Q-Bam Historical Map Thread

Actually Roman brown or a darker brown would be better suite dà forza fascist Italy and green for a liberal Italy (if such a thing can be said to exist) while orange would Word better for partiranno republics IMHO. On the other end, green would be... Ehr... About right... For a "Padanian" thing, especially if we Insubrians do get independent from those Padanian morons.

We already have 9 1/2 (the half is for the regular use of reserve colour) colours for Italy. I don't see the need to add one just for Fascist Italy, especially when we could just recycle one of these coulours whom ALL are unused for the period.
The best choice, IMO, is to do the same thing we did with China or France, aka using a unused colour : hence why I tought either using Lombard/Savoy colour for Italy (which would have the merit to fit the general colouring on most maps) and keeping Roman for Mussolitaly, either colouring it with IDK, Lombard coulour.
But really, at this point, adding new European colours should remain dictated by absolute necesity if we want to keep a readable key.

As for Padania, well, there's Northern Italy colours, with Ostrogoths/Milan colour for instance.

This last, roughly corresponds to medieval Lombardy (from 900 CE on) is the least culturally Italian of them all, having closer ties to Austria and even Britain and Ireland (you'll find some Lombard Streets in a few English and Welsh towns, including IIRC London itself
Lombards became a generic name in th Middle-Age, a bit like Cahorsins (from the city of Cahors). Most of Lombards weren't Italians, and arguing a cultural conclusion from this would be like arguing anyone serving French pastries comes right from Paris.

I wouldn't answer all of it, giving it's not the topic, but all respect due, I think your point is formal and anachronic on several matters. For instance, there's no real linguistical sense having Gironda (which is not a river, but an estuary) coming from Gerundo.
At best, it shares a common origin "girus rundae", turning waters, which are evolving from Vulgar Latin on their own (altough there's room to understanding Gironda as a cognate of Garumna or other pre-IE names)
 
Okay. Thanks for the insight. I think I'll drop the Gironde/Gerundo reference, pending further research, but actually, arguing that most Lombards weren't even Italians only reinforces what I've been trying to say I think, that is, Italy And Lombardy being two different entities.
Therefore, the Lombard color wouldn't fit for Fascist Italy (I wanted to ask for it to be moved from the Italian to the German/Austrian Palette, but that would be overstretching).
Adding a color for Fascist Italy is actually unnecessary at least in the TRCS, nor was I suggesting it, while it would make sense in TACOS if one doesn't already exist.
My mistake, I should have been clearer.
It's only that equating Lombardy with Fascism disturbed me a bit.
Apologies.
 
Last edited:
but actually, arguing that most Lombards weren't even Italians only reinforces what I've been trying to say I think, that is, Italy And Lombardy being two different entities.
That, for exemple, money-lenders were popularily called Lombards in France, is a way to point that Lombards aren't Italians isn't really making sense to me.
We could argue that, because Cahorsin was used in the exact same way, it points how much Cahors wasn't in a occitan-speaking region.

At the very least, there's something missing there to me : if you allow me to illustrate my problem in an humourous way.
1) Lombards/Cahorsins is a generic name for money-lenders
2) ????
3) Lombards/Cahorsins aren't real Italians/southern French

It's only that equating Lombardy with Fascism disturbed me a bit.
Well, I can understand but frankly, it's just a colour : Vichy France is collated with Aquitaine, Francoist Spain with Asturias.
Heck, IIRC, I was one of the first to argue we could recycle Aquitaine into Vichy France, and you'd agree I'd be the least to make an equation between medieval Occitan principalties and Petainism.

Furthermore, as I said above, I'd rather favour Italy being coloured in Savoy Green and Fascist Italy in Roman brown (which is barely used past early Middle-Ages), than using a sub-national colour for it.
 
fwiw, I use Tuscany as a double for radical political (eg fascist) Italy. This is because a) a lot of Italian political thought originated in the region, notably including Machiavelli b) Benito Mussolini was from the region (well, just outside it, but Emilio-Romagna doesn't have a colour), c) Mazzini ended his days there; he was fundamental in forming a unified Italian state, and d) Giovannia Gentile, another notable Italian fascist, died there.

