Map Thread XIII
- Thread starter Pragmatic Progressive
- Start date
- Status
Its a sort of governmental land redistribution programme. The king decided that the best idea to solve a growing state problem was to redistrubute the states so that each territory includes a port and less prosperous inland areas. So far, its doing alright.
Dirk
Banned
It better be very very decentralized, because I can't imagine that communication within each province would be manageable.
I'm confused about what's going on in Japan; the PoD you said is in 1820 and involves Europe, in which case there should be no real butterflies in Japan, let alone the country apparently breaking apart; by 1820 Japan had been 'unified' (it was never not unified, rather just highly decentralized at times) for several centuries.
The POD was enough to save Martín Miguel de Güemes, and he would go on to unify Salta and Jujuy provinces in a small independent and centralized nation. It's the Ecuador coloured one south of Bolivia; Jujuy and Salta (the cities) were depopulated by Spanish incursions as per OTL, so it's very much an army-with-a-state ala Prussia.
Highly debatable. Do you know why the butterfly effect is called the butterfly effect? If, as posited originally, the single flap of a single insect's wing can drastically modify or even create a hurricane later in the year halfway across the world, the death of an even marginally influential man in Europe could have massive consequences after 20 years, even in Japan. Even with a much reduced butterfly effect, the weather patterns over the region must have been altered to be unrecognizable, and that alone can alter people's thoughts and things such as the outcome of battles. Consider- A man in rural China decides to torch a tree. The smoke goes into the atmosphere, eventually gathering moisture and joining a cloud. This cloud becomes heavier quicker than it would otherwise, dumping it's load 'early' and making a different area muddy. This mud means a courier takes an extra day to carry his message to the merchant he works for, meaning the merchant gets outdated information and takes a loss on the sale of silk in Korea. With less money, he doesn't buy a jade horse. That jade horse, therefore, isn't stolen when the merchant is robbed the next month. That means the robber's child never plays with it, and so he never decides to become a cavalryman, instead becoming a thief like his father... this is one line of entropy from one little tiny fire in rural China. It's a piece of thin thread in one of the dozens of strands of yarn making up the thousands of sweaters at the sweater factory, and more are being made each day. Can you start to see how the death of one man in Europe would effect the entire world in only 20 years?
The argument is moot, though. The region is barely different from OTL right now. The only major difference is that the Kingdom of Ryukyu has escaped from under the thumb of the Satsuma Domain. In Japan proper, there is a single subdivision- I hardly call that 'breaking apart'. Mind, calling it united is in blatant disregard to the actual situation on the ground. Was the Holy Roman Empire united? Ehh, debatable. Granted, Japan isn't -quite- as messy, but it's still in the ballpark. My two-colour solution- the Bakumatsu and the rest- is actually a massive over simplification. The islands need closer to ten colours, if not much more, but I went with a useful distinction instead. Maybe I should have made the Imperial Domain separate too, I'm not sure, but colouring it a single colour would be incredibly inaccurate and far less useful, especially when the Meiji Restoration* roles around.
In essence, your argument doesn't really exist, but feel free to refute my separate points.
I was going by how you said the butterflies had'nt affected the world much yet outside Europe.
While there was a time in Japanese history where it could have been compared to the HRE (prior to the ascent of the Tokugawa Shogunate), by the 19th century Japan was more unifed than the Ottoman Empire or Russia; the main political difference that could be seen (and even it was'nt that much a difference) was that the Tokugawa Shoguns Daimyo lands were larger and more centralized than the others, however that's more like the difference between Washington D.C. and the States; the Daimyo had long been brought to heel and were basically hereditary governors who were kept in there place by being not allowed to get powerful (economic control, political maneuvering etc.) and via intimidation/blackmail/whatever you call insuring they know if they rebel there family is in the enemies capital.
All of those were named by colonial powers with no interest in the region beyond grabbing territory and in all of these cases there's specific reasons the names are still used;
New Zealand - The majority of the population are descended from colonists, thus they kept the name, however New Zealand does now have another name as well, namely Aotearoa.
New Caledonia - The population has literally not been able to agree to a new name, though if they did it would've been changed along time ago, just like New Hebrides became Vanuatu.
New Ireland - It was originally called New Mecklenberg (in German), it was only after it was annexed by Australia that the name changed and the only reason the name remains and, incidentally formed the basis for the present official name, Niu Ailan, is because there was no indigenous name for it, and even if there was Papua New Guinea is home to over 800 languages and has three official languages, of which the largest is only spoken by maybe half the population at best, and even then that's as a second language.
Last edited:
You do realise I'm from New Zealand, right? And that New Zealand was named after the Dutch province of Zeeland, whilst only very few colonists were Dutch, colonisation here was primarily British and encouraged by the British state.
In regards to New Caledonia, I meant that there is no geographic connection to Caledonia (the Scottish Highlands) and the Pacific Islands.
Which is pretty much the same point I was making with New Ireland. Namely that New Ireland does not resemble Eire at all, which is what the post I quoted you on implies.
Actually, I always thought you were Canadian to be honest.
I'm aware of that, however both were colonial powers, it just being a difference of one power naming it and the other actively colonizing it and retaining the name.
While I don't know if it's why it was named it, the main island is pretty mountainous, much like the Scottish highlands.
I wanted to make a snappy come back about things starting with 'New' never actually being like the places they're named after, but apart from the listed I can't actually think of any.
With that said, in the case of the map in question I figured it was called 'New India' to refer to the fact that Oklahoma was originally basically where the U.S. government forced all the indigenous Amerindians from the East to live, which resulted in it having a considerable Native American population for awhile, and since said are erroneously called 'Indians', hence 'New India'; with that said it's a terrible name regardless of etymology.
Yup, I would agree with that. I understand the idea of it being called 'New India', but it does sound a bit weird.
"place with Indians" = Indiana not "there are people we call Indians here, therefore it's India.
Yep, that's sorta-kinda how the modern state of Indiana got its name, having been previously the 'Indian Territory' split off from the old Northwest Territory, though as far as I know there were'nt many indigenous Amerindians in the area by that point.
Kingpoleon
Banned
Then you really don't have an argument for Vancouver, as that was what happened there.
In that case, I'd like to point out the terrain of Oklahoma is rather similar to that of farmland India without monsoons.
Indeed. That's not the point. It's a map I took part of my time to make, added a dozen or two names, and ran out of ideas towards the end. There's no need to continue arguing, though if you feel like it, feel free to PM me.
New Caledonia was named by British explorer James Cook and the name stuck, while New Zeeland was named by Dutch explorer Abel Tasman and likewise, the name stuck. New Ireland was named by Australians after WW1, who were still very close to Britain--unlike the Americans. As far as I'm aware, British or Indian explorers never reached Oklahoma. But regardless, it's an absolutely dumb name.
You've never been to Oklahoma have you? Or India, for that matter?
Laziness is not an excuse for a bad map.
- Status