scholar
Banned
Because, over centuries, one of the more powerful native states took over the others.
Is this map plausible?
- Thread starter scholar
- Start date
what is that Purple in the middle of Turkey, and Why does Greece appear to be two different Colors?
Ugh, it doesn't seem particularly realistic. The Aztec Empire was the greatest Mesoamerican empire and yet they didn't reach nearly that size. They simply did not build empires in the same way the Europeans did by annihilating enemy states, they made tributaries out of fallen foes. It's hard to create and empire that massive when you have to make your enemies vassals or tributaries and you don't have men on horses who can keep track of the entire empire and make sure nobody rebels. A single Mesoamerican state this size is ASB.
scholar
Banned
Because there are two different Greece's, or rather one is Morea.
That territory is Greek ruled, but with a Turkish Majority. The territory wasn't conquered by Greece, but rather handed over to them as a result of an alliance between the Golden Horde, the Roman Empire, and Hungary. The actual contribution the Roman Empire made was minor, but the harassment behind the lines of the Turks allowed easier movements. The French, Spanish, and British would become involved as part of a newly revived interest in the ideal of the Crusade, as the New World never was discovered and there was strong financial incentive in removing the Turkish Threat. When the alliance broke down and Hungary and Rome were paved over, several pockets of Roman authority were maintained depending on local agreements with the Khaganate or sheer luck in battle.
The major issue that was what seriously brought me to question this all in the first place is the Byzantine's Empire's hold over North Africa. This is a very late POD, Rome is on its last legs with only a few areas where it is free enough to do anything. Originally I had intended the region to be a Spanish conquest, but was handed over to the Byzantines due to a rather significant marriage, the region's instability, and having their hands full with France.
scholar
Banned
This is the Aztec Empire, a state that has only existed for less than a century and had appeared as a relatively minor state.
The Aztec had many tributaries, many of which were recently conquered and harbored intense hostile feelings towards the Aztecs. Now, for the sake of argument, imagine that their short history of less than a hundred years expanding, suddenly doubled and then add a few more decades. The tributaries would gradually become accustomed to the Aztecs, and their population would be decreased by a large margin thus establishing the need for further conquest to the north and south. More tributaries would be born and even areas where the Aztecs have little control, they still have people who enjoy their "protection" whether real or imagined. Its not too ASB to me considering the rise of the Inca, which actually enjoyed less success in this Map as much of the borders are reduced slightly.
What you're ignoring is that empires don't get consistently larger without interruption. The Aztecs were on a knife's edge where the slightest budge could topple them, and it just so happened that the Spanish arrived conveniently and managed to get not just enemies and vassals but even allies of the Mexica to turn on them. That's how precarious their position was. They were pretty much putting down revolts 24/7 and they still hadn't even taken down their 2 chief enemies by the time the Spanish came. And you still don't get how the system worked. The Inca are irrelevant here as they are not Mesoamerican, they share neither the geography nor the culture the Aztecs did. As for pacifying tributaries, that's harder than you think. The various Nahua towns weren't even totally pacified, they were still warring with many other nations, and Tlatelolco had only recently been subdued. And Tlatelolco is literally right next to Tenochtitlan. To think that they would establish firm control over Honduras is insane at that point.
The Alps, Pyrenees, Andes, Himalayas, Caucasian mountains, Anatolian plateaus, Greek/Balkan mountains, and Carpathian mountains are extremely important boundaries in their respective areas. As is the Arabian desert.
However, France has an isolated area on the other side of the Alps, and same with the Baden-Bavaria thing. Spain's border completely ignores the Pyrenees. The "Incas" have a border that largely ignores the Andes, as they have a thick area of land where the Andes are close to the coast and the inland is a jungle, and a thin area of land where there is a big plateau to settle that was settled by Incas in OTL. The Timurids and main-Indian-nation's borders completely ignore the Himalayas. The Golden Horde has to pass the Caucasian mountains to defend its Anatolian possessions, its Anatolian borders are fairly inconvenient, they have to navigate many inconvenient mountains to cross to their panhandle in western Greece, and almost worst of all, they have a weird western border that completely ignores the Carpathians, even more than Romania's border in OTL 2011.
Plus, Egypt probably wouldn't have that much inland Arabian land without having both of Arabia's coasts.
I would mention the mountains of Norway, but I guess Norway could hold onto Lappland since Britain would be occupied with Britain as well as southern Sweden.
scholar
Banned
Fair enough, I'm not the authority on mesoamerica that others are, but I will say that the borders are more imagined than real, and that control over the border regions are no more firm than their control over other regions.
scholar
Banned
I know, the fact that their borders don't line up with the terrain doesn't mean that I haven't taken them into account or have rendered them irrelevant. Simply that they're borders extend beyond them.
What isolated area? I'm going to assume you mean the area around Athens, which has a very good reason for it. That is, unless, you are referring to that minor piece of Savoy?
The Bavarian state has nothing beyond its contiguous holdings.
The Inca have a large area that includes much of the Andes Mountains. It is important to realize that these borders is meant to take into account an extra century of growth. Extending inside of the Andes and pushing back the boundary to the borders of the Amazon could be a result of Inca expansion.
The Indian-Timurid borders were done largely because I didn't want green showing between their borders, however I am compelled to add that there were Mongol presences in all territories I gave control to the Timurids. India's doesn't so much ignore the H.M., but rather carries on awkwardly into Burma without subduing important points to make controlling the areas easier.
