The NextGen OTL Worlda Series

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?
Wasn't Qinghai always under China proper?
Inner Mongolia was a single unit divided into aimaqs.
Chile always had the Atacama.
The rest I can edit soon.
 
Regarding China, maybe there's some sort of way we could show it. The simplest solution could just be to maybe have some supplementary maps that don't precisely follow the general conventions that we are using and are labelled - this could be useful for this case and others. Apart from that, maybe the Boxer and Mutual Protection areas could be shown in different shades of the Qing color to at least indicate that the areas aren't directly under Qing control. I seem to recall some color in the warlord color scheme for 'disloyal warlords' which could maybe be useful? Or maybe use the generic rebel color (wait, is that even a thing anymore? hell, was it ever actually a thing? if not, maybe replace it with generic white) outlined in the Qing color, and/or with dashed/barred coloring (not sure that's the right word, but basically how Anglo Egyptian Sudan is shown) with Qing and generic rebel or just generic white coloring

I'm not sure how much we could do with that, like in regards to showing the different stances of the Qing, Boxers, and Mutual Protection areas to the central government and to foreigners, and perhaps this is something where supplementary labelled maps with less rigid color schemes could be useful

And here's my attempt at contributing to the discussion...
China Boxer era.png

I went with the Mutual Protection areas outlined with Qing protectorate/autonomy but filled with independent color to sort of show their being under control of the legitimate authorities but disloyal to the central government, and the Boxer areas outlined with the rebel color but fully filled with the protectorate color showing them as a rebellion/autonomous area but one that's working with and for the central government, a sort of loyalist revolt or whatever

Is the best way of showing it? Maybe not, someone else could probably come up with a better idea, but I think this could at least be a starting point

At any rate, the general idea of showing this stuff and at least the lack of direct Qing authority over these areas makes sense. It looks like the main reason for removing the boxers was them not being a revolt against the central government, and they were colored with the republican china color (unless that was actually the Qing dominion/darker color?) which made it look more separate from Qing, so showing it in one of the colors for Qing China could make more sense to both show the distinct factor of the rebellion and its area while also showing its aspect of being aligned with the Qing
 
Regarding China, maybe there's some sort of way we could show it. The simplest solution could just be to maybe have some supplementary maps that don't precisely follow the general conventions that we are using and are labelled - this could be useful for this case and others. Apart from that, maybe the Boxer and Mutual Protection areas could be shown in different shades of the Qing color to at least indicate that the areas aren't directly under Qing control. I seem to recall some color in the warlord color scheme for 'disloyal warlords' which could maybe be useful? Or maybe use the generic rebel color (wait, is that even a thing anymore? hell, was it ever actually a thing? if not, maybe replace it with generic white) outlined in the Qing color, and/or with dashed/barred coloring (not sure that's the right word, but basically how Anglo Egyptian Sudan is shown) with Qing and generic rebel or just generic white coloring

I'm not sure how much we could do with that, like in regards to showing the different stances of the Qing, Boxers, and Mutual Protection areas to the central government and to foreigners, and perhaps this is something where supplementary labelled maps with less rigid color schemes could be useful

And here's my attempt at contributing to the discussion...View attachment 509296
I went with the Mutual Protection areas outlined with Qing protectorate/autonomy but filled with independent color to sort of show their being under control of the legitimate authorities but disloyal to the central government, and the Boxer areas outlined with the rebel color but fully filled with the protectorate color showing them as a rebellion/autonomous area but one that's working with and for the central government, a sort of loyalist revolt or whatever

Is the best way of showing it? Maybe not, someone else could probably come up with a better idea, but I think this could at least be a starting point

At any rate, the general idea of showing this stuff and at least the lack of direct Qing authority over these areas makes sense. It looks like the main reason for removing the boxers was them not being a revolt against the central government, and they were colored with the republican china color (unless that was actually the Qing dominion/darker color?) which made it look more separate from Qing, so showing it in one of the colors for Qing China could make more sense to both show the distinct factor of the rebellion and its area while also showing its aspect of being aligned with the Qing
That looks great, actually. One thing, we might want to show Yungui and Sichuan with cross-hatching since they were not formally part of the Mutual Protection League, but cooperated in not obeying the Qing.

Also Chile definitely controlled the Atacama, although they had not formally annexed it.
 
About the dynastic China color, why does there have to be a dark outline around the whole country?

It was part of Tibet, but was not administered from Lhasa.
Oh, I didn't actually know that.

About Inner Mongolia, I propose one of two things:
  1. Show the aimaqs separately.
  2. Use the autonomous color as the outline, with the aimaqs in the province color.
 
The region was under Chilean administration so showing it as just a claim is a bit misleading
In which case give it Chile's colour But keep the borders as is....after all that's what the UCS was originally created to show. Chilean control even if it wasn't officially Chilean...
 
upload_2019-12-22_17-47-38.png

There's a little mistake on the map of 1861. France had already recovered Savoy and the city of Nice in 1861. The "referendum" on the attachment was held in 1860.
Very great work, I congratulate you all.
 
I made some progress on Mongolia in 1648, 1688, and 1815-1900. I also have two questions:
  1. Why does dynastic China have that dark green outline around it?
  2. Speaking of Mongolia, how should I do 1700-1812?
 
Okay, I managed to do the Qing Dynasty patches from 1648 to 1900. Hope you enjoy!
Edit: Fixed and added some borders to keep them aligned with each other.
Qing Dynasty History.png
 
Last edited:
Merry Christmas, everyone!

Sorry for the month of radio silence; between finals and other real life issues I haven’t had much time to work on maps over the past 3 or so weeks. I have been watching the thread and saving the patches made here, though; they are all incredible (as always!). I’m incredibly close to finishing the series; I’ve finished everything from 1 - 1700 ad. I apologize for way overshooting my thanksgiving release timetable. I’ve had to backtrack and redo regions quite a few times as new sources come to light. The good news is I’m almost certain I won’t need to backtrack anymore in the future. There’s only 6 or so maps left for me to redo, and the rest simply are adding patches that have been posted here.

Out of everything, India has taken by far the longest to complete, primarily because of the limited amount of sources. Here’s a behind the scenes look at the photoshop file I use to trace India patches (combining sources from the one atlas I trust and a few other sources). I’m at 83 layers and counting..
 

Attachments

Top