Q-Bam Historical Map Thread

CHKeeley

CHKeeley

FrenchIndochina.png

Quick patch for French Indochina. As far as I am aware, this should be accurate from 1907 - 1940. The dark blue stripes in the northern border regions indicate military occupation, while the light blue indicates the presence of devolved Residents-Superior overseeing the protectorates. Cochinchina lacks that because it was directly overseen by a governor. I wanted to include outlines to show the shared administration between the French colonial administration and the indigenous noble elites, but I felt it would make it too cluttered. Drew the subdivisions myself from a series of French atlases made in 1920 - should be fairly accurate barring some amateur projection issues.
 
Last edited:
CHKeeley

CHKeeley

Crazy Boris said:
September 4, 476 AD. Ocoader tells Romulus Augustulus to go away, and he does
Click to expand...
Also this is a poorly made addendum to this map, but I had floated the idea a while ago of making a little graphic showing alternate theories about the extent of the 'Kingdom of Soissons'.
SoissonsTheories.png
And I went ahead and scraped one together because your map reminded me of it. A while back I read "Late Roman Warlords" by Penny MacGeorge and she devotes some time to talking about Syragrius and the varying interpretations of Soissons. Turns out theres quite a few of them. The first one is the one we all know and love where Aetius and Syragrius are the 'last of the Romans' outpost of romanitas in northern Gaul. The second is the idea that northern Gaul was a chaotic patchwork of states with no real administration to speak of and the only reason we made up an all-encompassing Kingdom to fill this space is to put our minds at ease and to explain lack of Frankish expansion for a few decades. In this instance, Syragrius was just one unstable polity, albeit a more powerful one, among many:

"Syagrius, in this model, would have been one (comparatively important) ruler among a number, in an ethnically and politically heterogeneous region. We know that northern Gaul contained Saxon, Alan, and British settlements, a count of barbarian descent controlling a city, a British army led by a king, urban authorities, Frankish sub-kings, and powerful Roman bishops, as well as the crumbling remains of the imperial structure. We can assume that it also contained peasant communities, increasingly powerful and autonomous Gallo-Roman landowners, and bands of ex-mercenaries and brigands. Ethnically the population consisted of a Gallo-Roman majority, with British, Alan, Saxon, Sarmatian, Gothic, Frankish, and other Germanic elements, and no doubt the odd Hun and easterner.668 As to religious adherence, there were Catholic and Arian Christians, possibly Pelagian heretics, and Roman and barbarian pagans. A comparably complicated situation is described by the Vita Severini, set in the western Danubian provinces, at around the same date. Roman authorities and culture and remnants of the military system survived in some of the walled towns (although the political, as well as the spiritual, lead was taken by St. Severinus), while the countryside was dominated by various groups of barbarians, some from an established kingdom, but others in wandering raiding parties. Population movement, slave raiding, and brigandage were common."

Taken with the rest of the evidence and comparing it to the situation in other regions of the empire, I find this the most convincing by far. Note that my map depicts a small sub-Roman polity based around Soissons but nothing in this model says that it couldn't be a bit larger and be bounded by the Seine in the west for instance.

The third one is the Edward James model from his 1988 book "The Franks". Probably the most problematic of the models put forward, but it argues that the Franks already pretty much ruled northern Gaul and that Aetius and Syragrius were a semi-autonomous Roman rulers paying tribute to Childeric. And that the 'Kingdom of Soissons' was a rebellion which Clovis cut his teeth on as he came to cement his rule.

Finally, the last one is a proposal by John Drinkwater which is largely a reversal of the former. In this scenario, the Franks are a semi-autonomous migratory group and there exists an uneasy tension between roving Franks and the sub-Roman civitas. The Franks, initially subordinated to a larger but only partially coherent sub-Roman administration, eventually overthrows Roman rule entirely and inherits part of the structure of state in the region. Also I depicted a little area of non-Roman control around Bayeaux because a Saxon band had settled there... the Otlinga Saxonia. Alans were also roaming around somewhere, but I have no clue where they would have been at this point.

Also also the subdivisions I put for the traditional Soissons are just late Roman dioceses.
 
Last edited:
Crazy Boris

Crazy Boris

Banned
PecuTheGreat said:
Whoa u work fast bro.

Did u use and app to warp the map to Q-BAM proportions?
Click to expand...

Nope, this was done pretty much entirely by referencing the original map’s coasts and state borders as reference points and extrapolating from there. It’s not a perfect method, but it works
 
Lord Hastur of Carcosa

Lord Hastur of Carcosa

Ulyanovsk said:
Syagrius, in this model, would have been one (comparatively important) ruler among a number, in an ethnically and politically heterogeneous region.
Click to expand...
Essentially, much the same as any pre-Roman Gallic High-King. That makes Siagrius some kind of South-of-the-Channel King Arthur. It's interesting to note that, according to the Arthurian Lore (Beda I think) the fall of Camelot was caused by Arthur's prolonged absence, due to a rebel warlord challenging his rule in Gaul. If we Apply the last scenario, that rebel may have been Childeric

EDIT:
a British army led by a King
Click to expand...
Ditto.
But, for the sake of scientific enquiry, where did she get that info?
 
