A_H_nikky
Banned
What is that universe and where is it posted ?The continent of Africa as of 2162 in my science fiction universe. View attachment 283608
What is that universe and where is it posted ?The continent of Africa as of 2162 in my science fiction universe. View attachment 283608
I hope you're planning a huge Peruvian Empire reveal.
I was just in Peru and seeing all the still native people in the Highlands is so incredible, I don't know why they DIDN'T revolt after independence when they outnumbered the Peninsulares five to one.
The links in my sig go to a short story and an ongoing story set in the universe. It's all military science fiction. There are also several other shorts set in the universe, all posted in the Writer's Forum.What is that universe and where is it posted ?
I love this series of maps, but how exactly did you screw russians enough to be a plurality(supposedly for a while) even in your Russia? Even given OTL's numbers, this territory would hold at least 105 million russians today. Supposedly, this Russia also had much brighter 20th century, with the absence of such things as collectivisation, 1931-1933 famine, WW2 ravaging most of the heartland(where exclusively russian death-toll is about 16 million), or the soviet policies of forced urbanization, not to mention the effects of soviet breakdown and the 90's. Now, even today the central asian region has about 65 million people, of which 5 million are russians, which I had already counted, and ITTL there wouldn't be as big population explosions as happened after 91. The demographic transition, given more wealthy status of the country, is likely to start and end in central asia earlier ITTL, without the effects of disintegrating of upper urbanized class and massive poverty at the helm of it. And in Manchuria there probably were around 30-35 million people at the time the russians captured it, so it would be safe to approximately double it, maybe a bit more. I very much doubt that OTL figures of 110 million people would be achievable without massive chinese immigration.plurality
OTL has about 110 million Russians in Russia, leaving about 30 million non Russians. Add in the Stans and we're looking at ~120 million to ~90 million. Add in your conservative Manchuria estimate and we've got ~120 million to ~150 million. Without Stalinist schemes Russians probably add another 10 million or so, and removing WWII (mostly, I mean there were still serious losses by Russia, though "only" in the 2-3 million range) adds by this point probably another 20 million of so, which would give us ~150 to ~150. However, Stalinist schemes also severly impacted Central Asia (famine killed about a million people and a large number moved to China) and a few million central Asians died in WWII as well (~10% for Kazakhstan, a little lower for Uzbekistan), so with growth those likely add another 5-10 million to the non-Russian population. Then you have not insignificant illegal immigration (and occasionally legal immigration) from the Indias (the US sits on about 11 million from Latin America, India has a lot more people and the living standard gap was a fair bit bigger by the 90s, though the voyage more perilous, so we'll say about 10 million here) and immigration from wartorn Europe (Russia was trying to raise living standards, all those German machinists, Polish doctors, etc. weren't exactly going to get turned back. Even if total numbers were only akin to Australia or Canada (which is plausible as a nation which long accepted immigrants, but not to US levels) combined with Volga Germans and others not being persecuted you're probably adding another 10 million or so non-Russians there at least, so we're likely looking at ~150 vs. 160-170 million. Russians have only just crossed the line from majority to plurality though.I love this series of maps, but how exactly did you screw russians enough to be a plurality(supposedly for a while) even in your Russia? Even given OTL's numbers, this territory would hold at least 105 million russians today. Supposedly, this Russia also had much brighter 20th century, with the absence of such things as collectivisation, 1931-1933 famine, WW2 ravaging most of the heartland(where exclusively russian death-toll is about 16 million), or the soviet policies of forced urbanization, not to mention the effects of soviet breakdown and the 90's. Now, even today the central asian region has about 65 million people, of which 5 million are russians, which I had already counted, and ITTL there wouldn't be as big population explosions as happened after 91. The demographic transition, given more wealthy status of the country, is likely to start and end in central asia earlier ITTL, without the effects of disintegrating of upper urbanized class and massive poverty at the helm of it. And in Manchuria there probably were around 30-35 million people at the time the russians captured it, so it would be safe to approximately double it, maybe a bit more. I very much doubt that OTL figures of 110 million people would be achievable without massive chinese immigration.
