Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by Beedok, Jun 15, 2014.
It's a rough approximation of what I found in this 1952 Italian atlas.
Too many French-speakers.
That map of Australia is genuinely awful, Guelphia would have like 16 million people with a distribution approaching OTL’s while every other state would comparatively have fuck all. Good lord I’m glad that didn’t go through.
What is the etymology of Guelphia? The other are named after explorers (except of course victoria), but I can’t find anything for guelphia
More than most likely this
Ooooh. Libya has disputed borders with French Algeria and Niger, but no claims against Chad. Which really is the odder thing, as I see a lot of maps on here which had the Aozou strip as British before the Brits gave the rest of the land to Italy.
I think Nuytsland is the worst... even the mapmaker seems to be aware that there are no features or settlements worth labelling inside it. IOTL I think it would have less than 10,000 people unless you count the emus.
Made this the other day: An Alternate USA with16 proposed states added.
Apart from the fact that the Republicans will now win FOREVER, I'm sure Nantucket is basically two guys, a dog and a fishing boat.
Los Angeles isnt where you labelled it. In fact, its not even in that new state at all.
oops, that's embarrassing, I always assumed it was in Orange County...funnily enough that's one of the only cities I didn't double check the location of when putting it on the map
no indian stream? how dare you
As much as I love Indian Stream, I dont think they ever intended to become a state
It always leaves me puzzled as these "ethnic maps" of Africa often mismatch with each other ...
It's not necessarily the data that's inaccurate, it's the interpretation of the data that is subject to whoever is making the map.
"What does ethnicity mean to you" can get you a lot of different answers, even when we are all given the same demographic information.
I just noticed that they all seem to split the Somalis into the different clans. That’s kind of odd, since I’ve never seen them described as separate ethnicities, I can’t help but wonder if they just split the Somalis up just to have more areas on the map.
Its because "Africa is unstable because they're barbarians who were forced together and began killing each other the minute they were freed from enlightened European rule" is a really easy way to go and deny that Europe is responsible for a lot of problems in modern Africa, and a lot of these maps are rather artificial and among other things deny that these groups are often nomadic and borders are subject to change.
The argument that most often gets made in regards to these sorts of maps, though, is that "the borders are artificial", and that they don't reflect Africa's ethnic diversity like Europe's do. Never mind that the creation of the European nation-states involved the artificial creation of a pan-ethnic identity followed by the subsumption/annihilation of competing nationalisms; if we were to draw a pre-Westphalia map of all of Europe's 'ethnic groups', it could be nearly as chaotic.
This, this so much. It happens other places too; the amount of cultures that were subsequently annihilated when someone decided that to be a Southerner meant, well, what all the racists say it means is boggling. In a way, the fact that African smaller languages and identities continue to this day as opposed to how in Europe these languages and regional traditions were annihilated is a good thing.
Separate names with a comma.