Map Thread VII

Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you asking if European nations have colonies? Well Rome is the only one with an actual colony (growing in North America). Most of the northern European states are either African colonies/puppets or very isolationist.

Rome is still around yet Songhai, Wolof, and the rest are there, and the POD is during Rome? THE BUTTERFLIES, THEY DIE
 
A very, VERY WiP constructed world map, with a POD (as almost every time with me...) during the 1300s. Haven't decided on the borders in Europe yet, which is why most of it is blank.

Btw: Current year... 1920s, roughly. Need to roll out that number ;) And yes, I took some inspirations for the African borders, since finding any good ones is a pain is the *** AND I have some convergent borders, but hey WiP...

Found it!!!!!!!!!!
I thought I recognised some of those African borders! :D
 
A very, VERY WiP constructed world map, with a POD (as almost every time with me...) during the 1300s. Haven't decided on the borders in Europe yet, which is why most of it is blank.

Btw: Current year... 1920s, roughly. Need to roll out that number ;) And yes, I took some inspirations for the African borders, since finding any good ones is a pain is the *** AND I have some convergent borders, but hey WiP...

If the Dutch still hold the Cape, I cannot see the British establishing colonies around it. Most of the mineral wealth, which was the main reason for the British expansion in that area (I may stand corrected here), is in Rhodesia; OTL Namibia and Botswana is mostly just desert. The other reason for the British expansion was of course the Cape-to-Cairo line, and well, without the Cape or Cairo in British hands there can be no Cape-to-Cairo line, now can there?
 
If the Dutch still hold the Cape, I cannot see the British establishing colonies around it. Most of the mineral wealth, which was the main reason for the British expansion in that area (I may stand corrected here), is in Rhodesia; OTL Namibia and Botswana is mostly just desert. The other reason for the British expansion was of course the Cape-to-Cairo line, and well, without the Cape or Cairo in British hands there can be no Cape-to-Cairo line, now can there?

From my knowledge most of South Africa's diamonds are in the highveld around Kimberly, though I may be confusing it with gold. My main problem is that Natal needed to be subdued by overland fighting to settle it and with no base of operations for the British it becomes much harder.
 
If the Dutch still hold the Cape, I cannot see the British establishing colonies around it. Most of the mineral wealth, which was the main reason for the British expansion in that area (I may stand corrected here), is in Rhodesia; OTL Namibia and Botswana is mostly just desert. The other reason for the British expansion was of course the Cape-to-Cairo line, and well, without the Cape or Cairo in British hands there can be no Cape-to-Cairo line, now can there?

No, Rhodesia is rich in minerals, but the British were interested in the diamonds around Kimberley, and subsequently the massive gold deposits which were found in the Transvaal and parts of the Orange Free State.
 
Weren't the diamonds on Boer territory, which was the reason of the english invasion ? :confused:

No, most of the diamonds were in and around Kimberley, which was British. The gold was mostly in the Boer republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State.
 
No, Rhodesia is rich in minerals, but the British were interested in the diamonds around Kimberley, and subsequently the massive gold deposits which were found in the Transvaal and parts of the Orange Free State.

As I said, I may stand corrected. Even though it is like you say, the Dutch would have got there first if they owned the Cape.
 
As I said, I may stand corrected. Even though it is like you say, the Dutch would have got there first if they owned the Cape.

Not necessarily. They may have seen no need to expand into the interior, if thet didn't know of the vast mineral wealth of the South African interior. The only reason it was discovered was because of the Great Trek, with the Boers opening up the Highveld to European expansion. If the Dutch hold the Cape, no Great Trek. Perhaps the British secure a base in Natal, and they open up South Africa, rather than the Boers.
 
Here's my entry for MotF, with the link
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=198501

notfrenchrevolution.png
 
Not necessarily. They may have seen no need to expand into the interior, if thet didn't know of the vast mineral wealth of the South African interior. The only reason it was discovered was because of the Great Trek, with the Boers opening up the Highveld to European expansion. If the Dutch hold the Cape, no Great Trek. Perhaps the British secure a base in Natal, and they open up South Africa, rather than the Boers.

That doesn't make much sense though. Again, the Xhosa will not allow the british a secure place in Natal and the administration won't be interested in a colonial advemture in a place they believe is worthless. Dutch Trekboers were already beyond the Cape and in the Great Karoo before the Brits took over.
 
That doesn't make much sense though. Again, the Xhosa will not allow the british a secure place in Natal and the administration won't be interested in a colonial advemture in a place they believe is worthless. Dutch Trekboers were already beyond the Cape and in the Great Karoo before the Brits took over.

Yeah, good thing the Xhosas were in Natal :rolleyes:

Yeah, but the Trekboers weren't in the Transvaal, when the British took over. I would doubt they were even over the Fish River by the early 1800s. The catalyst for them moving into the Free State and the Transvaal was the imposition of British rule. Without that, there will be no real reason for them to try attempt the arduous journey into the Escarpment.

