Q-Bam Historical Map Thread

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?
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 background
 
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.
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.
 
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 Hasa
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 americans :)
 
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.
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.
 
That doesn't mean that the Ottomans actually controlled the interior. Only that Britain and the Ottomans drew a line on a map.
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...
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...
border1.JPG
 
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?
Also, for this same period of time (mid-late-5th century) , Iberia:
thdf8j7m.png

The northern areas are tribalized peoples that were never fully romanized and broke free with Roman power collapsing. They are, from left to right: Astures, Cantabri, Varduli and Vascones.
The red-ish areas correspond to the autonomous areas where the local Roman administration happened to survive, although with some changes, and were also left alone by the Visigoths (until the 6th century). The northern one is Sabaria, and the southern ones are, from left to right, the Hispalis-Gadir area (modern Seville and Cadiz), Corduba and its surrounding area, and Orospeda, the main focus of independent Hispano-Roman resistance.
Disclaimer: if you search about it in English, you'll find very little information, Spanish sources are the ones who give us the needed info to approximate the situation because, as with Odoacer, there are little amount of surviving documents from the era.
 
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?
 

Crazy Boris

Banned
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?

As far as I understand it, it was just a personal union for the most part, except 1442-1458, when it was part of Aragon, and 1504-1714 when it was a Spanish viceroyalty
 
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.
 
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.
well I mean I don't think they spoke Neapolitan Italian in 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?
it has to be Spanish yellow all the kindoms of the spanish monarchy had similar status
 
Top