A Map Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
FederationX said:
Nice map tetsu-Katana, but I think France is whole and is completely occupied and I thought Egypt was Italian.

I figured it might be. As for Egypt, nothing is ever really mentioned, and it seemed logical that a heavily German-controlled 'independent' Egypt is likely after Italian and German arguments over who gets to control it. Besides, I would imagine that Germany would want control over the Suez Canal.

Constantinople said:
Germany does not control all of siberia, it mentions something about the russian survivor pulling deep into the east, and are not currently not a threat, but their food remains. Or something like that. I got the feeling that alot of siberia was essentially warlord or unclaimed(esk).

I doubt Germany would allow this to happen. Even is some Siberian rump state survived past Hitler, I'm sure it would have been annexed by Himmler. They hated the Slavs and surely wouldn't allow even a weak Slavic-run state to exist. Besides, Siberia has a lot of oil and other resources- that alone would probably be enough for the Nazis to pounce on it.
 
Here's the current map from the "Dark Ages Map" TL that Midgardmetal has written:

AMAPA.PNG
 
i remember in Victorious Opposition right at the end when WW2 started that Italy, France, England and Russia were at war with Gemrany and AH. and in the Return Engagements threads there doesnt seem to be a problem with Italy at war with Germany
 
It makes a bunch of sense, but thats how he puts it in the book. Even hyper Germany couldnt control and Garrison that much terr. Japan seems to control much of the resources. I kinda felt there was some co-dominion over Egypt. And turkey doesnt exist, she mentions all the nations of most of the world and she also say "the Italian Empire around the med." Plus the Germans cant allow a large nonaryan muslim country near them.
 
OK this is about the American Empire map
look, thats the way i remembered it. i dont have the book with me. but now that i have checked the Setlting Acounts thread, Italy was a 'maybe', but i always interprited it as being at war with Germany...
 
Constantinople said:
It makes a bunch of sense, but thats how he puts it in the book. Even hyper Germany couldnt control and Garrison that much terr. Japan seems to control much of the resources. I kinda felt there was some co-dominion over Egypt. And turkey doesnt exist, she mentions all the nations of most of the world and she also say "the Italian Empire around the med." Plus the Germans cant allow a large nonaryan muslim country near them.

Really? Why couldn't Germany control that much territory? It's pretty easy when you eradicate the native population and fill it with loyal Germans. It's not like there's anyone strong enough to oppose them.

As for Turkey, I see no reason why she shouldn't exist. Italy certainly couldn't take down Turkey, and Germany has a historical friendship with Turkey and the Ottoman Empire. Also, for the Muslim part, Turkey has been pretty secular in OTL, so why wouldn't this Turkey, presumably under a nationalistic right-wing government and probably just another German vassal state, be secular as well?
 
But if youre going by the book, is seems it does not exist. Yes mabye they could hold it, but the big question is: why should they. It has next to zero population, (besides the russian I insist are there) and it is an unpleasant place to live, why waste the money.
 

Diamond

Banned
Here's another map for a world in GURPS Infinite Worlds. This one is 'Gallatin', where Alexander Hamilton dies at the Battle of Trenton. Albert Gallatin becomes the first Secretary of the Treasury and the United States is still-born.

Gallatin.PNG
 
hmm intersting. the only Gallatin that i know of is the libertarian from the Wiskey revolution, a-la Probability Brooch.

its not him, right?
 
But having a extremely weak slav state, will provide a bufferstate/boggieman for the nazis. Having to patrol all that border area would be expensive. It says in the book that the reich extends deep into siberia, not incompassing it, and it says the same for India, which leads me to believe that india was partitioned, with most going to germany. Romania, bulgaria, and Hungary were independent too.
 
Diamond, I've never read the "Gallatin" timeline, but I'm assuming that it involves a fairly early breakup of the United States just from the map.

I wonder how Texas not only became independent but ended up with territory from Minnesota to Nicaragua. "Don't mess with Texas!" indeed! :eek:
 

Diamond

Banned
Paul Spring said:
Diamond, I've never read the "Gallatin" timeline, but I'm assuming that it involves a fairly early breakup of the United States just from the map.

I wonder how Texas not only became independent but ended up with territory from Minnesota to Nicaragua. "Don't mess with Texas!" indeed! :eek:
Well, the descriptions are very brief (only a page for most TLs), so I've had to guess at a lot of stuff in making these maps.

In Gallatin, Alexander Hamilton dies at Trenton from a Hessian bullet. The Federalist Papers are never written, and there is no strong economic policy to knit the nation together. New York refuses to ratify the Constitution in 1787, pretty much killing the whole deal. The Articles of Confederation were redrafted the next year, but in-fighting over trade down the Mississippi split the Ohio settlers from the weak Philadelphia gov't. Aaron Burr and Andrew Jackson captured New Orleans in 1802 and formed their own Republic, creating a trade treaty with Ohio Country in the process.

By 1860, only 5 states are left in the USA (which had finally adopted a constitution in 1815) - CT, NY, PA, DE, NJ.

I've changed things slightly from the GURPS entry, specifically by eliminating the anarchic Ohio Association, and giving Texas more territory than is implied in the book. It seems as though British Canada stretches into Michigan and down into the Dakotas, but I thought this looked prettier. :)

It is stated that Texas owns a Nicaragua Canal. It also states that Texas is still a slave-owning nation as of 2004. Given that mentality, I felt it likely that they'd own outright the whole of Nicaragua. I threw in Cuba because I also feel it likely that Spain would've eventually lost the Caribbean, and Texas is the strongest regional player in the TL.
 
