Q-Bam Historical Map Thread
- Thread starter The Alternative
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical maps q-bam
Alex Richards
Donor
Yes. You really don't want to know.
OK, here's where you've just stepped into my area of expertise. Cross-referencing with this (which I know for certain isn't completely accurate in some areas but will do), and we have:
-The Three Leagues and Seven Zinden were both associates of the Swiss at this point, as were the Abbey of St. Gallen, Mulhouse, Biel, La Neuveville, Engelberg, Moutier-Grandval and Bellelay. As the entire confederacy was essentially a mass of interconnecting eternal alliances, basically the only difference between those and the Cantons is that they didn't get representation to the Tagsatzung.
-The Swiss had acquired the Ticino and Valtellina in 1512 from Milan, including at this point the Tre Pievi which was lost in 1524.
-Geneva was fully independent
-Neuchatel was in an odd situation where the Prince was a French puppet but it was being occupied by the Swiss.
-I think the Prince-Bishop of Basel looks a bit off there.
You've also missed off a lot of complexity with the internal structure of the Cantons and Associates, but considering space issues I'm not as bothered by that.
Added Lorraine Region
Any HRE Experts who can tell me if i am doing this right
Is it ''messy'' enough?
EDIT: The Brown is Habsburg Domain
Any HRE Experts who can tell me if i am doing this right
Is it ''messy'' enough?
EDIT: The Brown is Habsburg Domain
dont be
the questions may help us to discover flaws
The green part i actually won't be able to name, Europe was such a mess at the time
It's probably the Duchy of Bourbon though
the questions may help us to discover flaws
The green part i actually won't be able to name, Europe was such a mess at the time
It's probably the Duchy of Bourbon though
a small problem with the base map guys it seems the lakes have been copy-pasted over each other does anyone have a correct version?
Why did you reverted changes in Brittany? Not only did I corrected its borders, but Brittany was an integral part of the kingdom at this point (and not a puppet state) that was in personal union de facto with France.
Also, why did you reverted changes for Charolais? I did corrected the borders (where you placed it is clearly off-centered)
And why did you changed the border in southern-western France? Basse-Navarre and Béarn were both independent from France, both part of Albret Estates.
And, finally, why did you removed the suzerainty outline? It does serves a purposes, namely to point which places are under French suzerainty and which are not.
If there was debate about the map patch, I'd understand, but none of the stuff that you changed seems to be problematic. (At least give me some credance for a work I really focused on for hours
)As for Italy, I'm afraid it's still quite wrong : see the previous post on what should be changed (altough it focuses on Northern Italy, I suspect Central Italy to be a bit off as well)
The jury is still out on this : genevois was part of the savoyard apanage of Savoie-Nemours in 1520.
Albret's demesne : Kingdom of Basse-Navarre and Viscounty of Bearn are independent territories, County of Foix, Viscounty of Limoges and Viscounty of Perigord are held by Albrets as French vassals.
Eventually, they were swallowed up by Bourbons-Vendôme that would add Armagnac, Alencon, Soissons and Rodez to the the poll.
Everything was swallowed back by France in the latter part of Henri IV's reign.
As The Alternative said, these are the land of Charles de Bourbon (Duchy of Bourbon, Dauphinate of Auvergne, among many others). I hesitated painting them light blue as French-influenced, but at this point, there was a growing gap between Charles and Francois, even if it was only the beggining.
Interestingly, the County/Duchy of Nevers (north of Bourbon, west of Charolais) was never swallowed up by the royal demesne and was still a thing until the French Revolution, altough it was, in the XVIII, de facto provincialized.
Last edited:
Alex Richards
Donor
The Valtellina and Tre Pieve were subject territories of the Three Leagues, and, as stated, it's incorrect to show them all as independent as they were associates of the Confederacy which may be analogised as a protectorate/dependency (it's not really the same but it's a good enough analogy).
Ah I see the issue- we're right in the middle of the process whereby the Genevois expelled the Savoyards and the Bishops- there was a very autonomous city council with a strong independence faction, but they didn't actually declare independence until February of 1526.
Yeah, it's kind of tricky to represent : so far I went for this (I finished Savoy and the alpine border, which doesn't really follow the alpine line incidentally)
Basically, a part of the Savoie-Nemours apanage, in the clientelized shade.
Next stop, Duchy of Milan. BTW, I'm thinking about outlining imperial suzerainty with only one line depth instead of two line depth, in order to stress the more theoritical suzerainty of Habsburgs over the Empire, buuuut...it could create a precedent that I'm not really sure would be managable. Toughts?
Basically, a part of the Savoie-Nemours apanage, in the clientelized shade.
Next stop, Duchy of Milan. BTW, I'm thinking about outlining imperial suzerainty with only one line depth instead of two line depth, in order to stress the more theoritical suzerainty of Habsburgs over the Empire, buuuut...it could create a precedent that I'm not really sure would be managable. Toughts?
Alex Richards
Donor
Yeah, it's kind of tricky to represent : so far I went for this (I finished Savoy and the alpine border, which doesn't really follow the alpine line incidentally)
Basically, a part of the Savoie-Nemours apanage, in the clientelized shade.
Next stop, Duchy of Milan. BTW, I'm thinking about outlining imperial suzerainty with only one line depth instead of two line depth, in order to stress the more theoritical suzerainty of Habsburgs over the Empire, buuuut...it could create a precedent that I'm not really sure would be managable. Toughts?
I think that would lead to all sorts of problems down the line.
Anyhow, just looked on the French Duchy of Milan. It almost make Savoy simple in comparison.
Alex Richards
Donor
Do you have a source because it looks relatively simple on the maps I've found so far.
As simple as Savoy may appears on most maps until you begins to dig a bit on the clusterfuck of enclaves and quasi-enclaves that most map-makers apparently decided to ignore before it takes roots on their minds and unleash some kind of lovecraftian horror?
More seriously : the problem of Savoy was that its borders are making no geographical sense. The problem of French Milanese is that most of its depictions seem to be based on it being the same than Sforza Milanese, and so not really trying to map it for the early XVIth
Was Asti part of the Marquisate or part of Milanais? Was the duchy under Imperial suzerainty, and if it was, is it worth depicting it? Which cities were more or less administrating themselves, and which were under direct rule or occupation?
More seriously : the problem of Savoy was that its borders are making no geographical sense. The problem of French Milanese is that most of its depictions seem to be based on it being the same than Sforza Milanese, and so not really trying to map it for the early XVIth
Was Asti part of the Marquisate or part of Milanais? Was the duchy under Imperial suzerainty, and if it was, is it worth depicting it? Which cities were more or less administrating themselves, and which were under direct rule or occupation?
Alex Richards
Donor
Yeah Savoy is just awful for that. Have you found this map yet?
As far as I can tell according to this very detailed Italian Wikipedia page, it was part of the French dominions in northern France as apparently it was regained by Milan under the rule of Francesco Sforza II which would put that as post 1521. Then it swapped very quickly back and forth in 1523/1525.