that didn't look terrible or make especially more sense.
I also think the borders on Hispaniola are bizarre. Yes, they were used in the past, but I think seems to suggest no Haitian Revolution. I find the idea almost astounding (given the repeated emancipation and reenslavement of the population), especially since it still seems to be in France's orbit here.
I tend to be inconsistent with Butterflies, if it makes for a cool timeline, I'll ignore them. If it makes for a cool timeline, I'll heighten them. ITTL, the man sending the message from Gran Colombia to the Republic of Spanish Haiti confirming the annexation is quicker. Since Haiti had good relations with Gran Colombia, unification never happens. When Gran Colombia collapses, the Dominican Republic stays with Colombia. Also Haiti isn't with the French, the Color scheme just has their colors similar, I have plans to make it more clear.
Why is Colombia swallowing up so much land everywhere? I don't see why the British would give up the Mosquito Coast to them, for starters. And then there is the border with Brazil. If they were all funhouse about gaining land then the border with Peru, which involved them keeping a small slice while handing over enormous swathes of land they got from Ecuador, to Peru.
This one needs a little context, with in OTL and ITTL. The British essentially gave away the Mosquito Coast to the Nicaraguans, for one; the Colombians had long since had a claim on the region as well. ITTL, the Mosquito Coast is given to Colombia as a protectorate in the late 1880's in exchange for a chunk of Panama to build a canal to rival the ones the Americans were building. Twenty years later, they annex the protectorate into Colombia. As for their southern border, I have no idea what you are referring to, as that is the border in OTL; in my reading I failed to find any information to warrant changing the border.
Did Chile grab land here that IOTL Argentina took from Bolivia?
Yes, Chile at that point is more powerful and able to worm their way into that land.
Why are you splitting Baja the way you did?
ITTL, there is a mini "Scramble for Patagonia" and due to Argentina getting a slow start(I can expand more on the cause of this if you wish), Chile is able to establish a sort of Native buffer state. The British get involved to mediate the conflict and get a few things for themselves. Following the Mexican-American War, California (at least the southern half) was given independence as admitting as a slave state would upset the balance; however after that sweet sweet gold rush ends, the republic falls into bad times; to solve the problem, they sell the Southern half of Baja California to North Mexico.
Why attach Bermuda and the Bahamas to Canada, but not combine the Turks and Cacios as well?
It's not separate, rather they are different parts of Canada; the line between them just means that they are not one single entity; in hindsight, if I don't include subdivisions for the mainland, I shouldn't include them in the sea.
I cannot see, but do you have Tangiers colored international?
No, that's just an error from the base map that I didn't pick up on.
Does the coloring of Norway suggest they are not in a loose personal union, but are mostly subversent to Sweden?
No, that's just the way QBAM does personal unions to my knowledge; the borders between the countries, each with the same color as the leading partner. In this timeline, Sweden adopts liberties earlier, so that Norway doesn't end up leaving until the 20's.
By the way, how did German Unification go here? Any changes in the various rulers or the terms of admittance? I bring this up partially because there are no internal borders to suggest what the arrangement is, and partially because the deposed Duke of Nassau ended up Grand Duke of Luxembourg when the Dutch Monarch was a female.
German unification goes fairly similar to OTL, however, the Dutch do not get a Queen until after they remove Salic Law. As a result, Luxembourg remains under union.
Does the coloring of the borders between Russia and Tuva, Mongolia, etc no being the same as those of Khiva and Bhukara, does that mean they solidified dominance? Did the Chinese accept it? Why aren't there some areas on the border where the Russians have settled Cossacks or something, like they did with many of their other conquests and acquisitions. Shouldn't Finland be given a bit of a different color or border with Russia than Poland?
I don't really know what you mean here as Khiva, Bhukara, Mongolia, etc are the same color. They are all essentially Russian protectorates, some might have more autonomy, but they are the same in theory. China didn't like it, but the Russians had British Support [basically the Great Game goes a little further to include Tibet and East Turkestan]. I don't really see why the Cossacks should be specially marked, since my rule doing the maps was no subdivisions except for special exceptions [those being Finland, Poland, Norway, Lombardy-Venetia, etc]. Why would Finland be given a bit of a different color than Poland, they both essentially are under Russian control.
I feel you should also show the borders within French Indochina, as they did have many monarchs subversent (however you spell it) to them. They would also need a lot of help in the interior, given how far from the coast they got.
Fair enough, I agree. I haven't
I also think this would lead the remainder of Siam to move into the British camp, or whoever can offer them the most protection. Probably looks bad on Catholic missionaries and Frenchmen abroad, if they took a chunk of land from a country trying to modernize to a degree. I expect the British, Germans, Italians, Spanish, Haitians, Americans, Brazilians, Chinese, and a number of others hold them in scorn or sheer and utter loathing.
Basically the French expansion was them annexing their zone of influence within Siam. They do this in response to the British and Russian gains in China.
Liberia annexed to the US here? Seems like it would have been best to that have that colored light blue, though of course everything here mostly comes done to whatever is in your story.
