Ease of access, basically.How did eriksonland become more populated than that part of the prairies?
That, and the Prairies were contested between the Danes, Russians, and French for a good while.
Ease of access, basically.How did eriksonland become more populated than that part of the prairies?
No seriously, I always love worldbuilding like this. Makes it feel more alive. Fantastic work.
I like this! The steadily liberalizing white nationalist USA is something you don't see much of, and the complex world-building is delightful. My only complaint is that the colors for the IRI and the USAM are a little too similar.
-Is the Nazi state that one in Azerbaijan?
-Why did the Sunni Arabs go with Assyria for their name instead of Syria or Mashreq?
-Who's the country in Greece?
-What about the independent states in the UAE and the straits of Hormuz?
-Who's the country in Cuba?
I've got to do my own cover of a Rio Grande/Mesopotamia ISOT now.
Good show, Alexander North!
(Man, ISIL: you know your version of Islam is crappy when it drives Muslims to convert to a religion that has been largely out of fashion for thirteen centuries).
minor linguistic quibble: if things have improved, conflict has cooled, but relations have become warmer.
My immediate thought when reading this? Seems like it would be a hard sell getting a J. Brown elected as head of the slavocrat wing. Was he clean shaven?The Confederate Civil War - 1891 A.D.
This map is a remake of another quite bad map I made a few months ago for a small mini-timeline about a Confederate victory with a twist. The events of the Civil War itself are left ambiguous since the idea of the Confederacy achieving victory over the Union is quite frankly pretty unrealistic and the initial Southern war of independence isn't really the main focus, so I'll just leave it at quiet muttering about Order 191 and something about tacit European support. With all that said, here's a brief summary of the lore:
Is Peh-tang meant to be the Yaeyama islands?The Republic of Tai-oan:
Is Peh-tang meant to be the Yaeyama islands?
I think you mean "Croatia-Slovenia" not Slovakia.The Danube-Alpine Union in my WIP TL Specter and Spirit
View attachment 517834
Superscience, superhero... have nazis and/or soviets something like that too? Even if less (especialy with fall of most of Germany...)View attachment 517850
Map from my universe where superhumans (about 10% of the world’s population, almost all of them in the Americas) and weird science exist.
D-Day began with the invasion of Germany itself in the Nordenham-Wilhelmshaven area. The coast was moderately defended as most German assets were moved to France to defend the area they thought the invasion would come from. Thanks to that there was little standing in the way of the Allies swiftly over-running the rotten heart of the Reich.
Current date on the map is November 1944, about two months after this world’s equivalent of the Battle of the Bulge, which took place along the former German-Polish border. The SS struggles to keep its offensive going and fend off the Soviets, who despite overwhelming odds and a massive technological disadvantage are pushing west. The Wehrmacht is nearly trying to hold off Allied offensives into occupied Norway and Spain all at the same time. Whether it’ll take continued offensive action or if the Reich will implode on its own remains to be seen.
Aw fiddlesticks!I think you mean "Croatia-Slovenia" not Slovakia.
Superscience, superhero... have nazis and/or soviets something like that too? Even if less (especialy with fall of most of Germany...)
Also 10 %... this is really much, maybe too much...
Will there be Alpenfestung?
Also, some of borders does not fit, why? And what happened to norther Denmark, some experiment going wrong/right?
View attachment 517971
This is a world where the fledgling USA attempts to settle the matter of slavery early on. The impetus is a noble one: an anti-slavery pamphlet that gains considerable traction and convinces a great number of Northern politicians that slavery should be abolished, at least in their own states. At the convention to frame a constitutional document, the matter is discussed in detail. Unfortunately, the outcome of all this is a compromise what will come to haunt the Union. The Constitution is designed to include an article outlining that all states North of the Mason-Dixon Line will abolish slavery before January 1, 1800. Additionally, no slaves may be taken into or through free states by their owners. Converely, however, the article also forbids federal authorities from making any legislation regarding slavery in the Southern states, and obligates all state and federal authories to return escaped slaves if they flee North. Finally, to avert dispute, no states admitted to the union may extend North of the Line if they are slave states, or South of it if they are free states.
Hoping that slavery will soon die out, and that limiting it to the South -- where it already existed -- has successfully contained it forever, the framers of the Constitution congratulate themselves on their timely action to settle the matter. Prematurely, as it happens. Slavery doesn't die out at all. The cotton gin gives it a new lease of life, and the slavocratic faction becomes only more powerful over time. Limited in territorial extent, yes, but the same provision that outlines those limits also ensures that none can ever challenge the institution. The slavocrats have the power to hold the Union hostage forever. This is only bolstered by the fact that the South, having secured its particular institution, almost at once ceased the pretense of caring much about Jefferson's decentralist ideals. Southern support for certain Northern (Federalist) wishes was exchanged for an early alliance with Britain against Republican France. Thomas Jefferson, having gotten a very rude awakening as to the real political interests in his country, grew a concience and freed his slaves. Then he slit his own wrists.
