The criticism I would make in your scenario would be to think that Saxony and Bavaria could form a United Kingdom at that time.Can you do a quick plausibility check for me? I am currently working on drafting a chapter of my TL (link in signature) about alternate German unification. The gist is that Frederich Ferdinand von Beust of Saxony gets a bigger say in the post Austro-Prussian War negotiations and thus is able to stop Bavaria and Saxony from being absorbed into the North German Confederation. Eventually (by 1870; there is no Franco-Prussian War ITTL) Bavaria and Saxony will form a United Kingdom of Saxon-Bavaria in opposition to the Prussia-led North German Confederation.
I am torn between two options, specifically concerning what to do with Wurttemberg, Baden, the Electorate of Hesse, the Grand Duchy of Hesse, Hohenzollern, the Palatinate, and Nassau in terms of allegiance. In both options, Wurttemberg, Baden, and Hohenzollern go to the North German Confederation. What follows are two options I am debating between:
Option 1: In this option, both Hesses and Nassau go to the North German Confederation while the Palatinate (as a region of Bavaria) stays with Bavaria, with an agreement in the treaty for the possibility of free unimpeded travel between Bavaria proper and its Palatinate exclave.
Option 2: The southern half of the Electorate of Hesse and all of both Nassau and the Grand Duchy of Hesse go to Saxon-Bavaria. In exchange for all that, give up the Palatinate to the North.
You'll also note in both maps, I have included Bohemia as part of the United Kingdom of Saxon-Bavaria. Basically, Bohemia is advocating hard for greater autonomy within Austria just like Hungary. However, while Hungarian concerns are being listen to (creating the Austro-Hungarian Empire), Bohemian concerns are pushed aside. Fed up with getting nowhere in negotiations, Bohemia instead moves to join with Saxon-Bavaria, with Austria's begrudging blessing in order to stay on Saxon-Bavaria's good side.
None of this is really set in stone yet, but I wanted to do a quick plausibility check if you're up for it.
Good point about a the United Kingdom thing. I think you're right that a confederation of different kingdoms is more likely than a truly united kingdom, as I had previously considered.The criticism I would make in your scenario would be to think that Saxony and Bavaria could form a United Kingdom at that time.
They have nothing in common that could form a Union so easily, the religion as well as the royal dynasties ruling there are not the same to begin with.
There could be United KingdomS that would look more like a confederation in its early stages.
Besides, what would motivate this Union? Moreover, could it succeed when Saxony and Bavaria have no direct interests and Ludwig II of Bavaria is half crazy?
Another problem that I see is Prussia. Prussia will not allow the Saxon-Bavarians to make this kind of Union. Neither will Austria if Bohemia is taken from it. There could be the France of Napoleon III who could help them but considering how it was annihilated in OTL 1870 it is not a guarantee of victory.
Why would there be separate states of Hamilton and Franklin? I think Hamilton, Erie and Franklin should be part of NY, PA and ME.View attachment 641470Another one, A loyal south and an independent north!
Georgia's Flag was made by the user Oliveia. thank you again!
Why notWhy would there be separate states of Hamilton and Franklin? I think Hamilton, Erie and Franklin should be part of NY, PA and ME.
If they "steamrolled into Europe and the Ottoman Empire, taking whatever they wanted", how come they have gone so far as to annex Prussia, yet apparently abstained from taking Constantinople?Without further knowledge, I present before thy honors, the Angevine Empire of Russia.
TL;DR: I made this based on an older timeline cause I was bored. The Angevines strike back and make Russia more OP and civilized.
A thing from another timeline I thought of, where the Angevines find time travel, and decide to pull a Red Alert and take over 1720's Russia. Peter the Great was pew pew'd away, a very uncivil war ensued, and the Angevines ended up in charge.
The Empire speaks the great language of Auld French, and, given the nobility spoke French just fine, they sorta just carried on. The serfs were kept, well, enslaved, but with all-new techniques to ensure they don't flee. However, kids of serfs were free men, so serfdom by 1750-60 died out. Criminals were just exiled to Siberia with a bunch of tools, tasked to establish their own towns and communities, Australia-style.
In its early years the empire also just steamrolled into Europe and the Ottoman Empire, taking whatever they wanted. Its culture is, well, eh. Its a mix of Byzantine practice, titles n the like, and French architecture in palaces and stuff. Basically, its OTL Russia but more OP and less likely to ever fall into a civil war like the Russian Revolution.
View attachment 641622
Because Congress has a system by which it creates new states and adheres to it pretty rigidly. Regions too small or too large aren’t going to be allowed to be states. Physical equality tends to be the name of the game.Why not
What surprises me is the lack of straight borders for the new states.SNIP
depends on the map your tyring to maek are you just going for paint maps at this point?Hello.
I have enjoyed looking at many of the maps here, and was thinking of making my own. Do you have any tips, and is there a post with instructions that may be a good basis to follow? I think layering is used, but how do you do that?
