The NextGen OTL Worlda Series

Reader mode
DaniCBP

DaniCBP

FancyHat said:
Here's a few:
  • Fort Ross is missing;
  • Most (if not all) of Florida wasn't effectively controlled by Spain;
  • Same goes for the vast majority of the Missouri and Michigan Territories as well as the Oregon country;
  • The Kentucky-Tennessee border west of the Tennessee River should be a pixel south;
  • The District of Columbia is colored as a state;
  • The United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata was practically a supranational union rather than an actual state (and the Falkland Islands and especially South Georgia should be shown as terra nullius);
  • The Eyalets of Algiers, Tunis, Tripoli, and Egypt should be shown as semi-independent or even strictly nominal vassals of the Ottoman Empire;
  • As far as I'm aware Egyptian control never made it to the Persian gulf;
  • None of the Kurdish vassal states of the Ottoman Empire are shown;
  • The depiction of Muscat and Oman is entirely wrong:
    • The Imamate of Oman, as far as I know, never really controlled any coastal territory and definitely didn't extend to the Trucial States or Dhofar
    • The Sultanate of Muscat was the dominant influence between the two in general, so the shades you've used for them should be reversed
    • I'm very skeptical of Muscat and Oman controlling Dhofar at all in that period, let alone any of Hadhramaut
  • Socotra was controlled by the Sultanate of Mahra at the time, which I'm not sure is even shown at all on this map (it looks like all of the later Protectorate of South Arabia is just shown as one state, and I don't know what that's supposed to be);
  • Quite a few Indian princely states are missing but the most significant one is Oudh/Awadh;
  • Japan was highly decentralized at the time, and most of Hokkaido and all of Sakhalin were well outside of its control.
Also, Couto Misto, Cospaia, and Neutral Moresnet are invisible on the map. That's nothing new for WorldA, but I thought I may as well point it out (for what it's worth they're all larger than Vatican City).
Click to expand...
As someone said, half of these problems exist in the 1815 map (which is the one I used as a base).
About the rest:
I used Omiatlas' maps as a guide, and so: yes, Egypt controlled Arabia extended until the gulf (https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/18200928/ ) and also these Kurdish vassals don't appear in any map I've seen outside this thread. Also, the south arabian states are the same as in the 1848 map, except for the one controlled by Muscat and Oman. The rest of mistakes of M&O are inherited from the 1815 and 1848 maps.
About north America: yes, the USA didn't controll all of the oregon territory nor did Britain, but also in the 1948 map North America appears totally controlled by Mexico, Canada and the US while they didn't.
 
Last edited:
SnivyLink

SnivyLink

i patched up the 1900 map yet again
1601561211760.png
 

FancyHat

SnivyLink said:
to be fair a lot of those problems are on our other 19th century maps as well
Click to expand...
Yep, they sure are.

@DaniCBP Honestly, as detailed as OmniAtlas is I've got no reason to believe it's a wholly reliable source. Really, though, this all depends on how "correct" you want to be, and what that even means. I think your map is fine, in general (though the Kentucky-Tennessee border is genuinely erroneous and the correct border has been in use for a while on this site)
 
Linbot

Linbot

DaniCBP said:
As someone said, half of these problems exist in the 1815 map (which is the one I used as a base).
About the rest:
I used Omiatlas' maps as a guide, and so: yes, Egypt controlled Arabia extended until the gulf (https://omniatlas.com/maps/europe/18200928/ ) and also these Kurdish vassals don't appear in any map I've seen outside this thread. Also, the south arabian states are the same as in the 1848 map, except for the one controlled by Muscat and Oman. The rest of mistakes of M&O are inherited from the 1815 and 1848 maps.
About north America: yes, the USA didn't controll all of the oregon territory nor did Britain, but also in the 1948 map North America appears totally controlled by Mexico, Canada and the US while they didn't.
Click to expand...
If the 1815 map is wrong, it's your responsibility to fix it if you notice the errors.
The Kurdish vassals definitely existed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdish_chiefdoms
It's absolutely insane to give the Oregon territory to the US entirely. If you need to give it to someone, split it along OTL since Britain had settlements in the northern half and the US had settlements in the southern half.
 
DaniCBP

DaniCBP

Slightly corrected 1820:
1820-.png


A few things to add:
Yes, Japan did control Hokkaido in 1821. According to (spanish) Wikipedia, it was controlled by feudal Japan between 1799-1821.
Oregon Country is shown as an independen entity controlled jointly by USA and the UK, as not to favour anyone (as that was the real situation, a territory controlled by both countries, as until 1840's the actual border was not set).
 
Last edited:

FancyHat

DaniCBP said:
Slightly corrected 1820:
View attachment 587538

A few things to add:
Yes, Japan did control Hokkaido in 1821. According to (spanish) Wikipedia, it was controlled by feudal Japan between 1799-1821.
Oregon Country is shown as an independen entity controlled jointly by USA and the UK, as not to favour anyone (as that was the real situation, a territory controlled by both countries, as until 1840's the actual border was not set).
Click to expand...
While the Matsumae clan held territories in southern Hokkaido the vast majority of the island was inhabited by the Ainu and outside any Japanese control. I could find a scholarly article if you need one, but personally I'm a little confused why you're citing Spanish Wikipedia for your claim when a simple online search for "history of Hokkaido" says nothing about a Japanese occupation and in fact contradicts it. If you provided an authoritative source (which Wikipedia never is, unfortunately) I'd be more willing to accept that claim but as it stands it's very questionable.
This may be a consequence of it being more difficult to convey tone via text than via speech, but I hope you aren't taking anything that I've said as a personal insult; after all, you asked for corrections and I saw a lot that could be made. If you'd rather I hadn't, then I'm sorry.
 
erictom333

erictom333

2020.png

Changes:
- New subtitle :D
- Patched up the colors of a few lakes in Kazakhstan
- Consistent standard of colors for coasts and borders up in the top right
- We don't need different colors of subdivision for autonomous entities
- Poland subdivisions, credit @tungsterismapping
- Burma subdivisions, my own rip
- On second thought, we don't really need Sudan's subdivisions
- Changed shades for Karakalpakstan and Badakhshan (I think that's what it's called)
- Tajikistan doesn't have a color on the NCS, so I think we should use the DCS color:
1601599517637.png
 
erictom333

erictom333

Last-minute changes:
2020.png

  • Fixed claim outlines in Guyana
  • Removed Somalia subdivisions
  • Added Philippines subdivisions
  • We don't need any more subdivisions
  • Changed EU and Tajikistan colors back to NCS (begrudgingly)
 

Thanksforallthefish

Regarding subdivisions, my suggestion is to only show the 1st level divisions forcountries with a federal/confederal structure (and other such historical associations), and leaving other subdivisions for supplemental maps.

Otherwise it gets too cluttered, and inconsistent with previous maps.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top