There is huge similarity with Totentanzs maps, but also some difference, at least unified (?) Levant/Palestina, I think?
Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
This is a common theme in his maps and he highlights these differences - Axis plans were inconsistent, changed as the course of the war went on, and were very often contradictory.
As examples: Fascist Italy considered turning Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria into four separate Italian protectorates, with virtually the same borders they have today, but Nazi Germany made vague claims about establishing an Arab Union uniting the entire Levant instead, Turkey apparently requested that they should be allowed to annex northern Iraq and Syria (for their Misak-ı Millî project) if they joined the Axis, but of course the Iraqis and Syrians would not have tolerated this and cause them to turn against the Axis, Italy was confused if whenever Palestine and Jordan should be ruled by the King of Italy as a dynastic union, or if they should have a puppet Arab monarchy.
I also recall reading on Totentanz0's beautifully confusing Bible of sources that Fascist Italy once thought of putting the city of Jerusalem (or all of Palestine?) under the direct control of the Pope/Vatican as some kind of modern crusader state!
A map depicting Spanish ambitions in the Maghreb.
In circles is what Spain already had prior to 1900.
Orange line is what Spain actually wanted (and, allegedly, almost got) from France, in a failed treaty, from 1902.
Red line is what they negotiated, in another failed treaty, from 1904.
Dotted line is what they actually got, OTL, in 1912.
In circles is what Spain already had prior to 1900.
Orange line is what Spain actually wanted (and, allegedly, almost got) from France, in a failed treaty, from 1902.
Red line is what they negotiated, in another failed treaty, from 1904.
Dotted line is what they actually got, OTL, in 1912.
If Spain got Fez (extremely unlikely, but hypothetically), I'd imagine the Rif War might go more in the Riffians' favour. Although on paper Spain would control much more territory, its presence in North Africa was always more tenuous than France's, and now it'd have to assert effective control over much more of North Africa -- including Morocco's second-largest city, former capital, and religious capital (whose madrassahs and mosques were deeply tied to independent-minded zawiyahs, ribats, and marabout orders throughout North Africa).
France would very much want Fez back. Ditto for the Sultanate of Morocco -- after the Hafidiyah Coup and the Bay'ah of Fez, Sultan Abdul-Hafid certainly couldn't allow Morocco to be partitioned. The Bay'ah of Fez was a condition for Fez's allegiance (bay'ah) -- Fez recognised him as sultan on the condition that he 1) consulted the Ulema in matters of state (rather than just the hereditary aristocracy), and 2) renounce the Algericas Agreement and wage jihad for Morocco's liberation from France. But if Fez was occupied by Spain instead of France, then Abdul-Hafid could direct his Fezzi jihad against Spain and potentially keep France happy. And if France supported Abdul-Hafid's claims, then it could legitimise itself to Morocco at large.
So when the Rif War breaks out, both France and the Sultanate might be willing to recognise an independent Rif in exchange for Fez. And if France supported the Riffian mujahideen, and then restored the Sultan's rule over the holiest city in Morocco with the blessing of Abd el-Krim, it'd endear France to its Muslim subjects while also extending its influence over all of Morocco, and permanently weakening Spain.
Last edited:
For Maron's River, the only two rivers within that white area are the Navarro and Noyo Rivers. Though, did the original proposal state the coordinates of the river mouth?
It did not provide coordinates, however someone on Discord did find an 1860 map that placed a "Maron's River", and it looks most similar to the Noyo. On top of that, the Noyo received its current name in that same year, so it does seems to be referring to it.
Yes, sorry, I'm not too familiar with tagging people on this site
I assume you mean the Sierra Nevada? I have seen that name also used to apply to the Rockies, most importantly in Frémont's map (which is in fact relevant, because some Californians wanted that as the boundary, at least to begin with).
There certainly were people who proposed the Sierra Nevada as the proper eastern border (at least with a deviation to include the southern coast), in fact the majority of Californians during the original debate on the boundary felt that that was the proper border of California. I made some maps in the pdf I submitted here, but I will show the specific proposal in this post. For the Rocky Mountains border it was mainly abolitionists who wished to make the whole area Californian in order to force all subsequent states that were to be carved out of the region into free states, they then felt that California would eventually be pushed back to the Sierra Nevada.
The specific text for the border is: "The eastern boundary shall follow the Sierra Nevada as far as that range of mountains extends on Fremont's map, and thence in a direct line to the mouth of the Gila." Note that: "as far as that range of mountains extends on Fremont's map" is very hard to place accurately, so that exact point can be shuffled a bit.
Last edited:
I found a few interesting maps of alternate borders of Illinois and Wisconsin.
When it comes to the western border it was meant to flow along the Mississippi however after a large earth quake the river significantly changed courses leading to the border being significantly changed. For the northern boundary this was the original proposed northern border until Illinois congressional representative at the time Nathaniel Pope petitioned congress to move the border north in order to make sure Illinois had access to Lake Michigan. Some Northern counties in Illinois even voted to join Wisconsin a few years later but it was to late by that point and the movement went nowhere.
When it comes to the western border it was meant to flow along the Mississippi however after a large earth quake the river significantly changed courses leading to the border being significantly changed. For the northern boundary this was the original proposed northern border until Illinois congressional representative at the time Nathaniel Pope petitioned congress to move the border north in order to make sure Illinois had access to Lake Michigan. Some Northern counties in Illinois even voted to join Wisconsin a few years later but it was to late by that point and the movement went nowhere.
Personally this is one of my favorite California partitions, but this would've been perfect with the Committee/Sutter line from 1849
That California using the Sierra Nevada-to-Gila line is honestly a fantastic compromise between natural borders and OTL borders.
It's true, there is something rather elegant about it
The Sierra Nevadas are the "natural" eastern border of California, and the crest/drainage divide can be easily traced... their southern extension, the Tehachapi Mountains, was also once a formidable barrier between Central California and the Greater LA region.... but between there and the Colorado River, the "basin and range" topography of the Mojave (sort of a southwestern extension of the Great Basin) makes drawing any sort of geographic boundary between the two nearly impossible.
This solution is as good as any, and better than most
Calling the river diversions of the second hundred millennia BCE "historic" is quite a stretch.
I think if you were to split off the Mojave/Socal section into a quadrangle that abuts the Colorado, and possibly split off the northernmost sections of Norcal (roughly a natural line from the Bay to Tahoe) you would end up with the most aesthetically pleasing set of Californias possible.
Any Shasta state would be too underpopulated IMO, should just be annexed to California (and that way California and Colorado would be of comparable size).