Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by hadaril, Jan 30, 2018.
Thanks for that!
The updated one should be up now!
So, I was looking through maps to make updates to additional WWII era maps. There's a few observations and questions...
First of all, SnivyLink's update to the Caribbean islands looks like it needs to be applied to, at the very least, all the WWII era maps, and possibly a lot of others too.
Second, some questions in regards to coloring.
First, China. If you compare the 1932 map to 1939 and after, there's different color conventions for China and the warlord states. The 1932 color convention is newer. Should we just switch all the following ones over to that convention?
(also, I noticed that 1932 has some errors in regards to Tannu Tuva not being shown as claimed by China, Soviet Central Asia is wrong-Khiva and Bukhara no longer existed at that time, and... just learned that Arunachal Pradesh was only controlled by British India after 1944, I originally thought that was an error when looking at it, but looked it up and apparently it is legit, huh)
Also, in regards to US coloring, I'm wondering exactly how regular US color vs darker for territories is supposed to go. Is it just that anything that isn't a state should be the darker territory color? Some of the maps show Alaska on the left side the darker color but have the obvious error of the Alaskan islands on the left side close to Russia being the lighter normal color, but some maps have them both darker along with Hawaii, but don't have DC or Puerto Rico or some of the other minor island possessions of the US which aren't states colored in as the regular color. So... should DC, Puerto Rico, and the rest also be colored in as territories? How exactly should we do that?
Also, Egypt technically got independence in 1922 on paper, though it was still a puppet of Britain. Should it be changed after 1922 from the darker British colony color, perhaps to the lighter protectorate one or instead done with the Egypt outline and solid British fill-in? Also, if we change it, then Anglo Egyptian Sudan also needs to be changed back to the older way of being striped
I can't really contribute much to the late 1800s/early 1900s stuff but I can do a lot of these things with the WWI/interwar/WWII stuff myself, just wondering about some of these coloring conventions
Anyways, here's a 1932 map, with fixes to Tannu Tuva, Soviet Central Asia, a coloring fix to some pixels on the Italian claim line in Ethiopia which was partially miscolored, the Caribbean islands updated, Hong Kong, Macau, and the French city in southern China now shown, Hatay province shown as French (it was only given to Turkey after 1939), the Golan Heights shown as French-Syrian (the border only changed with the 1967 war), Thailand shown as free from the spheres of influence of France/UK after 1931, Dodecanese shown as Italian, and all US territories that aren't states shown with the darker color (though maybe some areas like DC shouldn't be shown like that? Idk, I can change it if that would be good). I could further update it to show Egypt and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan if that would be good and there's a certain way I should do it
On a different note, I'm not entirely sure how it is decided which islands get colored in, but I'm wondering if the US virgin islands should get a colored dot. They are close to Puerto Rico and could sort of be assumed to be American on that basis as they are uncolored, but were actually Danish before 1917 when the US bought them, and especially at that point, it wouldn't be clear that they are Danish if they aren't colored
I agree, the US Virgin Islands should have its own dot, and I think many others need one too. Specifically, I think Nauru, Mayotte, Clipperton, and the Channel Islands all need a dot.
Also, I made some fixes to your map:
The Chinese warlords are a bit wrong since the Central Government didn’t have control over Chahar, Hebei, and Shandong (and did control Shaanxi). This is probably my fault since earlier versions of the resource linked in my signature had that same inaccuracy. On the other hand the Constitutional Protection Government did not exist in 1932, northern Shaanxi wasn’t separate from the southern half, and Gansu was fully controlled by the Ningxia Ma Clique.
I propose that two new colors be added to the NCS: a “Southern Dynastic China” and “Southern Major China”. This mostly eliminates the absurdity of Laos being used as a substitute for rival governments and dynasties. Yellow would be the most appropriate colour, but unfortunately there is already an excess of yellow in East Asia, so I suggest two shades of blue (given its relation to the Kuomintang, a southern-based political party, and the Ming being connected to black/water). These would be, respectively, #000099, and #336699.
I propose the following convention for showing Chinese warlords:
Governments based in Beijing are shown with the current “Major China” colour: Yuan Shikai’s republic, Anhui Clique (1916-1920 and 1924-1926), Zhili Clique (1920-1924), Fengtian Clique (1926-1928), and Jin Clique (1930).