Last edited:
Linbot

Linbot

Ulyanovsk said:
Also this is a poorly made addendum to this map, but I had floated the idea a while ago of making a little graphic showing alternate theories about the extent of the 'Kingdom of Soissons'.
And I went ahead and scraped one together because your map reminded me of it. A while back I read "Late Roman Warlords" by Penny MacGeorge and she devotes some time to talking about Syragrius and the varying interpretations of Soissons. Turns out theres quite a few of them. The first one is the one we all know and love where Aetius and Syragrius are the 'last of the Romans' outpost of romanitas in northern Gaul. The second is the idea that northern Gaul was a chaotic patchwork of states with no real administration to speak of and the only reason we made up an all-encompassing Kingdom to fill this space is to put our minds at ease and to explain lack of Frankish expansion for a few decades. In this instance, Syragrius was just one unstable polity, albeit a more powerful one, among many:

"Syagrius, in this model, would have been one (comparatively important) ruler among a number, in an ethnically and politically heterogeneous region. We know that northern Gaul contained Saxon, Alan, and British settlements, a count of barbarian descent controlling a city, a British army led by a king, urban authorities, Frankish sub-kings, and powerful Roman bishops, as well as the crumbling remains of the imperial structure. We can assume that it also contained peasant communities, increasingly powerful and autonomous Gallo-Roman landowners, and bands of ex-mercenaries and brigands. Ethnically the population consisted of a Gallo-Roman majority, with British, Alan, Saxon, Sarmatian, Gothic, Frankish, and other Germanic elements, and no doubt the odd Hun and easterner.668 As to religious adherence, there were Catholic and Arian Christians, possibly Pelagian heretics, and Roman and barbarian pagans. A comparably complicated situation is described by the Vita Severini, set in the western Danubian provinces, at around the same date. Roman authorities and culture and remnants of the military system survived in some of the walled towns (although the political, as well as the spiritual, lead was taken by St. Severinus), while the countryside was dominated by various groups of barbarians, some from an established kingdom, but others in wandering raiding parties. Population movement, slave raiding, and brigandage were common."

Taken with the rest of the evidence and comparing it to the situation in other regions of the empire, I find this the most convincing by far. Note that my map depicts a small sub-Roman polity based around Soissons but nothing in this model says that it couldn't be a bit larger and be bounded by the Seine in the west for instance.

The third one is the Edward James model from his 1988 book "The Franks". Probably the most problematic of the models put forward, but it argues that the Franks already pretty much ruled northern Gaul and that Aetius and Syragrius were a semi-autonomous Roman rulers paying tribute to Childeric. And that the 'Kingdom of Soissons' was a rebellion which Clovis cut his teeth on as he came to cement his rule.

Finally, the last one is a proposal by John Drinkwater which is largely a reversal of the former. In this scenario, the Franks are a semi-autonomous migratory group and there exists an uneasy tension between roving Franks and the sub-Roman civitas. The Franks, initially subordinated to a larger but only partially coherent sub-Roman administration, eventually overthrows Roman rule entirely and inherits part of the structure of state in the region. Also I depicted a little area of non-Roman control around Bayeaux because a Saxon band had settled there... the Otlinga Saxonia. Alans were also roaming around somewhere, but I have no clue where they would have been at this point.

Also also the subdivisions I put for the traditional Soissons are just late Roman dioceses.
Click to expand...
I love this! It's really useful to point out how pretending like one of these interpretations is 'fact' obscures how much we don't know about some periods of history, and how much doubt there is.
 

Lumegy

Crazy Boris said:
View attachment 765500

Alright, who asked for Guatemala patches?
No one?
huh.
Too bad, you're getting some anyways.
Click to expand...
What sources did you use to get the borders before any of the treaties with Mexico and the UK? I'm trying to make a map of Central America after independence from Mexico in the 8k bam, I used this map but i just eyeballed it so it's not very accurate.
 

Sharklord1

Ulyanovsk said:
Also this is a poorly made addendum to this map, but I had floated the idea a while ago of making a little graphic showing alternate theories about the extent of the 'Kingdom of Soissons'.
And I went ahead and scraped one together because your map reminded me of it. A while back I read "Late Roman Warlords" by Penny MacGeorge and she devotes some time to talking about Syragrius and the varying interpretations of Soissons. Turns out theres quite a few of them. The first one is the one we all know and love where Aetius and Syragrius are the 'last of the Romans' outpost of romanitas in northern Gaul. The second is the idea that northern Gaul was a chaotic patchwork of states with no real administration to speak of and the only reason we made up an all-encompassing Kingdom to fill this space is to put our minds at ease and to explain lack of Frankish expansion for a few decades. In this instance, Syragrius was just one unstable polity, albeit a more powerful one, among many:

"Syagrius, in this model, would have been one (comparatively important) ruler among a number, in an ethnically and politically heterogeneous region. We know that northern Gaul contained Saxon, Alan, and British settlements, a count of barbarian descent controlling a city, a British army led by a king, urban authorities, Frankish sub-kings, and powerful Roman bishops, as well as the crumbling remains of the imperial structure. We can assume that it also contained peasant communities, increasingly powerful and autonomous Gallo-Roman landowners, and bands of ex-mercenaries and brigands. Ethnically the population consisted of a Gallo-Roman majority, with British, Alan, Saxon, Sarmatian, Gothic, Frankish, and other Germanic elements, and no doubt the odd Hun and easterner.668 As to religious adherence, there were Catholic and Arian Christians, possibly Pelagian heretics, and Roman and barbarian pagans. A comparably complicated situation is described by the Vita Severini, set in the western Danubian provinces, at around the same date. Roman authorities and culture and remnants of the military system survived in some of the walled towns (although the political, as well as the spiritual, lead was taken by St. Severinus), while the countryside was dominated by various groups of barbarians, some from an established kingdom, but others in wandering raiding parties. Population movement, slave raiding, and brigandage were common."

Taken with the rest of the evidence and comparing it to the situation in other regions of the empire, I find this the most convincing by far. Note that my map depicts a small sub-Roman polity based around Soissons but nothing in this model says that it couldn't be a bit larger and be bounded by the Seine in the west for instance.

The third one is the Edward James model from his 1988 book "The Franks". Probably the most problematic of the models put forward, but it argues that the Franks already pretty much ruled northern Gaul and that Aetius and Syragrius were a semi-autonomous Roman rulers paying tribute to Childeric. And that the 'Kingdom of Soissons' was a rebellion which Clovis cut his teeth on as he came to cement his rule.

Finally, the last one is a proposal by John Drinkwater which is largely a reversal of the former. In this scenario, the Franks are a semi-autonomous migratory group and there exists an uneasy tension between roving Franks and the sub-Roman civitas. The Franks, initially subordinated to a larger but only partially coherent sub-Roman administration, eventually overthrows Roman rule entirely and inherits part of the structure of state in the region. Also I depicted a little area of non-Roman control around Bayeaux because a Saxon band had settled there... the Otlinga Saxonia. Alans were also roaming around somewhere, but I have no clue where they would have been at this point.

Also also the subdivisions I put for the traditional Soissons are just late Roman dioceses.
Click to expand...
That's very interesting, I wasn't aware that it was so ambiguous. Did it ever mention the early history of the Frankish kings before Clovis I? And were there any other obscure warlords of note?
 
Crazy Boris

Crazy Boris

Banned
Lumegy said:
What sources did you use to get the borders before any of the treaties with Mexico and the UK? I'm trying to make a map of Central America after independence from Mexico in the 8k bam, I used this map but i just eyeballed it so it's not very accurate.
Click to expand...

Guatemala 1849.png


By AztlanHistorian on Deviantart. Period maps found on David Rumsey confirm the borders, though this shows them in more detail
 
CHKeeley

CHKeeley

Sharklord1 said:
That's very interesting, I wasn't aware that it was so ambiguous. Did it ever mention the early history of the Frankish kings before Clovis I? And were there any other obscure warlords of note?
Click to expand...
That’s why the period is so fascinating - almost everything is pretty ambiguous given a distinct lack of textual sources compared to other periods. We can attest to events in the Mediterranean core around Rome, Carthage, Constantinople, etc. but the more peripheral and north you get then the more vague and blurry the history becomes. Pretty much everything in Britain in this period relies on the Venerable Bede. There’s multiple models and proposals for extent of many polities in the period, how they worked, the scale of the migrations from Barbaricum, etc.

Almost everything we know about Syragrius, Aetius, and the early Frankish kings also comes from a single source: Gregory of Tours. Gregory was writing like fifty years after the tail end of the reign of Clovis and was working in the service of the Merovingians to compile a coherent (and praiseworthy) chronicle of events. Given that that’s the case, there’s a good deal of uncertainty when it comes to trying to confirm anything about Soissons. We have archeological evidence showing that the large scale presence of Frankish-style burials and material culture were not present until about twenty years after the last imperial presence in northern Gaul. Plus some letters sent south to Constantinople from Gallo-Roman authorities. Even Greg of Tours can use some ambiguous language that doesn’t exactly paint a single clear narrative. It’s very confusing.

We know a bit about rulers before Clovis like Childeric but really not a whole lot. As for other warlords, no significant sub-Roman warlords in Gaul come up in the sources IIRC. But the quote I threw into my post makes mention of a lot of different groups roaming around in the chaos.
 
Crazy Boris

Crazy Boris

Banned
Aichi72 said:
You have Benin being formed on September 19, 1967, and being reabsorbed into Nigeria on September 10, 1967. Is the latter supposed to be September 20 or something?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Either a mistype on my part or the small font tendering weird. Didn’t notice until now.
 

Sharklord1

24 September 867.png

867, the better CK3 startdate, and also the date that Basil I murders the man who he agreed to cuck and is being cucked by
 
Last edited:
Xasper H.

Xasper H.

Crazy Boris said:
Nigeria patches!
Click to expand...
Fairly certain the lake north of Abuja is the Shiroro Reservoir. These patches are some really cool work though, I've been considering making some for Romania going back to the formation of Wallachia and Moldavia but it seems like an extraordinarily daunting task
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top