The NextGen OTL Worlda Series

Or how about we just go off this map which can also be found on Wikimedia?



It was created in 1950 from the Belgium Royal Academy of Colonial Sciences' General Atlas of the Congo.

The same atlas by the way shows the more familiar borders of Katanga in 1912:



I suspect the rectangular Katanaga border only existed as a trading company concession, and not as something that was part of the nominal political structure. The question then becomes, why is the Katana region being drawn with trading concession borders, while the rest with civil authority borders?
This is why. Trading concession borders were the nominal political structure at first:

Leopold took possession of Katanga and on 15 April 1891 its administration on behalf of the Congo Free State (CFS) was entrusted to another of Leopold's companies, the Compagnie du Katanga. No effective administration was set up until 19 June 1900, when it was renamed the Comité Spécial du Katanga, an administrative entity separate from the CFS. The Luba resisted, most notably in a major rebellion in 1895, after which many Luba were sent to work as forced labor in the copper mines of Katanga. Kasongo Nyembo [fr] led another rebellion of the Luba that was not suppressed by the Belgians until 1917.

After the take-over of the CFS from Leopold by the Belgian government, on 1 September 1910, Katanga was integrated into the Belgian Congo but retained a large measure of autonomy until 1 October 1933, when part of its Lomami Province was transferred to Kasaï Province.

On 1 October 1933, it was renamed the province of Élisabethville (in French; Elisabethstad in Dutch), after its capital (now Lubumbashi).
So in summary, Katanga was taken over in 1891 but run by a different company than the one actually running Leopold's Congo Free State. A separate administration was set up in 1900 and remained in force until the entire CFS and Katanga were taken over directly by the Belgian government in 1910 after which Katanga was integrated into Belgian Congo but retained major autonomy (note in the 1912 map above how it is termed as "vice government-general of Katanga") until 1933.
 
Last edited:
Further down on the page it states that the map could not have been made before the 1930s.
Fair point. In my defence, I only just got out of bed.

Edit: Reading deeper, it appears that the 1932 dating is based on the idea that "Belgian Congo" and "Tanganyika" didn't exist as legal entities under those names in 1896. More critically, the area wasn't re-organised into six provinces as shown until 1932.

So now I'm wondering where the borders are coming from for all the other Congo provinces.
In any case besides the map showing a Rwandan town not founded until 1920, the mere fact that the map shows the Belgian Congo with Ruanda-Urundi coloured in as part of it would strongly indicate it was a post-WWI map as Belgium didn't gain Ruanda-Urundi until after 1917 anyway. I suspect the original source is either mistaken or the 1896 refer to the date of the founding of the publishing company (unlikely as they were producing globes in 1890 it seems) or might be some kind of annotation that doesn't actually refer to a date but maybe a plate number or something.
 
In any case besides the map showing a Rwandan town not founded until 1920, the mere fact that the map shows the Belgian Congo with Ruanda-Urundi coloured in as part of it would strongly indicate it was a post-WWI map as Belgium didn't gain Ruanda-Urundi until after 1917 anyway. I suspect the original source is either mistaken or the 1896 refer to the date of the founding of the publishing company (unlikely as they were producing globes in 1890 it seems) or might be some kind of annotation that doesn't actually refer to a date but maybe a plate number or something.
The Library of Congress site notes that "LC Copy 1 and 2 annotated in upper left hand corner of sheet "K 1896" in red ink." That is indeed present on their online archive copy, seemingly handwritten with red ink. That strongly suggests it is a serial number rather than a date. Someone needs to correct the wikipedia entry.
 
I hate to nitpick, but the map title is wrong- it's still the 19th century until 1901.



Yes, I'm fun at parties.
 
Excuse me, what? When the year ends in '00, that's when it's a new century. That's how it's always been, right?
We're using the Gregorian calender (I hope), meaning there would be no year 0. Therefore, the second century would start 100 years after 1 AD, which is 101AD. So on, until we reach the 19th.



Side note- this also means the new millennium celebrations should have been in '01.
 
We're using the Gregorian calender (I hope), meaning there would be no year 0. Therefore, the second century would start 100 years after 1 AD, which is 101AD. So on, until we reach the 19th.



Side note- this also means the new millennium celebrations should have been in '01.

While you are indeed right, using the strict version in informal situations like a map database will leave you with no friends :D
Nah just kidding, but I think that for the sake of simplicity we should keep using the General Usage version.
 
So we're not showing the Boxers because the Qing are allied with them

The Mutual Protection of SE China is not allied with the Boxers. In fact they actively suppressed them instead of fighting the foreigners.

I'm really uncomfortable with not showing either of those two groups, because it makes it look like the Qing had undisputed authority over all of China. The fact that they did not is the reason why they lost the war in a few months.

Also why is Hainan not outlined, why is Inner Mongolia shown as a single unit, why are the Sixty-Four Villages not shown, why does Chile not have the Atacama, and why is Qinghai shown as part of China Proper?
 
Last edited:
Top