The most powerful southern government is shown using the “Southern Major China” colour: Provisional ROC (1911), Military Affairs Council (1916), Constitutional Protection Movement (1917-1921), and KMT (1922-Present).
Presumably we would still have to use the Laos colour for the Wuhan-based KMT that existed during the Northern Expedition.
Cliques loyal to a government are shown as protectorates, with a dark gray border around their territory. Sub-cliques (e.g, Ma Zhanshan) are shown with the “protectorate of a protectorate” colour.
Independent cliques are shown with the generic independent nation colour. They have a dark gray border around their territory.
The internationally recognised government has a claim line around the entirety of its claimed territory, except for loyal cliques (whose status they recognise). The exceptions are Taiwan-based governments in exile, who have their claims shown anyways.
I fully invite criticism of these ideas.
So, yeah, you are right, that China is apparently wrong in more ways than just the coloring, I didn't change anything in China except the outlining of Tannu Tuva and took the base map from the list in the first post in this thread.
Personally, idk if it is needed to switch from the green color for china, and was mostly just asking about the newer norm of regular republican chinese color for the central government and protectorate colors with regular outlining for warlords, vs the older norm of regular republican china color for the central government and then depicting warlord states with independent outline and republican chinese fill-in. There's also the possibility of using already existing imperial china lighter green for Beijing-centered governments rather than adding all these yellows and blues and such, changing to the newer color conventions for depicting warlords but without actually changing the base colors themselves
But then, I'm somewhat predisposed towards the older colors just because I've been a longtime lurker and got used to them, and we've already changed things like Belgium, Hungary, and Polish colors (plus apparently Laos has a color? I didn't even know it had a color let alone that we use it for rival dynasyies/governments, lol) so there's no reason we can't change it up
Actually it sounds like your proposal for loyal cliques/warlords is a third alternative that combines some aspects of the two already in place (basically, the one in that 1932 map, vs this, where cliques have a border and are filled in kind of like puppets are or were filled in, but with base china fill-in as opposed to lighter protectorate fill-in). So, just in regards to the warlords and without getting into different coloring changes, here's a quick combination of the options, as I understand what you are saying (I could misunderstand)
My proposal was that loyal warlords have no white outline, I wanted to have the existing dark gray border be kept, and added where it is not already present. I revise my original idea to have non-loyal warlords filled in with off-white but outlined with the protectorate colour.
In the above map, Xinjiang, Guangxi, Guangdong, Yunnan, and Guizhou would be filled in with off-white and outlined with the protectorate colour. Loyal warlords would be coloured as they are in option 1.
darker colours for US territories is supposed to be applied consistently across all territories. If it hasn't been then that's just simply an error. Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico are supposed to the be same colour.
Technically DC could be coloured as a territory or not because it's a federal district distinct from the States but also basically a core part of the country. It's also one of only three basic categories of status recognized under the constitution: State, Federal District (and the constitution only ever envisages that there can be one federal district for the capital), Territory.
Egypt should probably be outlined in the Egyptian colour and filled with the British colour. Anglo-Egyptian Sudan should be changed accordingly.
Cuba, Panama, Honduras and Nicaragua are being shown as US claimed but de facto independent in this map though rather than de jure independent but US influenced.
In any case, Panama and Cuba were actually US protectorates at this stage and should be shown with the protectorate lighter colour.
The problem with equating the Cook Islands/Niue with Palau/Marshall Islands/Micronesia is that while they are similar in many respects, they differ very much in that the Cook Islands/Niue retain New Zealander citizenship, while the US associated states have their own citizenships. Yes, Micronesians and Americans have the right to freely move to each other's countries via the compact of free association, but whenever the compact is terminated, there will be an immediate and visible distinction in how their respective citizenships impact this right. Cook Islanders have New Zealander citizenship and so there is little to distinguish them from mainland New Zealanders (except their privileges within the Cook Islands itself).
