Q-Bam Historical Map Thread

dg3ri22-23c6e20a-b110-45dd-aae4-dd98697dd935.png

April 6, 1453. You guys know what's going on.

There's a few edits I'd like to make to this map, including stuff for the Tusi in China, North American polities, and other things here and there. I did decide to change a lot of the borders I have been using for a long time though, and base them more off of the river map I have been not been able to progress on in a while

The Maps I see for Jamaica typically have what's the largest carique on ur map, not having it's northern extension which is divided up into several states.

chiefdoms_of_jamaica__1492__by_aztlanhistorian_decpejp-375w-2x.jpg


image.png


Anyways, what's that state in Namibia?. Is a a Khoi stone town based stated?. Because I thought they first appeared like 3 Centuries later?.

I really wish the Africa map had legends or links to the source map as I don't know most of the states to identify them from memory as I can with say, England or Cambodia.

Also, what's the difference between the vassal states in lighter colors of the suzereign and vassal states highlighted in the colour of the Suzereign?.
 
Last edited:
The Maps I see for Jamaica typically have what's the largest carique on ur map, not having it's northern extension which is divided up into several states.

chiefdoms_of_jamaica__1492__by_aztlanhistorian_decpejp-375w-2x.jpg


image.png


Anyways, what's that state in Namibia?. Is a a Khoi stone town based stated?. Because I thought they first appeared like 3 Centuries later?.

I really wish the Africa map had legends or links to the source map as I don't know most of the states to identify them from memory as I can with say, England or Cambodia.

Also, what's the difference between the vassal states in lighter colors of the suzereign and vassal states highlighted in the colour of the Suzereign?.
For Jamaica, I used Crazy Boris's patch for the Carribean, as well as a few other patches here and there, especially for Mesoamerica. These are good patches especially when my own knowledge of the new world pre-1492 is extremely limited to the 2 big empires. The minor chiefdoms not being there are most likely because they are too small, and so Boris chose to put them as part of the bigger chiefdom
As for Namibia, that is the Damara chiefdom. The Damara are a part of the first settlers in Namibia, and there is more evidence that the chiefdom was founded in 1390. I was also going to put the Hlubi Kingdom as well, but since the Hlubi are Ngoni (who didn't show up in south africa until the 16th-17th centuries) I didn't put them in. I got the dates for both from worldstatesmen
As for the highlights vs lighter colors, lighter colors show direct vassalage, while highlights only show nominal loyalty. I also made a difference between personal unions and nominal vassalage, by showing personal unions have their outlined dots as being disconnected from each other, while nominal is one big line around the borders.
 
dg3ri22-23c6e20a-b110-45dd-aae4-dd98697dd935.png

April 6, 1453. You guys know what's going on.

There's a few edits I'd like to make to this map, including stuff for the Tusi in China, North American polities, and other things here and there. I did decide to change a lot of the borders I have been using for a long time though, and base them more off of the river map I have been not been able to progress on in a while
Which color scheme is this?
 
dg3ri22-23c6e20a-b110-45dd-aae4-dd98697dd935.png

April 6, 1453. You guys know what's going on.

There's a few edits I'd like to make to this map, including stuff for the Tusi in China, North American polities, and other things here and there. I did decide to change a lot of the borders I have been using for a long time though, and base them more off of the river map I have been not been able to progress on in a while
I'm wondering if that blue blob to the east of Novgorod is Great Perm or not.
 
Tusi 1900 1-1.png

Don't know if there's a patch for them, but here's the tusi as shown here:
They were super easy to do. Believe it or not, they have almost exactly the same borders as modern China's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level divisions
 
I do hate to load more criticism onto this wonderful map, but there are other things that bother me aside from Lithuania. Transylvania looks a bit... distorted? Hmm. The panhandle just looks like it extends further into Hajdú county than it should. I encourage people to judge for themselves.