I use Roman brown as the unified Italy colour post-1861, when Rome was declared capital of the newly-unified peninsula. Prior to that, I use the Piedmont colour for the to-be-unified state.
 
That, for exemple, money-lenders were popularily called Lombards in France, is a way to point that Lombards aren't Italians isn't really making sense to me.
We could argue that, because Cahorsin was used in the exact same way, it points how much Cahors wasn't in a occitan-speaking region.

At the very least, there's something missing there to me : if you allow me to illustrate my problem in an humourous way.
1) Lombards/Cahorsins is a generic name for money-lenders
2) ????
3) Lombards/Cahorsins aren't real Italians/southern French


Well, I can understand but frankly, it's just a colour : Vichy France is collated with Aquitaine, Francoist Spain with Asturias.
Heck, IIRC, I was one of the first to argue we could recycle Aquitaine into Vichy France, and you'd agree I'd be the least to make an equation between medieval Occitan principalties and Petainism.

Furthermore, as I said above, I'd rather favour Italy being coloured in Savoy Green and Fascist Italy in Roman brown (which is barely used past early Middle-Ages), than using a sub-national colour for it.

You are right, there's a whole chunk of the matter that's missing, and that's due mostly to my ignorance: I know fairly well the history of the Alpine and Subalpine Region on the basis of living there, and reasonably well the British Islands on the basis of having been there, but I know next to nothing on France and especially Occitania (in fact, if it wasn't for you, I guess I wouldn't even know what Occitania is). That means that I miss not only pieces of the puzzle, but whole sections of it and my reasoning may be severely impaired because of that.

fwiw, I use Tuscany as a double for radical political (eg fascist) Italy. This is because a) a lot of Italian political thought originated in the region, notably including Machiavelli b) Benito Mussolini was from the region (well, just outside it, but Emilio-Romagna doesn't have a colour), c) Mazzini ended his days there; he was fundamental in forming a unified Italian state, and d) Giovannia Gentile, another notable Italian fascist, died there.

I use Roman brown as the unified Italy colour post-1861, when Rome was declared capital of the newly-unified peninsula. Prior to that, I use the Piedmont colour for the to-be-unified state.

That is a possibility, since Tuscans have a fame of being radicals and extremists even by other Italian's standards; in fact, and I know it may be controversial, I'd add even Dante to the list.
There is however a problem with the "Fascist Tuscany" theory, that is yes, Tuscany and Emilia are indeed lands of extremists, but they lean more into the other direction, i.e. Marxism (we call them the Redlands, though it's more common as RED-[city name]). Extreme right-wingers, as well as Catholics, have more of a basis in the center-south, which is the more conservative.
Oh, and I know I'm pedantic, but it's Emilia-Romagna, and it's actually two historical regions forming a single administrative one, like Baden-Wuttenberg in Germany or Alsace-Lorraine.
Mussolini was from Romagna, that is more or less the slice of the region that used to be part of the Papal States, while Emilia corresponds very broadly to the Duchies of Parma and Modena.
And the correct spelling for the name is Giovanni (assuming it's a man; Giovanna is the female form).
Sorry to nitpick.
 
Last edited:
And that is why I label Tuscany's colour as an alternate for "radical Italy", not just "fascist Italy". I use radical to denote any extreme or unusual political viewpoint, whether left, right, authoritarian, anarchist, or something else. It's not intended as a statement that a particular region has particular political views.

(and yeah, my spelling iss not the greatest on forum typing; I save proof-reading for more formal document writing)
 
fwiw, I use Tuscany as a double for radical political (eg fascist) Italy. This is because a) a lot of Italian political thought originated in the region, notably including Machiavelli b) Benito Mussolini was from the region (well, just outside it, but Emilio-Romagna doesn't have a colour), c) Mazzini ended his days there; he was fundamental in forming a unified Italian state, and d) Giovannia Gentile, another notable Italian fascist, died there.