Cynical as the alliance between Northern Federalists and Southern planters may have been, and cynical as the alliance between the USA and Britain (against France) may have been, it did yield its instigators exactly what they wanted. When France was defeated, Britain supported American claims to the Louisiana Country-- a claim that the USA was allowed to push all the way up to the Rio Grande. Having ensured that the USA got as much land South of the Line as possible, the slavocrats lost all interest in further expansion. Newly independent Mexico had quickly sought an alliance with Britain by yielding its Northernmost territorial claims to the British Crown. (For the border, they settled on the same line that divided the USA into its North and South.) Subsequently, Mexico --stabilised by an influx of British credit -- had sent a wave of settlers to what remained of its Far North. For the USA, seizing any more of Mexico was not a realistic perspective (particularly since Britain would disapprove... violently). The Northern Federalists, meanwhile, had no wish to contest Britain's claim to Greater Oregon. On the contrary, the Federalists believed that a larger country would only lead to a dispersal of the population. This was contrary to the Federalist desire to foster an urbanised, industrial nation. Thus, not only were North and South agreed upon the fact that no more territorial gains were needed-- the North even went so far as to actively discourage Westward migration.
This state of affairs lasted until the 1870s. By that time, public opinion in the North had well and truly turned against slavery. But with the Constitution in hand, the slavocrats refused to budge. Every attempt to initiate reform was blocked. The two sections of the Union had grown further and further apart. The old Mason-Dixon Line was more of a boundary than many a border between sovereign country. This Line divided two worlds, two cultures, and -- in the opinion of many -- two peoples. Ultimately, the North was left with no recourse but to secede from the Union that it had grown to detest. The slavocrats objected, and some military efforts were considered. This only led to the embarrassment of seeing the new Federation of Columbia annex Virginia's pan-handle after kicking the Union troops back across the Line. Two days later, Britain recognised the Federation-- and that brought all contestation to an end. The Union had been reduced to a much smaller state.
But the embarrrassment was not yet at an end. Britain and Mexico, two states by then very soundly opposed to slavery, would soon ally with the Federation in putting a trade embargo on Union goods. And as industry matured in many nations, plantation slavery became an increasingly backward practice. The Union became a poor country in every meaning of that word. In 1922, Texas -- in the middle of its oil boom -- refused to be shackled to a fossil nation any longer. Voting for secession, the Texian Congress at once added legislation abolishing slavery and introducing universal suffrage. With grants from Mexico, Britain and the Federation, the reborn Republic of Texas soon flourished.
The United States of America, once an embodiment of hope for greater liberty in the world, held on to slavery with a death-grip until 1945. By then, it was a pariah state. Its elite was stupendously wealthy, but mostly because the rest of the country was so poor. When Louisiana declared independence following an African-American rebellion -- heavily supported by Texas -- the US army was ordered to intervene. Instead, it led to a large-scale mutiny, and eventually, the first truly free elections in Union history... where everyone got to vote. Many a slavocrat was arrested;many more were strung up from lamp-posts. Thankfully, the new coalition government, including representatives from the formal interim government (all-white) and the Negro Liberation Pact (as it was then called), managed to calm the populace by a show of unity and a promise of reform.
We are now coming up on the 75th anniversary of slavery's end. In three quarters of a century, a Union once lost has perhaps found its way again. Or at the very least, it has made great strides in the right direction. Deep wounds take time to heal, and memories are long. There is still resentment. There is still inequality. There is still racism. But the USA is now a multi-party democracy; and a multi-racial country. Half its presidents have been African-American, and even if both blacks and whites still vote overwhelmingly by party lines, the decline of the old mainstream parties has led to increasing numbers of coalition governments. Perhaps, that's a healthy thing.
Elsewhere, Britain has established an Imperial Federation that remains the world's foremost power, although the economy of its former colony, India, is growing by leaps and bounds. The Federation of Columbia has evolved into something akin to a social democracy with left-libertarian tendencies, although its Western Territories are far more inclined towards "rugged individualism". (To the point that they insist on retaining territorial status: it denies them all sorts of federal benefits, not to mention congressional seats, but it likewise exempts them from a lot of federal taxation and legislation.) The Republic of Texas is increasingly Hispanic, and has entered into a customs union with Mexico. There is talk of further integration. The Indian Province is self-governing. Mexico itself is a prosperous ceremonial monarchy, with very moderate politics; it is the world's leader in computer technology. Louisiana is a very wealthy nation, which leverages its position at the mouth of the Mississippi to punch above its weight a bit.