Slavs of the Russian sort usually used Czar or Grand Duke for their kingdom equivalents. You need a strong title for the leading country. You already have the old name for Volgograd there, as well as renaming Stamboul to Tsargradsomthing. On a side note, Great Russia used to refer mostly to the lands west of the Urals. You can probably get Tartary of Siberia out of the rest if you want more sub nations.Russia will be done soon!
WIP Map Thread
- Thread starter B-29_Bomber
- Start date
-
- Tags
- work in progress
My view was that Russia divides itself up into subdivisions to better manage itself, so Great Russia is Russia proper and is under the control of the Emperor directly, while there are more levels between the Emperor of Russia/King of Great Russia and a resident of, say, Finland. The divisions were supposed to be on ethnic lines (or planned ethnic lines, so Siberia was left under the control of St. Petersburg directly), however they've become blurred as Russians are becoming more dominant nearly everywhere. I've used Great Russia as the name, because that is where Russians live, and because it is controlled from west of the Urals. I'm pretty set on not carving anything out of Siberia.
So are you suggesting changing 'Kingdom' to something else? My plan was to have the rest of the subdivisions being called either Kingdoms of Grand Duchies. What would you advise changing Kingdom to? I also think Great Russia should stay at the same level as the naming level as the others, though it is more prestigious.
I would look over the page I am linking to. It mentions a few titles that didn't make it to English. It also tells how Catherine the Great made a complicated name for Crimea when annexing it, to make it sound more Greek. The Russians did that a lot, be it changing their liturgy to be more like the Greeks and persecuting Old Believers (who it turns out were correct. The old Russian liturgy had changed much less than the Greek under a thousand years of Ottoman dominance) and when they changed the title of the monarch to sound less Russian(I think this was less to make it sound more welcoming to minorities and more that France and Austria got the title of Emperor, and the Germans ruling Russia wanted it too) they changed the title to Emperor and Autocrat, which came from Byzantines. I mention that as I was considering suggesting Autocrat. I was also thinking Khanate being used as a title, but it seems that when they annexed Khanates they made them Tsardoms. How quickly did the Russians annex all these areas and how much are they reaching out to locals? Having something like Khiva, Bukhara, Tannu Tuva, etc keeping around might be as good a way as any to have tributary states to keep the 'less desirable' populations, without being required by connotation oaths and such to drive out those deemed heathens. By the way, Bagdad been renamed after the Romans or the Romanovs? And I think you might want to extend Armenia a bit. In general I think stuff with Tsar would go over well enough, as it was used as a title plenty of places. Heck, the Emperors of the HRE and and later both Austria and Germany called themselves Kaiser.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar#Titles_in_the_Russian_royal/imperial_family
Last edited:
I recognize the Iron Islands, King’s Landing, and Braavos. I don’t recognize the southern island, though I’m assuming it’s one of the Summer Islands.
owo whats this
Isaac Beach
Banned
Once again I am re-imagining one of my very old maps when I was new and had no idea what I was doing. This time, 'Riding Their Coat Tails', a poorly executed idea about a superpower Iran becoming buds with India and a mega-Whitlam Australia.
This time around it's a similar thing, facilitated most pertinently by the US returning to a policy of relative isolationism post-WWII. Don't fuck about with their sphere and all will be alright. This leads to some peculiar developments, namely Europe being much more closely interlinked for fear of the Soviet bear. This in turn leads to a more imperious and interventionist Europe, who essentially take over what would of been the US' role as world police. The USSR still collapses, and rather spectacularly at that.
Meanwhile, Iran has a revolution as IOTL, but this time to become a relatively insular and anti-colonial republic at odds with the prevailing European consensus. This puts them in good stead with India, and they form a close alliance that results in a range of things from revolutions in Arabia to the collapse of Pakistan and, perhaps most unexpectedly, the friendship of Australia.
Australia becomes increasingly left-wing under Gough Whitlam and his successors, eventually leaving the Commonwealth of Nations when Britain tries to dismiss the PM in favour of a more conservative government, particularly without the aid of American intelligence. This delivers Australia into the Indo-Iranian fold of all unexpected places.
Also China is a shit show, Euro-American adventurism immediately after WWII succeeds in driving back the communists to Manchuria and a post in the south-west, but effectively balkanizes control among a series of generals with their own agendas, leading to a distended spree of warlordism.
EDIT: Made some progress. Nearly there.
This time around it's a similar thing, facilitated most pertinently by the US returning to a policy of relative isolationism post-WWII. Don't fuck about with their sphere and all will be alright. This leads to some peculiar developments, namely Europe being much more closely interlinked for fear of the Soviet bear. This in turn leads to a more imperious and interventionist Europe, who essentially take over what would of been the US' role as world police. The USSR still collapses, and rather spectacularly at that.
Meanwhile, Iran has a revolution as IOTL, but this time to become a relatively insular and anti-colonial republic at odds with the prevailing European consensus. This puts them in good stead with India, and they form a close alliance that results in a range of things from revolutions in Arabia to the collapse of Pakistan and, perhaps most unexpectedly, the friendship of Australia.
Australia becomes increasingly left-wing under Gough Whitlam and his successors, eventually leaving the Commonwealth of Nations when Britain tries to dismiss the PM in favour of a more conservative government, particularly without the aid of American intelligence. This delivers Australia into the Indo-Iranian fold of all unexpected places.
Also China is a shit show, Euro-American adventurism immediately after WWII succeeds in driving back the communists to Manchuria and a post in the south-west, but effectively balkanizes control among a series of generals with their own agendas, leading to a distended spree of warlordism.
EDIT: Made some progress. Nearly there.
Last edited:
Huh. Why did Bengal take northern Ceylon? As the map shows, there is a thing bit of land separating it from mainland India. They could always unload and offload things, but it might not be worth it when you can't always trust other captains, and want responsibility for your own cargo. I don't think anyone could sail over Adam's Bridge even when submerged, given the amount of shoals it created. I would also think they would try for something in the Straits of Malacca, to protect their shipping.
Isaac Beach
Banned
Sorry, don't mean to flood the thread, but here's a teaser at something I whipped up in about an hour. Trying out the idea of putting stuff over the map for a change. More to come.
This is really a stunningly beautiful WorldA, and I could see it spearheading a whole new style.
That said, it would seem to me that the best option for that white space would either be an/some inset maps or alternatively some kind of pixel art piece related to the setting.
Very cool map. As @Flashman also suggested, a smaller map (e.g. MicroWorlda) depicting something else could be nice, although I don't know what that could be.