Well, the problem with this timeline is that it still doesn't explain why Pampas didn't push its borders all the way to the Patagonia, if Chile had no way of enforcing its authority on the lands beyond the mountain.So how about this chronology:
1. Pre-colonial tribes in Southern Mediccia
2. Colonial holding(s) in Southern Mediccia
3. Primary Revolt: One nation encompassing Chile, Pampas, Patagonia.
4. Secondary Revolt: Chile and Pampas split from Patagonia.
5. Tertiary Revolt: Pampas splits from Chile.
We could always combine steps 4 and 5.
This way, we have a viable nation at all steps except step 4, and the problems with step 4 would lead to step 5.
Well, the problem with this timeline is that it still doesn't explain why Pampas didn't push its borders all the way to the Patagonia, if Chile had no way of enforcing its authority on the lands beyond the mountain.
(Sorry about being such an ass about this, I had an exam about geography last week so I can't get these kinds of things out of my head for some reason >_<)
I do agree here, completely.
My suggestion about its borders, as well as claim the Stati di San Marco, wich claims the legacy over all of (what's the name of this yellow nation?). It got independent as an Empire, but fell to massive slave revolts that ended into a civil war.
It now posses just the Citá di San Marco, its capital, in an island just of the Bay of San Marco. (There was a free pixel, I swear!)
[And island of Trininad is still free... or is it the Dutch Antilles?]
Bah, I must agree. It it was a larger island it could make some sense, but just now I noticed that Itaquera island is just too small.I'm afraid I'm vetoing this, it makes no real sense.
Ok for me.Trinidad is the big(ger) island to the south. We could just leave that island free and have it as part of N. America.
Patagonia's name would have been butterflied alway. Its name comes from Patagão, as Margellan described the native people of this region as giants.As for the history (and present condition) of southernmost Mediccia, I could veto Patagonia (for its unrealistic name), then we could divide Tschilie (or however it's being spelt) and Pampas roughly along the Andes.
Hey, er, I suppose this request will immediately be rejected, but I was on a thirteen hour car ride to Minnesota, and missed all of Mediccia! Is there any way I could sneak a country in?
So, a revised timeline:
Step 1: Pre-colonial.
Step 2: Imperial Colonies. Development mainly on coast, little inland infrastructure.
Step 3: Colonial Revolution. Unified Revolter Nation Present.
Step 4: Internal Conflict: Developed Coast vs. Inner 'Frontier', Gaels vs. Italians, liberals/republicans vs. monarchists.
Step 5: 1st Division: Chile and inland Pampas, the Mediccian frontier, secede from the aristocratic, civilized south. Aristocratic, well-populated Patagonia and Frontier Chile/Pampas.
Step 6: 2nd Division: Chile and the Pampas come to conflict. Redux of step 4, as the population of the Pampas, inland and coastal, swells with new immigrants and new ideas. Pampas Radical Republicans overthrow Chilean rule east of the Andes, but are unable to establish control to the west. Conservative Chile, revolutionary, multicultural Pampas.
Thoughts? This way, we have three degrees of radicalism present: Independence, Home Rule, Republicanism.
Only if the other player(s) whose land you claim agree to it.
The area that would most logically be a new nation instead of being in the nation that it's in a the moment would either be Mediccia (not the continent, the country that it owns the Galapagos islands) east of the Andes, or the northern part of Panthera (the first country to be claimed) which I think was mentioned to be hard to administrate as the area is very densely forested.
As hardly administred as the interior of Brazil is.
It was explored by the Apertenni, wich excplored the inner regions of the continent seeking for precious metals, diamonds and indians.
Even if densely forested, the large rivers of this region (Paraguay specially) allowed this further exploration. (someone said that controlling the Amazon Basin is a must, but it's not true: the Amazon river and the inner parts of Brazil was explored bny the bandeirantes that left São Paulo, not the oposite.]
I'm open to negotiations if he has a good idea, but I would like to at least keep the Paraguay river.
Also, I propose a name change for Patagonia instead of a veto. While Patagonia might be unrealistic, the actual tribes living their would still exist; maybe Neuquén (actual province but name derived from the natives) or Chubut (ibid)
Well, with the Pampas available, Patagonia would never become the major population center, it's simply not hospitable enough, and settling the pampas is a lot easier.
That may actually work in your favor (although the border would still have to be readjusted slightly...), since in this case, Chile/Patagonia rebels from Pampas, and subsequently Chile loses control of Patagonia, remaining a tenuous hold on their territories beyond the mountains.
Well, how about [Patagonia] being the administrative centre of the colony, at a time when the fertile interior was yet undiscovered, and the primary mode of transportation was by sea? The idea is that the Pampas are unknown beyond the coast, so that they aren't settled until well into the colonial period.
Patagonia (or whatever it'll be called) looks really, really ugly now, and Pampas is quite small.