This is a world map from a timeline I've worked on a little bit in the past, the POD being the death of Washington from disease in 1785 and the subsequent failure to agree to a constitutional settlement, and the breakup of the US.

This is the world in 2003 -

Commonwealth of Free Nations 03.PNG
 
This is the basic world alliance system in 2003.

The 2 great power blocs are the Commonwealth of Free Nations and the Eurasian Alliance and its allies (usually just called "The Commonwealth" and "The Alliance")

The Commonwealth of Free Nations grew out of the old British Commonwealth, which is still a strong and vital institution in this timeline. The Commonwealth of Free Nations was a way for nations friendly to the British commonwealth to join in a larger, looser, less demanding alliance. All nations belonging to the British Commonwealth also belong to the Commonwealth of Free Nations.

The Commonwealth nations all have trade agreements and military alliances. In practice, the larger members, particularly Brazil and the Ottoman Empire, sometimes go off in their own direction with foreign policy and military intervention and considerable strain is put on the alliance (comparable to the US vs. other NATO nations over the last 3 years or so).

One thing that all members of the Commonwealth have in common are fairly democratic, elected governments. There is a mixture of constitutional monarchies and republics, parliamentary and presidential systems of government. Domestically, many of the nations in the Commonwealth follow almost libertarian ideals with low government intervention in the economy. In the English speaking countries especially, classical "laissez-faire" economics was never eclipsed by socialism or even Keynesian-type economics as the dominant strand of thought to nearly the same degree as OTL. In this timeline, socialist-type policies tended to be associated with the centralized and nationalistic governments of the Commonwealth's opponents, further decreasing their popularity. Nevertheless, some members of the Commonwealth, such as Mexico, the Ottoman Empire, Siam, and even Brazil to a certain extent, have traditions of stronger state intervention in the economy.


The Eurasian alliance is based on the 2 core nations of Russia and China. Russia has been Britain's one consistent foe for the past 150 years. Unlike in OTL, Russian Tsars as early as the 1830s in this world began pushing for strong economic development. Russia's industrial growth in the 19th century was much faster than in OTL. In the late 19th century, the government began to adopt some socialist-style policies to get both peasants and factory workers on its side. The official ideology was constructed around an extremely nationalistic form of what in OTL was called "slavophilism" - the idea that the Slavic peoples are a unique group that deserve world leadership, and that Russia is the natural leader of the Slavic peoples. Under this ideology, the Russian government developed a quasi-fascist type of government in the early 20th century - nationalistic, strong military, emphasis on "national destiny", corporatist economics with government having a major hand in both capital and labor, a "rubber-stamp" legislature, lots of propaganda, etc. Earlier in the 20th century, Russia's main allies were a nationalist, monarchical France and a Shogun-ruled Japan slightly subservient to the Russians. Those two nations were defeated in the Great War of 1937 - 1943, but the Commonwealth and its allies were too exhausted and war-weary to continue the fight against Russia, especially because Russia developed and tested its first atomic bombs at almost the exact same time that the Commonwealth did.

Even as the Great War raged, Chinese nationalist forces with Russian support inflicted a series of defeats on the weak pro-Commonwealth government of southern China, and were able to seize control of the entire country.

What followed were decades of alternating high military tension and "detente"-like lower tensions where economic competition became more important than military.

Russia and China both have internal dynamics somewhat similar to OTL China over the last 20 years - repressive governments combined with strong, capitalistic economies (though the government is also neck-deep in business ventures). Many in the Commonwealth hoped that liberal economics would lead to rising demands for more democratic governments, but this has not happened to nearly the degree they had hoped.

Many of the other nations allied to Russia and China have similar political/economic systems. To a greater extent than the Commonwealth, though, the Alliance is driven by negative factors - fierce competition against the Commonwealth.


The Paris or unaligned pact started in continental Europe and later branched out to recruit member nations in other parts of the world. It's kind of like a combination of a more loose-knit EU and a more effective "non-aligned movement" from OTL Cold War.

Commonwealth of Free Nations 03-alliances.PNG
 
Greetings and salutaions.

I'm reposting a slightly modified version of my "American Empire 1992" map: I've incorporated a few of Scarecrow's changes.

I'm still dubious about the enthusiasm of black Americans for moving to a disease environnment as rich and varied as West Africa, but since it will probably be the Confederates that will be _paying_ for it, I withdrawn my objections re cost.

A Turkish-supported independent Sianking: quite possible, depending on how much the Japanese have messed up China. The larger Chile - a US ally, IIRC? also seems likely.

The endpaper map does not show New England, Brunswick, etc. as being part of Quebec. But who wants mainland Neufoundland? [1]

Some move away from direct colonial rule is feasible: some areas (Senegal, Uganda) are largely African-run puppets: East and SW Africa are largely run by European settlers.

(We'll just have to agree to disagree on Japan).

best,
Bruce

[1] Apologies to any Newfoundlanders on the group.

AmericanEmpire2.png
 
Oops! Forgot to remove the color label for Italy. Ignore it, ok?

And just a leetle one: this is a "Napoleon stays out of Russia" scenario created by Charles Stross over at soc.history.what-if (not a published AH, but he's a published author...)

Stross2.png
 
hey! i like the map. its a good bastard child of our two ideas :D


just one thing though...i would have thought that the US would give all the little islands around the arctic to Quebec to look after, as 'no-one' lives there. uh...Japan, as mentioned before, but we will just have to agree to disagree. apart from that, its fine
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top