The Golden Horde having much of Anatolia and the Balkans does create awkward borders. That said, there is nothing impossible about their borders. They are akwardly shaped, formed using either the mountains as a barrier or a defensive posture almost seemingly at random depending on where you point to on the map.
Or they could have much of the Arabian deserts because of its need after conflicts with the eastern Arabian coast.
That sort of thing might actually be quite possible as a "By 1635, the Moors had been pushed back to..." sort of thing, so that the campaign of driving the Moors out entirely hasn't finished.
A few things like that would make sense for certain possible maps of the world, but some of this just looks...not exactly random dots of color, but in that direction.
scholar
Banned
Everything is in standard colors apart from Champa, which is ruled by the descendants of an exiled Ming Prince, the Timurids which were given a deep red, and that's it (95% sure of that).
Why would they want it as a puppet?
As in, what makes them not want to just control the place directly?
scholar
Banned
To better control a much more sizable muslim population inside of the region, in addition the army, while small, is powerful and has support from many major Islamic powers. In addition, the British control and monopolize Morocco and Rome has much of the North African coast. Venice also has a papal guarantee on all the lands south of the Saharan Desert (this won't last long once other powers realize just how much land is beyond the Sahara). This leaves trade with the east (China, Persia, India) controlled thoroughly by the Golden Horde and the Mameluke Sultanate. Both countries have heavy taxes imposed for the Catholic Nations, heavy, but not nearly so much, for the Orthodox Nations. Spain can bypass this by conducting trade with the major Muslim powers through the Emirate of Granada. So there are a number of factors keeping the state alive and useful.
Not sure how you have Venice out of the Med, but no colonisation from the Northern European seafaring nations such as Neatherlands, Britain and France.
Looking at Spain it has invaded Portugal, but not taken Granada from the Moors (?).
Not sure why the Russia Empire has stopped were it has in the West, assume that it has reached a large river (a new POD for the course of the Danube?).
Looks like Islam has failed to conquer all before it, does the religeon exist or has it failed (not existed)?
Looking at Spain it has invaded Portugal, but not taken Granada from the Moors (?).
Not sure why the Russia Empire has stopped were it has in the West, assume that it has reached a large river (a new POD for the course of the Danube?).
Looks like Islam has failed to conquer all before it, does the religeon exist or has it failed (not existed)?
Sweden and Scandinavia seem a bit strange. I guess Denmark controls Sweden, but not Norway. How this happened is way beyond me, but not impossible, I guess.
However, Sweden controlled most of Finland, including the "lock" of Finland to the east, Viborg since 1295. I have a hard time seeing a local Finnish elite becoming strong enough to create their own state without falling prey to the Teutonic Order and Livonian Confederation, Sweden (Denmark in this case) or Novgorod. How this state got to the Sami people in northern Sweden before the Danes is beyond me too - around this time OTL Denmark, Norway and Russia were competing for the rights to tax the Sami and were just establishing a token presence in these areas.
What on earth is the state centered on the Kola peninsula? And the Far Karelian state? Both are far too sparsely populated to be viable states of their own at this time. Kola would be dominated by nomadic Samis and Far Karelia by ugric-speaking semi-nomads.
However, Sweden controlled most of Finland, including the "lock" of Finland to the east, Viborg since 1295. I have a hard time seeing a local Finnish elite becoming strong enough to create their own state without falling prey to the Teutonic Order and Livonian Confederation, Sweden (Denmark in this case) or Novgorod. How this state got to the Sami people in northern Sweden before the Danes is beyond me too - around this time OTL Denmark, Norway and Russia were competing for the rights to tax the Sami and were just establishing a token presence in these areas.
What on earth is the state centered on the Kola peninsula? And the Far Karelian state? Both are far too sparsely populated to be viable states of their own at this time. Kola would be dominated by nomadic Samis and Far Karelia by ugric-speaking semi-nomads.
scholar
Banned
Venice has a Papal mandate on everything below the Saharan Desert. None of the other major powers believe there's anything of use down there. All "savages", "hostile terrain", and "disease." And for the most part, they got part of it right. I wouldn't call the locals savages, but the terrain is hostile and a lot of people who try to go there end up dying.
I've stated the reasoning for this just above your post
Ultimately its for trade with very powerful muslim countries.
That's not Russia, its the Golden Horde. Why they've stopped? Because there's nothing really of worth there that they know of. The New world is undiscovered, and there are only two types of land beyond the line of sight of Europe: Lucrative Chinese, Indian, and Persian markets monopolized by the Mamlukes and the Golden Horde, and hostile terrain not worth even touching just beyond the coast of North Africa.
Islam is actually farther spread at the moment. Not only do the Iberians still have a muslim state, but Russia is dominated by a Sunni-Mongol presence.
scholar
Banned
Anglo-Danish union. Kalmar never happened.
Client State should be the words that comes to mind. Buffer state are another pair.
Its 1635, around (1650) this time this was the world:
You'll note several, not so subtle, differences. There's no focus on the New World, it doesn't exist yet.
Its what is left of Russia. Its a native state run by Russians, mostly, some Swedes, some Fins, and some Norwegians. Around this time it would be a viable state, but a very loosely connected one very susceptible to outside influence.