Base Maps from 550 BC to Modern Day, all in UCS!

[Thande]

Here is a useful resource for making maps of the period you've just started Romul. The guy running the site incorrectly dated this atlas to 1833 but it's actually sometime between 1846 and 1854 looking at the USA.

It has contemporary internal divisions of places such as the Russian Empire, China and Persia, which is nice.

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I have a question:

On the map of the January uprising (1863-1864), Mexico is outlined in the French blue. I'm going to assume this is because of Napoleon III's installation of a Hapsburg king on the Mexican throne, but then shouldn't it be outlined white and filled blue? The way you have it is like saying it was a French colony but governed independently, but really it was the other way around. It was an independent nation largely controlled by France (due to its emperor being a French puppet). So really shouldn't Mexico be just another puppet state?

[Romul]

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand

I have a question:

On the map of the January uprising (1863-1864), Mexico is outlined in the French blue. I'm going to assume this is because of Napoleon III's installation of a Hapsburg king on the Mexican throne, but then shouldn't it be outlined white and filled blue? The way you have it is like saying it was a French colony but governed independently, but really it was the other way around. It was an independent nation largely controlled by France (due to its emperor being a French puppet). So really shouldn't Mexico be just another puppet state?

And how to show this control? The territorium of Mexico must be outlined white and filled blue?

[Romul]

Originally Posted by Thande

Here is a useful resource for making maps of the period you've just started Romul. The guy running the site incorrectly dated this atlas to 1833 but it's actually sometime between 1846 and 1854 looking at the USA.

It has contemporary internal divisions of places such as the Russian Empire, China and Persia, which is nice.

Before Gadsden purchase . Thank you Thane, your link is very useful.

[TheNordicBrit]

Originally Posted by Romul

1770:

Originally Posted by Romul

1776:

This may be from my poor historical knowledge in this area, but why in 1770 is everything west of the 13 colonies that dark red (along with no border between the HBC and the Province of Quebec).

And yet in 1776 the Western areas are the British colour, and thus directly ruled. There is also the HBC and Quebec border.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by TheNordicBrit

This may be from my poor historical knowledge in this area, but why in 1770 is everything west of the 13 colonies that dark red (along with no border between the HBC and the Province of Quebec).

And yet in 1776 the Western areas are the British colour, and thus directly ruled. There is also the HBC and Quebec border.

That was my recommendation - it's debatable I admit, but you have to have some way of distinguishing between "areas heavily populated by British people" (ie the 13 colonies) and "areas largely empty and can only be said to be British by treaty and because we have treaties with the local Indian tribes".

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Originally Posted by Romul

And how to show this control? The territorium of Mexico must be outlined white and filled blue?

Well unless the UCS has changed, that's right. Just swap the colours; what you have as blue, make white, and what you have white, make blue. Isn't that how the control is shown? De jure French, de facto Mexico. The way you have it is de facto France, de jure Mexico, which can't be right.

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Like this. This is how I thought puppet states were shown in the UCS convention (see Mexico). I imagined the other way (blue outline, white interior) would be used to show a country controlled by that country's government but is in fact part of a different country (which would be incorrect in the case of Hapsburg Mexico.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand

Like this. This is how I thought puppet states were shown in the UCS convention (see Mexico). I imagined the other way (blue outline, white interior) would be used to show a country controlled by that country's government but is in fact part of a different country (which would be incorrect in the case of Hapsburg Mexico.

You're basically right but there's the problem that was Hapsburg Mexico ever really a French puppet or was it a case of being occupied by French troops? Similar problem as with Joseph Bonaparte's Spain - Nek found a decent way to show that if you look on the New OTL Maps Thread but it's hard.

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

Perhaps hashing is in order. I fail badly at that though.

[Chris S]

Originally Posted by Thande

You're basically right but there's the problem that was Hapsburg Mexico ever really a French puppet or was it a case of being occupied by French troops? Similar problem as with Joseph Bonaparte's Spain - Nek found a decent way to show that if you look on the New OTL Maps Thread but it's hard.

Wasn't it both? It was a French puppet, but only parts of the country were occupied by French troops. I think someone had a map of this scale showing the central portions of Mexico in French blue with everything else being white (rather like Nek's Bonapartist Spain) but for the life of me I wouldn't know where to find it now.

I'm sure there are maps showing the French campaigns though. So if we can find a map showing the general area covered by the French campaigns and by the Mexican allies then a decent representation should be possible.

[Communist Wizard]

Romul, Thande, et al, do you have a better map of ~800 AD? There is 800 and 814 AD on Roberto's list, but I'm not sure if those are accurate.

[Romul]

Originally Posted by Communist Wizard

Romul, Thande, et al, do you have a better map of ~800 AD? There is 800 and 814 AD on Roberto's list, but I'm not sure if those are accurate.

No, I have map on Roberto's list too, but I have map 820 AD (maybe I am not sure):

[Romul]

Originally Posted by Chris S

I'm sure there are maps showing the French campaigns though. So if we can find a map showing the general area covered by the French campaigns and by the Mexican allies then a decent representation should be possible.

Mexico 1862-1867. But I dont to know how to show it

[Communist Wizard]

Originally Posted by Romul

No, I have map on Roberto's list too, but I have map 820 AD (maybe I am not sure):


Attachment 95033

That seems like a really distorted map to me. Kyrgyz tribes near modern Salekhard? Balkans divided up between Franks and Byzantines?
I suppose I will have to make it on my own...

[Romul]

I found a nice map of Mexico and Texas (http://images.nationmaster.com/image...texas_1845.jpg) and decide to fix maps 1837-1846

[Romul]

1845:

[Romul]

1846:

[Romul]

I fix map of 1837. I add the Peru–Bolivian Confederation (1836–1839). This confederation was a loose union between the states of Peru (by this time divided into a Republic of North Peru and a Republic of South Peru, which included the capital Tacna) and Bolivia. Also I add the Riograndense Republic, often called Piratini Republic (Portuguese: Republica Rio-Grandense or Republica do Piratini), was a de facto state that existed between September 11, 1836 and March 1, 1845 geographically coinciding with the present state of Rio Grande do Sul, in Brazil.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Romul

I fix map of 1837. I add the Peru–Bolivian Confederation (1836–1839). This confederation was a loose union between the states of Peru (by this time divided into a Republic of North Peru and a Republic of South Peru, which included the capital Tacna) and Bolivia. Also I add the Riograndense Republic, often called Piratini Republic (Portuguese: Republica Rio-Grandense or Republica do Piratini), was a de facto state that existed between September 11, 1836 and March 1, 1845 geographically coinciding with the present state of Rio Grande do Sul, in Brazil.
]

Great work Romul. I knew about the Riograndense Republic but I've never heard of the Peru-Bolivian Confederation before.

(Particularly confusing because there was also a short-lived Republic of the Rio Grande in Mexico at the same time in 1840...the Spanish really should come up with more unique names)


EDIT: What are the two white states immediately north of the Cape Colony? Are they Boer states or natives?