Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by MorningDew, Mar 12, 2016.
Modern day map of the UBSR
And the explanation:
Basic idea: The Julio-Claudians don't produce a highly unpopular emperor every other coronation and manage to last roughly a century longer, bringing greater stability to the Roman political system. There's a bit of fighting to replace them, but it isn't until the 400s where large migrations of people spin into a Warring States period. Rome mostly recovers by the 600s, but much of Gaul is lot for good. Rome and China increase their trade network, bringing riches to the Silk Road. Meanwhile Christianity manages success around the edges of Rome, but fails to take control of Rome (though some middle eastern provinces end up majority Christian by the 800s). The two great empires prosper (though there's a couple civil wars now and again) for the next millenium.
All that trade gets the Christians interested in trying to acquire some of it (the religion is popular with ambitious folks, especially merchants) and the ensuing efforts at conversion spark a series of religious wars starting in the late 700s, though it's mostly manageable until an ambitious Turkic king decides he wants to own the riches and attacks from the north with a Turkic universalising religion that doesn't look kindly on Christians. The two mutually exclusive world views see the region wracked by conflict for centuries as the riches the lands generated slowly drain away into the hands of mercenaries.
China and Rome still want to trade though, and they turn to the secondary option: the Indian Ocean. India was already plugged into global trade, but lacking the political stability of China or Rome they were seen as a bit of a backwater and fell behind on many things. Suddenly being at the centre of trade gives them the chance to play catch up, and the dismissiveness of Imperials at both ends who see them as barbarian middle men give Indians a chip on their shoulder. Needing something of their own to trade during a period of Silk Road stability in the early 1500s the Indians raided down into the East Indes and secured valuable spice. The realisation that they could turn a profit conquering lands starts the gears turning.
When the Chinese stumbled upon the endless gold and silver of Meso America and the Andes the Indias decided to slide themselves in as middle men (the natives of the Americas had really disliked China's dismissive tone, and China really disliked the Inca thinking they deserved any level of respect, but still wanted the silver). Indian merchants slowly placed the American natives into their pocket and used the vast flow of precious metals to destabilise the Chinese (and other Oriental nations) economy with massive inflation. Funding a number of insurrections Indian companies managed to wreck Japan absolutely and helped conservative isolationists take China.
Rome proved a more complex nut to crack, at least until they found the price to get the Praetorians to stage a coup. After the first coup led to a civil war the Indians began playing ambitious generals and governors against one another through bribery and broke Roman expansion.
Africa meanwhile was happy to see trade flow, or at least a number of local groups were and the continent wasn't seen as worth attacking for the most part anyway. The world was India's oyster. And then it happened.
The north had lagged behind the south in riches, and many had grown bitter about the idea. An idea that riches should be spread more equally had long existed, but it was in the 1750s that the idea saw a degree of formalisation under the Freedom Dharma group. Missionaries for the idea spread out soon after and the Marathi state, backwards by everyone's opinion, fell to a popular rebellion in the early 1800s. The first Freedom War broke out and India's mercenary numbers were massively depleted outside the subcontinent. The Freedom missionaries however surged out to the colonies and found an audience amongst the plantation workers of the East Indies and Australia. The also found curiosity with the Inca who had grown convinced they'd been ripped off in the past couple centuries of trade. Rebellions broke out and the two Cooperatives were formed as an uneasy peace was signed.
The improving technologies of the 1800s (roughly 50 years ahead of our time) caused many to fear a second round would be too bloody to imagine. Unfortunately the two Cooperatives were unable to come to an understanding (one side driven by profits and corporate interests with no oversight, the other by personal freedom and equality). As Africa's mineral riches were discovered the quietly building tinderbox of Swahili and Sahel slave raiders ticking off the rest of the continent exploded.