I use Roman brown as the unified Italy colour post-1861, when Rome was declared capital of the newly-unified peninsula. Prior to that, I use the Piedmont colour for the to-be-unified state.
I do the reverse with Italy. Green all the way from 1870 to 1946. Then brown for la Republica. I equate the brown for republicanism, and the green for monarchism, which I find the form of head of state far more decerning than who's running the army or parliament.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure you had nearly as much difference between parlementarian monarchic Italy and republican Italy to make that of a geopolitical difference (while you certainly did had such in regards of Fascist Italy). The key word, for me, is really geopolitical and structural difference, and even that should be used cautiously (there's no real need distinguishing 1788 and 1790 France on a map, or at the very least, such need never came to be so far) while distinguishing Fascist Italy from Italy proper could be useful for pretty specific situations (monarchist vs. partisans vs. fascists)
 
I'm not sure you had nearly as much difference between parlementarian monarchic Italy and republican Italy to make that of a geopolitical difference (while you certainly did had such in regards of Fascist Italy). The key word, for me, is really geopolitical and structural difference, and even that should be used cautiously (there's no real need distinguishing 1788 and 1790 France on a map, or at the very least, such need never came to be so far) while distinguishing Fascist Italy from Italy proper could be useful for pretty specific situations (monarchist vs. partisans vs. fascists)
Right, more of a difference between a non-expansionist/expansionist state would be a better distinction.
 
I'm not sure : is there enough core differences or carthographical necessity to distinguish, say, 1890's USA and 2000's USA on these grounds?
 
I'm not sure : is there enough core differences or carthographical necessity to distinguish, say, 1890's USA and 2000's USA on these grounds?

On a strictly geopolitical sense, I think not, but U.S.A. or Canada or even Argentina are their own special snowflakes. Europe may be a different story, especially in critical times like, say, the Napoleonic Wars, or the Wars of Sucession between 1715 and 1789. Or Cromwell, just to cite something more familiar to myself: to depict the English Revolution could be problematic but not impossible, but say the Anarchy of 1100 may need some adjustments.
 

worldmap

Banned
This is what 500 BC should look like
Note i didn't really focus on lakes for this
maybe someone can help me complete it because this is a very plain way of showing the world to me

wasn't this empire larger in the north towards caucausus and in europe going into albania

it looks beautiful btw and if you ever want to do another ancient world map why not try 555 ad
 
wasn't this empire larger in the north towards caucausus and in europe going into albania

it looks beautiful btw and if you ever want to do another ancient world map why not try 555 ad
tumblr_nvskt3IMPz1rec5p4o2_500.gif

i am attempting 1648 AD but its a horrible one can't seem to get any thing right i am also moving slow due to school
 
Right, having clarified that FVG didn't get autonomy until the 60s, that Sardinia has had no less than 2 massive provincial reorganisations in the last 20 years, and that Sicily abolished all theirs for 30 years after getting autonomy in 1948, I think this covers Italy, Trieste and Denmark.

I've shown the Belgian/Luxembourgish/Nordic occupation zones with a single outline in British/French to indicate they were subordinate to their respective Command- does make things a bit difficult with the Luxies but still.

I should really get back to the Azureverse maps at this point, so expect slow updates (not least from the whole 'having to reconstruct most of Continental Europe's administrative subdivisions' issue).


I think the subdivisions of East Germany need to be fixed. The borders of the Lander were slightly different from today's borders.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/Germany_Laender_1947_1990_DDR.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admin...ast_Germany#Reconstitution_of_the_L.C3.A4nder
 
Last edited:
I'm no expert (I prefer 19th and 20th century stuff), but it looks good.

Well done with the HRE. That must have driven you mad. I know the feeling - I'm currently half way through the Indian princely states for the 1907 map.

As I say, I have little useful knowledge for this time period, so I can't really spot any errors. Looks OK though.
 
@The Alternative
European border looks massively wrong, tough; and as we discussed for Congo, I'm far from convinced most African borders or even polities are this correct.
I'm still in for 1520, tough : but I'd advise you strongly to NOT use the current 1648 Q-BAM map as a basemap and to do it from scratch : you'd quickly have a qualitative progress.
I can only advise you again to have a slower work pace : a too quickly done map is often a not that accurate map.

At this point, furthermore, you have room to include much more native american polities without much second toughts.
 

worldmap

Banned
alternative, that map is so detailed looking extremely good
btw. i can't believe that poland was so huge back in the day
 
Top