Can anyone critique this map?

[A Ham]

I am very new at this. This is a map of a Modern Roman Empire. The source is just a blank map of modern Europe I found online.

I am looking for corrections to territorial anomalies and other suggestions. Before you comment about it, I purposefully left Britain, the Benelux, part of Germany, Dacia/Hungary, Crimea and other historical Roman lands not Roman for the purposes of the idea.

I did this in MS paint. Borders and locations are probably never going to be 100% correct due to my own skills and the nature of paint.

Edit: I implemented some of your suggestions. I don't think a Rome of this size is too implausible for the idea I have, in terms of how it goes about. It takes place over a long period of time as well, middle ages to present day.

I also should of clarified that this is not a Rome survival timeline. It starts in the Middle Ages with the POD of Alexios II Komnenos not being deposed. This map is of TIL present day Europe.

I gave the Arabian kingdom a Family Name, but as I don't know anything about Arabic or Arab naming traditions I don't know if that name is plausible or culturally correct. The idea I had for Arabia was based upon the pre-WW1 plans for a united Arabia under the Hashemites. Here the Hashemites have been butterflied away

Latvia and Estonia are independent for reasons relating to the the timeline, World War related reasons. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Much of Poland and other areas were a part of Russia but are now independent and protected.

I made Silesia bigger and changed the name of the Netherlands, as well as making Persia yellow.

 

[Oliveia]

Alright, I'm purposely going to ignore the content of this map so far (like, the nations), as that sort of thing improves with time. That being said, there are much better alternatives than MS Paint. I always plug this one, because I think it's the easiest art program for map making, but PDN is great; imagine MS Paint but with layers and some other benefits. It's a bit tricky to realize how it works at first, but I'll happily aid you with all questions you have!
Base-map is also a bit of a stretch, I think. Here on the forums, there's two major map styles that are highly recommended for beginners, Worlda and QBAM. Worlda can be found on the pinned forums, while the QBAM has a thread under this Discussion subforum, but the maps themselves have to be downloaded off of DeviantArt.
Color schemes are pretty easy to come across, there's a ton of them and all of them are good, so it's up to you on that front!
Best of luck in your endeavors!

 

[PierceJJones]

Rome should be way smaller. Think an independent gaul/france. All of their African territory lost. Most of the Asia sans the Aegan/Constantinople should be independent in some way and maybe give a bone to the west slavs? Also Georgia is more likey to be Russian than Roman.

For the rest of Europe. Give Finland to Russia or have an independent Finnish state,Have Estonia join Finland. Have Lavtia be a part of either Poland-Lithuania or Russia. Have Silesia jurt out more for Germany and just call the Benelux the Netherlands.

Also can you use a "family name" instead of just the "Arabian Union" like Saudi Arabia or Hashemite Arabia and Persia needs a better color to define itself from Rome.

 

[Falkanner]

The butterfly effect from Rome never collapsing would have completely changed everything in European history from that point onward, so I think it'd be unlikely that the United Kingdom, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the word and concept of Benelux (even with the exact same borders as OTL), specific city/country names, and some other elements of this map would develop in this scenario.

I also agree with the earler points that MS Paint is a poor program for drawing, and that Rome should be smaller.

But yeah, it's a good start.

 

[AlternateHistory191]

If the PoD is before 1679 (the Treaties of Nijmegen), the Rome-Benelux border should be different. Also, Benelux probably shouldn't be called that, because as far as I can tell Luxembourg is German.
Also, I could make an example map of a more plausible scenario on QBAM for you.

 

[A Ham]

The butterfly effect from Rome never collapsing would have completely changed everything in European history from that point onward, so I think it'd be unlikely that the United Kingdom, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the word and concept of Benelux (even with the exact same borders as OTL), specific city/country names, and some other elements of this map would develop in this scenario.

Yeah but this is not a Rome collapse timeline, this is a Rome rebuilding Timeline. The POD is in the Middle Ages, Alexios II Komnenos living and ruling to reach an age of majority sets off a chain of events. Maybe some things would be different, but not incredibly I think.

 

[A Ham]

If the PoD is before 1679 (the Treaties of Nijmegen), the Rome-Benelux border should be different. Also, Benelux probably shouldn't be called that, because as far as I can tell Luxembourg is German.
Also, I could make an example map of a more plausible scenario on QBAM for you.

That would be great! If you can.

 

[A Ham]

Rome should be way smaller.

Why is that?

For the rest of Europe. Give Finland to Russia or have an independent Finnish state, Have Estonia join Finland.

And again, why?

Have Lavtia be a part of either Poland-Lithuania or Russia. Have Silesia jurt out more for Germany and just call the Benelux the Netherlands.

Ok, thanks.

Also can you use a "family name" instead of just the "Arabian Union" like Saudi Arabia or Hashemite Arabia and Persia needs a better color to define itself from Rome.

Yes I can, thanks.