It'll give us a figure of about 120-140 million non-russians, Which would be about equal to the OTL number of russians plus the direct losses of 20th century, not figuring the potential ones. Plus ITTL I presume there would be quite a lot of immigration from Ukraine and Belarus to boot, which would easily approach about 85 and 20 million population respectfully, and would probably consider themselves russian in a generation or two after settling down, if not already, since russian minority wouldn't evaporate from their territories(surely there wasn't a russian holocaust ITTL?!).
2010: Well, some parts got better, others got worse.
The former Islamic Confederation and neighbouring states have seen significant instability. With over 10 million of refugees flooding into the Ottoman Empire, Kurdistan, Gulf Emirate, and Armenia the region has been rocked by instability (a few million more continued on to Europe). To prevent even more refugees flooding into their lands a large swath of the 'Fertile' Crescent has been occupied as a humanitarian intervention. One interesting side effect seen in Tunisia, Tripolitania, and (less successfully) the Arab Peninsula has been the Feminist Rebellions. As freedoms and opportunities for women had dropped massively under the hardliner rule support for the old Islamic Confederation amongst women pegged in at perhaps 12%. Adding to that the issue of millions of men most loyal to the regime now being stranded in Somalia or the Arabian Peninsula the gender ratio was skewed strongly against the hardliners in the western regions. The remnants of the confederation struggle to control Egypt while food shortages remain rampant. Other Islamist states have grown shakey as well, though many are loyal to the IC out of fear surrender could see them shipped off to War Crimes courts in Kiev or Bogata.
Red India stumbled for a while, but a mixture of intertia and proportionately far fewer losses allowed it to stumble on. Her prestige was weakened for a while, but as the world realised India could persever the world suddenly became very impressed by the nation that took a nuclear war and kept going. Sino-Indian relations have also improve massively as China (and the rest of the Hue Coalition) sent massive amounts of food shipments to India. Russian aid was also significant, though split between trying to feed the Middle East and assisting Africa in feeding millions of new mouths fleeing from the north spread them thinner.
Despite having to deal with so many new refugees many nations in Africa have actually benefited. The refugees are typically fairly well educated, filled with doctors, teachers, and other professionals. While they haven't been digested yet those with medical training have been fast tracked into existing medical services to assist with those refugees who are wounded as well as aiding in the fighting against 'Sodier's Disease' [AIDS] which remains at crisis levels in some nations.
Meanwhile Brazil's schemes of Latin American unity continue. Several nations have agreed to the Latin Union, effectively agreeing to a common foreign policy, currency, and more. A few nations remain unsure about that much unity though. Moscow has abolished the 'Ethnic Homelands' concept due to it's having become a farce in most regions due to migration and urbanisation. For now a sort of unitary state scheme is being practice while a new solution is being hotly debated (Russians remain the plurality, but the exact percentage continues to decline, especially with increasing immigration from refugees out of India and the Middle East).
View attachment 283722
2010: Well, some parts got better, others got worse.
The former Islamic Confederation and neighbouring states have seen significant instability. With over 10 million of refugees flooding into the Ottoman Empire, Kurdistan, Gulf Emirate, and Armenia the region has been rocked by instability (a few million more continued on to Europe). To prevent even more refugees flooding into their lands a large swath of the 'Fertile' Crescent has been occupied as a humanitarian intervention. One interesting side effect seen in Tunisia, Tripolitania, and (less successfully) the Arab Peninsula has been the Feminist Rebellions. As freedoms and opportunities for women had dropped massively under the hardliner rule support for the old Islamic Confederation amongst women pegged in at perhaps 12%. Adding to that the issue of millions of men most loyal to the regime now being stranded in Somalia or the Arabian Peninsula the gender ratio was skewed strongly against the hardliners in the western regions. The remnants of the confederation struggle to control Egypt while food shortages remain rampant. Other Islamist states have grown shakey as well, though many are loyal to the IC out of fear surrender could see them shipped off to War Crimes courts in Kiev or Bogata.
Red India stumbled for a while, but a mixture of intertia and proportionately far fewer losses allowed it to stumble on. Her prestige was weakened for a while, but as the world realised India could persever the world suddenly became very impressed by the nation that took a nuclear war and kept going. Sino-Indian relations have also improve massively as China (and the rest of the Hue Coalition) sent massive amounts of food shipments to India. Russian aid was also significant, though split between trying to feed the Middle East and assisting Africa in feeding millions of new mouths fleeing from the north spread them thinner.
