Q-Bam Historical Map Thread

I’m a little confused, so was that central-northern area under Tasihlunpho’s jurisdiction?
Basically Tibet is divided into three provinces, Ngari, Tsang, and Ü. Tashilhunpo is the monestary that serves as the seat of the Panchen Lama and administrative centre of Tsang. The thing about Tibet is that there is also a north-south division, between the south which has a denser population and the north which is populated by scattered bands of herders. I believe that the way it worked was that the herders were subjected in a loose way to the government which was based in settlements in southern Tibet. All of the maps I've seen of Tibet continue the three-fold division into the northern part, which sort of implies that the nomadic area was split between the the three jurisdictions, yes. I don't really have any hard evidence.
(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?)
They weren't in the map that was shared and I didn't make any changes other than Tsang, I might do some more edits to the map later, of which those would be part.
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
Screen Shot 2023-07-30 at 16.46.41.png
 
Last edited:
Basically Tibet is divided into three provinces, Ngari, Tsang, and Ü. Tashilhunpo is the monestary that serves as the seat of the Panchen Lama and administrative centre of Kham. The thing about Tibet is that there is also a north-south division, between the south which has a denser population and the north which is populated by scattered bands of herders. I believe that the way it worked was that the herders were subjected in a loose way to the government which was based in settlements in southern Tibet. All of the maps I've seen of Tibet continue the three-fold division into the northern part, which sort of implies that the nomadic area was split between the the three jurisdictions, yes. I don't really have any hard evidence.

They weren't in the map that was shared and I didn't make any changes other than Tsang, I might do some more edits to the map later, of which those would be part.

View attachment 847325
Lol nvm
 
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.

So I decided to make a Patch for pre-colombian Jamaica based on this.

Jamaica Pre-Colombian patch.png


The Patch
 
dg3ri22-153a926f-be0e-4c31-a4fd-60fa43c7d3f6.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
Took me too long to notice this but Kanem shouldn't have the Southern parts of Lake Chad yet.

I think I'll have to do a patch for that region from abt 1500(but should still be workable for even a bit earlier to when the 4 states coalese and largely become vassals to Bornu).
 
Took me too long to notice this but Kanem shouldn't have the Southern parts of Lake Chad yet.

I think I'll have to do a patch for that region from abt 1500(but should still be workable for even a bit earlier to when the 4 states coalese and largely become vassals to Bornu).
When were they added?
 
Does anybody have a decent map of France's pre-1789 provincial borders?
I've collected several by various posters here and all of them seem to have tons of inaccuracies dating back a long time.

For example, take this one by @theRTSchultz. Some obvious problems:

1. Between Normandy and Orleanais, what's that strip dangling from Ile de France? That was part of Perche, which isn't even shown on the map and is incorporated into Maine for some reason.​
2. Most of the other provinces are also badly proportioned. eg. Anjou, Saintonge, Auvergne, and especially Lyonnais.​
dg5cltp-23b2e59d-8818-4dca-b05a-2d5b05de871b.png
Perche_in_France_%281789%29.svg
 
Last edited:
Does anybody have a decent map of France's pre-1789 provincial borders?
I've collected several by various posters here and all of them seem to have tons of inaccuracies dating back a long time.

For example, take this one by @theRTSchultz. Some obvious problems:

1. Between Normandy and Orleanais, what's that strip dangling from Ile de France? That was part of Perche, which isn't even shown on the map and is incorporated into Maine for some reason.​
2. Most of the other provinces are also badly proportioned. eg. Anjou, Saintonge, Auvergne, and especially Lyonnais.​
dg5cltp-23b2e59d-8818-4dca-b05a-2d5b05de871b.png
Perche_in_France_%281789%29.svg
France Provinces.png

I made this originally to help with the 1453 map. Hope this helps somewhat
 
Does anybody have a decent map of France's pre-1789 provincial borders?
I've collected several by various posters here and all of them seem to have tons of inaccuracies dating back a long time.