The Second Freedom War of the 1880s raged visciously across 3 continents and saw millions dead as outdated tactics met frightening new weapons. The end came when Delhi showed Marathi dignitaries a little thing called a Nuclear Bomb in a test in the Tarim Basin. As the Marathi accepted a harsh armistice to avoid their cities being destroyed and the other Indian powers prepared for a grand offensive to retake the Straits of Malacca the Freedom Union decided to show some dignitaries they'd made a fancy toy too with a display in the outback. Both sides were now nuclear armed and a hasty ceasefire was signed by two fearful power blocs. Unfortunately it was a little too hasty, and now the Great Lakes affair is hearing calls for the use of nuclear weapons against the rebels there, which the Freedom Union has stated is something they will not accept. The world stands holding it's breath awaiting a nuclear war.
it loses the sense of awe and wonder after the second or third one
So this is a semi request map post. I made this as a reference for my TL of Greece entering WW1 earlier and gaining this territory. However my map making skills are lacking so was wondering if anyone was up to the challenge of making it nice?
Page 2 isnt bad
Still need to fix those Confederate borders, probably gonna take away parts of Virginia and need to fix the border between Free and Puppet Mexico (Think North and South Korea hate here).
Cuba is NOT Confederate, its actually in a German sphere of influence, not a puppet, but it is heavily under the influence of the Kaiser.
Russia holds onto Alaska, since no one wanted it or could afford it.
Quebec broke off with backing from the United States, which then used that as an excuse to occupy the Maritime Provinces. Still hazy on the details.
The World shall speak English or perish! Poor Italy didn't manage to pull off a union with Sicily like the Greeks did with Cyprus.
I'm surprised the zombie hordes are still around though, you'd think they'd have shrunk by now. Though it seems that in this TL Africans and Asians are an endangered species, with Germanic states being in the lead across the board.
Which BSR is Crimea part of?
Quite fascinatingly different, Beedok, but I don’t quite understand some of those corporate states.
The Atlantic and Pacific companies, for instance – they’re like the OTL East India company, but sponsored by multiple Indian states simultaneously?
Also, I don’t really get why Bengal and Candy seem to be the only Indian state that goes in for national colonies rather than leaving the colonization biz to the corporations.
Speaking of Bengal, why do they have a colony in North America with no access to it?
And I don’t get the “free corporate territories”, which seem to unite colonies such of those of Bengal and Candy, corporate territories and puppets, and puppets of some states, including the non-Dharming Sibirians. How do they work?
The Christian Alliance – so it’s a theoretically “Christian” trading megacorp backed by…Indian Christian states?
How long have the Indian and Roman states been under the corporate thumb? In the case of China in particular, given how much of its territory is essentially corporate fiefs, it’s surprising that it hasn’t boiled into full-scale rebellion by now. (Japan too, but it’s a small enough place that probably it can be kept under a thumb).
And speaking of rebellions, one thing I have always been doubtful about when the notion of corporate states comes up is their willingness to pay for major wars: they’re in it for profits, so unless they can drawn on the military resources of a non-corporate state, they aren’t going to go in for really expensive wars. (The low-level conflict between the African corporate states seems rather believe for oligarchic states where the corporations _are_ the states). How much blood and treasure have the Dharmic states spent on backing the Corporations militarily, and what does the Indian in the street think of this?
Also, they seem unlikely to want to pay for social services, so I imagine the corporate run territories are libertarian terrors where you had better pay the fireman if you don't want to have them stand by while your house burns down, and the poor sell themselves into slavery to survive.
(Well, I suppose it depends on how much self-government the locals get: local non-corporate governments might pay for necessary services if they can afford it after the various corporation taxes have been extracted).
So, again with the colors perhaps, but is the African worker’s league three geographically separate states, one of which is entirely surrounded by corporate-controlled areas?
When it comes to numbers and resources, the Cooperative league seems rather badly outmatched.
Did the Incas gain territory in the last war?
What religion do the Romans follow?
Is Morocco… Morocco?
12 – Britain and Ireland are hardly an “Island Chain.”
14 – The western Balkans seems a strange place to keep an Imperial capital.
Me and a friend of mine are creating a joint canon for NationStates. It's pretty funny/stupid, but I wanted to share my map thus far. The whole premise is kind of 1984ish (scary-ass dystopian kind of thing), but basically, there are a few "major power-players" here. The whole "power threshold" is cranked up to 16, as a nation like the Czech Republic, has about as much military power as the IOTL United States. This is the present year, 1998, and boy is the world fucked up.