Yeah, you're likely thinking the post-independence Liberia returns to the fold. ITTL when the American Colonization Society goes broke, they sell all their assets [including land] to the federal government. Within Liberia, there are various sub-colonies [Like the Ivory Coast within French West Africa] such as Mississippi in Africa and Maryland in Africa.
Ahhh, and you can remove the box around the Aleutions in the upper right of the map. No need to make them stand out.
Fair enough, another issue I failed to notice.
I also don't see the British getting all they claimed for Guiana, which they pushed mostly when it came to the issue of gold. No reason for Venezuela to accept such borders.
ITTL, the British and Venezuelans go to war over the issues. Originally the British only wanted minor concessions, but after the Americans joined the war, things spiraled out of control and the British made a few nice colonial gains.
And why would the US only buy one of the Virgin Islands from Denmark? I think the Americans turned down a chance once IOTL, and only ended up buying them right before entering WWI to better fortify the area.
You are correct, the Danish did offer to sell the Danish West Indies to the US in the 1860's. However, they did not offer St. Croix; so since the US accepted that offer, the Danish keep St. Croix.
Why does Germany still have that area around Kenya? They gave it up IOTL in exchange for the British supporting their claim for Tangykia, which the Germans had no real influence in.
ITTL, the Germans never control Southwest Africa, so instead of gaining the Caprivi Strip, their claims to Wituland are recognized.
How did the Philippines end up the way it did? The Spanish have a fire sale, but didn't think to only sell the majority of the Philippines where they held no real control? You would think they would try to get colonies elsewhere to make up for it. Think that was part of their reasons for going for Morocco, though their were historical reasons as well, of sort. Was there some sort of horse trading, where the Germans, Americans, Japanese, and British accepted the French disembowling Thailand in exchange for them all getting a cut of the Spanish empire?
Basically the Spanish had just lost Cuba, which is met with a sharp rise in Filipino rebellions lead to the Germans attempting to "help suppress" the Philippines. This was after the British started worrying about the Germans more than the French, leading to Japan and the UK getting in on the action as well. At the end of the day, the three nations divided the nation, but German forces had already established themselves in the center and in Manila.
Is Mozambique colored differently than Angola?
No, Portuguese West Africa is just more complex colonially speaking, with various vassals, colonies, and protectorates alongside Angola.
What is the primary language of the state north of Uruguay?
That State is the Piratini Confederation, a protectorate of the French Empire; they speak Portuguese.
Is that striped area in southern Chile supposed to be a area of autonomy for their own Natives, or is it a sort of codominion to let the Mapuche get to the Pacific?
Your second guess is accurate; the Protectorate to their east in Patagonia and the striped region is its own protectorate, Araucania; a Condominium between Chile and Patagonia. Though de facto it's a province of Patagonia under Chilean administration.
I don't see Jan Mayen getting Swedish blue at this point. Depends on the autonomy Norway has. They had rather more wriggle room when independent, and able to do horsetrading with their claims to Ellesmere Island they gave up for recognition by the British to the island. That, and it was partially to make up for all the sunk Norwegian ships during WWI.
Fair enough, I just didn't want to leave it terra nullius, so I gave it the power who claimed it.
I know you probably had a reason for giving northern Bohemia to Germany here, but I don't think they are good enough, no matter the circumstances, Bohemia and Moravia have each been whole units for nearly a thousand years. If they are taken then I am guessing this Germany would basically by a Prussian enterprise that also annexed all of Saxony, like it repeatedly attempted to do earlier. I expect it would have all been called the Kingdom of Prussia for years, just like Italy was ruled by the King of Sardinia loooong after it called for a name change.
Basically the idea was to annex the ethnic German areas of Bohemia and Austrian Silesia following the Austro-Prussian War.
Naples run by a German cadet branch here, or is that just the regular color for when it is independent?
No, that's just the color for Naples, there was another color, but it's color for protectorates was too close to France's.
And who runs Rhodes? If it is an autonomous area for Turkey, I think they would have garrisoned it and made sure control was solid.
The Sicilians own Rhodes; ITTL, they received Austrian support in the Turko-Italian War. Austria took minor border regions with the Ottomans.
Don't see why the British would swipe new islands around there, anyways. They might as well have kept the Ionians. And looking over to India, not sure who well it shows the situation. I have seen plenty of maps of the area, and I recall the Presidencies having quite a few subdivisions. Perhaps bring back the darker grey for the borders of Princely-States. Maybe even make a third shade of pink, to better differentiate everything.
That's basically a British protectorate over Free State of Icaria just as further protection to the Suez and the path to India. I decided to include it after reading that the fate of all the Ottoman Islands in the Aegean Sea [besides Crete] were to be decided by the great powers.
Might also want borders for the Trucial States. While it may seem minor, those areas were independent enough that some of them held off temporarily or entirely from joining the UAE IOTL.
Just like all colonial borders, only the primary colony is shown. I don't show the Trucial States for the same reason I don't show the Ivory Coast, or Niger, or Dahomey.
And back to Denmark and Sweden, I wonder if the Russians would be happy about the Swedes holding Svalbard. I expect Sweden is still veeeeery wary of the Russians.
See my point on Jan Mayen