As for being shown as claimed, it's probably best to change that to the more established norms, but that might have been intended as that thing where some maps would show influence by outlining with the puppeteer rather than the traditional puppet having the country outline with the puppeteer color filled in, as opposed to intentionally showing US claims
Not sure if anyone needs it, but I updated the USSR to include the ASSRs
Alright, so here's a 1932 map with... puppet Egypt and Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Honduras and Nicaragua shown as puppets rather than claims of US, Bermuda British (was shown as Canadian for some reason), French India shown properly colored (part of it was colored Portuguese), Oman showed as a puppet (it was shown as a British colony but wasn't technically a colony or protectorate) and the Oman enclave in Pakistan shown (it was colored uninhabited), the British line in south Arabia of influence (though I'm not actually sure if that was still a thing, I see it on older maps for the year but it was originally a thing with the Ottomans and I'm not sure if it was still a thing. Speaking of south Arabia, I am pretty sure some of those borders are supposed to be the undefined border but I am not entirely sure which) and an attempt at China.
I am somewhat curious at the different styles for French Morocco and Tunisia, where Tunisia has grey border and regular french blue outline and protectorate fill, while Morocco has black border and no regular french outline?
I did not even bother to implement any suggested changes to the actual color scheme in this map. Not because I am against your suggestions (and with your clarifications, I understand what you meant more now), but because it seems like the sort of thing where we should wait until there's more of a consensus and hear from other people. Or something like that. Also I just stuck with the simplest/quickest-to-do coloring styles for China and the warlords until we figure what to settle on
Also, I am wondering about your thread, so are the maps right at the start still out of date? And the youtube video of the warlord era more accurate? And do the other maps from 1939 to 1946 seem accurate in regards to China and the warlords?
And while I did try with China and think I got things approximately right and at least in the right direction, I can do stuff like splicing borders from other worlda maps or changing colors or relatively simple stuff like that, but am not really good at all at doing freehand from another map of a different projection or anything like that. So as for stuff like the Uighurs, Kyrgyz, and Tunganistan in the East Turkestan area, along with the Tibetans in west Sichuan area, and the Nationalist/Ma border (in the video, it looks like the Nationalist central government has part of south Gansu province as well?). Maybe someone else could do it better than I could?
Also, in regards to this... I don't know if we need to show ASSRs on the regular map (I recall past discussion of this, with the idea if I remember correctly being that they weren't functionally really autonomous to the point where it mattered for our purposes, but maybe some people here would feel otherwise?) but regardless, it can be useful as a supplementary or something. I made this edit, which I think makes it more clear which SSRs the ASSRs are within, since they were not subdivisions at the same level of the SSRs but instead were contained within them
The original Warlord Atlas is the least accurate, the newer version is more accurate, and the YouTube video is the most accurate, correct. Although it is also the least detailed.
I don’t consider the worlda’s depiction of the post-1945 Chinese Civil War and the Sino-Japanese War to be accurate. On the other hand my existing YouTube video on the latter is also very inaccurate, although I have better sources now that I could use to rectify that. I really should get around at some point to making some China patches myself. I’ll do that later, hopefully.
Maps 1914-1932, edited by me in accordance with both historical accuracy and the following ruleset:
Official Colour Rules:
1. Loyal Warlord: Protectorate colour; dark gray border
2. Disloyal Warlord: Off-White fill, protectorate outline; dark gray border
3. Warlord in opposition to the Central Government: Off-White Fill; dark gray border
4. Certain warlord coalitions (i.e, Fengtian Clique after 1930) with multiple sub-cliques have a princely border around their territory for clarity
5. (Pending Hadaril's Approval) Southern and Northern governments have different colours
These maps are adjusted to accord with Rule 5:
Love em - I'll add them with the northern/southern shown differently.
Is it possible, perhaps, to choose a different color for those last few maps? I only ask because it, well, kind of looks like China's being eaten by French Indochina. I understand if this is not feasible, however.
I quite like the blue myself
there was a few inaccuracies in medieval maps that I corrected
-added yuan provinces
-made korea and tibet vassal states
-expanded the borders of the yuan and delhi northward and westward
-added nepal (which did exist then)
-for some reason the ilkhanate was colored the same as the timurids, so i changed it to the iran color
-added independent trebizond
-bengal was still under delhi's control
-the ilkhanate was very much gone at this point, so i updated that
-the eastern part of the golden horde (either the blue horde or the white horde) was like a loyal warlord state
-made trebizond independent
-all the changes i did to 1300
Also, really sorry, minor fix to 1932, since I accidentally added a slice of Bukhara. I also did 1939.
Separate names with a comma.