Unfortunately at that point Finland also didn't have much autonomy left too.Also, Congress Poland shouldn't have the same outline that Finland has. IIRC, it had been largely stripped of its autonomy by this point.
Unfortunately at that point Finland also didn't have much autonomy left too.Also, Congress Poland shouldn't have the same outline that Finland has. IIRC, it had been largely stripped of its autonomy by this point.
I think the best representation of this is showing it as a client of Zeno, but independent during the first years. It depends whenever he acknowledged the eastern emperors as suzerains because the West never did. Another thing that I'd like to mention is that the control he had beyond the Alps was probably extremely limited, and under the Kingdom of the Rugii, Lombards, and early Bavarians, but that entire region seems to fade into the backgroundHello folks! Today I present you a (maybe ignored but interesting) debate concerning Odoacer's domains. The available information gives us different posibilites of what status its territories had, so I portrayed them, relatively to the remaining parts of Western Rome and Eastern Rome (the upper-left entity shown is the Domain of Syragius or Soissons, which itself has its own debate about its status).
View attachment 819174
It is a relatively chaotic era with few documents surviving and as such we can't be sure about the real situation. What are your thougts about this?
Arabia was partitioned between Britain and the Ottomans by treaty in 1914.I‘ve seen some sources name Anizzah and Jabal Shammar as under Ottoman suzerainty. I’ve never been able to confirm this myself, but that’s probably why it’s like that here. As for why Nejd and the rest is included... no idea there.
That doesn't mean that the Ottomans actually controlled the interior. Only that Britain and the Ottomans drew a line on a map.
Also, Congress Poland shouldn't have the same outline that Finland has. IIRC, it had been largely stripped of its autonomy by this point.
As creator of the original, the reason for both of these regions having an outline was that they were both well-integrated territories but under the control of Governor-Generals answerable directly to the Tsar. This was a political arrangement that, IIRC, was unique to these two regions specifically (aside from Turkestan, which did not receive an outline but perhaps should). A fully autonomous territory would be represented by a light-colored fill as the Khanates of Khiva and Bukhara are.Unfortunately at that point Finland also didn't have much autonomy left too.
Yeah I feel like the map should at least aknowledge there was a very big difference bewteen any province in Anatolia and the Emirate of Nejd and HasaThat doesn't mean that the Ottomans actually controlled the interior. Only that Britain and the Ottomans drew a line on a map.
Yes they were still part of the empire but pretty much autonomous and independent. Because there was no oil money, the payments they get from istanbul, disguised as official salaries were very important for these emirs and ottoman army also intervened as regulary as the americansYeah I feel like the map should at least aknowledge there was a very big difference bewteen any province in Anatolia and the Emirate of Nejd and Hasa
Caucasia has a similar situation i think, after the revolution, the independent Transcaucasian Federation was grew out of the special committee that took over the powers of the transcaucasian governor-general because now there was no monarchy so no governor-general could answer to the Tsar, but they didn't also become regular provinces governed directly from Moscow, showing the peculiar constitutional situation in Caucasia.As creator of the original, the reason for both of these regions having an outline was that they were both well-integrated territories but under the control of Governor-Generals answerable directly to the Tsar. This was a political arrangement that, IIRC, was unique to these two regions specifically (aside from Turkestan, which did not receive an outline but perhaps should). A fully autonomous territory would be represented by a light-colored fill as the Khanates of Khiva and Bukhara are.
Speaking of lines in the sand on the Arabian Peninsula, here's a whole assortment of 'em in South Arabia that somebody might find useful...That doesn't mean that the Ottomans actually controlled the interior. Only that Britain and the Ottomans drew a line on a map.
It's from Pervez's map thread which is in a general a very useful thread to browse.Can't remember where I got this from, may have found it online or someone may have posted it in the Proposals & War Aims thread...
Also, for this same period of time (mid-late-5th century) , Iberia:Hello folks! Today I present you a (maybe ignored but interesting) debate concerning Odoacer's domains. The available information gives us different posibilites of what status its territories had, so I portrayed them, relatively to the remaining parts of Western Rome and Eastern Rome (the upper-left entity shown is the Domain of Syragius or Soissons, which itself has its own debate about its status).
View attachment 819174
It is a relatively chaotic era with few documents surviving and as such we can't be sure about the real situation. What are your thougts about this?
Holy.....It's from Pervez's map thread which is in a general a very useful thread to browse.
My hesitation to the Vassalage is possibly then having to show all of Spain (Castille, Milan, Sicily, Catalonia, Aragon, etc) as vassalsPerhaps like Spanish vassal.
When making maps of 17th Century Italy, how does one color Naples? They were "owned" by the Spanish, right? But they were still a kingdom. But other maps show it as directly under the Spanish as if it wasn't a kingdom at all.
Should I color it that Spanish Yellow, or keep it Blue with the Yellow Vassal Outline?
A kingdom? So were Aragon, Valencia, or Cordoba. Being a kingdom does not mean the territory is independent or sovereign. Spain was a composite monarchy, meaning the king of Spain was king/ruler over many lands collectively. Naples was no more different than Seville.When making maps of 17th Century Italy, how does one color Naples? They were "owned" by the Spanish, right? But they were still a kingdom. But other maps show it as directly under the Spanish as if it wasn't a kingdom at all.
Should I color it that Spanish Yellow, or keep it Blue with the Yellow Vassal Outline?
well I mean I don't think they spoke Neapolitan Italian in SevilleA kingdom? So were Aragon, Valencia, or Cordoba. Being a kingdom does not mean the territory is independent or sovereign. Spain was a composite monarchy, meaning the king of Spain was king/ruler over many lands collectively. Naples was no more different than Seville.
it has to be Spanish yellow all the kindoms of the spanish monarchy had similar statusWhen making maps of 17th Century Italy, how does one color Naples? They were "owned" by the Spanish, right? But they were still a kingdom. But other maps show it as directly under the Spanish as if it wasn't a kingdom at all.
Should I color it that Spanish Yellow, or keep it Blue with the Yellow Vassal Outline?