The major players:
The Empire of Asgard (the big light blue super nation) is my nation. It's a matriarchal hyperpower with about 3-4 billion super-women (no men) living in it. It's a constitutional monarchy with a few quirks that really would put it over a moral event horizon IOTL; such as the institution of sexual slavery for sexual criminals, eugenics, and biological experiments on death row criminals, as well as an Enatic line of succession.
Allies include Bojikami, Britain (const. monarchy under Edward IX von Hohenzollern), Ireland (nativist republic), Hungary (under a domestic King), Czech Republic (const. republic), Ukraine (const. republic), Poland (const. republic), Norway and Sweden (const. monarchies) -- she also has puppet regimes in Mexico (const. monarchy), and the former United States. Mexico and the United States are subject to an ethnic replacment/subjugation campaign that involves a hell of a lot of sickening experiments from unregulated government scientists. Squicky shit.
After the fall of Nazi Germany (which we accept as having happened but need to figure out how to place it into the canon), Asgard took in a lot of German women and some men (on certain conditions) from the regime so they could avoid French reprisal (and later outright genocide), and so a lot of that nature has rubbed off into modern Asgard.
Socialist Federal Republic of Bojikami (orange nation in Russia) is my friend's nation. It's a throw-back to 50s Soviet Union, but with a heavy Asiatic Nomad feel to it. A nation of Asiatic nomads and steppe conquerors turned socialist demagogues. Secret police are everywhere and in everything (Stasi/KGB-level), enemies of the state are killed off at the government's leisure, and military police act without guidance -- pretty standard dystopian Stalinism.
French Empire (France, ofc) is the "main enemy" of Bojikami and Asgard. France is a theocratic Empire governed by the Emperor-Pope, a man who consolidated the offices of Church and State into one beast. With his armies, nation, and his genetic scientists, anyone deemed inferior doesn't last long. Their "outremer allies" include Italy (an absolute fascist monarchy), Spain (an absolute Catholic monarchy under the Carlists), Greece (militarist hermit kingdom), and Turkey (an absolute Islamic theocracy); they're all "white power, absolutism" regimes, and are generally evil as can possibly be. They're like Oceania without the socialist overtone. Puppet states include Poméranie, Brandenbourg, and Saxe.
British Empire (India) is the "other enemy". This isn't the same Britain as the one that actually owns the British Isles, this is the last remnant of British imperialism in the world, and it's dug in pretty well -- these British are relentless in their use of genetic sciences, and methods of torture to slowly reduce the "native rabble" to acceptable sizes. Many families and settlements are wiped out in a single night, and whites are moved in shortly afterwards. Outside of the Princely States, the Empire boasts a 70-30 white majority. They're like apartheid South Africa, and Rhodesia, but cranked up to 11.
So far, peace has held, mostly because Asgard and Bojikami have space-based weapons, and the rest have nuclear stockpiles, and nobody's willing to uncap that genie in a bottle just yet.
The whole premise is to make a world as shitty as it can possibly go -- this is pretty well suited. 19th century ethnic imperialism everywhere, genocide is just a passing glance kind of thing. I've still got more work to do on it, but it'll make for some interesting role playing.
For reference, here's how the alliances look.
It's an odd world, so I expected some more explaining needed.
Well, they are sort of like East India companies, but have also bought or developped control over a number of minor Indian nations (good for low taxes and such).
Candy, being an island, got into the game early and managed to keep their companies on a leach. Bengal meanwhile is tired of having Delhi treat them as a secondary power and have dreams of grandeur. Delhi is mostly happy to just use the big companies (and a collection of smaller ones) to bring back cash.
That will be explained under the 'free territories' blurb.
Free Corporate Territories are areas deemed 'backwards' and opened to corporate activities. Different districts are up for lease, and companies (or states) buy these for a 5 year period. These leases are managed by neutral administrators in Madagascar.
They were originally an alliance of Indian Christian merchants trying to aid their co-religious compatriots in Rome and elsewhere. They started making cash when oil became valuable and Hindu merchants more or less took over.
