Map Thread XXI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes. Geographic determinism is bupkis
Geographical difficulties often come up in discussions on this site, such as the unlikeliness of an East Asian discovery of America or someone else than Russia taking over Siberia, the importance of resource availability in industrial revolutions, etc. The belief that geography isn't a major influence on history strikes me as dubious and probably a reaction to the misuse of such theories by right-wing fruitbats rather than a genuinely well-reasoned approach. (Feel free to give me a list of books to read to demonstrate otherwise!)

Edit: to clarify in advance, I'm not saying Geography is Destiny, of course there are other factors, but in many cases it's going to be important.
 
Last edited:
Geographical difficulties often come up in discussions on this site, such as the unlikeliness of an East Asian discovery of America or someone else than Russia taking over Siberia, the importance of resource availability in industrial revolutions, etc. The belief that geography isn't a major influence on history strikes me as dubious and probably a reaction to the misuse of such theories by right-wing fruitbats rather than a genuinely well-reasoned approach. (Feel free to give me a list of books to read to demonstrate otherwise!)

Edit: to clarify in advance, I'm not saying Geography is Destiny, of course there are other factors, but in many cases it's going to be important.

100% agree.

Regards,

Northstar
 
The problem with geographical determinism is that it plays into the idea that "history is inevitable". That events in history were destined to happen one way or another, which defeats the purpose of alternate history in of itself
 
I don't think so.

If you look at Louis XIV of France you can see that offensives are determinated by the geographical landascape of France and neighboring countries(to move vast armies needs navigable rivers and a spacious valleys). The outcomes of the wars, however depend by other factors than geography, here you can have whatever alternate event you like.
 
Geographical difficulties often come up in discussions on this site, such as the unlikeliness of an East Asian discovery of America or someone else than Russia taking over Siberia, the importance of resource availability in industrial revolutions, etc. The belief that geography isn't a major influence on history strikes me as dubious and probably a reaction to the misuse of such theories by right-wing fruitbats rather than a genuinely well-reasoned approach. (Feel free to give me a list of books to read to demonstrate otherwise!)

Edit: to clarify in advance, I'm not saying Geography is Destiny, of course there are other factors, but in many cases it's going to be important.
I acknowledge that Europe may have geographical advantages in terms of distance to other continents that European nations wish to conquer, but there are timelines where Europe stagnates like your No European Industrialization due to a combination of external invasions and a more extreme *Reformation, and timelines where non-European states deter colonization of South and Southeast Asia like Tony Jones Gurkani Alam.

Just that from an abstract decontextualized POV it makes geographical sense for Europe to dominate the Americas, Africa, India
 
Last edited:
The problem with geographical determinism is that it plays into the idea that "history is inevitable". That events in history were destined to happen one way or another, which defeats the purpose of alternate history in of itself
I literally said "I'm not saying Geography is Destiny". I'm not responsible for dumbasses who take it to an extreme, nor is anyone else who wants to take geographical constraints into consideration in their AH.

I don't think so.

If you look at Louis XIV of France you can see that offensives are determinated by the geographical landascape of France and neighboring countries(to move vast armies needs navigable rivers and a spacious valleys). The outcomes of the wars, however depend by other factors than geography, here you can have whatever alternate event you like.

But France is constrained in that it simultaneously can't afford those vast armies (which it needs to defeat the constellation of European powers that can fight them on land) and a navy on the scale of Britain, and by the existence of the British channel. Pulling off a Bourbon invasion of Britain isn't impossible, but it's hard.

Remember what we're doing here is _fiction_. It's often plausible fiction, but it's not real. The existence of scenarios in which non-European states dominate the globe doesn't really prove anything about how important geography was to real-world outcomes: the plausibility of any particular TL is always up for debate, and we usually tend to put a thumb on the scales somewhere, since, with some rare exceptions, we have an idea of where we want to end up. We don't pick the "most probably history": we choose the one we're interested in. To say they're all equally likely to happen is to commit what I call the "Geese win the Battle of Britain for the Nazis" fallacy.

(Personally, whatever geographical advantages it may have, I think it quite likely for Europe to globally dominate a lot less than OTL, since the scientific and industrial revolutions are quite contingent events. On the other hand, that doesn't mean someone else automatically takes the place it did OTL, since having said revolutions is quite contingent for them, as well.)

In any case, this is a map thread, so we really should take this debate elsewhere if we want to continue it.
 