Despite having to deal with so many new refugees many nations in Africa have actually benefited. The refugees are typically fairly well educated, filled with doctors, teachers, and other professionals. While they haven't been digested yet those with medical training have been fast tracked into existing medical services to assist with those refugees who are wounded as well as aiding in the fighting against 'Sodier's Disease' [AIDS] which remains at crisis levels in some nations.
Meanwhile Brazil's schemes of Latin American unity continue. Several nations have agreed to the Latin Union, effectively agreeing to a common foreign policy, currency, and more. A few nations remain unsure about that much unity though. Moscow has abolished the 'Ethnic Homelands' concept due to it's having become a farce in most regions due to migration and urbanisation. For now a sort of unitary state scheme is being practice while a new solution is being hotly debated (Russians remain the plurality, but the exact percentage continues to decline, especially with increasing immigration from refugees out of India and the Middle East).
2010: Well, some parts got better, others got worse.
Glad to see this come back! And just something about how all the colors are set up (especially around Somalia and such) is very aesthetically pleasing!*Snippity snip*
Indeed, the peninsual is one of the worse off areas. Luckily fleeing across the Gulf leads to an Iran with roughly Italian levels of HDI, so many refugees are finished their journey at that first stop. Escaping into the Ottoman Empire sees them enter a nation with roughly French levels of living standards, though it's a bit strained right now.It occurs to me that the refugee situation in the Arabian Peninsula is going to be incredibly tragic. With the breakdown of most cohesive governments, a lot of people living there will have to face either a dangerous trek across the desert or attempt to cross the sea. But I suppose that's what happens in war. Are you planning on making a 2016 map? As with history, I don't expect the scenario to end cleanly but it would certainly be neat to see it carried to the present day.
Latin America has slowly been becoming more EU like, and that core region has only just passed a little more united than OTL's EU (it's kind of like if the EU and NATO were one thing and NATO had more binding agreements). Russia sees a strong Latin America as an important balance to the USA as Washington has been a bit uncooperative of late. The US meanwhile very much dislikes Brazil and has done so since Brazil helped Colombia avoid going Communist.Also, Brazil is certainly doing well for itself. My ASB radar started going off when I saw the territory encompassed in the Latin Union but I suppose it makes sense after ~60 years of cooperation, and economic and military dependence. I imagine Russia is eyeing them somewhat warily but I'm more curious about how the USA feels about the situation. Clearly Brazil feels no danger in tearing the Monroe Doctrine to pieces before the Americans' eyes.
They are indeed mostly more cooperative. Like I've mentioned part of that is Russia not quite being the hyper power OTL's USA is, so they needed more allies. A history of Russia being open to compromises helped secondary states like China, Brazil, or Communist India feel they were seen as equal partners.This world, IC aside, seems rather more cooperative than our own even in the face of an actual nuclear war. (Which sounds as though it's going to have some nasty fallout; hello boom in radiotherapy. Which actually raises a slightly off the ball question; how's oncology in this TL? As advanced? More advanced? Less so?)
The feminist revolutions were an actual political revolution. Young women significantly outnumbered young men with so many troops dead, MIA, or just stranded elsewhere in the former IC. The shakey post war regional governments hoped they could use some of these women as militias to replace the manpower shortage, but misjudged just how much women despised the hardliner regimes that had taken away so many of their rights, and so once they were (mostly) trained to serve as paramilitary militias they thanked the regional governments by staging coups. They're honestly very radical and with some misandric tendencies, because political revolutions frequently end up digging up the worst in the movement behind the revolution. Algeria's still rather conservative government doesn't much trust them, but the Ukrainians (who've elected the same woman to Chancellor status for the past 16 years) have been trying to approach them and de-radicalise the rhetoric.Aside that, could you elaborate on the feminist revolution in the former IC states? I can't imagine it'd be exactly as OTL's and especially not in the nuked-out Middle East. How's the Hue Coalition, I asked a similar question previously but what's the politics within it like?