For example, take this one by @theRTSchultz. Some obvious problems:

1. Between Normandy and Orleanais, what's that strip dangling from Ile de France? That was part of Perche, which isn't even shown on the map and is incorporated into Maine for some reason.​
2. Most of the other provinces are also badly proportioned. eg. Anjou, Saintonge, Auvergne, and especially Lyonnais.​
dg5cltp-23b2e59d-8818-4dca-b05a-2d5b05de871b.png
Perche_in_France_%281789%29.svg
I appreciate the comments, it's how we get better, thanks
 
I have to admit I’m a little confused. The map everyone seems to be based their internal divisions on does not line up with the map of the généralités that I understood to be the basic administrative divisions of France prior to 1789.

IMG_2778.jpeg

This is from a recent one-volume history of the French Revolution, Peter McPhee’s “Liberty or Death”.

Wikipedia also lists the généralités-indentants as the main administrative divisions of the Ancien Régime and provides an identical map to the one shown above for 1789.

IMG_2779.jpeg

Considering the difference between these provinces and the ones everyone seems to be using, I’m a bit confused. Are you all using a different form of administrative division or?

EDIT: Okay, I’m seeing that the source everyone is using is for the provinces of France prior to 1789. Apparently provinces and généralités both held some form of administrative purpose because the Ancien Régime was hopelessly complicated. I’m far from an expert so I don’t think I can properly answer, but I wonder which of the two would be more proper to depict on a map for trying to show a state’s own method of subdividing it’s territory into governable parts. The Wikipedia for the généralités says that by the late 18th century, they were “the very framework of royal administration and centralization.” From a short glance online, it seems that the provinces were more of a traditional thing which carried certain rights and privileges, but something the monarchy combated in its attempt to govern more than utilized. So I personally would lean towards depicting généralités, but it’s personal preference I suppose. I’ll have to take a look at what McPhee says on the subject, but it’s probably significant that in his map of France’s subdivisions, he chose to show généralités over the traditional provinces.
 
Last edited:
Considering the difference between these provinces and the ones everyone seems to be using, I’m a bit confused. Are you all using a different form of administrative division or?
Yes. We're talking about the provinces.

Though a QBAM map of the généralités would be nice to have as well.
So I personally would lean towards depicting généralités, but it’s personal preference I suppose. I’ll have to take a look at what McPhee says on the subject, but it’s probably significant that in his map of France’s subdivisions, he chose to show généralités over the traditional provinces.
Well, all the maps were of the provinces anyway, and nobody seems to have made a map (of any level of accuracy) of the généralités yet.


Edit: This reminds me of the distinction between provinces and xunfu in Ming China. Observe:
dg5ffqh-38aa16b9-ffbb-4ed5-ab96-87604248ab4c.png
 
Last edited:
I have to admit I’m a little confused. The map everyone seems to be based their internal divisions on does not line up with the map of the généralités that I understood to be the basic administrative divisions of France prior to 1789.

View attachment 849550
This is from a recent one-volume history of the French Revolution, Peter McPhee’s “Liberty or Death”.

Wikipedia also lists the généralités-indentants as the main administrative divisions of the Ancien Régime and provides an identical map to the one shown above for 1789.

View attachment 849554
Considering the difference between these provinces and the ones everyone seems to be using, I’m a bit confused. Are you all using a different form of administrative division or?

EDIT: Okay, I’m seeing that the source everyone is using is for the provinces of France prior to 1789. Apparently provinces and généralités both held some form of administrative purpose because the Ancien Régime was hopelessly complicated. I’m far from an expert so I don’t think I can properly answer, but I wonder which of the two would be more proper to depict on a map for trying to show a state’s own method of subdividing it’s territory into governable parts. The Wikipedia for the généralités says that by the late 18th century, they were “the very framework of royal administration and centralization.” From a short glance online, it seems that the provinces were more of a traditional thing which carried certain rights and privileges, but something the monarchy combated in its attempt to govern more than utilized. So I personally would lean towards depicting généralités, but it’s personal preference I suppose. I’ll have to take a look at what McPhee says on the subject, but it’s probably significant that in his map of France’s subdivisions, he chose to show généralités over the traditional provinces.
It seems as if both Provinces and Generalites were used, but it just happens that most of them lined up with eachother exactly, minus some of the Generalites being shown as a Second Subdivision. For example, the Bordeaux Province probably included a giant chunk of southwestern France, but the Generalites split them into Auch, Pau, et cetera.

Very helpful find ;)
 
Top