@B_Munro any critiques?
An alternate North America c. 1900, POD in the 1400s
Gold - Spanish kingdom of Ursalia in personal union
Blue - North French colony
Light blue - former North French colony
Dark red - Anglo-Portuguese Viceroyalty
Red - Anglo-Portuguese colony
Teal - greater *Californian republic, formerly the Neutral *Pacific Coast Territory (administered by the Pacific Companies’ Board), independent after the Pacific Revolution
IMG_6650.jpg
 
Last edited:
Is the Maitreya Revolt basically a Buddhist version of the Taiping Rebellion?
Kinda, in that it has some religious elements and is stemming from many of the same problems. But it’s pretty different in structure, much more loosely-organized and conciliatory towards local interests and less strict about its millenarian undertones while the revolution is ongoing. It’s very popular among the peasantry and very syncretic (another common claim is that it’s head is an incarnation of Laozi, for example). Its secular promises of land reform and food for the hungry (and a few less clear and more jumbled promises) are more important than all the other stuff, but it’s leadership is more than willing to work with local governors who want more personal gain out of rebellion.
 
Just that from an abstract decontextualized POV it makes geographical sense for Europe to dominate the Americas, Africa, India
Not to enter into too much argument on the map thread (the thread for posting maps), but i don’t think it makes sense from geography alone that Europe would “dominate India.”

That disagreement seems to demonstrate the problem with determinism pretty succinctly, actually.
 
So, I am in the early stages of working on the next chapter of my WTLB TL. Basically, the premise of this chapter is that, as a result of a more humiliating defeat in TTL's Russo-Turkish War, the Ottoman Empire breaks up about 40 years early into various states based (loosely, in some instances) around a rise of nationalism amongst various ethnic groups within the former empire.

Cliffnotes context: Egypt wins the Egyptian-Ethiopian War, absorbing Ethiopia into its empire. Britain is, at this time, under the control of a Liberal government under Gladstone (Disraeli is a backbencher after suffering embarrassment in his early political career). The Ottomans brutally put down rebellion and independence movements in the Balkans, particularly Bulgaria, leading to the Balkans declaring independence and breaking away from the Ottomans. Russia and Britain (along with TTL's Austria-Hungary-Bohemia union offering financial support) prop up the Balkans (and Egypt, which decides to break away completely) and defeat the Ottomans. Over the next several years, other ethnic groups within the Ottoman Empire start to realize they can do the same thing.

The Ottomans attempt to reform into a constitutional monarchy and a quasi-federalist system to boot, but Sultan Abdul Hamid II is overthrown by a reactionary political operative (no idea who yet) who feels that a strong totalitarian hand is what's needed to keep control over the empire. This leads to the complete breakdown of the Ottoman Empire, causing its territory to fracture. Assyrians, Kurds, and Palestinians declare their own nations. The reactionary sultan holds onto the Turkish peninsula and turns it into a totalitarian dictatorship, with liberal Turks fighting an insurgency. Persia and Egypt take advantage of the situation, nabbing territory on the eastern and western portions of the Arabian Peninsula respectively (Crete also joins up with Egypt). I don't yet know what's going on in the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. I'd imagine it's fairly disorganized at the moment, but will become fertile fighting ground throughout the rest of the 19th century.

I am very very very open to changing things; this is just a preliminary sketch so that I can get ideas down, then I will tinker with them later for added plausibility. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

View attachment 832961
Only thing that I find strange is how Persia expanded all the way to the Black Sea.
 
So, I am in the early stages of working on the next chapter of my WTLB TL. Basically, the premise of this chapter is that, as a result of a more humiliating defeat in TTL's Russo-Turkish War, the Ottoman Empire breaks up about 40 years early into various states based (loosely, in some instances) around a rise of nationalism amongst various ethnic groups within the former empire.

Cliffnotes context: Egypt wins the Egyptian-Ethiopian War, absorbing Ethiopia into its empire. Britain is, at this time, under the control of a Liberal government under Gladstone (Disraeli is a backbencher after suffering embarrassment in his early political career). The Ottomans brutally put down rebellion and independence movements in the Balkans, particularly Bulgaria, leading to the Balkans declaring independence and breaking away from the Ottomans. Russia and Britain (along with TTL's Austria-Hungary-Bohemia union offering financial support) prop up the Balkans (and Egypt, which decides to break away completely) and defeat the Ottomans. Over the next several years, other ethnic groups within the Ottoman Empire start to realize they can do the same thing.