 

[Hominid]

Base-map is also a bit of a stretch, I think. Here on the forums, there's two major map styles that are highly recommended for beginners, Worlda and QBAM. Worlda can be found on the pinned forums, while the QBAM has a thread under this Discussion subforum, but the maps themselves have to be downloaded off of DeviantArt.

Not sure if I agree with this one if the map is for a small area like Europe as opposed to the whole world. Just because this basemap is less commonly used doesn't mean it's bad.

 

[Oliveia]

Not sure if I agree with this one if the map is for a small area like Europe as opposed to the whole world. Just because this basemap is less commonly used doesn't mean it's bad.

Fair enough, yeah. As an amendment:
Use maps that you can find border references for.

 

[Mina-van-Mako]

Romania is derived from Rome : Romanians didn't call themselves like this until XVth century, and foreign countries called them Valachs. If Rome doesn't fall, then Romanians will probably be called "Dacians".

You didn't fall into the trap of uniting the Baltic States, which is really good : Estonians are more Finnish-like, Latvians are Baltico-Russo-Germans, and the Lithuanian are Baltico-Polish.

You have forgotten to show the capitals of Hungary and Romania/Dacia. Checking that you didn't forget anything is super dull, but it's important.

It's much better than my first maps on many points.

 

[A Ham]

Romania is derived from Rome : Romanians didn't call themselves like this until XVth century, and foreign countries called them Valachs. If Rome doesn't fall, then Romanians will probably be called "Dacians".

Good point thanks.

You have forgotten to show the capitals of Hungary and Romania/Dacia. Checking that you didn't forget anything is super dull, but it's important.

Thanks, I'll fix that in a bit.

It's much better than my first maps on many points.

Thank you.

 

[Mina-van-Mako]

Oh ! I didn't notice it at first but : Paris is a modern name, the Roman name for the city was Lutece, the Parisiis were the people from the surroundings of the city, they were a Gaul tribe.

 

[Hawkeye]

Why is that?

1. Nearly all states and bureaucracies tend to get corrupt and rot over time. Increasing the chances that the empire will contract over time.

2. Geography works against it, Europe has loads of peninsula's, rivers, and mountain ranges which all make for easily defined borders and are useful for a group to take control of an area and defend it.

3. A big empire means a large border to defend. Rome had to defend itself on multiple fronts from the Picts in Britannia, the Germanic tribes near Gaul, and the Sassanids in the east. Rome basically had to constantly garrison these areas which takes money (pay troops, road maintenance, ext) thus leading to high taxes and persistently strains any pre-modern states. This is why the empire was split into an east and western half just to make logistics easier.

None of these are insurmountable problems but you're going to have to do a lot of research on a wide arrange of topics from economics to theology to convince more hardcore members here.

 

[Luminous]

I just have some questions concerning the choices made. Just trying to understand your train of thought that lead to your choices.

What is your specific PoD? Looking at your mentioning of Alexios, I imagine that it would be something along the lines of him marrying into the line of succession for France?

Any general thoughts of how the Empire developed over time? There should be moments when it waned as well as waxing.

The Hungarian border looks like it's based upon post-Trianon borders for Yugoslavia. Would those be the best? They were defined primarily by ethnic makeup if I recall correctly. Might a border upon the Danube be the best starting point, with movement made to or from either side depending on who has the trans-Danubian possessions?

Similarly, was curious why your Dacian-Roman border doesn't follow the Danube all the way to the Euxine Sea.

Why a border that far north into Germany proper? The Alps would be far easier to defend, of course. Though this could be a fairly recent change or merely denoting an occupation zone.

What effects might the mongols have had upon this empire when they arrived?

 

[The Professor]

Oh ! I didn't notice it at first but : Paris is a modern name, the Roman name for the city was Lutece, the Parisiis were the people from the surroundings of the city, they were a Gaul tribe.

Lutetia Parisiorum, Lutetia of the Parisii, to be exact. This became Parisius then Paris in the local dialect.
Lutèce is the modern French rendering of Lutetia.

 

[A Ham]

1. Nearly all states and bureaucracies tend to get corrupt and rot over time. Increasing the chances that the empire will contract over time.

2. Geography works against it, Europe has loads of peninsula's, rivers, and mountain ranges which all make for easily defined borders and are useful for a group to take control of an area and defend it.

3. A big empire means a large border to defend. Rome had to defend itself on multiple fronts from the Picts in Britannia, the Germanic tribes near Gaul, and the Sassanids in the east. Rome basically had to constantly garrison these areas which takes money (pay troops, road maintenance, ext) thus leading to high taxes and persistently strains any pre-modern states. This is why the empire was split into an east and western half just to make logistics easier.

None of these are insurmountable problems but you're going to have to do a lot of research on a wide arrange of topics from economics to theology to convince more hardcore members here.

Yeah, I guess. This is mostly for fun though, I don't have the chops to do a timeline, let alone get every detail right and make it 100% realistic.

 

[A Ham]

Lutetia Parisiorum, Lutetia of the Parisii, to be exact. This became Parisius then Paris in the local dialect.
Lutèce is the modern French rendering of Lutetia.