Rome and China have had varying areas under corporate rule (different governments and local officials are open to different bribers). It's been going on at varying levels for almost 200 years, and there have been rebellions when the demands were too strong.
The ICA often sends soldiers abroad to aid the corporate interests. There's also lots of mercenary companies around. As for funding it, well a board of executives is still full of humans, and they can get filled with pride and not want to hand something over even if that one thing is losing them money (Canada in OTL saw some protracted conflicts between the NWC and Hudson's Bay that nearly bankrupted both of them after all).
As for the man on the street, opinions vary. Some like the riches of the world flowing into India and realise their population and way of life depends on the resources they acquire. Others find it a waste and that they should focus on cheap easy targets. Others support a Freedomist revolution and nationalisation of products.
It depends. Walof sees their citizens as valued employees and gives them some nice benefits (this nets them plenty of defectors). India is also a bit lacking in a social net (outside the Marathi). In Free Corporate Territories though . . . The Congo Free State would only be seen as a little bit harsh.
That is the case in most of the puppet states, they're just really corrupt.
Yes, they're somewhere between a single nation and a close alliance.
They are, but they're rather more united. The Freedom Union does manage a population nearly a third of that of India and has a lot fewer backroom assassinations or workers striking. They've got a population that's a lot more engaged and is capable of total mobilisation, while Indian citizens generally just aren't that enthusiastic about fighting.
Yes, they pushed north a bit.
Most are Olympian Hindus (which means anything from Orthodox Olympian pantheon worshipping that fits what OTL Rome had to pure Hinduism which uses a few Roman names). There's a significant number of Christians and roughly as many Buddhists (combining to about 40% of the population), a few Norse Hindus, Jains, Daoists, Jews, etc.
Yes. Morocco is beyond mere Map Keys. (Oops.)
Well, Ireland, Great Britain, the Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Orkneys, etc. are something of an Island Chain.
China had some oddly placed capitals over the years, and one of the four capitals of the Tetrarchy was in Serbia. These things happen.
First post in the map thread in a while. Revision of my socialist ottomans timline. tell me what you think
Your nation seems pretty wanky in size, but my country on NationStates is essentially like Japan with a wankier economy (as if it didn't go into a "lost decade").
(I don't really do roleplays, though)
Yup, it's all about who owns the islands, and the English owned the most islands.
Nope, mostly because the Sicilians and the Italians were rivals. It's in the writeup (I think).
Finally finished and cross-posted from Deviantart
((CLICK IMAGE FOR FULL-SIZE VERSION))
I just fractally generated a bunch of landmasses and stuck them all together. It is pretty wanky, I need to find a better way to do it.
Sort of if the East India company ran Luxembourg and Denmark as well as India?
Who do they buy their leases from? And in the Americas, since most of the native American population will no doubt be ravaged by disease as OTL, who is doing the work? Are those areas not set up as settlement colonies full of imported slave/"long term contact" labor brought in from all over the world? Given what happened in *Australia, I don't see that ending well...
So, the "Christian" part is mostly a brand name nowadays.
I have trouble here. 200 years and no successful revolt against a corrupt, ineffectual regime? 200 years is a respectable lifetime for a Chinese dynasty not the puppet of foreign bloodsuckers. Unequal treaties and humiliations killed off the Qing OTL in only 70-odd. If a bunch of slave laborers  in Australia can pull it off, why not at least a part of China or Rome?
The capital of Sirmium was in a strategic position on the Danube border. I'm not sure what counts as an oddly placed capital for China.
 Not to knock slave laborers. But most slave rebellions end badly.
Something like that yes. Except with more minor powers.
The lands are leased from an international oversight commitee. The funds are used to create some sort of checks and balances on the different mega corps (end result is the occasional unpopular 'CEO' gets arrested when he ticks off enough of the investors, or when something REALLY criminal happens).