For Africa as a whole it would probably be Morocco then Algeria, then German South West Africa, then Cameroon and East Africa are about even. Outside of the Islamist states and Fascists Africa in general is doing a fair bit better, and until recently the Islamist states had been doing fairly well for themselves. South Africa is a bit of a murky zone, living standards for the middle class are a fair bit worse than OTL, but the poor are doing better, so the median South African is doing better while the average South Africa is doing a bit worse.On the subject of the African nations, which would you say is the most advanced? A lot of them are doing quite well compared to OTL, East Africa, Algeria and Morocco, perhaps Katanga or that little Fascist enclave hanging on like a tumour.
I will indeed.And I, as most people, am curious as to whether you'll do a 2016 map. It's a very good series, and it'd be odd to compare it to OTL 2016.
Yes. They were a little bit closer to the 'Free World' than OTL's China currently is politically, but after the war there's been a fair bit of internal pressure to democratise and get more 'in' with Russia or the Hue to ensure they don't get dragged into as many wars as the 'Lonely Great Power'.Very interesting. So India is now more 'in' with the rest of the world?
Chile.Also who is running the Falklands?
Australia remains isolationist, conservative, and militant. The tech gap with the outside world is growing more noticeable though as even Indonesians are starting to have cell phones in significant numbers.And how is the US and Australia going?
Sadly the nicest maps usually mean the most unpleasant worlds.Glad to see this come back! And just something about how all the colors are set up (especially around Somalia and such) is very aesthetically pleasing!
Not quite. A more open and cooperative China as well as a more stable Brazil means there are two other powers that as nudging against super power status. The Russians are watching Chinese GDP numbers fairly nervously hoping it doesn't pass them. The Russians have a total GDP of about 14.3 trillion OTL US dollars (OTL the USA sits at about 18 trillion) while China is sitting at about 13 trillion (to OTL's 11 trillion). Brazil's economy is rather far behind with about 5 trillion GDP (a bit ahead of OTL's Japan) and Germany sits there with about the same.Is the world at this point basically going to be very similar to OTL's, where it's a mostly monopolar world with Russia on top?
Yes. Definitely.I wonder if there are going to be ethnic tensions in New Afrika, since now that they are independent, angry southern Whites that fell through the cracks are going to passionately dislike the African-American elite.
The population of Catholics is increasing and the Unionist are decreasing. At some point in the near future (I guess about 2030) the 50% balance will be turned
Logistically and ethically, these borders wouldn't make any sense. Even with an open border, the various nooks and crannies make for awful bordergore that more than likely splits communities than unites them. For reference, look at this map (it's from 2001, when the proportion of Protestants was 4% higher and Catholics were 0.6% lower). Although there are many pockets of Catholic and Protestant strongholds, many parts of the country are more equal, and this map seems to have a heavy Protestant bias as many Catholic areas (e.g. Downpatrick, which is nearly 90% Catholic alongside its neighboring Lecale communities) are grouped in with rump NI to connect Protestant communities. It also doesn't make sense to give a random bit of Belfast that includes populations of both sides with the Republic, as it is completely disconnected and would further hamper Belfast (especially if this happened in the Troubles era). Especially today, repartition and resettlement would be a logistical nightmare and example of unnecessary ethnic cleansing, as moving two communities of nearly two million people is virtually impossible, especially if the Catholic area is so small. Repartition never had major support, either, and today the only potential option would be all or nothing. As Alex Richards said, many Catholics are fine with staying in the UK (at least for now), so although by 2020 they'll be the majority, doesn't mean the status quo will change soon.At some point I feel a question of unification or entrenchment will be put to the voters of Northern Ireland. SF successfully get elected to the House of Commons but don't take their seats. (snip)
What is your statistic for this?Yes the border would quite likely be twice as long, but those unhappy with the current situation would be reduced by about 75%. That's worthwhile in my book.
None of this is sustainable in the long term, in the end Ireland will probably have to consider unification wholelyAt some point I feel a question of unification or entrenchment will be put to the voters of Northern Ireland. SF successfully get elected to the House of Commons but don't take their seats. That's a democratic deficit in its self. The population of Catholics is increasing and the Unionist are decreasing. At some point in the near future (I guess about 2030) the 50% balance will be turned. Question in my mind is Status Quo or something else? The reality on the ground could be solved by asking each land owner, in turn, who has the border as part of their boundary or running through their land to elect to move it by checking it one way or the other in an accessible but secure web site. I term this a "rubber band border".