The idea with France is that it was already France for a while before it joined the Empire, and retains a lot of French things. For example the name of the region would be a variation of France/Francia instead of Gaulia/Gaul. Same with Paris, although it would probably be better to make it Parisium or something.

 

[A Ham]

I just have some questions concerning the choices made. Just trying to understand your train of thought that lead to your choices.

Ok

What is your specific PoD? Looking at your mentioning of Alexios, I imagine that it would be something along the lines of him marrying into the line of succession for France?

I have not quite thought that through, something akin to Andronikos Komnenos' rebellion failing or the Empress Maria dying earlier. Have not thought of something I liked enough.

Any general thoughts of how the Empire developed over time? There should be moments when it waned as well as waxing.

Yeah, so a longer Komnenos Restoration letting Rome remain a presence in Europe and the Middle East. I don't have a lot of substantial ideas after that, a sea invasion of Egypt and a lot of waxing and waning. Don't know past that point.

The Hungarian border looks like it's based upon post-Trianon borders for Yugoslavia. Would those be the best? They were defined primarily by ethnic makeup if I recall correctly. Might a border upon the Danube be the best starting point, with movement made to or from either side depending on who has the trans-Danubian possessions?

Hungary still exists, it was kind of a puppet of Rome for a while but was not annexed. I'd need a better map with rivers and to be better at this to be able to do that, but that sounds better.

Similarly, was curious why your Dacian-Roman border doesn't follow the Danube all the way to the Euxine Sea.

That's what I was trying to do, but again my map has no rivers on it. I'll have to find a better map.

Why a border that far north into Germany proper? The Alps would be far easier to defend, of course. Though this could be a fairly recent change or merely denoting an occupation zone.

I was trying to go for that, but can't tell where the Alps are. This thread has really made me realize how shitty my source map is.

What effects might the mongols have had upon this empire when they arrived?

Well the Sultanate of Rum was still around when the Mongols came, just smaller. But there was some impact on the Empire. Probably something like OTl, with the Byzantines paying tribute. Don't have any ideas beyond that.

 

[Luminous]

Hungary still exists, it was kind of a puppet of Rome for a while but was not annexed. I'd need a better map with rivers and to be better at this to be able to do that, but that sounds better.

That's what I was trying to do, but again my map has no rivers on it. I'll have to find a better map.

I was trying to go for that, but can't tell where the Alps are. This thread has really made me realize how shitty my source map is.

Thanks; I just wanted to check and see what you were thinking of it going. Makes a lot more sense in my head now.

Well the Sultanate of Rum was still around when the Mongols came, just smaller. But there was some impact on the Empire. Probably something like OTl, with the Byzantines paying tribute. Don't have any ideas beyond that.

Only big problem I see with the Byzantines being that weak that they are continuing to pay tribute (and still dealing with the sultanate) pushes back the timeline about two centuries. It would likely be overly fortunate if the Byzantines are able to recover enough to beat the Mongols, but what of enough to nudge them to the side?

I'm currently imagining the Byzantines and the Crusaders being wanked (Crusader/Byzantine division of Egypt, Damascus falling, etc), recovering quite a lot of territory (alongside the Kingdom of Georgia). While the region is still vulnerable to the Mongols, they instead turn north and penetrate deeper into Europe - Hungary taking more raids, and even Padania being subject to Mongol raids, devastating the region. This does a few things: it weakens Hungary, a foe to the Byzantines at this time, and leaves Italy vulnerable and needing stabilization.

Now, the Byzantines also can't tick off the French, as they were a demographic powerhouse at the time. It was why the idea of a loose dynastic union with the two was interesting - it would allow for a Franco-Roman relationship to develop akin to the Franco-Ottoman one centuries later. A more pro-latin Empire helps as well - one that will integrate the Crusader states at some point down the line.

So a vulnerable Italy ends up with both Sicilies back in the empire, the French possibly supporting the North as well (perhaps even Venice/similar is taken by the Romans?). The Romans also manage to reacquire all of Illyria and push the Hungarians and the Vlachs/Cumans/Bulgarians back over the Danube, which sets their northern border for centuries. That gives them the peace they need to reintegrate land and similar.

This French and Roman presence upsets the Pope, who feels threatened (the French were very fond of setting up their own Anti-popes, after all). Eventually, the Pope flees to the Holy Roman Empire due to some event, while Italy is divided between Roman and French interests.

And from there it keeps building on - this is all very vague, but just a thought that needs a lot more support to become plausible.

-

One thing I didn't address was the African borders - the Sahara tends to be divided up in straight lines as there are few geographic and population centers to otherwise define the sand. It's far more likely that this Rome, as strong as it is, owns large chunks of sand due to its overall power.

Now, that isn't to say there can't be an Islamic African state that is strong - there certainly can be, but I feel it'd be based primarily around West Africa and extending North, rather than being based in the Sahara.