Map Thread XX

Status
Not open for further replies.
^That pretty much depends on the circumstances. I'm not too familiar with the state of Saxony of that time period, but I can see both happening. The 1st option slightly more so, as there you don't get artificial partitions of existing realms.
 
East Coast.png
Another one, A loyal south and an independent north!

Georgia's Flag was made by the user Oliveia. thank you again!
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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 main motivation of the union, as I see it, is to counterbalance Prussian and Austrian power. A "strength in numbers" thing, as it were. France is motivated to try to keep Prussia weaker so they help prop up that Saxon-Bavarian Confederation. Austria would also prop up the confederation for similar reasons (good point about how they wouldn't though if Bohemia was taken; I'm nixing that idea).
 
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.

Angevine Empire of Russia.png
 
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
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?
 
Imperoitaliano.png

I'll try to post a much big immage.
However: The world n 850 ab incarnatione Domini

In VI century Justinian I tryed to recapture the west, lost to germanic invasion, sending his best general Flavius Belisarius.
In 537 he was offered the throne of Italy if he defected from Justian. In OTL he refused, but here, thanks to an harsher treatment from the Emperor accept the gothic offer and crown himself Belisarius I.
This lead to a strong neo-western Empire and to a more complex situation in the eastern half.
Islam appearead, but the also if Byzantium and Persia fought a hard war in VII century, having not consumed the resources in the west conquest, preserved Constantinople to fall and, in the end, saved the day also for Persia.
However both Persian and Arab invasion of Levant lead to crumbling of eastern roman empire there. Egypt, Syria and Armenia shaked the orthodx chains from them and become indipendent states .

In Africa the Heracleians ruled as vassal of the Italian Emperor, Carthage supplies naval forces and sailors to the Empire. Both the Exarcates of Rome and Sicily have a special status in the empire. Rome is, de facto, ruled by the Pope(altought not with the liberty and powers we are used in OTL), Sicily is governed by a Dux in name of the Emperor.
In late VII century the Wstern Empire fought a a war against the Franks with its allies, the Lombards. Valentinian IV was ale to secure Marsilia, Arles and other cities on the Rhone, helping Aquitania to secure its indipedence. After the war Belisarius III moved the capital from Ravenna to the city of Veneta Augusta(increasingly called Venezia by uncultured italian paesants). The Emperor lives in his palace of Rivaltus.

Busy fighting Franks, Avars and Bulgarians alongside Eastern Empire, Photius II was unable or unwilling to assist Africa against the rebellions of berber native peoples. Constantin II Heracleid was able to expell them in Mauretania, where the queen Dihya was able to create a berber kingdom and a berber chrch gaining the title of Kahina (Priestess). Today her successors are pushing in Visigothic kingdom of Hispania and have taken Cordoba, the capital; forcing Reccaredo III to flee in the north parth of the kingdom.

The sasannian dynasty was hardly proved by Islamic invasion, but in the end was able to survive in eastern Iran, and from there(with conspicuos chinese help) to return in Iraq after a century of so. Nearly a century after reconquest of Mesopotamia, in 825, the dynasty was overthrown by a vassal on the silk road that installed the Samanid Dynasty. After a couple of rebukes against Armenia and Arabian Caliphate, Samanids are become a beacon of civilization and culture wating for a better time to enlarge their empire.

Arabia is a strange state, Islam if pretty different from OTL and could be confused with a Christological Heresy, but a OTL muslim could find easily the teaching of the Prophet and the tennants of his faith in this traveling and mercantile religion. The Caliph ruled over all arabs, and when the armies of Umar were unable to pierce in Taurus and Zagros mountains, next Caliphs were more lead to expand thier faith with missions, instead than with swords. The thing worked(also if, sometimes, a fleet from Yemen or Oman is send to assist sufi preachers in their struggle to diffond the word of God). Islam is not the world religion of OTL(yet) but is diffused in Iraq, Levant and where arabian merchants could arrive.

Eastern Roman Empire suffered a lot, Isaurian Dynasty was able to save the empire from conquest by Avars and Arabs, but not to defend Balkans and Levant that were lost.
Despite a strong central rule, now in the hands of Basil I, is the eastern half of the Empire that starts to resemble medieval italy with its busy commercuial cities, more and more intollerant of Constantinople taxes and burdens...

I'm planning to add more lore for other states of the map. Hope you Enjoy.
 
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?
 
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?
depends on the map your tyring to maek are you just going for paint maps at this point?


this thread has a llot base maps and guides to help get started :))
 
depends on the map your tyring to maek are you just going for paint maps at this point?


this thread has a llot base maps and guides to help get started :))
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
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.

 

Attachments

  • 1939.png
    1939.png
    102.2 KB · Views: 367
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.

I have seen that before, and was planning to use that for aid. I was planning for a more detailed map, like his.
 
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
Serfdom dying out by the mid 18th century is pretty early.

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]
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top