Thanks, I'll take a look.depends on the map your tyring to maek are you just going for paint maps at this point?
Base Map & Resource Index
The Base Map & Resource Index ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AlternateHistory.com has produced some simply amazing resources over the past ten years, however, the vast amount of base-maps, color schemes, and...www.alternatehistory.com
this thread has a llot base maps and guides to help get started )
if you want a detailed map in a similar style instead of worlda maps ie those pixel maps like so then you want Inkscape,GIMP, or Photoshop. There's a higher learning curve towards making maps this way but the payoff is something that looks really cool. I think Arminius1871 has a great tutorial on photoshop maps.Thanks, I'll take a look.
Edit:
I am unsure what a paint map is, but my goal was trying to make a detailed map in a similar style to what I've seen here.
I have seen that before, and was planning to use that for aid. I was planning for a more detailed map, like his.if you want a detailed map in a similar style instead of worlda maps ie those pixel maps like so then you want Inkscape,GIMP, or Photoshop. There's a higher learning curve towards making maps this way but the payoff is something that looks really cool. I think Arminius1871 has a great tutorial on photoshop maps.
Historical Map Tutorial for Photoshop by Arminius1871 on DeviantArt
www.deviantart.com
The map shows the Brandenburg-Prussia Succession Crisis
Serfdom dying out by the mid 18th century is pretty early.Without further knowledge, I present before thy honors, the Angevine Empire of Russia.
TL;DR: I made this based on an older timeline cause I was bored. The Angevines strike back and make Russia more OP and civilized.
A thing from another timeline I thought of, where the Angevines find time travel, and decide to pull a Red Alert and take over 1720's Russia. Peter the Great was pew pew'd away, a very uncivil war ensued, and the Angevines ended up in charge.
The Empire speaks the great language of Auld French, and, given the nobility spoke French just fine, they sorta just carried on. The serfs were kept, well, enslaved, but with all-new techniques to ensure they don't flee. However, kids of serfs were free men, so serfdom by 1750-60 died out. Criminals were just exiled to Siberia with a bunch of tools, tasked to establish their own towns and communities, Australia-style.
In its early years the empire also just steamrolled into Europe and the Ottoman Empire, taking whatever they wanted. Its culture is, well, eh. Its a mix of Byzantine practice, titles n the like, and French architecture in palaces and stuff. Basically, its OTL Russia but more OP and less likely to ever fall into a civil war like the Russian Revolution.
View attachment 641622
Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries
Peter III created two measures in 1762 that influenced the abolition of serfdom. He ended mandatory military service for nobles with the abolition of compulsory noble state service. This provided a rationale to end serfdom. Second, was the secularization of the church estates, which transferred its peasants and land to state jurisdiction.[14][15] In 1775 measures were taken by Catherine II to prosecute estate owners for the cruel treatment of serfs. These measures were strengthened in 1817 and the late 1820s.[16] There were even laws that required estate owners to help serfs in time of famine, which included grain to be kept in reserve. These policies failed to aid famines in the early nineteenth century due to estate owner negligence.[17]
Tsar Alexander I and his advisors quietly discussed the options at length. Obstacles included the failure of abolition in Austria and the political reaction against the French Revolution. Cautiously, he freed peasants from Estonia and Latvia and extended the right to own land to most classes of subjects, including state-owned peasants, in 1801 and created a new social category of "free agriculturalist", for peasants voluntarily emancipated by their masters, in 1803. The great majority of serfs were not affected.[3]
The Russian state also continued to support serfdom due to military conscription. The conscripted serfs dramatically increased the size of the Russian military during the war with Napoleon.[18] With a larger military Russia achieved victory in the Napoleonic Wars and Russo-Persian Wars; this did not change the disparity between Russia and Western Europe, who were experiencing agricultural and industrial revolutions. Compared to Western Europe it was clear that Russia was at an economic disadvantage. European philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment criticized serfdom and compared it to medieval labor practices which were almost non-existent in the rest of continent. Most Russian nobles were not interested in change toward western labor practices that Catherine the Great proposed. Instead they preferred to mortgage serfs for profit. Napoleon did not touch serfdom in Russia. What the reaction of the Russian peasantry would have been if he had lived up to the traditions of the French Revolution, bringing liberty to the serfs, is an intriguing question.[19] In 1820, 20% of all serfs were mortgaged to state credit institutions by their owners. This was increased to 66% in 1859.[20]
Bourgeois were allowed to own serfs 1721–62 and 1798–1816; this was to encourage industrialisation. In 1804, 48% of Russian factory workers were serfs, 52% in 1825.[21] Landless serfs rose from 4.14% in 1835 to 6.79% in 1858. They received no land in the emancipation. Landlords deliberately increased the number of domestic serfs when they anticipated serfdom's demise. In 1798, Ukrainian landlords were banned from selling serfs apart from land. In 1841, landless nobles were banned also.[22]