View attachment 846292

View attachment 846291

View attachment 846296

Also, I'm not sure why Transylvania has a Turkish outline. They did claim it, and tried to recapture it a few times, but the government of Transylvania had surrendered to the HRE and in fact by September Transylvania was legally reincorporated under the Hapsburgs I believe. Turkey had no influence over the government.

I am also not sure why the Saxon seats and the Székelys are depicted as if they were independent states. I have no recollection of ever reading anything about them rejecting the Transylvanian government's authority to rule them or anything.

My grasp of the Venetian campaign is admittedly tenuous and I can't speak on it with much authority, but, I don't believe Venice occupied such an extensive area of central Greece at this time. I believe that in April they had evacuated Attica, and I don't think they ever occupied the interior of Boetia. Curiously, the only part of central Greece not controlled by Venice in this map is the western extremity, even though Aitoliko, Missolonghi, Vonitsa, Preveza had been captured in 1684. I can't say if they were still present there four years later. During July 1688, the Venetians had landed troops at Negroponte and besieged the fortress there, and retreated in October, implying they did not control the general region it was in. Meanwhile, a Greek warlord they were allied to was besieging Karystos at the southern end of Euboea (yet this island is shown as entirely under Ottoman control).

View attachment 846297

I believe the Hungarian front is mostly correct. The main issue is that as far as I am aware, at no point during the war did Temesvár fall to the Holy League. Also, I believe that Szigetvár was only captured in February 1689, and Nagykanizsa on 13 April 1690.

View attachment 846298
You have no idea how happy it makes me to see people tear my stuff up and down, thanks! I'll see if I can update
 
View attachment 846881
Don't know if there's a patch for them, but here's the tusi as shown here:
They were super easy to do. Believe it or not, they have almost exactly the same borders as modern China's 1st, 2nd, and 3rd level divisions
There is actually a reason for this is which is that when making that map I mostly traced from the county borders since maps of the precise borders of the Tibetan states are very hard to find. If I made it again today it would look a bit different (though most of it is good)

Screen Shot 2023-07-29 at 17.13.43.png

Still have no idea why people do this when it's clearly not what's in the map!

Screen Shot 2023-07-29 at 17.17.01.png


Why does the border dispute just end??? What?
 
Last edited:
If you mean the Ngari prefecture border, it is in the map
What I mean is that everyone shows both of these borders even though they are never shown at the same time, obviously, because that would imply there is some kind of state in northern Tsang, which there isn't. I don't really remember what the logic was for detaching that area from Tsang after Tibet gained independence, so in that sense the confusion is my own fault.

1690736347837.png


Anyways it should really look like this.

1690736623820.png
 

Crazy Boris

Banned
What I mean is that everyone shows both of these borders even though they are never shown at the same time, obviously, because that would imply there is some kind of state in northern Tsang, which there isn't. I don't really remember what the logic was for detaching that area from Tsang after Tibet gained independence, so in that sense the confusion is my own fault.

View attachment 847296

Anyways it should really look like this.

View attachment 847297

I’m a little confused, so was that central-northern area under Tasihlunpho’s jurisdiction? (Also is Powo, Sagya, and the Bhutanese exclaves being missing indicative of something I don’t know about their status or is that just like, to make Ü-Tsang lies complicated for clarity’s sake on the areas under Lhasa?)
 
What I mean is that everyone shows both of these borders even though they are never shown at the same time, obviously, because that would imply there is some kind of state in northern Tsang, which there isn't. I don't really remember what the logic was for detaching that area from Tsang after Tibet gained independence, so in that sense the confusion is my own fault.

View attachment 847296

Anyways it should really look like this.

View attachment 847297
I think it just might be a normal division of the region based on an administrative decision, since this region has always been sparesely inhabited, by groups who only remain in a certain location at one point in the year, or cut through land that has no one living there all the time. I think we should ask Admiral Kolchak.
Also I think the vassal region was under Tibet, not Tashilhunpo, but thank you for correcting the disputed borders mistake
 
Top