As for workers, there's a mix. Natives got hit hard, but numbers have improved (this world has them up to about 10 million in the North America bit). There's also lots of low skill European and Chinese workers who are usually charged for their ticket home when their contracts expire. Also lots of African or Indian skilled or unskilled workers who get treated better. Some settlement has occured, but we're talking maybe 25 million Africans and Indians, with about 12 million other Eurasians who are on contract or have gone AWOL into the poorly settled wilderness. This has led to a fair number of 'Metis' folks. Slavery proper does still exist in Africa and South America, but North America and Siberia are mostly too empty for it.
Basically. The still Christian chunks to push for a bit of missionary work.
Well the Indonesians weren't all slaves. A lot of middle management positions were given to them as well (they were closer and therefore cheaper). As for Rome and China, a few over ambitious rebellions with poor planning thinned the ranks of rebellious types to a degree (think about India in 1857, only very different lessons were learned). That and the Indians are less into the whole 'cultural superiority' thing that OTL Europe had. They just want to make a profit, they (mostly) don't want to force their religion on anyone and other unpleasant things OTL saw. Still, there was also a fair amount of luck (and a culture of strong personal/familial ambition for the Romans which meant betraying the nation for cash inspired many).
Harbin was fairly out of the way, Beijing is honestly kind of on the edge of Han China and Xi'an is on the edge of the main population regions. Not terrible locations, but neither is the West Balkans when this Rome controls the Pannonian Basin.
I think that Spain should still own Puerto Rico or it should be German colony. And American Virgin Islands probably still should belong for Denmark.
So, north America is a lot less populated than OTL. Gotcha. Although I'd expect Bengali *Greater Florida to be a growth zone, the climate is not too different from back home and it's certainly fertile - if the Bengalis are at all inclined to migrate.
India seems a poor analogy, since the British were there in force and directly controlling a lot more of the land and people, while there are still all-Rome and all-China regimes at least theoretically ruling over most of the territory: the late Ottoman Empire, when Europeans controlled most of the economy and the country's finances, seems closer. And the "techniques" of rebellion improve over time, while modernization makes mass mobilization much easier. Further, this world has revolutionary ideology: British in India also did not have to deal with the equivalent of the Soviet Union supporting unrest and propagandizing the masses, as the pre-second-Freedom war Cooperative states and their missionaries no doubt did. Also, human nature being what it is, a modernizing world-dominating India whose inhabitants don't at least consider themselves culturally greatly superior to everyone else? Come on.
It certainly is necessary for there to be any long-term cooperation between puppet rulers and Indian corporations that the relationship benefits in some ways at least a sizable slice of the local elites: and given the already described brutality of the system as-it-is, it is a little hard to see them joining an international economic elite. British rule in India led to essentially 0% per capita economic growth throughout the 19th century: aside from a thin slice of noblemen retaining their wealth and toys (but none of their independence and little of their dignity) this was not a sustainable relationship.
But I am perhaps unfairly assuming things have always been this bad. What if Corporate India has only slowly expanded its power in Rome and China since the 1600s? So it has only been in the last 70 or 80 years that it has become clear that the governments of China or Rome have become mere paid puppets of the Companies. Enough time for a rebellion or two, but not enough for a real mass or ideological resistance to arise. Put the First Freedom War forward a few decades, so it's only some 50-odd years for new revolutionary ideas (which the local conservative elites really don't like either) to spread through China and Rome. The cracks are showing, but the collapse is not yet.
(Why do I have a sudden sense of deja vu? Did I have a similar argument with someone before?)
I'll give you Xi'an (although it was the start of the silk road), but Harbin was in the territory of the people who founded the Jin dynasty, who after all lived in Manchuria, and was soon replaced as main capital by a more southern city. Beijing was quite well located for barbarian dynasties whose authority overlapped the steppe and the settled, and while the Ming weren't, being on the edge of Han territory made it strategically important when a fresh Mongol invasion was on everyone's mind. And of course it had been capital long enough for it to be traditional by Qing times...
Perhaps the Balkan capital is like Yamoussoukro in Cote d'Ivoire: an eccentric emperor from the Balkans moves the capital to his goat-infested Balkan home town, builds the place up big, he has a successful son and grandson, and suddenly it's traditional for the capital to be there, never mind the terrible transportation costs.
Separate names with a comma.