The Ottomans attempt to reform into a constitutional monarchy and a quasi-federalist system to boot, but Sultan Abdul Hamid II is overthrown by a reactionary political operative (no idea who yet) who feels that a strong totalitarian hand is what's needed to keep control over the empire. This leads to the complete breakdown of the Ottoman Empire, causing its territory to fracture. Assyrians, Kurds, and Palestinians declare their own nations. The reactionary sultan holds onto the Turkish peninsula and turns it into a totalitarian dictatorship, with liberal Turks fighting an insurgency. Persia and Egypt take advantage of the situation, nabbing territory on the eastern and western portions of the Arabian Peninsula respectively (Crete also joins up with Egypt). I don't yet know what's going on in the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. I'd imagine it's fairly disorganized at the moment, but will become fertile fighting ground throughout the rest of the 19th century.

I am very very very open to changing things; this is just a preliminary sketch so that I can get ideas down, then I will tinker with them later for added plausibility. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

View attachment 832961
The setting seems quite interesting, but the locations for Assyria and Kurdistan seem a bit strange... Kurdistan misses most Kurdish lands while getting a bunch of Arab lands making it almost certainly mostly Arabic, while Assyria, while it does get most Assyrian lands, well, an Assyrian State is difficult nowadays without a full blown genocide because the Assyrians are not really a majority anywhere, and this state would probably be either Arab or Kurdish majority, not sure.

That being said, for Assyria in particular it's quite possible for an Arab revolt to take up the name for itself, much like our own Syria. This is not as likely for the Kurdish Republic however, so I'd suggest changing the map there a bit.

I'd look up Armenian population maps from the period as well, at least an Ararat republic could be fun to include since you're inclined to giving native peoples a State of their own.

It is an interesting idea, however, and it's always nice to see someone attempt to draw states in the region based on local populations rather than on European imperialist arrangements
 
So, I am in the early stages of working on the next chapter of my WTLB TL. Basically, the premise of this chapter is that, as a result of a more humiliating defeat in TTL's Russo-Turkish War, the Ottoman Empire breaks up about 40 years early into various states based (loosely, in some instances) around a rise of nationalism amongst various ethnic groups within the former empire.

Cliffnotes context: Egypt wins the Egyptian-Ethiopian War, absorbing Ethiopia into its empire. Britain is, at this time, under the control of a Liberal government under Gladstone (Disraeli is a backbencher after suffering embarrassment in his early political career). The Ottomans brutally put down rebellion and independence movements in the Balkans, particularly Bulgaria, leading to the Balkans declaring independence and breaking away from the Ottomans. Russia and Britain (along with TTL's Austria-Hungary-Bohemia union offering financial support) prop up the Balkans (and Egypt, which decides to break away completely) and defeat the Ottomans. Over the next several years, other ethnic groups within the Ottoman Empire start to realize they can do the same thing.

The Ottomans attempt to reform into a constitutional monarchy and a quasi-federalist system to boot, but Sultan Abdul Hamid II is overthrown by a reactionary political operative (no idea who yet) who feels that a strong totalitarian hand is what's needed to keep control over the empire. This leads to the complete breakdown of the Ottoman Empire, causing its territory to fracture. Assyrians, Kurds, and Palestinians declare their own nations. The reactionary sultan holds onto the Turkish peninsula and turns it into a totalitarian dictatorship, with liberal Turks fighting an insurgency. Persia and Egypt take advantage of the situation, nabbing territory on the eastern and western portions of the Arabian Peninsula respectively (Crete also joins up with Egypt). I don't yet know what's going on in the rest of the Arabian Peninsula. I'd imagine it's fairly disorganized at the moment, but will become fertile fighting ground throughout the rest of the 19th century.

I am very very very open to changing things; this is just a preliminary sketch so that I can get ideas down, then I will tinker with them later for added plausibility. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated!

View attachment 832961
I'd say that the Kurdish State(s) be located far north, near the OTL Kurdish principalities (pic) , and let Iraq (under the Mamluks) be its own independent state.
Kurdish_states_1835.png


Also, by this time (I bet 1880s) Palestine would be a part of a greater Syrian kingdom, as by that time Syria was the name for the whole Ottoman Levant.
800px-1851_Henry_Warren_Map_of_Syria.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top