Yje British may decide to get involved in Natal to give themselves a hold on one of the most important searoutes at the time.
 
Not entirely happy with this one, but…

A world in which the Habsburg empire fell apart early due to an anti-Habsburg revolt in Spain itself, setting off an extended struggle for Spanish America, and the Ottomans did somewhat better, taking Vienna and south Italy (which would eventually be “liberated” by the French).

It’s the year 1937, and international tensions are on the rise. France is a Great Power in relative decline: its North American empire broke away with Columbian help around the turn of the century, and Calvinist Deutchesland and the Catholic Nuremberg confederation are being alarmingly cordial with each other. The Shah and the Sultan are sniping at each other again, and Russia worries about the quickening pace of modernization of the new dynasty in China. The rickety Tripartite Monarchy suffers from internal political turmoil, and race relations are turning bloody again in Florida. In South America Novo Lusitania is now in the hands of a belligerent Junta, while the Emperors of Peru, who trace their family line to Spanish nobility older than the Habsburg upstarts, look north to their “lost territories” in what OTL would be Venezuela and Columbia. There is a smell of smoke in the air.

It’s a bit more backwards than OTL, with technology roughly on a turn-of-the-20th century level. It’s a highly multi-polar world, but there are those who are trying to promote unity. The British (who removed their annoying monarchs for good and all in the 18th century, with less fuss and muss than OTLs French) are working to join their overseas territories into a genuine federal empire with underseas cable and the new invention of radio. The Columbians (a US-equivalent which didn’t end slavery until 1910, but never became a true “slave society” like Florida) and their Arcadian neighbors and allies have been feeling out the Californians, etc. re the possibility of creating a north American customs union: several European leaders are trying to promote the same notion for Europe, but the traditional French-Deutsche hostility works against this.

Spain is only a middle-sized power, but is nearly as rich as France on a per capita basis: the loss of much of its empire in the later 16th and 17th centuries forced it to concentrate on developing its own resources, and in the last 60 years Spain has even had a moderate colonial revival in Africa. Protestantism is more widely spread than OTL: what OTL would be Belgium and the Catholic bits of the Rhinelands are mostly Protestant, as are Bohemia and Hungary (Poland follows a “national Catholicism” reminiscent of OTL Anglicanism). The Nuremberg Confederation has its origins in an alliance of frightened German states vs. the Ottomans after Vienna fell: in the 18th and 19th century reversals of Ottoman power, the Federation expanded into the western Balkans. It remains a bit decentralized: the Parliament in Nuremberg is more powerful than the King in Munich, the nominal leader of the Federation, but still leaves a lot to local authority. (Which can be pretty reactionary in spots).

Multiethnic states are less unusual in this TL, the discourse of nationalism having taken different paths in a world where both French revolutions were damp firecrackers. The British are a bit of an exception, being cultural imperialists of a ruthless type. After the Irish Rising of 1822 and the near invasion by a Franco-Spanish alliance, the British carried out a program of cultural annihilation and “ethnic cleansing” more ruthless than anything OTL. It did eventually lead to the emergence of a solidly Gaelic independent west Ireland, but half the island was solidly Angli(Scoti-)cized.

The Ottomans had more space to trade for time and more resources than OTL, and have done better in catching up with Europe, although it remains a bit on the backwards side. They are currently seeking an alliance with China, both having outstanding scores with Russia. Russia is a bit nervous and trying to tighten ties with the French monarchy. Russia still has a Czar, but there is also a parliament, and the balance of power is complex and turbulent: few like the idea of a war to shake things up. Finland is united with Russia in a personal union, but is self-governing: in a world with less ethnic absolutism, annoying efforts at “Rusification” have been avoided.

A Nader Shah equivalent not only sacked Delhi, but settled in for a stay: ultimately his descendants failed to carry out his ambition of replacing the decaying Mughal Empire, the British and the Dutch having put their own oars in. (British India is however smaller and less profitable than OTL: the British have saved money by using the Marathas and Gurkhas as cats paws to fight the Persians, accounting for their greater independence than OTL. The British are now trying to carry out a program of industrialization). The Shah of Shahs, now resident in India proper, has come to favor the locally more numerous Sunnis, which ironically may end up losing them Iran proper.

Western Van Diemen’s Land being a howling desert with a handful of inhabitants at the time, the Deutch were willing to entertain a very generous offer from a group of idealistic (and very wealthy) Jews who had concluded Africa was a pest-hole and the Ottomans were going nowhere soon. Although immigration was initially slow, New Israel has grown into a small but functional country, with a remarkably innovative approach to irrigation and making the desert bloom.

Many Japanese immigrate yearly to richer lands around the circle of the Pacific. Japan is considered quaint, a poor and backwards Asian monarchy, with enough of a modernized army to keep off foreign predators but lacking the resources to fight a major war: they may yet surprise people.

Bruce
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top