A Map thread
- Thread starter marl_d
- Start date
Ok lets see as far as the independent states go; France keeps most of Canada proper in the peace treaties following the Seven Year's War although it loses Acadia, Louisiana and all claims to the American midwest(apparently Britain either loses Jamaica to Spain or never claims it in the first place). Due to the continued presense of France on the Continent the colonies are more tolerant of British taxes and garrisons hence the american revolution is delayed by at least fifty years. When it occurs it is likely do to Britain attempts to abolish slavery and the slave trade and the south manages to break away while New England and the midwest remain loyal. New England, later rebels breaking ties with the UK but in the war loses New York to the Kingdom of America and the Great Lakes Dominion (I assume Nova Scotia, since its a darker pink, remains in British hands) The two states of the great plains are tenatively independent but the Dominion of the Great Lakes is backing the Plains Republic who seems to have trounced the Quebec backed Northwestern league in at least one war. Texas and the Bear Republic are independent nations but probably closely linked to the Uk in a manner similer to OTL's Argentina. Haiti seems to have kept onto santo domingo and avoided becoming a complete and total basket case and it looks like it took half of Jamaica from spain in a war.
As far as European territory in NA goes. Spain has clearly kept in Caribean colonies and it looks like gold was discovered permaturely in Alaska and the Yukon leading to massive influx of Russian settlers.
BTW I assume the dots represent major cities but due they have a specific range, for instance 100,000 people to 250,000 etc.
As far as European territory in NA goes. Spain has clearly kept in Caribean colonies and it looks like gold was discovered permaturely in Alaska and the Yukon leading to massive influx of Russian settlers.
BTW I assume the dots represent major cities but due they have a specific range, for instance 100,000 people to 250,000 etc.
Why would the slaver types declare a kingdom if they revolted from Britain?
I think it's one of those situations where the American colonies became self-governing and the British King was also King of America.
I think it's one of those situations where the American colonies became self-governing and the British King was also King of America.
Not to criticize, but I'll say it again since I've said it before in maps that have 'riverine' borders.
In general, it's very rare nations have borders following rivers. There are, of course, some places a river border is used (like the Danube between Romania and Bulgaria, or the Rio Grande), but in general something like a crest of mountains is much more often used.
The reason is economics. Generally, river valleys are among the most productive land for agriculture. Pre-railroad, they were also by far the best places for trade access. Though there's sometimes times you want a sister city across the border, in general putting such valuble resources so close to a potential enemy is a dangerous gambit.
For example, on your map, Texas or the United American Kingdom could stop all trade up and down the Mississippi with minimal effort. On the other hand, if North America has been largely at peace for generations, borders like this don't matter much, as people and goods travel freely across the borders anyway.
It would be much more likely for there to be riverine boders in the U.S. than Europe though, given long-standing ethnicities didn't exist which crossed the borders. After all, the Rio-Grande was used. On the other hand, I just don't think you'd see a Mississsippi split up like that unless it fell apart based upon internal borders from a much larger American nation, since settlers would either come up the Mississippi, or from the east.
Just my $0.02. Nice map though
In general, it's very rare nations have borders following rivers. There are, of course, some places a river border is used (like the Danube between Romania and Bulgaria, or the Rio Grande), but in general something like a crest of mountains is much more often used.
The reason is economics. Generally, river valleys are among the most productive land for agriculture. Pre-railroad, they were also by far the best places for trade access. Though there's sometimes times you want a sister city across the border, in general putting such valuble resources so close to a potential enemy is a dangerous gambit.
For example, on your map, Texas or the United American Kingdom could stop all trade up and down the Mississippi with minimal effort. On the other hand, if North America has been largely at peace for generations, borders like this don't matter much, as people and goods travel freely across the borders anyway.
It would be much more likely for there to be riverine boders in the U.S. than Europe though, given long-standing ethnicities didn't exist which crossed the borders. After all, the Rio-Grande was used. On the other hand, I just don't think you'd see a Mississsippi split up like that unless it fell apart based upon internal borders from a much larger American nation, since settlers would either come up the Mississippi, or from the east.
Just my $0.02. Nice map though